What Drives Our Superheroes And Their Need to Fight

We take for granted the driving motive behind the urges of our beloved superheroes to fight crime and save the world daily. Great power and great responsibility and yadda yadda yadda. A son’s pledge to the memory of his dead parents and blah blah blah. Seems like everyone’s got at least a half-legit reason to punch the holy hell out of some bad guys. But what remains when you peel away the curtain and extract the deep-seated psyche of our costumed saviors? Is it as simple as platitudes about responsibility or a need to atone through avengement? I don’t discredit these arguments as valid, but at the same time, I can’t give them ALL the credit. After all, where would the fun be in that?

Recently, while reading a back issue of New Avengers #17, I encountered a scene in which the Avengers came to employ their talents in cleaning up a not-so-nice area of Detroit, which, honestly, has a myriad of not-so-nice parts. There were no big super-powered baddies to tussle with, no intergalactic threats to the world at large, no fellow superheroes to save from imminent doom. They were just there to scare away the drug dealers and other bad elements, to assist elderly people, to just generally straighten things up in hopes that the neighborhood could again proliferate. Now, what set my noggin a knockin’ is the approach Luke Cage takes with the whole operation. The very first souls the Avengers encounter upon disembarking their airship are two young and impressionable youths. Cage doesn’t offer anything as simple as a kind word, or an awe-inspiring proclamation concerning truth, justice and the American way, or even flash his awe-inspiring pearly whites Instead, Mr. Cage, with a scowl upon his countenance, asks the kids if they have school that day. The kids, being understandably shocked and confused (as I can only imagine this is the first time they’ve ever met any superheroes in person), reply in bewilderment. Stuttering, one of them even cagily asks Cage (pun intended) if his mom sent the Avengers for him. Still no smile from Cage nor jesting chuckle. No pleasantries of any kind. No nothing. Cage simply tells, nay, commands them to “Go.” So, the children amscray, quite possibly, with the idea that a mother did indeed send for the Avengers to punish the two of them and that the Avengers did indeed comply with the request.

Now, I’m sure the few of you reading this may not see what the hissy fittin’ is all about. The Avengers were there to do a job and they didn’t need no stinkin’ kids around to hinder them, right? Wrong. First of all, what’s with freaking the bejeezus out of the kids. This is the future generation of citizens future generations of superheroes are going to be protecting and depending on to abide the long arm of the law. We’ve already established there wasn’t anything urgent going down and I imagine if any imminent threats did exist at that time they’d be happening practically anywhere other than a run-down suburb in Detroit. Secondly, how could Luke Cage have possibly known that these two youngsters weren’t already on their way to school? There’s no evidence that tells us they weren’t, so any argument that he was pulling some sort of ‘stern father’ approach collapses as he did nothing to establish the facts of the situation before being such an asshole. If they WERE on their way there wouldn’t they deserve a nice heaping of praise, incentive words of encouragement to keep them in school, to let them know they were being good boys? What I mean is, using gun to go fishing isn’t always the best way to get things done and if you ever shoot yourself in the foot you’ll see why. But, I guess, when you’re the Avengers, what are two brats from the wrong side of the tracks in the grand scheme of things anyway?

My ultimate point here is that since the Avengers were there as ambassadors of goodwill wouldn’t it have been the more prudent course to utilize EVERY opportunity to spread it. If the perfect opportunity to strike the malleable heart of a child with inspiration, encouragement and motivation isn’t a fine deed, then what is? But, wait, there’s more! Captain America was there too. Ditto for Spider-Man. One’s a symbol for the greatness of our country and the other is a friendly neighborhood kind of guy. No love from either of these two icons? No “Hey Luke, chill bro. They’re just kids. No need to make them brown their whitey tighties”? Believe it or not, these three panels in a several years old comic book led me to consider more closely the deeper motives of all superheroes, almost entirely by themselves. I can’t help but think there’s more to it, for most heroes, beyond the standard “responsibility” or “death promise” thing. I analyzed and pondered the question. I rubbed my chin like a mad scientist. I fell deeper down the rabbit hole than I intended and found myself a little worried that I was taking such an idea about fictional characters so damn seriously. Then I laughed manically and kept on philosophizing.

The conclusion I’ve come to is this and I’ll share it in a rhyme so you won’t forget: ego and fame are what’s to blame. While I’m not ruling out the Lockean idea that in general most people are inherently good and helpful in nature of people (i.e. willing to save lives just because they ought), I also choose not to forget the Hobbesian idea that people are born mostly bad (i.e. a selfishness to the nth degree). And, while I don’t actually believe that people are “born” either way, and that there’s a little of both aspects in everything and everyone, let’s be honest, from the get-go some people do have a larger propensity for one way or the other. This includes superheroes (and obviously, by extension, super-villains). Also, I’d like to add that sure, maybe these guys started their career with a bold influx of pure benevolence, but to carry on for as long as some of them have I’d venture to say a healthy bit of ego becomes even NECESSARY to maintain a longevity in the business. In other words, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing.

When people come to depend on you to do an important job such as saving lives for so long, (even in the instances where people won’t admit this, such as in the case of those the X-Men end up protecting and the general loathe the public have for mutants) how are you expected NOT to grow a watermelon head full of cock-surety that swims in the essence of your badassness? Think Cyclops, for instance and the revolution of character development over the past decade plus. For most of his superhero career he’s been a prime example of a leader who exhibited textbook definitions of compassion and restraint. Nowadays, he’s more a disciple of the “strike hard, now and fast, lest ye be stricken first” school. It’s a change some may argue is a necessary one now, considering the precarious nature of the mutant’s future, but it’s one I argue is not only perhaps necessary but one borne from a wallopin’ dollop of ego as well. He and his, Cyclops seems to believe, are the ONLY ones who can take care of business. Not only does he openly contend he’s the best at what he does (sorry, Wolverine), it’s even been hinted, as of late, that he believes the X-Men to be, under his leadership, THE premiere super-powered team of do-gooders. 

Or take Batman. He regularly and consistently thinks and remarks that, for almost any situation confronting Gotham City, he’s the only answer to the problem. In the latest Scott Snyder-written issue of Batman (Batman #4), there’s a scene where Dick Grayson confronts Bruce and asks him if he couldn’t be wrong about the existence of the Court of Owls that’s plagued the Bat-verse from issue #1 of the New 52 series. Dick tells him that everyone thinks he could be wrong on this one, even Jim Gordon. That he’s unable to see the forest from the trees. So, what’s Bruce/Batman’s answer? That, essentially, he CAN’T be wrong because HE’S already looked into it and you damn well better believe he sees the forest AND the trees. If that’s not a blatant case of egotism, then you can slap me sideways and call me Sally.

Thusly, it seems that a case of an abnormally large ego can often lead to a fixation on fame and notoriety in some super-individuals (although, admittedly, this can be said of most people in general). Notice, in the same issue of New Avengers #17, Luke Cage becomes a real sweet-talking camera hound when the press show up. Two innocent children? Slag off, ya pipsqueaks! A mediocre-looking reporter and an inept cameraman arrive to document you doing what hard-working, non-powered men and women across America do on a regular basis? Why, hello! Cage seems down right full of himself, standing on a soapbox and making lively pronouncements about the changes that, mind you, ONLY the Avengers can bring to these troubled streets. As if, perhaps, entities such as the police, contribute little or nothing at all to the curbing of criminal activity. It’s clearly apparent that he loves the camera; that he adores the shower of attention. And, while I’m not saying his accusation is wholly inaccurate, especially if one were to apply it to our real world situation, because cops and other authority figures can’t be everywhere at once, and sometimes, sadly, certain sectors of larger cities can go to pot. But even as super as superheroes are, they are themselves not a ubiquitous entity.

So, to underline what I mean, I’m simply stating that I fail to see every and all superheroes fighting simply, and solely, due to some attachment to a code that says that because they’ve been granted special powers they MUST go above and beyond the call of duty. It must be said though, that in any and all situations, whether their actions stem from pure self-sacrifice OR an ego-driven psyche OR a combination of both, I applaud them with fervor. I wouldn’t be reading comics if I didn’t enjoy seeing my favorite comic book characters kick ass, take names and save lives by putting their own on the line. All I’m asking here is this: let’s get real about it, folks. As real as anyone can be when boiling down the philosophy or super-heroics, at any rate. My intention is not to subtract from them their sacrifices or their moral compasses that tells them to do what they do and have done. But, if there’s not a small mountain-sized load of ego resting somewhere under a pile of other more traditionally recognized motivational factors then, by all means, feel free to slap me sideways and call me Sally. Yet again.

For a little further reading into the matter, I encourage you to look into the events of Messiah CompleX or Second Coming. Look at all that glorious violence and unabated slaughter to save the life of one mutant child. True, the X-Men are fighting because they fear going extinct, but when you get right down to it, throughout history species have gone the way of the dodo. And just like the dodo’s exit, extinction rarely brings about such deliberate and colossal amount of death and destruction on the way down.

Also, the more recent events stemming from New Avengers Annual #1 and Avengers Annual #1 (2011, 2012, respectively). Simon Williams, aka Wonder Man, details a sundry list of bad Avenger behavior. He freely admits that they’ve saved a lot of people and done a fair amount of good things, and that mostly they mean well. But, on the flipside, he argues that they’ve done wayyyyy more harm and somewhere through the years were able to shirk the responsibility of accepting responsibility for their actions. If you examine his case with even a minutiae of thought, you’ll see that he’s not entirely in the wrong. That it’s a bad case egotism driving the continuation of the Avenger teams seems apparent to Simon; that they believe WITHOUT them the world could never be safe, never function safely. To put it bluntly, they’re up to their eyeballs in themselves.

However, in the end, it’s a much better thing for all of us that they keep up the good fight. No matter the reason, I don’t think any of us would appreciate a world without superheroes.