Superhero comics traditionally teach young men—especially white, middle class US citizens—about what uses of power and violence are considered legitimate. Maybe "teach" is a little too directive, though. Superhero comics traditionally explore questions of male identity and power, and what uses of violence are and are not legitimate.

In his 1992 book, "Superheroes," Richard Reynolds does any number of great things. One is to spell out the relationship between the mundane familiar world and the supplemental worlds to which heroes form a link. The world of Clark Kent, boring but comfy, and the world of Superman, full of exotic threats (aliens, magic, and supervilliany) to the mundane world:

(My graphic, but the text is a near-quotation of Reynolds).

In traditional, Golden age (1938-49) superhero comics, the superhero fights in the supplemental world to protect and uphold the mundane world. As Reynolds points out, "the common outcome, as far as the structure of the plot is concerned, is that the villains are concerned with change and the heroes with the maintenance of the status quo" (51). In other words, superheroes uphold the social order. They police the ordinary though extraordinary means.

The promise for Junior is that to the extent he identifies with superheroes as role models and gives his allegiance to protecting the social order, he, too, can have an extraordinary identity and amazing adventures. He just has to keep them in the closet, someplace where mom won’t find them and throw them away.

backward on this thread	forward on this thread

 

Warren Hedges, SOU, 9/8/01

Notes

Take me to the Bibliography

Now just what was Watchmen again?

Reynolds, Richard. Superheroes: A Modern Mythology. Batsford Cultural Studies. London: B.T. Batsford: 1992.