Becoming a "Law Abiding" Citizen...or not so? Analysis of Good vs Evil - The Binaries

The analysis of the moral binaries is a discourse that has served as theme for discussions among monarchs, social scientists, philosophers, theocrats, technocrats and nearly every human being on earth since the inception of reasoning.

 What are these binaries? Well, if we look at the concept of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, we could surely state that both have a modern theocratic origin, considering “Good” as God and “Evil” as Lucifer. However, this would be a restricted approximation to the real analytical definition of these binaries.

Scientific Laws of physics and mathematics tell us “What is” in relation to a particular element or group of elements without letting room to free interpretations. On the other hand, we have the Moral Laws –where binaries belong to- that tell us “what ought to be” in order to achieve the standard ‘Right Human Behavior’.

Nietzsche, Foucault and Derrida. These three European thinkers did touch in certain ways the concepts surrounding these binaries and through their own philosophical approach they defined the various parameters that will be analysed in this article.

 One of the key questions that we should ask ourselves is “How have we allowed these binaries to invade our minds and psyche?”

According to Nietzsche, various factors have influenced that process. Firstly, it is important to note that Nietzsche felt extreme repulsion and disdain for the mundane and “normal” and therefore the immediate following questions are “how are we to live?” “how are we to endure life?”. Life is a ‘chaotic dynamic process’ that gives us scope to question the sense and value of each element we assume as “normal”. But “why do we need values?” and most importantly “what is the value of values? And the right perspective of values?”. The answer is “Perspectivism” which is formed by distorted truths in a socio-hermeneutical society. Life is nothing but a subjective ‘truth’ where the binaries are the “perspectival” fiction. They depend on personal traits, strengths, weaknesses, abilities and characteristics that direct our thoughts towards a perspective side. “Good and Evil”, “Right and Wrong” are nothing but an expression of social exploitation within literature while portraying a form of debt – Good and Right- and the mode of repayment for the debt –Evil and Wrong.

 On the other hand, Foucault could state that the process has occurred due to social processes through which ideas and actions come to be seen as “normal” and become “natural”. This has driven the binaries towards an ideal norm of conduct –disciplinary power- that is an average standard created by human sciences against which humans are measured. If the individual chooses to go against such principles he/she will be considered deviant and therefore abnormal, or in this case, evil or wrong according to the context.

Lastly, Derrida would explain how the current literary adaption of terms has shifted our perceptual approach towards dominance. Therefore, we will always write ‘Good and Evil’ and never vice versa because we identify that “Good” is positive, normal, standard and therefore superior and as we do not want to promote deviance, we establish the selfish and subjective literary order we consider adequate. Similarly, along with Nietzsche’s thoughts, Derrida describes how literary expressions are fixed and rigid when most of ideas and ‘truths’ are dynamic, fluid and lacking expression. This fact created a tremendous limitation for our circumstantial comprehension.

 As mentioned earlier, values play a fundamental role in human understanding. “No values = no life”, and therefore the American movie industry or ‘Hollywood’ has ensured that “right” values are being displayed while screening how “Good” will always win over “Evil” because “normal” humans do the “right” action according to a “civilized society”. For example, the iconic superhero movie/comic firms, Marvel and DC, have perpetuated the colossal timeless conflict between protagonist and antagonist or accurately stated, “Hero” and “Villain”. However, this approach is clearly “anti-Nietzsche” who actively questioned if such opposites exist at all (Beyond Good and Evil- On the Prejudices of Philosophers).

If we wish to select a movie character, in this case a villain, I believe the most accurate example is the legendary Batman series’ villain, the Joker. Considering one of this character’s dialogue with the hero (Batman) in the ‘The Dark Knight’ (Christopher Nolan, 2008), I have selected the following dialogue which has been conveniently reduced for analytical reasons:

 Dialogue’s background: Batman approaches Joker face to face in the Gotham City Police Department interrogation room in an attempt to find where he’s keeping Harvey Dent, and we learn what Joker really thinks about the world we live in.

The dialogue has been divided in two parts belonging to the same interrogation scene avoiding unnecessary details not related to the analysis:

PART 1

 -BATMAN: You wanted me. Here I am.

 -JOKER: I wanted to see what you'd do...and you didn't disappoint. You let 5 people die. Then you let Dent take your place. Even to a guy like me, that's cold.

 PART 2

 -BATMAN: You're garbage who kills for money.

 -JOKER: Don't talk like one of them, you're not. Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're a freak. Like me. They just need you right now.

But as soon as they don't they'll cast you out. Like a leper.

Their morals, their code; it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. You'll see- I'll show you. When the chips are down these, uh, civilised people? They'll eat each other. See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve.

All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’s the Joker, a superhero movie “villain” whose catastrophic fall into a pot of chemicals damages his face and turns him into a psychopath... right? I don’t think so. If we observe the movie character and plot, the Joker simply wants to get rid of the criminal organisations in Gotham City by making them go into bankruptcy; get rid of the corrupted police and government officials as well as corrupted bank senior managers. He elaborates a master plan to achieve the same in which there is only one minor problem: A self-proclaimed night vigilante who dresses like a bat in a carbon fiber and special armor suit who takes justice on his own believe it’s the “right” thing to do. Why is he considered as the villain then? Well, the Joker is a deviant character who does not play within the “common” social norms and not even the standard law. The character is, in my opinion, Nietzsche’s contemporary representation. Both Nietzsche and the Joker are being or have been misunderstood by society and therefore take actions according to other’s approach. Similarly, they both despise the “normal” or “mundane” while embracing their uniqueness, as the Joker said “You laugh at me ‘cause I’m different. I laugh at you ‘cause you’re all the same”. They reflect disdain for what most people cherish. “Perspectivism” is the ideal term to define the iconic relation between the philosopher and the “villain” as everything varies according to the side you select to guide your path.

I believe that both of them are Noble in their very own way. A self- respect that commoners lack softly enlightened by vanity and without abiding to social standards established by the “master” on the “slaves” that truly brings about the binaries and social differences.

The exceptional is always marginalised by the majority ruling.

 “How can I reverse my psyche’s perception about the binaries in order to take an objective stand?”

 An interesting question indeed. How to reverse a socially-approved automatic process than affects our universal perception?... Well, firstly we need to begin by updating our ‘mental layout’. Because I indicated that the Joker is officially the villain, your perception as a reader, despite of you knowing about the character prior or not, will be negative associating him with words such as criminal, delinquent, punishment, penalty, penitentiary, abnormal, deviant, … This is precisely what Jacques Derrida identified with his critics on literature and how “deconstructionism” needs to be brought about in order to create literary accuracy in terms and perception. The term “villain” denotes certain features the character is bond to have and so does “hero” but we often forget to consider a vital ‘ghostly’ element called background. We assume it’s unimportant because nothing will justify someone becoming a villain and joining the abstract “Evil” side of life.

In relation to the conversation above, in Part 1, Batman claims the Joker wanted to see him without being factual and while keeping him arrested at the GCPD, against his will, because he is the “villain”, therefore he is entitled to nothing. Similarly, in Part 2, Batman addresses him as “garbage” while he explains factual realities about Batman’s relation with the Police. As Batman is the “hero” any kind of conversational liners will be allowed, despite of how derogatory they may be.

Hence, we need to get rid of subjective associations to terms and their consideration in the text.

Considering Foucault’s analysis, the Joker wants to prove a point that everyone can be pushed out of the ideal norm of conduct and that he is not abnormal or a “monster” but simply advanced in knowledge, able to predict what the GCPD will do with Batman when he is not needed anymore and most importantly, how Batman’s disciplinary power can be trespassed when personal interests are brought up. This shows the thin line between being considered “normal” and “abnormal” according to social standards. This social discipline is simply a tool for maximum social control with minimum expenditure classifying individuals into sectors and associating terms to negative fearful features. Similarly, social sciences such as psychology, sociology or criminology define what norms and behaviors are “normal” or “right” and which “abnormal”, which is highly problematic as we are setting a benchmark for everyone to reach and tag themselves as “normal”.

If we bring Nietzsche’s analysis of nobility, first, we need to consider the “will to power” that drives Batman and Joker to prove their own perspective but also every human being that wishes to achieve a global understanding of their approach by obtaining power. This is related to the Master’s moral and Slave’s moral where the master is “evil” for the slaves because makes them suffer while they are “good” and the slaves are “evil” for the master because they have an undesired life while they are “good”. This turns around the previously mentioned concept of “perspectivism”.

“How could we see the villain- in this case the Joker- as the actual hero?”

 The higher spirits which are deviant create masks to conceal their suffering. This explains, in a subtle mode, why we should understand the character’s background before proceeding to make any subjective judgement. In the conversation above we observe how                      the Joker expresses his thoughts about life in relation to his past experiences making a clear statement that they are not poles apart after all. “…you're a freak. Like me. They just need you right now.”

“…They're only as good as the world allows them to be. You'll see- I'll show you. When the chips are down these, uh, civilized people? They'll eat each other. See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve.”

 This brings us back to Nietzsche in order to understand the concept of “origin”. Selfless actions originate from self-interest? Truth from error? Comprehending an individual’s behaviour requires the consideration that the individual may have derived his approach from “guilt” and society punished him in order to pay his ‘social debt’. On the other hand, the social master may have mistreated or abandoned him transforming the individual into a master of himself. Joker’s inception is of abandonment and loss, hence, both the characters share a common feeling and purpose, focused in a different approach.

Similarly, we need to consider if, according to Foucault, we shall approve of the ones conforming for being rewarded and therefore the “heroes” or the ones deviating for being punished and therefore the “villains”. In my opinion, Batman and Joker are both “the Hero and the Villain” or shall I say “the Villain and the Hero?”- following Derrida’s approach. Similarly, the Joker explains how the binaries between “Good” (normal) and “Evil” (abnormal) in an individual –in this case, any police officer- can softly shift according to social expectations and allowance in relation to a set of ideal standards.

 “How we will deconstruct these binaries to see the value of expressions?”

This becomes a tricky affair if we look at it analytically. According to Foucault, to be able to deconstruct these binaries, we shall first get rid of social standard and the above mentioned ideal norm of conduct that elaborates on “normal” (right) and “abnormal” (deviant = wrong). Secondly, we shall modify the institutional system of society that classifies individuals according to their “levels of deviance” – prisons. From the architecture to the disciplinary and instructional techniques, the “deviant” ends up accepting its ‘curse’. Thirdly, the term “prisoner” should be substituted by “delinquent” which gives a psychological understanding of ‘small group willing to reintegrate in society’.

Social sciences shall also revise their approach to education and not “indoctrination”. Informing about the various ways to carry on with your life is not the same that assuming those ways are universally true and correct.

Considering Derrida, we shall first modify the meaning of “Good” and “Right” in order to fully comprehend “Evil” and “Wrong”. Another possible option would be the creation of a ‘grey’ term that lies in between those terms with a standard approach to both.

On the other hand, Nietzsche’s Genealogy clearly states how the noble man and its vanity originated “guilt and punishment” and therefore the further binaries. To modify those, we shall rethink the initial understanding of terms put forward by Kant such as “duty” in order to understand “will” and therefore “Good and Evil”.

 In my opinion, the Joker is Nietzsche’s “new philosopher” searching for “dangerous perhapses” and that is, according to social standards, “wrong”. But, isn’t it what we all do? Hence, are we all “Evil” or “Villains”?

References: 

1-    Beyond Good and Evil, (pg. 5-25; 151-178) Nietzsche, Cambridge University, 2002

 2- Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1974-1975, Foucault, 2002

 3-   Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, Derrida; Caputo, 1994

 4-   The Dark Knight: Interrogation Scene, www.genius.com, Warner Bros, 2008