Superman: A Post-Human Postscript

In my review of Superman a few days back, I recognized the theme of Superman's "humanity" that seems to pervade the film and has accordingly attracted attention. (Of course, Superman is a Kryptonian, not a human. He does not assume a human nature, but he does develop - presumably thanks largely to his socialization by his parents - a human sensibility.) The film makes clear that Superman's "humanity" is found in his participation in and dependence upon human beings and an authentically human-like community life (reflected especially in his relationships with his parents, his co-workers, and, above all, with Lois Lane). In the film's development and presentation of the character, however, his ersatz "humanity" seems somehow to elide all too easily with his goodness. Obviously, the two are not the same thing. Plenty of real humans are not so good as Superman, and some (like Lex Luthor and his gang of villains) are quite evil. Indeed, Superman himself seems at times to be primarily presented as morally better thant he average human. All of which invites the question: if Superman were evil, if, for example, he sought to dominate the planet as his birth parents had apparently intended, would we so readily ascribe human traits to him? How much of the film's celebration of Superman's human sensibility is actually an indirect celebration of his moral goodness for an era which is still willing to celebrate human sensibility and mutual dependence but is ambivalent about any actually recognizable moral claims?

That said, for me the ultimate problematic about Superman's human sensibility is its contrast with the "metahuman" world which dominates the action aspect of the movie. There is a traditional Superman story, which highlights his human friends and collaborators and the human villains who are his enemies. But so much of the actual battle between good and evil is fought out between various other sci-fi action figures - characters who represent a "metahuman" or, better, post-human world. It is not insignificant that much of this movie portrays most of the human race as completely passive, effectively silent, agency-lacking spectators in the story of seemingly endless battles between various more than humanly powerful figures. It is a frightening image of a somewhat horrifying world.

Of course, it is inherent in the Superman myth that he heroically comes to the rescue of otherwise powerless people. Except for Superman's actual intervention, however, peoples' problems are paradigmatically human problems, which Superman's morally virtuous human sensibility motivates him to resolve using his super powers. The traditional Superman's world is and - despite his inherently sci-fi presence as an alien from another planet - remains essentially an authentically human world. The sheer number and omnipresence of other techno-powered action figures makes Metropolis and the wider planet a somewhat post-human world - if not, in fact, an inhuman one. (What this suggests about how we moderns actually experience and interpret our contemporary world and our lack of agency in it is itself a subject for separate discussion.)

Obviously, I recognize that this aspect of the film flows from the contemporary need to fill the film with acton and special effect to appeal to a modern audience, which would perhaps find the Superman who debuted in 1938 somewhat boring - and probably not morally credible. Perhaps, the suspension of disbelief required to accommodate all the sci-fi special effects and action figures also provides some cover and credibility for Superman's seemingly implausible goodness, which would otherwise be barely credible to a contemporary audience.