Title: New article: Science in Superman Post by: TELLE on February 26, 2005, 10:44:32 PM http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/25
From the Comics Scholars list: A glance at the current issue of "Public Understanding of Science": Science and superhero comics Social theory and superhero comics have something in common, says Simon Locke, a senior lecturer in sociology at Kingston University, in England. They both wrestle with ambivalence about the meaning of science in society. "Superhero comics incorporate the same tensions that inform academic discussions, and as such they should be seen as just as much a part of the collective working-out of the questions and problems raised by modern science," he writes. In comics, scientists may be heroes or villains, he says, "but many of the more striking characters in superhero comics are morally mixed and equivocal." And science is not always obedient to a scientist's wishes -- it can be used for good or evil, but may result in one when the other was intended, he says. The mix of magic and science in comics is also revealing, he says. "In superhero universes, beings transformed by science stand alongside beings transformed by magic collectively occupying a single, coherent 'reality.'" And often the attitudes of characters toward science and magic are similar. "Like traditional attitudes to magic, as both a potential source of help, but because of its powerful and uncontrollable nature also a source of trouble," he writes, "the attitudes toward science and technology are ambivalent." That superhero comics, which have a particularly low status, deal with "similar ambivalences about science to those found in academic discourse," he says, provides "strong support for the claim that we all draw from the same rhetorical well." The article, "Fantastically Reasonable: Ambivalence in the Representation of Science and Technology in Superhero Comics," is available free online for a limited time at http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/25 From the article: The science-magic constellation In his structuralist study of super-heroes, Reynolds (1992) highlights the centrality of the conjunction of science and magic to their constitution. In the case of Superman, however, he tends to emphasize the “magic” more than the “science” in his focus on mythological and religious parallels with the character. Thus, Superman’s origin—sole survivor of a dying planet, blasted off into space in a rocket by his father in a final desperate act—has parallels with the Judaeo-Christian story of Moses as well as sun-god myths. The parallel with Moses is bolstered by the Jewish backgrounds of Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Reportedly, Siegel made explicit reference to mythological influences in describing Superman’s creation, including Hercules and Samson (Catron, 1996). In early stories mostly written by Siegel, Superman is frequently referred to as a very strong man, even taking on the role of a circus strongman in one story, where he is advertised as “a modern Hercules” (Siegel and Shuster, 1938b: 6). This stress on strength is important as it points to the “scientific” aspect of the character. For all the mythological parallels, Superman can also be seen as a hero of an industrial age. Siegel and Shuster are often described as working class in their backgrounds, hailing from Cleveland, Ohio, in the industrial heartland of the United States. In his early adventures, Superman shows some of the qualities of a working class hero battling corrupt businessmen, industrialists, lawyers and politicians, as well as organized crime and (occasionally) mad scientists. Viewed in this light, Superman’s strength and “toughness” represent an idealized image of masculinity that might resonate with manual workers (Willis, 1977) and his vigilante-style justice is in keeping with a tradition stretching back to the American frontier (Inge, 1990). Of greater interest is a second way in which science is incorporated into the character as legitimizing his super-strength. Siegel and Shuster were fans of science fiction that began to flourish in America in the pulp magazines of the 1930s, even starting their own fanzines. An early editorial development of the pulps was a stress on scientific plausibility and Siegel and Shuster show a similar concern in the presentation of their character. On the opening page of Action Comics 1, two types of scientific reference appear. First, a highly compressed version of Superman’s origin is recounted that describes him as coming from a planet with a human race “millions of years advanced” (Siegel and Shuster, 1938a: 1) of Earth. Superman’s powers are due to his advanced “physical structure” (p. 1). Second, under the heading “a scientific explanation of Clark Kent’s strength” (p. 1), an analogy is made with insects— grasshoppers and ants—that display apparent “super-strength” in being able to leap relatively great distances and lift relatively huge weights—just as Superman leaps tall buildings and out-powers locomotives. It is easy to dismiss all this, as does Reynolds (1992: 10), as “hokum,” but a more sympathetic view would see it as an example of the use of popular science of the time, specifically eugenics (Nelkin and Lindee, 1995). An important feature of this was the linking of theories of evolution with notions of progress and advancement, for which there was much professional scientific support. Hence, the idea that human beings would evolve into more perfect physical specimens was both common and plausible. What Siegel and Shuster add to this is a translation of evolutionary time into interplanetary space, postulating an alien world where anticipated human development is further advanced. They give this a “working class masculinist” spin, highlighting physical strength rather than, say, mental power. Finally, in striking an analogy with homegrown insects, they bring the imputed evolutionary development back down to earth attempting to invest it some believability. [/url] |