Man of Steel – Part 2
- Trust: Reciprocity of Hope and the Significance of One.
One year ago I wrote the first entry in a series of articles
I intended to write covering the symbolism of the Man of Steel movie in
relation to overarching philosophical, existential, and current event related
themes. I intend to continue that series with at least one or two more blogs.
This entry will focus on one of the larger themes the movie addresses. As I
explained in the first entry of this series theMan of Steel has more to say
about our current world political state of affairs than just about any other
movie out there right now (since the last entry, Captain America: The Winter
Soldier, probably gives Superman a run for his money in terms of being relevant
to world current affairs). For a more full discussion on how Man of Steel
accomplishes this without actually “saying” it directly, take a look at the
first entry in this series. For this entry I wanted to focus particularly on
the concept of trust and the importance of the individual towards institutional
trust.
Trust Defined
One of the major themes that Man of Steel attempts to engage
in discussion is regarding the nature, creation, nurturing, and development of
trust in oneself, others, and for others.
What then is trust and why engage in a discussion regarding
it? First definitions are in order to get a sense of what trust is generally
understood as consisting of. The dictionary provides several definitions of
which I have chosen a few that are relevant. Trust is a “belief that someone or
something is reliable, good, honest, effective,” and an “assured reliance on
the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.”
Additionally, the dictionary provides that it is “dependence on something
future or contingent: hope.” There is quite a bit of information contained in
just those few definitions but the primary meanings to be derived from them are
that trust is in some sense an assurance of things that are hoped for due to
the goodness or moral rightness of the one in whom the trust is placed. In a
legal context a “trust” is defined as, “ [a] fiduciary relationship regarding
property and charging the person with title to the property with equitable
duties to deal with it for another’s benefit; the confidence placed in a
trustee, together with the trustee’s obligations toward the property and the
beneficiary.” Particularly, in relation to the establishment of a “trust” the
primary legal considerations are the duties that are placed upon the trustee to
deal equitably with some matter that is entrusted to their care on behalf of
another person or persons. For a trust to be established in a legal sense there
are several requirements that a trustee must meet beforehand regarding his/her
ability to be a trustee, as well as other laws shaping the fiduciary
relationship. None of these are particularly relevant to the discussion here,
but suffice it to say that in that context, the same basic notions of
assurances of a hoped for benefit due to the character of the trustee is
present. That is, that when we place our property or some interest in the trust
of another, we given them our consent to act for our benefit due to our belief
in them as being capable, worthy, and qualified to act for us. Thus the idea of
“trust” is inextricably tied to the notion of good and right relations to
others.
What is it about human nature that seems to long for the
conceptual notion of “trust” such that we establish legal frameworks,
cooperative associations, and relational bonds to seemingly satisfy this
particular need? In saying that such a concept is a “need” I do not mean to
imply that such a concept can be merely reduced to a materialistic set of
instincts or evolutionary biological adaptations geared towards mere species
survival, however. Such an understanding of an ultimately conceptual and
metaphysical thing as “trust” could never actually mean anything, exist, or
matter if it was only a secondary manifestation of some biologically determined
cause. That is to say, that if “trust” is simply a term humans have invented to
explain how they are biologically determined to cooperate or work together for
survival, it could not actually mean anything at all. A true Darwinian evolutionist would have to
agree that there could be no such thing as “trust” in a metaphysical sense,
that it is merely a secondary phenomena of some physical process, much like a
rock being operated upon by gravity. Such a conception would reduce the
actions, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and meaning of trust to the superfluous, the
unnecessary, and the ultimately impossible. I discuss the problem that this
presents as between creationism and evolutionary theory in the previous entry,
specifically in relation to Krypton’s bioengineering of children. As argued
there choice is a necessary precursor and fundamental assumptive state of being
for “trust” to mean anything at all. As such one must abandon the materialistic
evolution theory in the same way that Jor-El did when he sent his only son to
Earth to show us a better way. An explication of the history of our own thought
on this matter should suffice to show why trust is fundamental to human
existence and a product of choice, faith, and hope.
In the history of thought on this subject there have been
several theorists that have put forth narrative worldviews to support their
notion of the state of reality and the position that “trust” holds in that
worldview. First, in Plato’s The Republic, Socrates and Glaucon argue about the
nature of humanity being fundamentally self-interested. Glaucon asserts that only
the fear of being detected and the possibility of punishment prevents humans
from breaking the law and doing evil. Glaucon concludes that we should trust
others only if we can be assured that they won’t do us wrong because of their
fear of being detected or punished. This notion of trust seems somewhat foreign
to a general understanding of what trust is, but does represent a very
prevalent conception of it today. Ultimately, such a viewpoint is selfish and
self-interested and is best illustrated in Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes
The Leviathan. Both philosophers present humans as fundamentally evil and prone
by nature to self-interested behavior.
It appears that both assumed this conception of human nature without ever
advancing any proof that in fact human nature is fundamentally self-interested.
While it is true that human nature is bounded by necessities both for survival
and for thriving, however that humans need things doesn’t mean that they are
fundamentally by their nature selfish. Selfishness goes beyond mere need or
even wants as it often represents overindulge and lack of discipline. Further,
such a conception of the nature of humanity itself implies an evolutionary
determinism that is incompatible with choice or meaning itself. If as Hobbes
implies that human nature is fundamentally, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short,” where there would be “war . . . of every man against every man” to
obtain his own self-interested goals, then such a situation would be due to our
nature and not because we chose such an outcome. For those who believe they do
have choice and are morally accountable for their exercise of it, such a theory
of human nature could ever be satisfying or compatible. Hobbes avoids complete
meaninglessness and determinism by suggesting that a “truce” must be
established in the state of nature whereby the brutish war could be avoided.
However, his conception fails to fully account for a full conception of trust
because as he says “covenants without the sword are but words, and of no
strength to secure a man at all.” Hobbes vision of trust is then similar to
that argued by Glaucon. Such a conception
of trust is essentially the one we operate on a day to day basis both in our
individual lives as well as on the international scene. Most countries operate
on the basis of the various checks and balances preventing them from obtaining
their interests. This could also be applied to human interaction as well. This ultimately
devolves into game theory, whereby each human acts rationally in his own
interests and where there is a lack of fear of punishment; he will pass up
cooperation to gain his own interest. And if a person is truly playing this game
correctly he will anticipate this line of reasoning in his opponent. Such a
conception is ultimately Machiavellian, in the sense that he described as
putting forth the mask of benevolence but only to gain power, and using every
means and opportunity to advance one’s own cause, including lying,
manipulation, and deceitfulness. This conception would destroy the very basis
of trust and cooperation in relation to all human activities that are
fundamentally necessary for its thriving, including, love, friendship,
procreation and raising of children, and the provision of means of survival
across time. Additionally, it destroys the very nature of faith in theory and
practical application as such concepts require genuine altruistic actions and
behaviors. In a world where everyone is fundamentally deterministically
self-interested there can be no real altruism and its related notion of
heroism.
I have argued elsewhere on this site against the
implications of materialism as a fundamental assumption of human nature as
propounded by these philosophers. I also have posited that much if not all of
the conceptual, like “love,” “faith” and “hope” all are “things” that exist as
a fundamental and primordial aspect of our human nature. That is to say, that
they exist forever and always, before we existed here, and after this existence,
as products of relational existence. It is fundamental in the sense that no
person ever comes into this world by their selves or of their own volition or
power. We all come into this world as a direct product of a relation (conjugal
union), and through a relation (birth), and into a relation (familial). There never was a person that was born
without this fundamental aspect of their personhood already experienced. David
Hume argued for such state in his A Treatise on Human Nature, wherein he
suggests that humans are sympathetic to each other because they are “mirrors”
of each other, which gives a “remarkable desire of company, which associates
them together, without any advantages they can ever propose to reap from their
union.” This is because by nature, humans are naturally needful, sympathetic,
similar, and prone to “care” for others. I would argue that all humanity is a
mirror for each other because of our common existence, purpose, and our primordial
voluntary association. I have argued in other entries that we all descend from
the same beginnings, that we understood our purpose in being here, that we
agreed to such a situation (including forgetting about it to act on our own
volition in this state) and that we knew would always have the ability to choose.
Choice is a fundamental aspect of human nature and underscores the idea that
trust (also primordial) will always be bounded by it as well. It is in the act
of “loving” exercising “faith” and “hoping” that we learn the significance of
each in any numerous contexts we are called upon to choose. As I argued in the
first entry, this is primordial and not limited by nature or nurture theories
of behavior. We are free to choose, always, and that is the state of being that
is necessary to really understand what Man of Steel is saying about “trust.”
Reciprocity of Hope and
the Significance of One
Man of Steel’s primary theme regarding the necessity of
trust is expressed in several particular instances. First, Clark’s sense of trust is developed
through his interaction and a result of the rearing of his adopted parents. As
I stated before, the Superman mythos recognizes the necessity of parents in the
lives of children for proper moral, educational, and mental development. Both
Clark’s adopted parents provided him the necessary foundation for a healthy
understanding of the metaphysical concept of “trust.” When Clark first suffered
from the onset of his powers he was frightened, confused, and lost until his
mother provided him with safe haven by offering comforting words and the
opportunity for him choose to accept it
and act on it. In that small but poignant moment Clark learned not only to
trust his mother, whose love and wisdom is expressed in a simple statement that
he should “focus on [her] voice. Pretend it’s an island in the ocean... Can you
see it? . . . then swim to it.” Clark’s mother demonstrated the ultimate form
of love, that of a mother for a child, providing a descriptive distraction for
Clark to focus on to help calm his overreacting senses, while simultaneously
teaching him a brilliant truth about trust. That experience had been burned
into his memory as he recalls it later in his life during the explosion of an
oil rig all around him. The lesson is that when he feels lost, overwhelmed, overcome
by life’s complexities, its harshness, its trauma, madness, and confusion, that
he can choose to remain focused, calm, resolute, and serene. Many people in
this day age are reactionary rather than proactive, usually as a product of not
exercising their own fundamental ability to choose, which is also usually
further hampered by being unable to distinguish between the right and wrong
choices. Clark learned early on that he could choose to remain calm and control
himself and that such an ability was greater than his superhuman powers. This amazing
development lessons and it’s future resonance with Clark was all because of the
love of a mother. Undoubtedly, based on this one experience, Clark learned that
he could trust in his mother. It is from this bond that his trust could be
further expanded and completed.
Second, Clark’s understanding of trust is further expanded
in relation to the trust in which he is required to place in his father. While
many people have disliked the portrayal of Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel as
being somewhat authoritative while also being unsure about some things in
relation to Clark, I find the portrayal to be accurate and profound. Particularly,
Jonathan’s insistence that Clark keep his secret, and that he as a father
protects the secret at all costs is seen as somewhat limiting to the story as
well as to Clark. However, I posit that this conception is precisely the
necessary and logical portrayal of a concerned, caring, and protective father
in regard to his son. Clearly, Jonathan understands the significance of his
son, his potential, and its ultimate meaning on a larger scale. Clark’s
interaction with his father often revolves around a seeming clash of masculine
energy that is common among men and especially in regard to fathers and sons.
It is through this clash (which doesn’t imply violence or force necessarily) a
man’s character is developed, most often in similar vein as to his father
figure. The Superman mythos understands that males need other male figures in
their lives to help them come to terms with their natural abilities,
proclivities, tendencies and sense of maleness. It is an undisputed fact that
males and females are different in very important respects and that the complementarity
of the roles of men and women, fathers and mothers , are necessary for proper
development of children. Jonathan’s concern is therefore not about suppressing
him, but about helping to shape the character of his son and in particular
protecting him from his own young, rebellious, an uncertain masculinity until
he is ready to shoulder his masculine responsbilities, and of course those of a Super man. From his youngest
recollection Clark remembers how his father introduced him to his true origins,
allowed him to experience the situation, dwell on its import and meaning, feel
the loss and confusion associated with it, but never letting him lose sight of
the future, his potential, or become overcome by grief. This is all expressed
in such way as to represent a near perfect fathering exemplar.
Jonathan:
“You’re the answer to ‘are we alone in the universe?”
Clark: “I
don’t want to be.”
Jonathan: “I don’t blame you, son.
I’d be a huge burden for anyone to bare; but you’re just anyone, Clark, and I
have to believe . . . that you were sent for a reason. All these changes that
you’re going through, one day . . . one day you’re going to think of them as a
blessing; and when that day comes, you’re going to have to make a choice . . .
a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.”
Clark: “Can’t I just keep
pretending I’m your son?”
Jonathan: “You are my son; . . .but somewhere out there you have another father
too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark; And
even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out
what that reason is.”
This exchange is at the heart of Clark’s interaction with
both of his fathers. Both of his father’s understand their roles as primary
caregivers and male father figures. What Clark must become and do is
foreshadowed consistently and constantly throughout the movie and represents
the process of self-actualization through ideation and example. As I argued in
the first entry, Man of Steel, traffics heavily in the predispositional reality
of both natural genetic inheritance and learned behavior for the formation of children,
boys, men, and heroes (women can be heroes too). However, what is underscored is the necessity
and ultimate morality that underlies every choice, every decision, and every
intent for the future, as well as the foundational basis that the past, its
lessons, and experiences create for those choices. It is Clark’s father that
first introduces him to this fundamental lesson of life, that of remembering
the past in the present towards an intended and as yet but hoped for
future. Jonathan’s ultimate sacrifice
and ultimate expression of love and hope for his son’s future is underscored
with the exchange regarding the necessity of keeping his secret until the right
time, until the world is ready, until the world needed what he had to
specifically offer to it. In expressing
his powers to save a school bus full of his fellow classmate’s scrutiny is
placed upon Clark by many of the town residents. Jonathan goes to Clark,
sensing his confusion about not being able to express his powers, as well as
the strangeness and external response of others to it.
Clark: “I just wanted to help”
Jonathan: “I know you did, but we
talked about this. Right? Right? We talked about this… Clark, you have to keep
this side of yourself a secret.”
Clark: “What was I supposed to do?
Just let them die?”
Jonathan: “Maybe; but there’s more
at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world .
. . when the world finds out what you can do, it’s gonna change everything, our
. . . our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human . . . everything.
You saw the way Pete’s mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.”
Clark: “Why?”
Jonathan: “People are afraid of
what they don’t understand.”
In this example, which many have misunderstood, it is clear
that Jonathan Kent’s concern is with the greater good. While Superman has
always been the champion of the individuals life, and respected the ultimate
and primary worth of the individual, it has not always been as against the
greater good. Just as individuals are born into relations as a product of relations
there are metaphysical conceptions that transcend the individuals necessities,
needs, and wants. This is explicitly referenced by Clark’s reading of Plato’s
The Republic in one scene. Further, Jonathan’s uncertainty shouldn’t be read to
be a direct injunction of his son to not save lives of those he can, and in
fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the lesson Clark learned or
that his father intended it. In fact, this can be disproven by just watching
the film as Clark goes about helping others, but albeit in secret as his father
asked and intended, until the right time for a full revelation of his nature
and abilities. This theme has a direct religious corollary to Jesus Christ’s relationship
with his own fathers. It is common knowledge that Jesus Christ was not
commissioned for his ultimate sacrifice and ministry until he turned 30 years
old. There is very little biblical evidence of what his childhood consisted of,
but it is explicit in assuring us that he was a special child and was engaged
in doing good from his earliest years, but doing so in near secret. This was by
design, so as to protect him and those around him from danger, and for the proper
development to be attained for his mortal ministry. This has direct example in scripture in Christ’s
40 day fast before the beginning of his ministry, in direct preparation for his ultimate mission.
Man of Steel adopts this same theme in very particular and overt and covert
ways. Ultimately, what Jonathan understood and was trying to convey to his son
was the necessity of patience, purpose, reticence, and proper moral call to
action. It is for the same reason that we do not ask children to take on major
responsibilities that are beyond the ken of their experience. It was through the developmental process that
Clark learned, grew, and was ready to shoulder the weight of the
responsibilities that would come upon him. Wisdom dictates that intelligence
and ability be timely applied and not squandered by mere reckless and undiscerning
application. As a farmer, Jonathan understood this concept completely. You have
to plant in the proper season, nurture consistently and accordingly, and
harvest only after this lengthy process has been completed. Such a situation is
an objective statement about the proper roles of parents and children.
Finally, Jonathan understood the revolutionary and
unprecedented nature of Clark’s existence. Taking the world as a reality and on
its own terms, such a circumstance would be the greatest and most turmoil
inducing event. The fact that we are not alone, and that a literal god lives
among us as a man would undoubtedly be the
greatest story ever told. Additionally, it would portend questions of faith,
morality, politics, and existence itself on a revolutionary and massive scale.
Truly, Superman’s revelation would change the very course of history. Most men
and certainly all boys would not be able to deal with such scrutiny and
exposure. Clark understood this thanks to his father, even though he didn’t
fully understand the reason at the time.
Clark trusted his father as a man with greater wisdom and experience, ultimately
learning and later exemplifying the true quality of a man, that of deference
and proper humility and moral patience.
Clark: “My
father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they’d reject me
out of fear. He was convinced that the world wasn’t ready. What do you think?”
Third, Father Leone provided a further inquiry into the
nature of trust between others and as a direct product of faith and hope in
good and the goodness of others. After revealing that he was the one that
General Zod was after, an alien being with super powers on this planet, he
inferentially asks for advice. This particular scene plays off a similar story
in Superman for Tomorrow. In that comic series, Superman, having been
confronted with a moral dilemma regarding the loss of Lois due to his own
actions in trying to dictate correct human, he goes to Father Leone for
perspective. In some ways the story is more about Father Leone than it is about
Superman, but the dialogue between the two delves into the existentialism
underlying crises in faith. However, in Man of Steel, Father Leone provides
another example of someone who exhibits trust as an exemplar to Clark.
_001.png)
Father
Leone: “What’s on your mind?”
Clark:
“I don’t know where to start.”
Father
Leone: “Wherever you want.”
Clark:
“That ship that appeared last night? I’m the one they’re looking for.”
Father
Leone: “ . . . do you know why they want you?”
Clark: “No. But this General Zod,
even if I surrender, there’s no guarantee he will keep his word. But if there’s
a chance I can save Earth by turning myself in, shouldn’t I take it?”
Father Leone: “What does your gut
tell you?”
Clark: “That Zod can’t be trusted.
The problem is, I’m not sure the people of Earth can be either.”
Father Leone: “Sometimes, you have
to take a leap of faith first. The trust part comes later.”
Father Leone recognized the crucial link between faith,
hope, trust, and choice. These four concepts are inseparably linked in relation
to their manifestation in human existence. Our choices are always going to be a
product of the faith in the unknown, and the hope that we have going forward.
This requires us to trust in ourselves, or in other forces beyond our control,
whether God, or our fellow man. Faith, is always towards an intended hopeful
future and as a result is a necessity for moral action. Additionally, this
conception highlights the proactive nature of the exercise of trust. Truly we
cannot understand trust and therefore be trustworthy until we ourselves trust
others. This type of trust implies a lack of power and manipulation of
self-interest as argued by Hobbes that underlies human nature. The idea of
exercising trust to vulnerability before others is a fundamental aspect of
ourselves and is in large measure the only we can experience in reciprocal
fashion. Such is the nature with most if not all conceptual notions. We cannot
be loved until we truly love. We cannot fathom the depths of our hopes for ourselves, until we mirror that experience in
others and understand that their hopes are own.
Trust must always be a proactive choice, in every instance in which we
exercise it. At any moment when we are called to action and given the
opportunity to trust we must make that decision anew to engage in the
possibilities it presents whether good or bad. Clark was reminded of this lesson
that he has to trust the people of the Earth, as well as trust Zod, to all do
the “right” thing. He does this in theory and actual reality, by surrendering
himself to both factions. He does this purely as an exercise in faith, hope,
and trust, but to those who are his physical superiors, and those with whom he
has adopted as his family. Both could reject him, hurt him, emotionally, physically,
or otherwise and yet Clark makes the decision to take a leap of faith and trust
in the hopes that it would be reciprocated.
Fourth, just as Superman is about to surrender himself to
Zod’s forces the sum and substance of the message of trust is brought home in
an exchange he has with Lois Lane. After
being taken to where Lois is being held (due to her knowledge of Clark) they
converse about his decision to surrender. Lois immediately recognizes the
ultimate goodness that is Clark for submitting himself to those who could not
make him submit, as well as to those who could harm him and those around
him. After this discussion Lois refers
back to the first discussion they had where Clark reveals to her the sacrifice
his father made to protect his secret until the time was right. Based on the
understanding and sympathy she mirrored for Clark based on that experience and
its ultimate purpose and meaning, she decides to hold off on running the
article exposing his existence. In reference to that scene Clark states:
.jpg)
Clark: “Thank you.”
Lois: “For what?”
Clark: “Believing in me.”
Lois: “It didn’t’ make much
difference in the end.”
Clark: “It did to me.”
While on the surface it seems as though Lois’ “sacrifice” to not run the story about
Clark did not prevent his reveal, it did provide him another and necessary
anchor of trust to an individual outside of his family circle. It is easy to
trust those who have cared for us since birth, and who in some sense have an
immediate obligation of care towards us,
due to their responsibility for us. However, it is generally much more
difficult to place our trust in those with whom we’ve had no experience, and
who have no apparent attachment or obligation to us. However, the necessity for this type of
expansion of our relational experience is underscored in and by every
relationship and every friendship we develop. Such a situation is a product of
choice and our exercise of faith and hope towards another. It is through this
interaction that institutional trust is built through the reciprocal nature of
mutual faith and hope between individuals. When the world, its grand designs,
its institutions, and major trends can be overwhelming and lead to confusion,
apathy, or detachment, it is often the friendship and demonstrated trust of one
person that can make the difference to the individual in need of help,
guidance, friendship, and purpose. Clark learned this lesson through the
experiential chain of trust started from his parents on through to his faith,
hope, and trust in Lois. Anyone who has experienced this level of reciprocal
trust knows that it is the greatest and most profound human experience. Clark’s
subsequent battle is given individual meaning, purpose, and ultimately someone
to trust and be trusted by. The faith and hope in reciprocity, as exercised by
Superman and Lois in this instance, is something that all humans can do and
forms the very basis for all heroism. Truly one person can make all the
difference in the world.
_+(1).jpg)
“Embodied within [hope] is the
fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good.” –
Jor-El.
