Add new comment

I think the word "superhero" emerged by analogy with Greek/Roman heroes who were also larger than life, had special powers, and took on epic quests. In ancient Greek the term is descriptive and not moral, so "hero" includes the analogues of supervillains, as well as middling (non-moralised) types. In Greece heroes are usually tragic because they are hubristic (offend the gods, act beyond the natural limits of humans, test fate) so the stories are both inspiring and also cautionary. There's also a similarity of superhero stories to medieval chivalric stories which are clearly focused on the (real social and military) superiority of the knightly class, though they are also an attempt to "civilise" this class away from warlordism. The genre has to mutate when people stop believing in magic, inborn superiority, and/or interventionist gods, so we get the current breed of space-age, bio-mutant or tech-enhanced heroes whose special abilities get tied into glorification of tech and upholding the social order. Hence the modern superhero is very often strongly character-armoured, a "man of steel". It also gets tied-up with intentionalism (the exaggeration of the importance of particular exceptional individuals in causing historical events) and larger-than life figures like Trump, Hitler, bin Laden, Lenin, Thatcher, Pinochet, Gadaffi, getting elevated into superheroes by their fans and supervillains by their enemies. Which has side-effects of sadistic brutality against "villains", underplaying of social factors in historical processes, and excessive emphasis on eliminating the "villains" as a solution to wider problems.

There's cultural-studies and psychoanalytic analyses which talk about a hero archetype (Jung, Campbell) or the hero figure as a kind of internal ideal-ego, i.e. an image of what people (do or should) aspire to be, and then the villain archetype as a kind of shadow form of the same (actually tyrant would be shadow version of just king). Tragic heroes might be warnings against omnipotence fantasies. Very often the more recent superheroes/villains are carved into two factions based on what they do with their power - the villains use their power sadistically, either to dominate/control (take over the world or galaxy, enslave everyone) or to destroy (e.g. wipe everyone out). Whereas heroes use their similar powers to protect the weak and make the world a better place. So there's a cautionary tale there, about existential freedom/responsibility so to speak, and how we use the power we have (by analogy: anarchists use direct action to defend ourselves, fight for freedom, protect vulnerable humans and animals and the planet, resist the villains i.e. bosses and pigs and fascists; fascists use direct action to dominate and destroy). This is open to an anarchist slant, though it's also what liberals, right-libertarians, even some conservatives think they're doing.

That's kinda schematic, as there's also flawed heroes who are "evil" on some level, and sympathetic villains who "go too far" in pursuing just grievances or trying to help others. And these are often the most anarchist-resonant characters: people like V (for Vendetta), Elric, Bane, Poison Ivy, Rorschach, Magneto. We end up in an ambivalent position because we hate the system and have an urge to destroy, but we're also acting on legitimate grievances and defending ourselves/others/freedom/etc. Before I read the TOTW post, I was expecting this to be about anarchist insurgents and illegalists who achieved a kind of supervillain status in the public mind, like Kaczynski, Bonnot, Czolgosz, etc.