I have a pretty serious confession to make. I don’t like Superman. Before you destroy me in the comments, I know
this is an unpopular opinion, but the Man of Steel has just never resonated with me. The problem for me has always been that he
is too strong. I mean, one of his primary powers is invulnerability. Talk about a tension killer. The conflict is never if Superman will save
the day, only how. This apparent infallibility extends to his
personality as well. He is a character utterly without flaws. The biggest strike against him is that he’s
too compassionate, and this can sometimes land him in trouble. That’s the answer you give when you’re
asked in a job interview what your biggest weakness is. It’s not really a weakness. This relentlessly upright persona and general
do-goodery make Superman feel distant. His character is, pardon the pun, completely
alien to my own experience. And, if I’m being honest, it’s not all
that interesting.

To me, Superman is boring. I prefer my heroes to be messier. Characters like Batman, Wolverine, and Deadpool
feel so much more human. They’re flawed, they make mistakes, and sometimes
they do bad things for the wrong reasons. And I’m sure I’m not the only one that
feels this way. Over the last two decades, antiheroes have
become increasingly popular. In fact, the top three highest-grossing R-rated
films of all time are 2019’s Joker, followed by both Deadpool movies. But why is this? Why have so many of us turned our backs on
characters like Superman and Captain America? To understand that, we first need to figure
out what exactly an antihero is. Unfortunately, as it turns out, this is easier
said than done. We all know an antihero when we see one. They’re dark, gritty, usually a bit reckless,
and make questionable life decisions. However, the term itself is difficult to define.

Antiheroes as we know them today are a relatively new concept, and the parameters are fuzzy at best. At its most basic level, the antihero is a subversion of the hero trope. They are whatever a hero is not. In a technical sense, this means giving them characteristics normally reserved for an antagonist. They might drink and curse, have an abrasive personality, or rail against authority. The problem with this description, though, is that its negatively defined meaning is rooted solely in its opposition to something else. This doesn’t tell us what an antihero is, merely what it is not. This is further complicated by the fact that what characteristics constitute a “hero” vary over time and between cultures. Heroes in the truest sense are meant to represent the ideals of a society. They stand as living personifications of the values that citizens should strive to emulate. However, these ideals and values naturally evolve alongside the beliefs and needs of

the population. This applies to antiheroes as well. Traits seen as un-, or anti-, heroic change
based on the cultural context. In 1962, Canadian missionary Don Richardson
traveled to Western New Guinea in Indonesia to try and convert members of the indigenous
Sawi tribe to Christianity. He encountered some trouble though when his
potential congregation identified Judas Iscariot, not Jesus Christ, as the hero of the story. It turned out that the Sawi people placed
a higher value on trickery and deception than sacrifice. They saw Jesus as little more than an unwitting
sucker who had been duped by the true hero of the narrative. A better way then of defining heroes and antiheroes
might be by judging them based on their moral consistency. Heroes by their nature are morally consistent. They have a strict set of dedicated principles
they follow that guide their actions. Antiheroes, on the other hand, are morally ambiguous. They operate in gray areas and are more fluid
in their decision-making.

This ambiguity can manifest either in the antihero’s own personal ethics or in the way that they are perceived by society. Not every antihero needs to be an edgy, homicidal maniac cracking one-liners as they shish kabobs bad guys with katanas. In fact, the classic antihero archetype looks a lot less like Deadpool and more like your friendly neighborhood Spider-man. I know what you’re thinking: “Spider-man’s not an antihero.” But even by the traditional definition, he kind of is. When Peter Parker is first bitten by a radioactive spider and gifted with superhuman abilities, he doesn’t want to become the savior of New York. He’s insecure, anxious, and wavers in his convictions, even allowing a criminal to escape as an act of revenge against a boxing organizer who cheated him out of his winnings. Over the course of his career, Peter quits multiple times, always questioning whether or not he’s capable of overcoming the challenges given to him and living up to his responsibilities.

None of these are qualities that we normally
associate with heroes. Peter is inconsistent, and our perception
of him doesn’t align with the image that we have built up in our heads. On the other end of the spectrum, there are
anti-heroes like Wade Winston Wilson’s alter-ego Deadpool, who we normally associate more with
the term. These are heroes who do the right thing for
the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason. Deadpool is firmly in this camp. Particularly in the comics, he is a mercenary
first concerned solely with how any given situation benefits him. Even in the films, his story begins as a revenge
trip. Yes, his objective is to take down a cartel
of human-traffickers manufacturing and selling mutants into slavery, but he’s doing this
only as retribution for his own disfigurement. His motivation isn’t to break up the smuggling
ring or free the captives, he just wants to

fix his face. To say that Deadpool’s morals are loose
is generous. He is entirely self-interested, recklessly
individualistic, and more than a little murder-happy. If he ends up saving the day, it’s typically
just an unintended byproduct of his actual goals. The key takeaway from this is that antiheroes
are hard to pin down when it comes to assigning moral judgments, either because their own
ethical code is so nebulous, or because we as a society have difficulty reconciling their
personal traits with our own expectations of what a hero should be. So why do we like these characters so much? Why are we attracted to moral ambiguity? Perhaps it’s because we find it reflective
of our own experiences. Very few of us live in a world of simple black-and-white
morality. We recognize that life is more complex than
good versus evil or right versus wrong, hero versus villain. People are complicated. Our decisions are nuanced and subject to interpretation.

No one is purely a villain or even a hero,
for that matter. And yet, our culture is dominated by institutions
built on the foundation of moral absolutism. This philosophy maintains that human action
is inherently right or wrong, regardless of intention or consequence. The justification for this is a belief in
an all-encompassing and objective morality. Every individual’s behavior is judged according
to this standard and determined to be moral based on how closely they conform. Political and religious institutions are the
clearest example of this. They create extensive sets of laws and regulations
by appealing to the authority of a higher power, whether that power is a divine being
or a constitution. The benefit is that this creates consistent
standards, which can be broadly and reliably applied to any situation. This helps maintain societal order while safeguarding
institutional power. However, when these laws are violated, it
necessitates punishment, regardless of individual circumstances. Take, for example, a man who steals medicine
in order to care for his sick child.

Although his motivation is pure, and the act itself noble, theft is still illegal. If he’s caught, he faces imprisonment, if not worse, depending on who’s in charge. While creating a reliable and predictable framework by which behaviors can be evaluated, the problem with moral absolutism is that it’s inflexible and doesn’t allow for subjective interpretation. Instead, it promotes the idea that there is an objective morality by which every act can be judged. In becoming symbols of societal ideals, traditional heroes serve as the physical embodiment of these absolutist systems. More than that, they act as enforcers, ready to use violence in order to combat perceived evils and protect the established moral order. This is why I don’t like Superman. Ironically enough, the Man of Tomorrow is a champion of the status quo. He, Captain America, and others like them defend social and political structures as they already exist, regardless of their flaws. To his credit, I don’t think Superman would punish someone for stealing medicine for their

sick child, but he definitely will protect
the systems that originally put that person in that position. By intention, moral absolutism creates a societal
binary. There are those who conform and those who
do not. Antiheroes are part of this second group. Their innate moral ambiguity naturally places
them in opposition to mainstream culture, landing them in the realm of “the outsider”. These individuals find themselves shunned
or even outcast due to character flaws or other traits seen as deviant. It’s not surprising then that most antiheroes
come from marginalized backgrounds. Deadpool is widely considered to be pansexual. Wolverine suffers from PTSD and alcoholism. Spider-man comes from a poor family and was
a nerd before being a nerd was cool. These characteristics place the antihero in
direct conflict with normative culture, forcing them to make a choice: either conform or face
the consequences. Because of this, antiheroes often find themselves
battling for the right simply to exist as

they are. This, in turn, leads them to seek wider societal
change. Whereas regular heroes are inherently change-resistant,
willing to violently uphold moral norms and standards, antiheroes, by their very existence,
demand change. They function as living rebuttals to the predominant
philosophy created by institutional authorities. This is a convention that actually began not
with superheroes, but with cowboys. In the 1960s and ‘70s, a new type of Western
called the “post-Western” began capturing the attention of global audiences. These movies featured morally ambiguous protagonists
who were largely distrustful of existing institutions and set out to buck the system. This stood in stark contrast to classic Westerns,
which featured simple moral narratives where a handsome, white-hatted stranger wandered
into town to defeat the black-hatted outlaw and win the affection of the local school
teacher. Post-Westerns turned conventions like these
on their head, challenging the traditional values put forth by earlier films.

This was reflective of a larger cultural shift happening in America and Europe. The rise of the counterculture movement, along with the chaos of the Vietnam War and other global crises, were contributing to a mass feeling of uncertainty, and many people began to question whether or not the ideals of previous generations were still valid. Post-Westerns captured these sentiments and served as a form of social criticism. By featuring flawed, conflicted characters struggling to find their place in the world, they presented a more realistic depiction of the lives of everyday people. If all of this is sounding a bit familiar, well, it’s because we’re in a very similar place right now. Distrust in our political and social institutions is at an all-time high. Very few of us have any confidence that our leaders are capable of solving complex problems like economic instability, food scarcity, or climate change. This has produced a collective sense of doubt and unease that has increasingly been reflected

in our heroes. Or should I say our antiheroes? Films like Deadpool, Logan, and Joker functionally
serve the same role as the post-Westerns, challenging the beliefs championed by earlier generations
of heroes. The superhero stories of the ‘80s and ‘90s
largely represented a return to classic Western tropes, including black-and-white systems of
morality. This came at a time when the West was running
on the high of economic prosperity and the end of the Cold War. Figures like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher
advocated for a revival of traditional values, which in turn gave rise to a new form of absolutist
morality. It's no coincidence that Reagan, himself a
retired actor with a few Westerns under his belt, frequently wore a cowboy hat. But it’s easy to claim that your moral worldview
is the right one when everything is going well. Flash forward a few decades and you have 9/11,
the War on Terror, the 2008 Great Recession.

and COVID-19. Crisis after crisis has challenged the fundamental
ideals that shape our culture and revealed monumental cracks in the structures meant
to guide our lives. The popularity of antiheroes represents a
shift in our collective thinking. We like them because they offer us an alternative
to the ethical ideals advocated by the institutions that have failed us. We identify with the struggles of antiheroes
because we too reject contemporary values and want to see them replaced with something
better. However, this begs the question: what comes
next? The Age of the Antihero will one day end,
probably sooner than later, and it’s hard to know what will replace it. Will we once again return to an era of strict
absolutist morality, or will we be able to invent something better, something more nuanced
and capable of dealing with life’s ambiguities? Whatever it is, let’s just hope it comes
with a few less Supermen. We love anti-heroes because they tell us that
we too can be heroes even with our flaws.

That we can achieve great things, reach our goals, and change our life and the lives of those we love. One of the best ways to achieve these great things is by leveling up your skills through the sponsor of today’s video, Brilliant dot org. Brilliant is one of the best places online to learn anything and everything stem-related interactively. I’ve personally been using Brilliant for years and I love it so much because it helps me get better every single day. Whether I’m on my daily commute or just have 15 minutes of free time to spare, I can take my phone out and do a quick lesson that would have tremendous more benefits than just scrolling through social media mindlessly. Thanks to the thousands of lessons they currently offer, with new ones added every single month, Brilliant has allowed me to explore and learn a wide range of fascinating topics from mathematics to computer science, and beyond. Right now, I’m taking a course on Introduction to Probability which has completely changed

how I view odds and chance. If you’ve ever wondered why things happen
when they do, and how the laws of probability work, this course is perfect for you. If you’re interested in learning more, I
highly recommend you check them out. It’s free to start, but the first 200 people
to visit brilliant.org/aperture will get 20% off a premium subscription, which unlocks
every single course Brilliant has to offer. You’ll not only be furthering yourself and
your knowledge, but you’ll be supporting Aperture at the same time.

The Psychology Of The Anti-Hero

Bringing the universe down to Earth.
A show by Underknown. 
