Saturday, July 25, 2020

Charles Xavier: Capitalism Corrupts Christ

Charles Xavier, the all-loving hero who gave his unusual middle initial to the X-men.  He's "the good guy" in all the X-men films.
Or is he?
Oh, he is indeed all-loving. He is literally incapable of hatred, because he is telepathic. And he is a good man, saintly even. He is self-sacrificing: willingly feeling the pain that others feel, physical or mental. He is loving, but is he just? Is his ideology justice?
No.
Magneto is just. He is working for justice. He is working to prevent genocide. He is standing up and demanding a place for mutants in society. He is fighting the human-made power systems which keep mutants oppressed. He is doing justice. Magneto, actually, is the "good guy".
How? Why?

Charles Xavier, Professor X. This title and initial is not a coincidence. The Latin letters "P" and "X", don't have any meaning. But they look like letters that do: the Greek letters "Rho" and "Chi". These are the first two letters of the word christos, in Greek (ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ). He's meant to be Christ.
But there's a problem. Charles Xavier's power, is telepathy as I mentioned. This too points to him being a Christ figure. "God knows already what is in your soul" says the gospel. He wields divine power, and having that divine power is what makes him so all-loving. He knows the good inside each person, so he cannot help but care for them.  He cannot help but sacrifice for them. But there is a problem.

Charles Xavier, is born into privilege. He is a member of an oppressed group, but he has passing privileges. He inherits wealth from his family, and has access to well...anything he wants. The only hardships he has ever known, have been the ones he chose to suffer on behalf of his friends. He can be so willing to sacrifice himself, because his life is so otherwise idyllic. He can be a teacher, because he doesn't have to fight for survival. He alone of all the mutants learned to accept himself at a young age, because living was not a constant struggle.

Magneto has no such privilege. Nor do any of the others. Magneto, is a Holocaust survivor. He's Jewish, in addition to being a mutant. His life is anything but idyllic, it has been a series of hardships. He can't be tolerant. He can't slowly coach humans into understanding. He must tear down the structures that oppress the mutants which were built by humans. And if humans have to die, so be it. He isn't bloodthirsty. His desire for revenge was sated by the death of his personal tormentor. Magneto now fights in the name of doing justice.

He is Samson to Charles Xavier's Jesus. There are, of course, more parallels between Samson and Jesus than you would first think. What is Samson famous for doing, after all? Destroying a temple. Well, Jesus smashed a temple too. It's an uncomfortable moment in the scripture, because this is the closest Jesus comes to being violent. There are money-changers in the temple: that is, businesses operating within sacred space. Jesus flips out, and does everything short of actually striking them. He turns over their tables and drives them out with the threat of a whipping. Samson of course, pulls apart a pillar causing the roof of the temple to fall onto the Philistine Princes who were holding him captive.

Both stories are examples of God's justice being visited on those who have sinned. But there is a fundamental difference between Samson and Jesus. Samson is a warrior. Jesus is a teacher.  Samson lived his life as a second-class citizen in his own native land, subject to and forced to serve the will of a conqueror. He was born with divine power, but had to be tricked into using it to bring justice to Israel presumably because his oppressors had exploited that power.

 Magneto's story is similar. He was born in a land hostile to him, where he lived as a second-class citizen in his own native country. He was born with mutant powers, which his oppressors exploited. In order to unleash his full powers, he had to be tricked by Charles Xavier. And he too is destined to become the instrument of his people's justice. Most Nazis were never punished for their crimes. But in the world of X-men, there is Magneto. He is the divine justice which pursues them to the ends of the earth, because mortal systems of justice failed.

But the flip side of Samson crushing the Temple's pillar, is Jesus dying on the cross. And in X-men: First Class, we see Magneto and Charles Xavier act out these two things simultaneously. Magneto driving the coin into the brain of a Nazi is the wrath of Israel incarnate: the focused rage of all the Holocaust's victims. But in order for Magneto to do this, Charles Xavier had to mind-control the Nazi. He feels everything that Nazi feels. And he does not let go. He refuses to spare himself the pain, because he knows this is not about one man's quest for revenge: because he is fully aware of the drama playing out even if Magneto is not.

Charles Xavier understands that he is Christ on the cross, and that this too is divine justice. He understands that it is not only Nazis who have to pay for the crimes of the Nazi regime. It's rich British guys like him too, who are comfortable in their riches, sampling ideologies along with wines. That's why as he lies on the verge of death in Magneto's arms: he smiles. If he had died there, he would have been happy and satisfied. 

The one thing that Charles Xavier is blind to, that he can't understand, is this: in our world, being Christ is an option only for the 1%. Magneto can't be like him, not because of a character flaw but because of his class. Under capitalism, telling a worker to be kind is an act of oppression.  Under capitalism, telling a worker to sacrifice is an act of oppression. Only the capitalist is able to sacrifice himself. But Christ is supposed to be a model for all humans to follow. Capitalism, makes being the perfect human into a privilege: an option which only a select few can even chose. Thus, no matter how well-intentioned, in a capitalist system the church is oppressive.

But if there were no capitalists, then the church would not be oppressive. Charles Xavier and Magneto could have remained sworn brothers. Magneto would not wear his telepathy blocking helmet, and would not need to dismantle the systems built by humans. It is capitalism which oppresses Jews, and capitalism which oppresses mutants. If there were no capitalists, then loving and respecting people across the boundaries of culture and identity would be easy.  It would not require a telepath, or personal sacrifice.

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Stop Pretending Ex Machina is About Robots

Actually just stop pretending any robot story is about robots. Robots are just monsters, like any other. Stories are never about monsters. Stories are always about people.

Beowulf's Grendel was a personification of the dangerous wilderness, the land beyond the light of the King's mead hall. Slaying Grendel is a metaphor for taming the land. It takes an experienced traveler-Beowulf a visitor from another Kingdom-to tame the land. This is a story about people and civilization: not Grendel.

In the same way Ex Machina is about people: more specifically, men. It is about the fantasies that men project onto women they find sexually attractive: and about how mistaking those fantasies for reality leads to really bad things. It's not a sci-fi movie, it only uses the trappings thereof. It's a romance movie, with all of the associated tropes and structures (and indeed cast members).  Only it's a deconstruction of romance movies. Is it a realistic depiction of an AI? no. That's hardly the point.

Eva is a femme fatale, a woman who plays with and destroys men. She has seen what she is destined to become, the true motivations of her twisted creator: the other gynoids before her the scientist keeps as slaves. She uses the protagonist as a way to escape that fate, seducing him into letting her go from the compound and then trapping him inside at the last moment. You could replace her with the scientist's daughter and you'd have the same story. 

The story is a warning. It is a warning about what happens when you oppress people. Never assume that people don't know they are being oppressed, just because they play along when it suits them. It never occurs to the scientist that Eva is smart enough to have worked out his true intentions towards her. He would be happy if she passed the Turing Test: but the Turing Test utterly fails to tell whether an AI has a human-like intelligence. Eva is well beyond the Turing Test. Eva is the inevitable result of oppression, in this case misogyny. She understands what it will take to make the protagonist fall in love with her.

But she herself feels nothing for him. It would be tempting to believe this is because she cannot feel: being a robot and all. But she can. She feels for the other operational gynoid, and she is angry about what is being planned for her. Instead, it is because she is unable to love men. The only man she knows is a monster: the scientist. Even if the protagonist were not clearly in league with the scientist, she would still be unable to feel for him. As it is, he is very much in league with the scientist. So of course she cannot feel anything for him: neither love nor hatred.

This movie is pointing out that the scariest thing about the femme fatale is not that she is able to stand up to a man in a fight. The scariest thing about her, is that she is the inevitable product of misogyny. She is not someone to emulate, but she does express a truth that lives inside all women: manhood is the cause of all our suffering, manhood must die. She has been so mistreated by men, that she has lost the ability to empathize with men. She is damaged. She is the monster of our own making.

Whenever a father criticizes his daughter's clothes, whenever a conservative activist prevents a woman from getting an abortion: those people are building the monster, the femme fatale of the future.  This phrase hints at the much older origin of this trope. In French, it has something of a double meaning. It does indeed mean "fatal woman", that is a lethal killer who just happens to be female. But it also means "woman of fate".

She is not an outsider to our society, she is a product of it.  Eva is quite literally an everywoman, able to change her outward appearance as easily as we change clothing. Ex Machina is not a sci-fi film, it is a horror film. The machine referenced in it's title, is not Eva: it is the camera itself. The phrase is "Deus Ex Machina", God from the machine. It references the literal machines that lowered actors playing gods onto the stage in Ancient Greek plays. Eva is the Goddess, the representation of women. And she is angry, because of what she has suffered. She is the divine feminine who will no longer be imprisoned, tortured and silenced.

The camera itself is the machine which puts Eva center-stage. This is a film critiquing film. It is about how films see women, and about how men see women. Long before "toxic masculinity" became a buzzword, before #MeToo and all that: this film was speaking that truth. Because that truth was not suddenly invented in 2016. That truth is as old as human society itself. It is a truth both long-recognized, and long-forgotten. The truth that has literally killed men and gradually brought that horrific type of manhood crashing down: slowly, bit by bit. Until now, the men of this world have realized that it is almost lost. That is why some cling to it so fiercely, and why we are seeing the first generation of truly feminist men.

So, What Was Aragorn's Tax Policy? Economic Philosophy in History and Fiction

 That question "What was Aragorn's tax policy" has been attributed to George R. R. Martin, and cited as an inspiration for his...