So, Sunday night, I decided to watch the X-Men trilogy, all in a row. I had never done so, and I had not even seen the first and second X-Men movies in a long while. However, I am glad I watched them, and this time, from a different perspective. I decided to watch the X-Men trilogy while simultaneously noting the ambiguous nature of Professor X’s good intentions, and I was not disappointed.
To imagine a hero (supposedly) like Professor Charles Xavier, for me at least, was to examine the ideal state; a government that is all seeing, but not necessarily everywhere. Picking up Jeremy Bentham’s notion of the Panopticon, Michel Foucault in several of his essays and works used the Panopticon as a metaphor for Western society. There are numerous actors, perhaps the mall cop, who is not a real police officer most of the time, but just the idea that a Paul Blarth can escort you out of a shopping center or even randomly shout expletives at one of your friends for no reason (long story on that one) controls human behavior. Just the thought that someone is watching you, keeping up with your work or blog or the clothes that you wear, ultimately regulates what you believe and how you behave.
If you will allow me, I shall say a few word on this topic concerning Professor X (from the movie and comic book). Professor X tries to get the X-Men, these group of mutants to become more civil. He in effect colonizes their minds, so that they can “control” their powers while playing nice with the homo sapiens. Of the most colonized, Storm and Beast seem to be the most loyal of Professor X’s disciples. The message is clear: the more closely you behave civilly, the more favor you have with good old Professor X who is just trying to save the world. X’s powers also give us a dilemma: he could use his ability to read people’s minds for evil, since he can control them. It is suggested in the first two movies and most of the comic book series that Professor X is good, that he is doing what is right, and he should be commended for his good intentions.
However, flipping this panoptical vision of an omniscient, but very very nice ruler on its head, I would hesitate to call Professor X a hero. There is a specific reason why Wolverine remained the most popular X-man even while I was growing up. Wolverine, along with Magneto (the so called “villain”), was one of the few persons resisting Professor Xavier’s attempts to get the mutants to become civilized. Professor X, for the most part, poses as a deity with a good cause, but he still uses his power in morally questionable circumstances. Professor X, in essence, represents the worst kind of imperialist, a person who takes away our God-given free will in the name of democracy and civility. Civility is a code word for political correctness, to suppress rebellions. All calls to civility are ultimately calls to conformity; conforming to her or his idea of being politically correct. Magneto represents a uniquely religious individual, who sees faith as something part and parcel to a revolution; though it is a violent revolution, Magneto, like Malcolm X or Nathaniel Turner, has little choice, given the options he had. It is not like Magneto controls the minds of others to regulate their behavior. Magneto and Wolverine are members of the sub-altern, resisting colonization of all fronts, even from their mutual friend Professor X.
So while many see the Trilogy ending in an awkwardly apocalyptic fashion, I see the X-Men trilogy as series of events, where Charles Xavier suffers the consequences of his actions. He perishes in the house of one of his students, after, failing to suppress the “wild” side of Jean Grey, that part of her from which the Phoenix comes from. Just as Professor X had to come to his destruction, so too, should all persons and structures who wish to make themselves a Panopticon be aware of the consequences of their actions.
Nightcrawler, in X2: X-Men United, in a conversation with Storm, tells her that she does not need to be angry to survive, for that is why we have faith. I wish to suggest something else; that faith and anger are not mutually exclusive; it is the person who stays angry who struggles in their life of faith. For anger and faith are necessary instruments in the pursuit of justice: the demolition of the Panopticon.
Truth and Peace,
Rod
rod,
very interesting reading of the X-men trilogy. i’m not sure i agree with everything about professor x, but you have definitely put your finger on the pulse of the differences between xavier and magneto. true fans know that magneto is a not a classic villain – he’s more of an anti-villain, playing the proverbial role of the “bad guy” yet somewhat justified and even noble in his endeavors. he will not be a victim of holocaust, never again!
i’ve got to point this out. you said, “Nightcrawler, in X2: X-Men United, in a conversation with Storm, tells her that she does not need to be angry to survive, for that is why we have faith.” that’s not exactly what went down. nightcrawler asks how one so beautiful could be so angry. storm says “sometimes anger can help you survive,” to which nightcrawler replies, “so can faith.” in your reading of that conversation, it seems like nightcrawler was making faith and anger mutually exclusive. in my reading he brought up “faith” because it transcends survival; that is, there is more to life than just surviving!
yeah lots of fans don’t like x-3, but i don’t think they appreciate the dynamics between xavier and wolverine. i especially like it when they’re arguing about jean, and xavier says something about logan not knowing what she’s capable of. logan replies that really he didn’t know what xavier was capable of!!! bang! great stuff. but in the end . . . xavier was still right. he had to choose the lesser of two evils – put mental restraints on jean or let the phoenix take over and risk destruction of innocents.
in my mind xavier is still a hero, but magneto is hardly a villain. after xavier died, and pyro says something like “i would have killed the professor if you asked,” magneto stops him immediately: “charles xavier did more for mutantkind than you could possibly imagine” (or something like that).
i disagree, but i still find your post interesting and creative. so i guess i disagree with respect!
I can tell this post made you think.
Prof X is not a hero. sorry.
blessed are the peacemakers, you know, the ones like charles xavier
It was a false peace, based on his abusing his power over others.
Rod,
What is your interpretation of passages in the Bible that speak to God “hardening of hearts” or Jesus’ stating that Judas was “doomed to destruction?” Are these comparable to Prof X’s use of mind control to accomplish civility? Do you think God intervenes in human free will to accomplish certain goals?
Moreover, I’m curious as to how you distinguish/reconcile the conformity you speak of here with the conformity Christians are to have with the image of God? Is conformity really such a bad thing? I believe we’re all conforming to the object/subject of our worship.
I find your analysis of Prof X intriguing but think that depending on your theology, the characteristics you attribute to him could be paralleled with God. I’m not sure what to make of that. Good stuff though, very stimulating as always.
Brandon,
God does harden hearts, let us say, like the example of Pharaoh, but only as a secondary cause, if you want to use the language of causation. God’s miracles, his good works in Egypt hardened Pharaoh’s heart because Pharaoh was worshipping false gods to begin with. As for Judas, Jesus is God, and so he is all-knowing; only God should be all knowing. I have no problem with that.
The issue with Professor X is that he is presented (with the exception of one series of XMen comics) as a hero, but he uses his power to control others. It is a frightening thing that we are to see him as a hero; for me, he represents the all seeing state, although he is not omnipresent, humans and mutants behave as if he is there, always aware of what he is capable of doing. In the Bible, no where does God control someone’s brain directly to force them to do his bidding. That would not be love at all. So, I would even question what role love would play in a society where Professor X actually existed.
There is a big big difference between conforming to God’s image and social conformity. I think I am just talking about social conformity, the Xmen being conformed to Professor X’s image. He wants them to behave the same, civil, good, and controlled like himself. Its a disregard for individuality, and if we extend this to the idea of a state, its quite frightening. My idea is that our “superheroes” represent what we would like our government to be like; I want nothing to do with a government like Prof X. And for Christians, the conformity to the image of God is caused by Christ Crucified and the Holy Spirit.
The problem I have with Charles Xavier is that he, and a state made in his image is that they set themselves up as god. It is not God that is the problem, but persons and nation-states that try to put themselves on God’s throne. Thats the issue.
yeah with pharaoh it’s a bit ambiguous. did God harden his heart directly, or did he harden his heart through the plagues and such? rereading exodus i think it was the latter. God performed the plagues, pharaoh hardened his own heart (that appears in the text more than God hardening his heart), and so God indirectly hardened pharaoh’s heart. like i said, it clearly says pharaoh hardened his own heart, so i tend to take God’s part as through the plagues.
Yup, agreed.
Rod,
The statement you made about Prof X having the effect of being omnipresent without actually being omnipresent is very helpful in seeing how characters like him “set themselves up as god.” I can follow that distinction between God and the state/hero.
I also agree there is a difference between conforming to God’s image and conforming to the state or society but what do those differences look like? As Christians, I know we are individual members of the same body, Christ’s body, which brings into tension the notions of individuality and conformity. In my experience, I do not think I have seen the balance between individuality and conformity performed well in the Church. It seems that the dominant/majority group (racial, cultural, theological, class, gender) in a congregation usually demands the conformity of minority groups, though it is not always explicit. Maybe you could shed some light on where you have seen balanced performances.
I have not seen balance either, it is either one way or the other in most churches.