How "Fascist" is WONDER WOMAN?

[Agent_Dark]

In response to Wonder Woman fighting fascists in WWII, that in itself is not a strong point. After all, German and Russia fought the bloodiest campaign in history.

So Wonder Woman is a communist now?

I think people need to get a grip and stop looking for subliminal political ideological messages in a comic book... Read it for what it is - a story about Wonder Woman tangling with ANCIENT GREEK GODS.

[MajorHoy]

So Wonder Woman is a communist now?

I think people need to get a grip and stop looking for subliminal political ideological messages in a comic book... Read it for what it is - a story about Wonder Woman tangling with ANCIENT GREEK GODS.

Ancient Greek Gods that are almost scarier than ultra-conservative Republicans and the Tea Party combined!

(Think Sarah Palin could be a good stand-in for Hera? )

[NotSuper]

Since when is facism about the individual? Facism has traditionally been about raising one group to oppress another. Nazi ubermensch BS aside, they were always much more about being a cohesive unit than glorifying individuals.

Well, actually, fascist leaders were all about glorifying individuals, particularly the leader and those close in rank to their leader. Fascism was a reactionary movement against groups that the old guard didn't consider legitimate citizens, thus the need to glorify ideal citizens was a major theme of fascism (in addition to glorification of power and violence, hatred of cosmopolitan ideas, ect). The narrative fascist regimes used was the idea that everything was falling apart and that one honest man could bring the nation and/or world back from the brink of ruin, by any means necessary.

That's usually why some people consider super-heroes fascist, but I find the arguments to be extremely suspect, considering that super-heroes usually don't seek power and embrace cosmopolitan ideas (even taking other planets into the equation). Indeed, super-heroes almost universally want to erode the privilege of the powerful and give power back to the oppressed. One could make a more credible argument that super-heroes are anti-fascist in that they embrace ideas that would be abhorrent to the racist, classist, xenophobic, and sexist fascist regimes.

[pippl]

I'm glad to see that someone like Gershon Legman, whose work comprised sort of a dry run (albeit not as popular) for Freddy Wertham, has not been forgotten. Though he's not the first person to condemn early comic books in print, he's the earliest known to me to make the explict "superheroes= fascism" argument. ...

I have a clipping from a much earlier article in which the author comes close to saying "superheroes = totalitarianism":

... He is a law unto himself, this super-hero. Under the veneer of Robin Hood brigandage he flouts every accepted law of man and morals. The Shadow, the Blue Beetle, Superman, The Mask and their compeers reside in a shady land between the underworld and the pagan heavens. Some of them are wanted by mundane police who, it appears, sometimes don't understand or appreciate the noble ways of self-willed heroes. What if they are criminals? The little boy next door knows that it is for the purpose of crime busting. They simply take justice by force and cram it down the throats of the unjust. ...

... How deeply is this artistic and imaginative fare registering on the young mind? No one has as yet measured the impression. But certainly the "funnies" demonstrate all the arguments a child ever needs for an omnipotent and infallible "strong man" beyond all law, the nihilistic man of the totalitarian ideology. In his comic strips the modern American child sees America tottering and overrun by criminals. "Politician" in these child stories means "crook" and "policeman" means "idiot." Expressions like "racketeering union" and "war-mongering industrialist" and "Fifth Columnist" are used indiscriminately. If any hope for normal democratic society exists at all, it is in the goodness and might of some superman. ...

Source: James Frank Vlamos, "The Sad Case of the Funnies," The American Mercury, April 1941, pp. 411-415.

[SteveGus]

I think you can handle this in the common sense department; or, weren't you that poster that implied the new Diana was portrayed as stupid and you can't come up with a common sense solution? Supernatural beings aside, this would kind of fit into the Good Samaritan department; in real life, if you saw a mother step into the grocery store and left her son in the car, what would the right thing be for you to do if you saw a stranger walk up from a bypass, tried to persuade the son to come with him, started trying to abduct the boy against his will, and started to slap the boy into submission until he was able to kidnap the boy? Would you walk up to scare the man off, getting physical with him if necessary, would you run into the store to get the mother, would you search for a security guard, or would you seek out a pay phone to call the police? Of course, the legal thing to do would be to alert a security guard or call the cops, but wouldn't this give the guy time to abduct the boy? That's the same thing with Batman preventing the Joker from shooting somebody or Wonder Woman getting involved to stop someone from being physically bullied; of course, the legal thing to do would be to call the police, but Batman just saved someone from dying of a bullet wound and Wonder Woman possibly just prevented an assault.

I'm not talking about the ethics or legality of superheroing per se, but rather the need to accept genre conventions regardless of their real-world implausibility. Too much concern with real-world 'realism' is part of the problem. Who wants to pause in the middle of their adventure story of gods and heroes with bronze swords, to reflect on Middle Eastern truck bombings?

[americanwonder]

The author comes across (imo) as very intelligent and well-read - but the article seems absurd (though I've only made it 3/4 of the way so far - too much of head hitting the desk for my own mental health).

In his reply to the OP, he states: "... I think my fundamental point about villains and freedom is being missed here, though: Wonder Woman isn't the one defending freedom, the villains are... "

So, criminals don't like the lack of freedom in jail (as if that's a news flash), and that makes WW fascist?

As was pointed out earlier, every society requires a degree of sacrificing individual freedom and submitting to the whole. Society has never worked without it. That doesn't make it fascist.

I'm not the biggest fan of over-analyzing a single issue of a children's comic from 70-odd years ago (the comic was not meant as a treatise). And here, I think this article makes a fundamental mistake: start with sensational conclusion, throw in any bit of "evidence" for support, throw out anything that doesn't fit, so that conclusion = conclusion. Equals bad science (that includes social science, too).

[brettc1]

I think its important to understand that this article came out at about the same time as the Frank Capra's "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" and John Fords movie adaptation of "The Grapes of Wrath".

It was a time when lots of people were railing against a system in the United States Government where graft and corruption were seen to be rife and used to exploit the impoverished masses in the Depression era. Indeed, Mr Smith was banned in Nazi Germany because its essential message of free speech was seen to be dangerous. The fact that the film also received a great deal of bad press and condemnation in the US for its negative portrayal of the governmental body is therefore very ironic, since it meant the film was being attacked by facist and democratic governments at the same time.

Bearing this in mind, its not hard to see how characters like Wonder Woman and Superman, beings who stand up for the little guy without any govermental sanction, would be attacked by people wanting folks to just keep their heads down and not rock the boat. The idea that young people could take inspiration from such material and actually try to do something about social inequity was not something a lot of of the minority of people making big money would have wanted.

[slvn]

Wonder Woman's doesn't promote fascism, in that fascism is a specific kind of authoritarian system of government and economics with a lot of definign detials with which the comic has nothing to do. But I think you could legitimately ask the more general question, dies Wonder Woman promote authoritarianism? Authoritarianism is defined (by Merriam-Webster) as

"1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime> "

Looking at the first definition, we have to ask first whether Marston's Wonder Woman promoted submission to authority and then whether it promoted "blind" submission. I guess it's obvious that the comic was supposed to promoted submission; Marston wrote that

"The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound... Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society... Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element".

I do not think the submission that Marston promoted was supposed to be blind. He wanted people to lovingly submit to benevolent. just masters (or, specifically, mistresses). But a problem in the real world is that you can't always tell who the just, benevolent authorities are. So if you've learned that "the control of self by others is more pleasant," there might be a risk that give up your autonomy too soon, before you really know you can trust the authority. And, once you've yielded your authority, you may have a hard time getting it back, even if the authority gets corrupted.

So, that's just to say, it's complicated. Marston's intention was to promote a stable, peaceful society by eroticiziing submission to kind, just authorities; but this could have the unintended consequence of teaching people to be susceptible to any kind of authority that might have merely seemed to be kind or just on the surface.

[brettc1]

As a psychological construct it is a fascinating principle.

If you apply Freudian ideas to the model, one might say that the mistress takes over the role of the super-ego in determining right and wrong and controlling the baser desires and impulses of the subservient id. This then removes the internal conflict of the two aspects [control and desire] and allows the person submitting simply to be.

On the other hand, since that seems like the abandonment of free will [not an Amazon concept] one might say that it is through the act of the super-ego that the person sets aside their personal desires and submits willingly. In that regard submission become a conscious act of self-control, which is much more in keeping with Marston's original idea. Remember, the bracelets were originally a sign of Amazon submission, but I am confident that Marston meant the term as meaning to set aside personal gratification [as in the Id] and therefore submit to ideas and goals beyond the purely personal.

Was is not the case that in the past if Wonder Woman's bracelets were removed or broken she would go beserk? In that sense the bracelets represent the super-ego at work. Without them the Amazons incredible mental powers ran amok as the supressed Id manifested itself [ala Forbiddent Planet]

[slvn]

As a psychological construct it is a fascinating principle.

If you apply Freudian ideas to the model, one might say that the mistress takes over the role of the super-ego in determining right and wrong and controlling the baser desires and impulses of the subservient id. This then removes the internal conflict of the two aspects [control and desire] and allows the person submitting simply to be.

On the other hand, since that seems like the abandonment of free will [not an Amazon concept] one might say that it is through the act of the super-ego that the person sets aside their personal desires and submits willingly. In that regard submission become a conscious act of self-control, which is much more in keeping with Marston's original idea. Remember, the bracelets were originally a sign of Amazon submission, but I am confident that Marston meant the term as meaning to set aside personal gratification [as in the Id] and therefore submit to ideas and goals beyond the purely personal.

Was is not the case that in the past if Wonder Woman's bracelets were removed or broken she would go beserk? In that sense the bracelets represent the super-ego at work. Without them the Amazons incredible mental powers ran amok as the suppressed Id manifested itself [ala Forbiddent Planet]

Yeah, interesting, very good points. At the same time, to teach people to erotically enjoy being bound, as Marston explicitly suggests in the passage I quoted above, is not the same as teaching people to set aside personal gratification [as in the Id]"; it's more like channeling (or sublimating, I guess) the id so it is gratified by other means. This is a little closer to what you imagine in your first paragraph. I imagine Marston would have said it was not an abandonment of free will, as long as the individual retains the freedom to withdrew submission whenever the authority fails to serve the greater good. the tricky part of that, I would think, is not letting the free will muscles atrophy, so to speak, while you have what you believe is benevolent authority that you are submitting to.

[Dr. Hurt]

Charles Reece advances an argument in two parts, here and here, , which indicts Marston's "loving authority" as just another 1984 brainwashing campaign.

I have made my counter-argument here,. My argument is linked to other essays as well so if you follow the link, don't expect a self-contained blogpost.

I made some attempts to argue with the author but my points were pretty much dismissed. But though I find Reece's reasoning fallacious, it seems a worthwhile topic to pursue here.

Is there fascism in WONDER WOMAN, or in superhero figures generally?

If so, how would one prove it?

Any change for a short explanation?

[slvn]

As a psychological construct it is a fascinating principle.

Yeah, interesting, very good points. At the same time, to teach people to erotically enjoy being bound, as Marston explicitly suggests in the passage I quoted above, is not the same as teaching people to set aside personal gratification [as in the Id]"; it's more like channeling (or sublimating, I guess) the id so it is gratified by other means. This is a little closer to what you imagine in your first paragraph. I imagine Marston would have said it was not an abandonment of free will, as long as the individual retains the freedom to withdrew submission whenever the authority fails to serve the greater good. the tricky part of that, I would think, is not letting the free will muscles atrophy, so to speak, while you have what you believe is benevolent authority that you are submitting to.

I wanted to add that, while i agree with Brett that there are connections or comparisons with Freud that can be made, it should probably also be said that Marston himself wasn't so enthusiastic about Freudian psychology. I think one of the reasons may have been Freud's emphasis on deference to internalized authority in one's own superego and ego, as opposed to the necessity of submitting to the external authority of others. In the issue set in a future where Wonder Woman runs for president, there is a bit of satire on a prison psychologist who teaches that because prisoners had to learn self control, they shouldn't actually be controlled by the prison. In a practical sense, I think Marston was right that there has to be submission to an "other" or external authority, not just to one's own conscience, if there's going to be an organized, stable, peaceful society. The problem is that we can't always tell whether what we are submitting to is the common good. Though it seems almost inconceivable now, I'm pretty sure that ran-and-file Nazis and Italian fascists were convinced that what they were doing was for the common good,

[brettc1]

I wanted to add that, while i agree with Brett that there are connections or comparisons with Freud that can be made, it should probably also be said that Marston himself wasn't so enthusiastic about Freudian psychology. I think one of the reasons may have been Freud's emphasis on deference to internalized authority in one's own superego and ego, as opposed to the necessity of submitting to the external authority of others. In the issue set in a future where Wonder Woman runs for president, there is a bit of satire on a prison psychologist who teaches that because prisoners had to learn self control, they shouldn't actually be controlled by the prison. In a practical sense, I think Marston was right that there has to be submission to an "other" or external authority, not just to one's own conscience, if there's going to be an organized, stable, peaceful society. The problem is that we can't always tell whether what we are submitting to is the common good. Though it seems almost inconceivable now, I'm pretty sure that ran-and-file Nazis and Italian fascists were convinced that what they were doing was for the common good,

I can easily see how Marston would have a problem with Freudian principles, given that the super-ego is seen as a manisfestation of the father figure. Freud himself copped some flak about perceived sexism in his theories. But yes, naturally the id cannot be completely supressed. That is how Peter David approached his run on The Incredible Hulk - Banner represents the Super-ego [total control] and the Green Hulk the Id [the rampant need for gratification and abandonment of control]. The Grey Hulk was actually the ego, the balance between the two.

Amazon lives are not joyless, and while they have learned control they certainly have not abandoned pleasure. That would make them like Vulcans. But in the early stories, where their great physical powers were the result of mental energy they had learned to harness over the centuries, you can easily see a link to Freuds ideas.

Earlier I mentioned Forbidden Planet, the sci-fi classlic where a super-advanced alien race the Krel were destroyed by harnessing the power to channel energy by the power of thought. They fail to take into account that their own long dormant Id mechanisms will subconsciously use the power to satisfy their base impulses when they sleep and dream.

The Amazon bracelets of submission [from volume 1] could be the Amazon way of keeping their own Id in check so that their vastly increased mental energies are not subverted by their baser instincts and used to destroy.

Note: its actually a shame this idea was abandoned in volume two, if for no other reason than it would have been the perfect excuse for Amazons Attack. ie Circe removed the Amazons bracelets and as a result they ran amok.

[Ontir]

"...look up what fascism actually is."

Thanks, Carabas!

Batman, using his corporate power to enforce his vision, would be far closer to fascism.

[Superdog]

Fascism is a specific political system with certain economic and political goals. So, no. Are Wonder Woman and super heroes in general very authoritarian? Kind of. They do use violence to try and solve problems, which is sort of weird if you try any draw any sort of lesson from it. The loving submission stuff in Wonder Woman always seemed sort of icky to me because of the implied authoritarianism. It works in the story because in the fictional world Wonder Woman is always right and moral, but the theory behind it strikes me as sort of odd.