Man of Steel - Part 2 - Trust: Reciprocity of Hope and the Significance of One.

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. 

            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:

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.

“Embodied within [hope] is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good.” – Jor-El.