Stewardship vs. Self-Ownership - An LDS View of Animal Rights

So this blog entry came about as a result of reading this article and some of the comments. It made me think about the conceptual problems I've been having in relation to Libertarianism's reliance on the concept of "self-ownership." This particular article allowed me to analyze it in terms of a third party, that of animals. 

What follows is the news story, and then below it my lengthy lunchtime analysis. Also, don't mistake this analysis or my conclusion to mean I would support any animals rights groups, as their methods often are conflicting with other fundamental principles that are of equal concern and consideration. 

"WASHINGTON CITY, Utah – Police in Washington City, have identified the person responsible for shooting a cat last week.

Police have identified a teenage boy from the area as the person responsible for shooting a cat, said Ed Kantor with Washington City Public Safety Wednesday.

Feb. 5, animal services took a cat that had been shot with an arrow in the nasal area and through its back. The arrow was removed and the cat is recovering.

Sufficient information was provided by someone in the community and led to identifying the teen, Kantor said

"It is a good thing for the community to address these issues and I feel it was very successful this time," Kantor said.

A motive has not been identified at this time, Kantor said. The case has been referred to the juvenile court.

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=28706209#rTfg6fvs7yzZsmSG.99"

After reading this article, I started to wonder how a Libertarian might work through the issues involved here, specifically, property rights, non-coercion, and theories of harm, in relation to so-called “animal rights.”

While there are different strains of Libertarian thought, it would seem that the prevailing view, based on the assumptions of “self-ownership” would suggest that animals too are nothing more than “property.” Self-ownership itself, however, as a theoretical assumption has at least one major flaw wherein its claims regarding property rights as stemming from the logical sequence of self-ownership to (that self’s improvement of unorganized or unowned material by action into productive use establishes ownership in the improved material) is ultimately incoherent. For this logical rendering to be applied, the assumptions about the “self” must also be explained in terms of unorganized or unowned or unimproved material (elemental material). This assumption requires the “self” to be of  the same type of material as all other kinds of elemental material wherein property rights may be  established through productive improvement. That is to say that the human “self” (whatever that constitutes beforehand) must be the same type of property in all of its particulars as for example the house that I labor to build. The problem with this assumption is that the human self, self-evidently, cannot be unassumingly equated with raw inanimate material generally. While the human self is obviously made of up elemental material, that is not to say that everything that constitutes the human self, is solely material in the sense of meaningless elemental material operated upon by random external forces. If this were the case then there would be no possibility for human action, will, or thought independent of the coercive force of external stimuli. More simply stated humans in this conception must therefore be like the rock that is operated upon by gravity when it tumbles down a hill. In witnessing that event we do not think, “oh the rock chose to fall down the hill,” as that would imply that the rock had free-will, volition, or agency. This, given, our understanding of the laws of physics and the atomic makeup of elemental material would be patently absurd. However, this is the very type of logical premise from which self-ownership must derive. The “self” then would be constituted of the “owner” and the “owned.” Philosophical inquiry has struggled with this problem  for centuries and has named this particular issue the subject-object dilemma. Normally, how this  problem is demonstrated is in comparing the owner with the owned. In relation to human nature we would therefore say that the “owner” of our selves is our “soul,” or “spirit.” Generally, this aspect of ourselves would be, self-evidently, as well as axiomatically, regarded as “free,” from in relation to a myriad of physical and intellectual constraints. That is to say that we are free to choose, to do, or to be, in a way that a rock is not. Often this particular conception of free-will has its basis in religious theories of human origins wherein man has descended from Adam who had his spirit or soul breathed into his material body and in which he was made free. Regardless of the theoretical founding of this state, it is self-evident that humans are free to choose to do otherwise than nature or environment intends even though both often do play a part either in fashioning the limits and possibilities available. Ultimately, the assumption is that man is free in the sense that he has no constraints upon his consciousness, he is free to think, to feel, to act, and do what he wills, that to do so is in his self-evident and primordial capacity.

The other aspect of the “self” would therefore be that part of the self that is controlled by deterministic, biological, instinctive, or other lawful systems of order. That is, that our bodies are in some sense made of elemental material, such that it, like the rock, is subject to the laws of gravity. This is often manifested in certain ways that implicate genetics, physics, chemistry, and biology. However, as mentioned before fundamentally we differ in relation to our consciousness, volitional capacities and capabilities. The major problem comes in trying to justify, explain, or understand human nature or behavior in terms of this dualistic split. That is, how do two properties of human nature that are so fundamentally at odds interact with each other in a way that does not subject one to its opposite’s dominion or control. Science for the most part has been unable to explain this without just assuming (without scientific proof) that somehow free will exists in a way that differs from biological determinisms seemingly overarching dominion. Science, and particularly, psychological theory has demonstrated this particular shortcoming in relegating all human action to either basis in “nature” or “nurture.” In both situations it is the external deterministic processes which give  causational rise to all human action, whether by genetic, chemical, or conditioned stimuli response mechanisms (which ultimately devolve to cognitive functions). That is to say that at its base human nature is only experienced as theoretically free but not actually free. This presents a problem to anyone who espouses a belief system that a priori assumes and requires freedom, agency, and moral responsibility. In the former these three cannot exist but only as secondary phenomena, that is to say that “freedom” cannot arise from “non-freedom.” A rock cannot become “free” because it is fundamentally “unfree.” I might say to the rock tumbling down the hill, “oh look, that rock chose to fall down the hill, it is free to do so,” but this would not change the fact that the rock is not free to choose to do so just because I’ve used language to describe it as so. Either we as humans are “free,” or we are not, and any freedom that arises if we are not, can only be regarded as a relative perception but never as a factual state of being.

However, to be completely consistent with its logical premises regarding human nature the theory of self-ownership must draw this dualistic distinction, because the owner (the soul) must own the owned (the body). This is the only way that property rights in “things” which are fundamentally the same as the” thing” known as the “body” can be established with logical consistency. In LDS theology this notion of ownership appears to be erroneous in the sense that humans are considered stewards rather than self-owners. Numerous scriptural citations and prophetic statements support this position but suffice it to say that it is the only conception of human nature that can avoid the dualistic problems mentioned above. LDS theology seemingly regards the human self, at this juncture, as an inseparably connected union of an elemental and spiritual self. While this may sound like the dualistic conception above there is a major difference in regard to how LDS understand the elemental nature of matter. First, LDS theology regards that which is termed “spirit” as matter, using in fact the same word in relation to its description of elemental. Both constitute a form of “matter” without a direct or express distinction. Joseph Smith taught that “spirit matter” is more refined than elemental matter and is  therefore “invisible” to our perceptions until we also become more “refined.” He stated that once we have become refined we will see that spirit is matter, logically in the same way that the elements are matter. This conception of human nature is revolutionary in relation to modern science as it provides for the potentiality of a “god particle” at the heart of all existence. That is that there would be a form of matter that constitutes both the soul and the body allowing a union that is not fundamentally at odds with the other based on their similarity, eternality, and fundamental compatibility.

Regardless of the theoretical complexities of such a proposition, it is self-evident to all that humans are “free” and that we operate in a way that is not detached or deterministic in the way the dualistic rendering of man in self-ownership requires. That is to say that we experience ourselves as free and do not need to do this thought exercise to demonstrate it. However, the purpose of the thought exercise is not to prove that we are in fact free, it is to show the limitations of theories that we often subscribe to without further inquiry into their premises or the assumptions that must necessarily support its policies, conclusions, or tenants. Further the purpose is also to show how easy and how often we would rather cling to the dogmatic logical conclusions of such premises than actually reason them out and discard the inconsistent, the incoherent, and the apparently false. Also, often we would  rather attempt to harmonize such tenants with plain language scriptural meanings without understanding the distinctions, the differences, and the conflicts inherent in the conflation, equation, or reinterpretation of the standard language. Too often we would much rather bring in wholesale a principle from some philosophy and equate it with LDS theology. Usually the only way that such falsehoods remain undetected is because they are given preferential status and are not contextually tempered by equally important and bedrock doctrinal considerations.

Now, finally after that lengthy preface, I’ll finally get to the issue the spurred my inquiry. The article above dealt with issues that implicate the “rights of animals.” A strict libertarian view and in the vein described above would necessitate describing animals (even to the extent that they are like humans) as simply “property.” How anything, under the theoretical tenants necessary for logical consistency, could be other than property in the sense that both humans and things are (they are both elemental) is hard to justify.  If animals aren’t property in this sense, and humans are (according to the self-ownership principle), then what are they? There might be some sophistic hamming at this point in trying to describe different levels of property they would be at odds with the concept of self-ownership and the moral rules of governance that follow from it. Animals clearly aren’t rocks, but neither are they humans, and reasonably their nature must settle somewhere in between the two. Clearly, animals have a level or type of volition and consciousness that is unlike any other inanimate object, but yet is not as extensive as humans, or rather is of a different character. In that regard what moral rule is applied to animals in terms of the conceptions of rights deriving from and in rights of  property? One prominent libertarian dealing with this issue, in order to remain consistent with the dualistic nature of property rights, stated that animals have no more rights than a pencil does, affirming the materialistic assumptions underlying such a conception of property rights. In this sense then, government would not have moral authority to regulate, impose, or intervene on behalf of animals, nor  could they have any “rights” as generally understood. Other Libertarian views would constitute animals in terms of property ownership of a specific person. In this conception, only animals that could be found by some standard to be “owned” by a human could be considered to have “rights.” The non-aggression principle would then apply not to the animal but to the owner of the animal. A government would be allowed to intervene only where a bonafide “owned” animal was used not in accordance with its title which resides in the owner. However, the animal would not be the one considered to be harmed in this regard, it would be the owner’s harm that would be the sole measuring stick of restitution, retribution, punishment, or otherwise in that judicial system. This ultimately devolves into a discussion about what constitutes “harm” and while there are several strains of libertarian thought in relation to what constitutes harm, it would usually devolve into some  utilitarian economic consideration, like for example, a cow that was stolen, or hurt, would be valued at a market cost and the loss of that value would be the measure of the harm. However, why “economic principles” should govern in this instance anyway is nothing more than an assumed preference but logically necessary conclusion for most Libertarians given the prior necessary assumption that all “things” are “property” and that all “rights” are therefore property rights. Ultimately, this analysis only tells us what we’ve assumed, that animals are just property, like the house, the corn, the rock, and ultimately if taken to its logical conclusion, the person. Why this logical rendering can’t therefore be applied to humans is a theoretical slippery-slope that I won’t address right now, but is one that can be and arguably is the theoretical and practical implicative end of such an assumed worldview.

I contrasted this particular worldview in relation to LDS theology regarding animal rights and found some interesting things that I think are worth consideration. There were several important issues in the entry for Animals in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism but I wanted to dwell on a few that implicate the libertarian concerns above. First, D&C 59:16-20 provides that animals, like other “good things which come of the earth…are made for the benefit and the use of man,” but are “to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.” The interesting word usage I focused on in this passage is that of “extortion.” This particular word denotes financial or economic exploitation or other general criminality. In criminal law extortion is defined as, “[t]he act or practice of obtaining something or compelling some action by illegal means, as by force or coercion,” or “collection of an unlawful fee.” I think this statement is interesting in that it denotes not just some unlawful force but also relates to the possibility of economic exploitation of animals. That is not to say that the market could never recognize an objectively based value for an animal that comes under its theory of ownership, but to the extent that animals are simply nothing more than property of the kind described above, then the same justifications that were used to sell slaves is equally applicable. However, I am m not saying that animals are akin to or are or should be valued the same as humans, just that slaves were once considered rightful objects of property and their economic valuation (wrongful as it was and ever will be) was justified by that status. Additionally, in relation to other LDS doctrines regarding the pre-existent and eternal (saved) status of animals it should be incredibly hard to justify the value of animals on the basis of a utilitarian market based valuation system, whatever their ultimate value is, and whether that in any instance can be quantified in monetary terms. Whatever the case LDS theology recognizes their eternal place, in all eras of life, logically, before this life, during it, and after this particular one, and during the millennium when they will share this world with us as was taught by Joseph Smith.

The next passage that intrigued me was the reference to dominion and its proper limits, which states, “God gave Adam and Even dominion over the animals (Gen. 1:28), but legitimate dominion is neither coercive nor exploitative (D&C 121:34-36).” The word that caught my interest in this passage is “coercive.” “Coercion” is the Libertarian buzzword for overreaching governmental intrusion. Coercion in the context of human action and from a Libertarian perspective requires several assumptions about the nature of man. These include his volitional capacities, his ability to reason, and his competency to contract. Forms of government that are therefore considered “coercive” are those that do not obtain consent for representative action, those that interfere with legitimate and voluntarily entered into contracts, or those that “force” morals through legislation. There are a number of things wrong with the latter conception of force as posited by most Libertarians as that conception of “force” presumes a number of things about what the metaphysical status of morality, about its universal applicability, and the propriety of the imposition of rule under compactual consent (to name a few). In this conception of coercion all actions that establish any and all guidelines for  “rightful” actions, or that define either cultural or universal norms are considered “forceful” and “coercive” upon the human mind body, and/or soul (usually a Libertarian hasn’t justified his theory of self), which it must be assumed is not subject to any constraints whether intellectual, actual, or physical. Such a conception stretches beyond the realm of reason the actual capacities of man while at the same time fundamentally altering the narrative supporting his actual origins (often disregarded by circular resort to “coercion”). To maintain this definition of force at its base there must be no actual truth, nor any epistemological foundation for achieving certainty with regard to it. Such an assumption only exists when presumed and ultimately destroys the very “value” (a moral consideration) that is to be had in the supposed “moral” rule of “non-aggression.” Thus, aggression may be defined relatively (as it often is by different strains of Libertarian thought) or defense of a particular definition must ultimately be resorted to in terms of presupposed utilitarian or pragmatic notions of harm. This assumes without proof that there are not objective bases for “harms” that arise in human action as a condition of our existence that are either done by omission or commission and not just in relation to property violations.

In the context of animal rights, “harm” and “coercive” conditions must be defined and as I’ve shown they cannot be done so on a universal basis under the conception of animals as merely property. Further, this argument would extend to wild animals in the sense that they have no designated owner in the sense of Libertarians casting of all rights in the form of property rights. Whose property would the wild animals be? Either they aren’t property in the sense of owned property, or if they are afforded any property rights they cannot have any in the sense that humans do, as they do not understand what constitutes coercion, have similar capacities in relation to consent, and contract. A wild cat would not know it is trespassing on your property and would therefore not know it is being “coercive,” or that it is “aggressing” against your property, nor could it know such a thing. This basis is the basis upon which humans are judged under the non-aggression principle. They are assumed to have the capacity to understand and respect property rights the same cannot be said of animals and therefore all animals must be property in the strict sense if they are afforded status at all. As described above there is no objective moral foundation to support any conception of their treatment except  under monetary terms.

However, in  LDS theology the concept that generally applies in relation to animals is “stewardship” under the dominion that God instituted. This dominion is limited in general ways mentioned above but also in specific ways including; (1) not to waste; (2) meat to be used for saving lives but not for sport or bloodshed; (3) and use that is not “neglectful.” This alone suggests that animals have “rights” in a sense that does not comport with self-ownership property rights. If an animal has a right not to be neglected by its owner or rather, its steward, then it must also have an objective basis for enforcing that right. How that is established in a judicial system is another question but it should be noted that certain “rights” for animals do exist outside of strict property ownership theories. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism several LDS leaders strongly criticized destroying animal life merely for sport, including Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Spencer W. Kimball. Lorenzo Snow called it a “murderous amusement.” This comports with the notion that animals also have the right to Life (lite) which would imply proper limits on their “owners,” or fellow “stewards.” 

Perhaps their right to life would be considered under the international legal doctrine of right of  occupancy. Because the animals occupy the land but do not improve it in any sense they only have a right of occupancy. This same right of occupancy could easily apply to humans as well under a stewardship theory of property rights. It is argued that humans are stewards of their own bodies, that they have the right of possession of their bodies, but that ultimate title and ownership rests with God. In that sense then humans would not have the “right” to do anything with their bodies that they please. This does not mean however that their freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies has been taken away. This conception of rights and liberty is often a misconception and misconstrual of the distinctive differences between what actually constitutes “force,” “freedom,” and “liberty.” People often confuse freedom with liberty and in doing so refashion liberty into nothing more than license. Rather freedom has more to do with the fundamental nature of man, in that he is free to think and free to do. A law that is in place, for example to illegalize murder (simultaneously defining it), does not deprive the individual person the ability or freedom to commit murder. Nor does it mean that once that individual goes to prison for the murder that he has lost all freedom. While he may not be free to do certain things his freedom to think remains intact. In relation to God’s plan he is still  capable of choosing to follow God’s laws and to change his life within the probationary state he is placed. What he has really lost is his liberty. His liberty has been constrained due to this violation of  another person’s God-given right to life, which society also has a direct interest in, in defining what is lawful. Thus, it is shown that liberty and freedom have overlapping components but they are not the same and that laws do not deprive a person of freedom. In this sense then animals could be considered to have similar stewardship property rights to humans. They may have a “right” to the food that they hunt and kill to support their own lives. Such a right would not and could not be subsumed under a strict libertarian view of property rights as I’ve explained above.

All these instances in my opinion point to the fact that animals are not property in the common libertarian conception. In that same sense it should be readily apparent that if animals are not property in that sense then humans cannot be property in the same sense that self-ownership implies at least under a conception of LDS theology consistent with its doctrine regarding agency. 

Finally, a statement and example given by Joseph Smith highlights the dispositional nature of both men and animals as something that is similar and rooted their simultaneous connection to God. The  Encyclopedia states:

When the Prophet Joseph Smith saw his associates about to kill three rattlesnakes at their campsite, he said, "Let them alone-don't hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose its venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition, and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless before the brute creation, and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child can play with the serpent in safety" (TPJS, p. 71).

This passage is incredibly interesting given the usage of the words “disposition,” and “harmless.” What Joseph seems to be implying at least partially and in my opinion is that on some level animals (even snakes, gross) have similar dispositions as humans this arguably is in relation to their spiritual and elemental natures, as well as their purposes in relation to God’s plan (which covers everything). Further, his usage of the word “harmless” apparently applies both to animals and men, that is, that both men and animals can become “harmless,” to each other. The fact that Joseph emphasized it in that moment and not in some prophetic futurity suggests that such a future state necessitates present dispositional change. He wasn’t saying that one day out of the blue and in no relation to man’s stewardship animals will live with us in peace. Rather, what is implied is that when man’s disposition changes so too will the animal’s dispositions. The fact that Joseph made no exception for the arguably most mythically evil regarded animal is quite extraordinary. President Heber C. Kimball took the argument to its fullest extent and said that “[Horses] have the same life in them that you have, and we should not hurt them.” Thus, it should be obvious that animals in LDS theology are something  infinitely more than “property” as they have the same life as us, also implying that humans are also fundamentally more than “property.” This is not even qualified in the sense of it being the same “type” of life, or even any sense of a “lesser” life. While they may be of a different sphere of creation, the same underlying eternal matter inherent in human life is present and primary in animal life in LDS theology. Discussion of “animal rights,” must therefore be cognizant of these concerns and any claims that disregard this fundamental description of reality must be prepared to justify their violation of the lawful and natural responsibilities that derive from eternal legal recognition of the true value of all animal life.

Man of Steel: Hope, Freedom, and Trust - Part 1 of 2

Man of Steel: Hope, Freedom, and Trust

Whatever your feelings regarding Zack Snyder’s Superman reboot Man of Steel, it must be unequivocally stated that it is far and away the most ambitious superhero movie ever created. The movie attempts with varying degrees of success to symbolically tell the grand epic of the foremost and first superhero of modern times, which it does spectacularly despite its weaknesses. That being said, and all bias (I am the biggest Superman fan of all-time) aside, I can honestly say that it is the greatest superhero movie of all time. As is common in the visual and thematic storytelling of comic books, Man of Steel featured several wonderful broad stroke thematic threads running from the beginning through to the end. Man of Steel differs from every single superhero movie and in particular from the Dark Knight Trilogy in this regard in that themes weren't specifically and laboriously explained through dialogue. That particular narrative format worked great for the Dark Knight series (though the final act is largely concerned with themes rather than lengthy exposition) but definitely lends itself better to the the detective thriller genre than the visual thematic comic book format. Man of Steel succeeds brilliantly as a genuine comic book epic in this regard in a way that no other comic book movie has. 

 A few days ago I had a conversation with a friend about Man of Steel wherein I stated just what I did above that it is the greatest superhero movie of all time. My friend responded like most of you probably did or will, with incredulity. I proceeded to tell my friend exactly why I think Man of Steel is the greatest superhero movie of all time, an analysis to which she responded positively. Maybe like her you will be persuaded of the very possibility that I have suggested.

The Man of Steel’s story-telling deals almost exclusively in the usage of visual and metaphorical symbolism to convey its central themes. Several themes that I specifically noticed and responded to during and after the movie include the concepts of hope, fear, uncertainty, war, privacy, freedom, transcendent reality, choice, freedom, and trust. While the film is not perfect it is the first of the many superhero movies that have come before to so subtly, realistically, brutally, and honestly tell us what the real life implications of super-heroism and super-villiany would or could be. Most importantly however, the movie mirrors real life ethical implications concerning notions of national security, the justifications (if any) for war, the ethical limits (if any) of surveillance, the very real threats of weapons of mass-destruction, and last but definitely not least importantly, the justification of and implementation of self-defense and defense of others. However, I believe that the movies most primal themes center on the concepts of hope, trust, and freedom. More specifically, what the concept of trust means in a day and age where it seems to be a rare commodity, whether in personal, societal, or institutional relationships.  Additionally, the movie raised the question of what hope means in a day and age where the constant drumming of war, discord, and disaster upset our fragile and seemingly ever-changing notions of peace, happiness, and security. Further, the movie raised the question of what freedom means in an age where scientific advancements and seemingly bedrock notions of human psychology threaten traditional conceptions of agency, accountability, and morality. Man of Steel is the most ambitious superhero movie to date for its attempt to make these themes relevant in modern times while not also trivializing them with sarcasm and overt campiness. It's not perfect, but the themes presented require a level of discernment not present in other superhero movies. Man of Steel is smart because the narrative doesn't tell you what to think every second of the movie, nor does it soften its attempted seriousness with needless comic wittiness. It presents a factual scenario that stays true to its own rules and therefore presents a realistic environment where the protagonist is left to make choices in a world where there is a right and wrong choice that does not rely on simplistic notions of black and white absolutist morality. What the Man of Steel has to say about choice and each of the other themes mentioned stands as a testament of its ambition and achievement as the comic book movie epic par excellence.

"It's not an "S," on my world it means "Hope.""

Hope

In the context of the grand sci-fi mythology unveiled during the opening sequence of Man of Steel we come to understand that all of the characters exist in a larger universe filled with intelligent life. Arthur C. Clark the famed science fiction novelist and theorist arguably said it best (as he understood it) regarding the concept of extra-terrestrial life that, “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” The premise of Man of Steel offers a third hopeful possibility that embraces the terrifying nature of the two he envisioned. Science fiction as a genre runs the spectrum of storytelling based on the assumptions of strict empirical rationalism to those that embrace utter metaphysical spirituality. Both qualify as science fiction in the same sense that Clarke understood "magic" as being technology yet understood, internalized, and directed by its witnesses. Man of Steel traffics heavily in both of these conceptions visually, metaphorically, and literally. In this sense Superman or Kal-El (the name Superman is given by his birth parents, Jor-El, and Lara-Lor-Van) is a product of the convergence of the third option and possibility mentioned before, which  I will call "organic transcendence." Those familiar with LDS theology should be familiar with the concept, though not necessarily based on the name that I’ve given it. Simply put it is the idea that all matter whether seen or unseen is spiritual but matter which is more highly refined (and presumably invisible) can only be seen with greater discernment and ability. That which is available, readily understood, and sensed is not necessarily of a different quality but is simply less refined and is therefore more easily perceived. Science, and more specifically scientific theory, works exclusively in the realm of making that which is not understood understandable by way of logical reasoning and application of technological advancements that facilitate empirical discernment. A similar theoretical framework exists for that which is considered metaphysical or spiritual but requires discernment of the conceptual rather than the empirical. Literary, visual, or sensory displays of the conceptual are conveyed through symbolic representations found in metaphors, allegories, and typification. This is evidenced in Man of Steel by the symbolic meaning of the family crest of the House of El, the S shield symbol. During the highly symbolic first meeting/initiation scene Kal's biological father Jor-El explains Kal's origin and that their family crest means “Hope," in Kryptonian. 

The concept of giving or taking a name is arguably the most simple example and proof of the symbolic literacy with which we are endowed. We give and take on names on the basis of their symbolic imagery, that is that they inherently mean something or convey concepts and ideas. In Man of Steel this same conception is most evidenced by the fact that the planet Krypton (Kal-El's birthworld) is a technologically advanced society (to the point of achieving organic bio-engineering, space travel, and terraforming) whose empirical scientific achievements have led its people to the outlawing of natural births in favor of genetic bio-engineering. This, it is inferred, is for the purpose of population control, efficient allocation of resources, and the establishment of an orderly caste/class based society (interestingly during a flashback sequence Clark is shown reading Plato). Jor-El as the leading scientist of the planet advocated this system in the past but had since come to the conclusion that its implementation and continued use was the product of a degenerative and controlled society, one that underlied the cause of the imminent destruction of the planet. Scientific advancements like terraforming (making previously uninhabitable planets habitable) and genetic bio-engineering are intertwined in this sense as the cause and symptom of Krypton's destruction. Later this concept is brought home more pointedly when after attempting to find the key to Krypton’s genetic survival at the Kent farm home, one of General Zods Lieutenants hints at the guiding Kryptonian theoretical worldview to Kal during a fight in Smallville.  Faora-Ul a Kryptonian soldier produced by biogenetic engineering which funneled her into a a class system designed to create warriors physically manhandles Superman. She is clearly trained, dangerous, focused, in a way that Superman is not. Further, it can be inferred that this is so because she is instintinctively committed to the same cause which Zod professes he was created solely for, the survival of the Kryptonian race. In the penultimate scene of the movie Zod states that all of his actions no matter how violent are specifically to that end. This mindset is alluded to be a necessary product of their bioengineered design. During the fight with Fa-Ora and while brutally beating Superman she menaces that she is the product of "evolution," and that “if history has taught us anything, it is that evolution always wins.” Implicit in the story then, is the concept that evolution leads directly to this particular scientific advancement with all of its intended and unintended consequences. This concept is extremely relevant in our time where technocratic science relies heavily on the assumptions underlying Darwinian evolution. The technocratic elite go so far as to assert that strict empirical rationalism will lead to the inevitable merging of man and machine (bioengineering) in the next 35 years and that terraforming will eventually be the salvation of the human race (go listen to a few TED talks). This conceptual thematic idea is part of the reason why Jor-El's consciousness explains that Kal needed to learn what it meant to be human first. this is so he could discern between the possibilities that a Kryptonian type produces and how it could lead to a similar type of destruction on Earth. Faora is therefore an end result of the evolutionary design and is apparently faster, stronger, and better because she has been predetermined to be so by design.

"What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? "

                                                                                                                                                                            

In contrast, Jor-El’s answer to the imminent destruction of Krypton was a return to a radical notion long since passed in his scientific age, that of a natural, organic live birth of a child. It is inferred and stated directly that organic live birth provides the most fundamental and important quality of humanity, (and apparently beyond) that of moral agency or choice. Intertwined with this concept is the notion of creationism, that self-contained organic creation is transcendent or superior to the empirical scientific assumptions underlying evolution. Jor-El’s family crest, the S-shield symbol means “Hope” and the live birth of his son Kal-El (who is later imprinted with the genetic DNA of all Kryptonian) sent to Earth as the last survivor of Krypton, is the symbolic message and physical embodiment of that Hope. The symbolic message is undeniably steeped in messianic imagery and symbolism but the actual meaning is far more pointed than most seem to understand. The message of Hope that Man of Steel revels in is that human interaction, organic, raw, and as yet undefined is undeniably essential, and fundamental as a human quality. Further, as explained by both Jor-El and Jonathan kent, organic transcendence is the necessary precursor to choice. It is only with that fundamentally simple state of being that meaning, morality, and true purpose can exist. Simply put, choice is what allows for consequence, and consequence is the basis for distinction between right or wrong. It is evident that Krypton had lost the quality and ability to sense beyond what was immediate for maintaining the status quo, so much that they could not see what was truly at stake and how much it had cost them. When Jor-El’s consciousness says to Kal-El, “You can save all of them,” he is referring to not only the empirical results based notion of cause and effect but also the spiritual transcendent notion and value of choice and moral agency. Additionally, when Faora says that evolution always wins, she is specifically referring to the idea that Kal-El and his father’s notion of organic creationism is inferior both physically and spiritually. In this sense salvation is not only a metaphysical concept but also a literal physical clash of ideas and worldviews. In Man of Steel Kal-El represents the ideal of transcendent creationism, that a being from another planet understands and embodies the dangers that unfettered scientific so-called progressivism has on individuals and society as a whole. Jor-El's last plea to Kal is that he will be the bridge between the two peoples and that he will show them a better way.

 

"You're not just anyone. One day, you're going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world." 

Freedom

The debate rages on in the university psychology classes about which factor is supremely formative in human development, either nature or nurture. After coming out of the university programming system, it is undeniable that no one has the complete answer. The only answer that is legitimately backed by studies, authority, and reason, is that there are too many factors to say for sure. One subject, however, that you will not find (or find little on) in the psychology books is the concept of free will and what if any great affects or problems it poses to the discipline. Man of Steel attempts to engage in the debate but ultimately settles on the importance of the concept of free will (choice) and like real life and the implications of choice in real life, leaves a somewhat complex and perhaps unsatisfying picture of what it entails. However, some of the greatest moments in the movie are those that show the early life and development of Clark. In nearly all of the appropriately interceding flashback sequences we are shown that Clark is an outsider as a result of the onset of his powers. In one particular sequence young Clark starts to develop his super sensory abilities during an elementary classroom discussion of Kansas history. We are shown his reaction as all of his senses become heightened in what is apparently a first instance. He responds to it with fear and uncertainty. As a child coming to grips with his maturation his reaction to hearing diverse and numerous sounds while the muscular and cardiovascular systems of his fellow classmates are revealed to him causes him to flee the classroom and take refuge in a storage room. His reaction leads to alienation by his classmates. Particularly interesting, his reaction and response called to mind the actions and seeming response of special children, specifically those with Autism. Clark in this version of Superman is an individual struggling to come to grips with his differences and place in a world hostile to differences. However, what is most profound about these flashback sequences are the words of wisdom, comfort, and understanding that come from loving, modest, and humble parents. If such things as families and good parents are ideal for the proper development of children then there was no one better for Clark than Jonathan and Martha Kent. The Superman mythos has always understood and championed the concept that children always need good parents. In every flashback sequence Jonathan and Martha are there for Clark in each of the circumstances he finds himself in, to comfort him when experiencing pain and fear, providing simple unsullied truths, and coping mechanisms to deal with the problem at hand and which later inform the man. His goodly parents are there to help him come to understand who he is at the same time that he is able and ready to understand it. His goodly parents are there to help him understand the consequences of his actions. His goodly parents are there to teach him that he is valuable and is on earth for a reason and that it is up to him to find that reason. His goodly parents allow him to make his own decisions (with advice) for better or worse but are there with him to deal with the aftermath. His goodly parents are there to teach him that all situations require judgment and discernment. His goodly parents are there to teach him that there is a time for patience and a time for action. His goodly parents are there for him to teach him that fighting bullies generally does not solve anything. His goodly parents teach him that sacrifice is the ultimate form of love. It is from this particular environment that the Man of Steel comes from which allows him a level of moral discernment that is both flexible as it is certain. 

In contrast to the concept of nurture, Man of Steel attempts to show that genetic inheritance does matter, in that Kal-El is not only a product of his environment but a literal genetic offspring of a superman and superwoman in a galaxy far, far, away. Lois Lane hones in on this aspect of Superman’s character as she is first introduced to him at the grave of his adopted father. The conversation centers around her desire to tell the world about him and what the implications of the idea that we are not alone in the universe will have. Kal-El is not so sure that it is the right time based on the wisdom his adopted father Jonathan imparted and sacrificed his life for, that the world would reject such a being out of fear. She suggests that eventually someone else will find out who he is as she has and that the only way to stop that from happening is if he stops helping people altogether. She senses correctly that this is not an option for him and they are left at an impasse until he explains himself further. The idea that this suggests is that Kal’s sense of duty to help others is a quality that is innate. We see this alluded to many times throughout the movie as comparisons are made to Kal and his father Jor-El. In one particular flashback sequence Clark saves a bus full of children from drowning and is later slightly scolded by his adopted father for it. While many have disliked this conception of Jonathan Kent, I believe it is used specifically to show that Kal’s innate goodness is in him as a result of genetic inheritance. The movie draws heavily upon messianic Christic symbolism for this point as well, as we are shown Clark as a fisherman, going about doing good, helping people in miraculous ways, in almost near secret. Those familiar with the Savior's childhood know that he eschewed the idea that his true father was a carpenter. It is in Clark’s DNA to help others. The seeming clash of nature and nurture comes in particular in the flashback sequence where Jonathan suggests that Clark "maybe" should have let the other children die to protect his secret, that is the need to protect oneself for a higher purpose, or to act on one’s own instinct and predisposition. However, as I suggested a third way above, the issue is ultimately resolved by the advice that when the time is right Clark will need to choose the kind of man he will be. The situation inevitably comes that presents Clark with the choice he was prepared for and he makes it completely of his own free will, not because or despite nature or nurture, but as a result of the experiences, wisdom and maturity it gave to him. This allowed a truly free choice in the matter. Clark goes on to make several important choices throughout the remainder of the movie that will be the subject of the next entry however, we see just how important freedom to choose is by the purposeful sacrifice of Jonathan Kent to preserve Clark’s secret until the right time, until his son had the time, the experience, the maturity, and the purpose to step out into the light as a symbol of hope and trust.

 

"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? "

. . . to be continued.

Iron Man 3: Blow-Back, The Military-Industrial Complex, and Drone Warfare Disinformation

Iron Man 3: Blow-back, the Military-Industrial Complex, and Drone Warfare Disinformation

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to see Iron Man 3 in all its 3D IMAX glory and can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a huge comic book connoisseur (nerd). I have been so ever since I cracked open that box of comics in the basement of my parents’ home. I clearly remember reading Superman, Batman, Spider-man, and last but not least Iron Man. In particular the stories that I enjoyed most as a youngster were those about Iron Man and his arch nemesis Ultron. Unfortunately, Ultron has not been featured in any of the recent Iron Man movies as he is one of the lesser known enemies of Iron Man and the Avengers. Hopefully, someday we’ll get to see him make an appearance in the movies. However, enough reminiscing about my eternal inability to grow up and back to my feeble attempt at persuading you nonetheless that I have.

Iron Man 3 at its core is about sacrifice, the sacrifice that creates or defines heroes. Those who have been following the story of Iron Man as told through the movie versions recognize this particular thread running through the entire trilogy. Tony Stark is the CEO and son of the namesake of Stark Industries, the leading arms manufacturing firm in the United States and arguably the world of the Marvel Universe (think Lockheed Martin).  After coming face to face directly with the destructive product of his corporation’s creation (bomb shrapnel to the chest) he has a change of heart (literally) and dons the Iron Man technology to stop domestic and apparently foreign threats. All three of the stories tease the prospects of the various foreign threats extant in the Marvel Universe in favor of focusing on the white collar and political intrigue involved in arms manufacturing technology and the wars that are perpetuated or perhaps more fittingly sustained thereby. Whatever viewpoint you subscribe to the problem of war seems to be somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. However, it is important for analytical purposes to start somewhere and for all intents and purposes it seems that the writers of the Iron Man saga chose to focus on the evils of corporate arms manufacturing. Much of the context that supports such a story is assumed and we’re dropped in to the heat of the action, much like our current situation, devoid of historical understanding of the means and modes of our modern day war landscape. Regardless, the movie has some definite themes to discuss and we’ll now turn to a few I picked up while watching it.

Blow Back

 The third Iron Man operates on the same principle as Tony Stark proclaims from the beginning in true semiotic fashion, “A famous man once said we all create our own demons,” truly this movie sees its purpose as speaking rather directly (or indirectly?) at the war on terror  and in particular the concept of “blow back.” As a counterterrorist expert explained, blow-back is “the term of art for terrorists’ responses to government action against them. For example, if in response to the killing of a terrorist leader in a targeted killing, terrorists perform a suicide bombing, then that attack is called blow-back.” Further, he explains that blow back is, “a preferred modus operandi because it demonstrates to the three audiences described above (the swayed, the swayables, and non-swayables) that aggressive government action is an ineffective counterterrorism policy, and that a political response to terrorist demands (what others might call capitulation) is the preferred course.”  In a less technical sense then blow –back is simply the natural unfolding results of the law of cause and effect. Of course this isn’t causality in the strict sense, as individual actors joining together by more or less conscious decisions reap the fruits of what they sow. This is exactly what Tony Stark’s existential dilemma is in the third movie as all his previous decisions come to a head. These decisions include: his decision to create and implant in himself the Iron Man Technology; his decision to out himself as Iron Man; his decision to sacrifice his life to save New York; and his decision 14 years earlier to ignore aspiring weapons and medical research possibilities. More specifically, he ignores and humiliates Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen who both have promising research ideas the latter plant limb regeneration technology and the former a weapons technology that enhances or upgrades the genetic abilities of people in general and soldiers in particular. 14 years later, Killian returns after being shamed by Stark and utilizes the research of Maya to create bio-tech upgraded humans. Interestingly, this type of research has been foreshadowed in the Iron Man stories from day one and is taken to the next level by Killian with the concept of implantable human Nano-biotechnology. Trans humanist researchers are well on their way to developing these very types of technologies and see the inevitable implementation of them within the next 32 years. ( See Ray Kurzweil, the Singularity, Trans humanism).  http://lifeboat.com/ex/transhumanist.technologies

I generally don't read much of what Glenn Beck writes but this article was easy to find and does cover the general issues regarding the ethical issues involved in trans humanism.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/06/transhumanist-movement-is-coming-the-ethical-dilemma-posed-by-rapidly-advancing-technology/

In Iron Man 3 the technology manifests itself in its invariably destructive propensities through the archetype of returning  “war on terror” soldiers.  These soldiers are volunteers as they have lost limbs in the theater of war but something with either the soldiers themselves or the technology is flawed and causes several of the soldiers to spontaneous combust, causing massive domestic damage, a la suicide bomber. This is rather interesting because many of the latest domestic terror threats have been committed by the veterans of the war on terror. Underlying that particular issue is an obvious reference to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other psychological disorders resulting from the realities and horrors of war. Many of the most recent domestic terror threat individuals had also been under psychological evaluation and were subscribed Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (“SSRI’s”) prior to their actions. While these medicines are fairly common for treatment of depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, they are coming under increasing scrutiny for their numerous dangerous side-effects including hallucinations, mania, and suicidal ideation. It is interesting that Iron Man 3 chose the specific archetypes of returning soldiers for not only medical and biological weapons research, but that those same individuals are the actors carrying out the domestic terror threat in the movie. Further, evidence of the allusion to these same problems is in the struggle of Tony Stark with anxiety from all the traumatic events of his past coming back to haunt him. The idea is that war has its costs and is a form of blow-back in both regards.

The Military Industrial Complex

The rest of the story focuses on a phony figurehead of an at first appearance legitimate foreign terror threat, the Mandarin as played by Ben Kingsley. 

 In the fictional Marvel Universe the Mandarin appears as a stand in for Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist par excellence. The only problem is, as Tony later finds out, that the Mandarin is actually an actor paid by Killian to drum up the war on terror and create “supply and demand” for the his arms manufacturing. This is and has always been the essence of the Military Industrial Complex that many former Presidents warned about.  J. Reuben Clark, a former BYU Law Professor and Elder in the LDS Church warned about the Military Industrial Complex and its seemingly limitless financial backing and interest in creating and sustaining warfare for profit. At one point he stated that the whole government had been subverted and was under the direct control of the Military Industrial Complex.  

  

Iron Man 3 glosses over these more interesting story aspects within its realm on the basis of Tony Starks (Robert Downey Jrs) seeming American charm, wit, sarcasm, and ultimately heroic character. In the first Iron Man, Stark upon having a change of heart after seeing the destructive propensity of his corporate cash cow first hand, denounces war, and loses his government contracts. In the second movie he comes before a Congressional Investigation Committee demanding he turn over the Iron Man technology in the name of National Defense. After making a mockery of the state of weapons technology in his absence and once again turning down the government’s demands he sarcastically proclaims, “I have singlehandedly privatized world peace,” drops the mic and is out. While in the context of the story this particular scene is awesome and plays to the strengths of the comic book worldview, Tony Stark’s character, and Robert Downey Jrs acting, it ultimately glosses over the reality that there is no real Tony Stark in the world we inhabit. In the real world the United States in 2011, spent $711 billion dollars on its defense budget. The total of all the worlds’ governments reached $1.29 trillion dollars or 74% of total world expenditures, according to Wikipedia.  Further the United States has been the world’s leading arms exporter for the last decade if not longer.  All of the most prominent weapons manufacturing corporations are located in the United States but nowhere do we hear of a character such as Tony Stark, who has effectively privatized world peace.  In the real world the private arms manufacturing corporation’s biggest clients has been and will always be governments as is evidenced by the statistics aforementioned.  Further there is no Iron Man Technology, a technology that only one man with fairly sound judgment possesses (though Tony sometimes seeks revenge). The major weapons of mass destruction that could be remotely considered similar to the power of the Iron Man technology are possessed by nearly every major world power with minor powers well on their way to obtaining. While there are no real allusions to nuclear warfare in the movies the stabilizing effect of the Iron Man technology on the world is apparent. Ultimately, however Tony is forced to give up the technology to a trusted military confidante in Colonel James Rhodes played by Terrance Howard (Iron Man) and Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2, 3). The use of the Iron Man Technology by both individuals further blurs the lines of reality on the issue that is secretly (not really?) at the heart of Iron Man 3-drone warfare.

Drone Warfare

The concept of drone warfare has increasingly become an issue of concern in the theater of foreign war, domestic security, privacy and constitutional law. I remember discussing the issue back in 2011 in my International Criminal Law class as part of the emerging counter terrorism paradigm under the Patriot Act. The discussions ultimately came down to the inevitable increased use of drone warfare and strategic targeted killings. Targeted killings are justified by governments on the basis that “the target is an illegal combatant who is suspected of either of having participated in terror attacks or ordered them to be carried out.” It is further premised on the basis that arresting the target presents an “extraordinary operational risk.” The concept of targeted killings therefore is at least in some sense theoretically distinct from assassination (though a political head could potentially be a target) and extra-judicial killing (summary execution when arrest is possible or on the basis of political or other disagreement) though the three could definitely coincide. One of the major criticisms of the current targeted killing paradigm is that there is no oversight to ensure that the targets are legitimate threats and even more fundamentally how those determinations are even made as well as the obvious due process issues. Additionally, as mentioned above the problem of blow-back has increasingly become a major theme as made popular by series like 24, Homeland, and numerous other movies.

In Iron Man 3 (and really the whole series) the theoretical principles and decision making parties are present in regard to the issue of drone warfare. But in Iron Man 3 the full realization of the possibilities of drone warfare come to full fruition. Right at the beginning of the movie Tony’s former drive Happy, played by the hilariously awesome Jon Favreau (the original director of Iron Man) becomes the head of Stark Industries under new CEO Pepper Potts (Starks girlfriend played by Gwyneth Paltrow). In a conversation about security threats he states, “the human element of human resources is our greatest point of vulnerability . . . we should start phasing it out immediately.”  Ridiculously prophetic in the next instance we find that one of those genetically enhanced soldiers has breached security and is the embodiment of the end game ideal of the trans humanist, complete melding of the human and the robotic, which in the actual climax of the film is the point, with Pepper Potts being infused with the new genetic formula that creates a super human who ultimately saves Tony and by extension makes his Iron Man suit irrelevant.

 From the government perspective, having now obtained the Iron Man Technology in the form of Colonel James Rhodes’ War Machine-rebranded as “Iron Patriot”-shows the ideal vision of drone warfare and in specific targeted killing. Iron Patriot like Iron Man is an idealist, a hero, and a cool character, but the difference between himself and Tony, like most soldiers, is that obedience to the chain of command is paramount. In this case the government gets the best of both worlds in the sense that Rhodey is portrayed as a man of character, honor, and discernment.  He’s Captain America for the twenty second century and has the armor design to prove it.

One thing here that strikes me about Rhodey from the comics as well as the movie iteration is that he is the type that would disobey a direct order if it violated his conscience and in putting forth this personification, the movie is smart (or rather predictable?). The hard questions then get glossed over on the basis of the characters positive traits as with Tony Stark. Iron Patriot is in this version of the story the perfect drone weapon, one that has the moral judgments of a human mixed with the technological firepower and precision of a machine. In one scene he bursts through the door of home in Pakistan where intelligence regarding the location of the Mandarin has led him. It happens to be nothing more than a normal home where several Pakistani men are gathered. A little later he bursts through the door of a sweatshop where Pakistani women are making “cheap software.” He derides military intelligence, “Unless the Mandarin’s next attack on the U.S. involves cheaply made software, I think you messed up again.” As he’s leaving he says to the women, “You’re free. If you weren’t before, Iron Patriot on the job. You’re welcome.”  The interesting thing about this is that Pakistan is generally recognized as one of our allies in the war on terror though contradicting stories arose out of the Bin Laden raid. More importantly though, Pakistan is a hot bed of terrorist activity and U.S. Intelligence operations since 1965 and has been one of the major theaters of experiment with drone warfare. I suppose it is fitting that this is the country that the writers chose to portray (though I was thinking it would be Libya). Whatever the case, the issue of national sovereignty is glossed over and the theme of “democracy” for all is perpetuated in this brief scene.

During the climax of the film and really at almost every pivotal action sequence we come to find out that Tony Stark is not actually inside the Iron Man suit but is off-site remotely controlling the suit or suits. Some of the more hilarious sequences involve Tony experimenting with the remote controlled drone technology which again glosses over the reality of this type of technology and its implementation today.

Tony explains to Rhodey during the final fight that he can’t wear one of the many suits Tony remotely calls because “they’re only coded to me.” This particular sequence reminded me of the GPS sonar cellphone tracking technology from the movie the Dark Knight. The parallels between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are superficially striking and puzzled me over the weekend at their popularity with the masses. Anyone who knows me knows that I am the world’s biggest Superman fan. That doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate other superheroes but I just find that Batman and Iron Man are rather uninteresting contrary to popular belief. Superman has always represented the truly fantastical, the truly ideal, and the embodiment of true heroism as the first and greatest superhero, which is the point of comics. Batman and Iron Man are at best pragmatists and at worst nihilists in the final analysis. Regardless, the question that puzzled me over the weekend is why people are so attached to these two characters. Often the response is that they are “realistic” and “relatable.” I personally, am not the inheritor of billions of dollars, a weapons manufacturing corporation, or had my parents murdered in front of me. Further, I personally experience my life as meaningful, purposeful, and hopeful, not as dark, broody, or gritty. Further, the two most striking parallels about these men and the strange contradiction that their popularity is with the masses surrounds their inherited wealth, affluence, and influence. I guess people love rich white men of inherited money interests who establish and perpetuate monopolistic corporations.  It seems that today there is general shift away from that type of admiration, like for example Mitt Romney or Wall Street in general.  Let no one think me a Republican or a Democrat, as I like to not think of myself as an ideologue, but I find that parallel rather interesting given the shift in the political landscape to those who are represented as being men of the people (once again I’m not saying he is). In the comic book world Superman, while arguably a god, is definitely a man of the people, a blue collar newspaper man devoted to sticking up for the little guy and exposing corporate and criminal corruption, but that’s not “relatable,” . . . whatever. Anyway, in the Dark Knight Bruce Wayne secretly developed technology that allowed him to map the entire city through cell-phones and pinpoint the location of anyone. He used it in the climax of the film on the basis that it was necessary to find the domestic terrorist the Joker. The movie did a decent job of asking some of the hard questions, unlike, Iron Man 3 in the form of Lucius Fox’s hesitance to use such a machine. He wisely said, “that’s too much power for one man to have.” The privacy implications are astounding, and yet this is actually relatively close to the situation we now live in. Almost every cellphone has gps tracking, checking in, saved cloud data, and individual profile building propensities. The private corporations that use this information for advertising maintain fairly strict parameters of privacy for its patrons, but it is relatively easy for government officials (and perhaps private individuals) to obtain these profiles through the use of warrants, national security letters, and through outright violations. In the Dark Knight as well as Iron Man 3 these two real issues are front and center and are ultimately resolved without much if any discussion as to their legality, necessity, or morality. In both instances we’re only let into the inner workings of the richest men and corporations in the world because we’re sitting in the theater watching them decide what’s best for us. Otherwise there is no one there monitoring either of these characters and we’re ultimately supposed to trust them on the conclusory illogic that the ends justify the means. Both characters put fail-safes in their creations and ultimately destroy their weapons as we are led to believe a true hero would do. In the end then we are left with the notion that these controversial issues are not only in the hands of individuals and governments that use them benevolently and can be trusted conclusively but that they are actually necessary because of “bad guys,” even if we aren’t sure who the ultimate bad guy is. Overall, I enjoyed the movie but not as much as some of the other more recent superhero movies because of the blatant politicizing of the aforementioned issues. It was a lot of fun, a lot of explosions, cool extremis Iron Man armor, and great character representations by all involved.

Ben Kinsley’s turn as the Mandarin was priceless in its embracing of conspiracy theories of a controlled opposition. The reveal at least according to those theories is however really not all that far off. It would be fair to say that the themes running through the movie will continue to become more relevant given our current state of affairs and the conditioning affect that major movies have on the general populace.