By Justin F. Martin
Abstract
Scholarship on superhero comics and other superhero media consistently highlights the important role of justice considerations in the acts and motivations of superheroes. However, these analyses are usually not informed by developmental psychology, specifically as it is practiced within the constructivist tradition. To address this gap, the present paper argues for the potential of a constructivist approach to sociomoral development, Social Cognitive Domain Theory (SCDT), to illuminate some of the genre’s appeal through analyzing its portrayal of justice considerations. The paper argues that a SCDT informed analysis of superhero comics’ portrayal of retributive, procedural, and distributive justice provides opportunities to explore intersections between features of superhero comics as a medium and features of psychological processes suggested to be involved in navigating complex social situations. The essay highlights events from three superhero comics: Seventh Circle (2016, Daredevil; retributive), Trial of Jean Grey (2014, Jean Grey; procedural), and Peace on Earth (1999, Superman; distributive).
Keywords: superheroes, comics, justice, fairness, development, morality, constructivism
Introduction
Within the past two decades, scholars across multiple disciplines have examined the justice-based perspectives and exploits of superheroes. Collectively, these analyses suggest the importance of superhero narratives for understanding both differing notions of justice amongst superheroes in the fictional world (cf. Bainbridge; Bainbridge; Cates; Reyns and Henson; Weston) and people’s perspectives on and/or desires for justice in the real world (Bosch; Curtis; Curtis; Kort-Butler; Phillips; Phillips and Strobl; Sharp). Further, they imply that although justice considerations are often central to superhero narratives, they tend to interact with other social concepts; some moral (e.g., harm, rights/civil liberties) and others nonmoral (e.g., authority, law, and concepts of persons).
However, scholarship related to the role of justice in superhero narratives from a developmental perspective–specifically from a constructivist approach–appears to be scant. Focusing on the role of social interaction in sociomoral development, these scholars generally contend that as people participate in varied social interactions (e.g., as in relationships with parents, peers, and institutions), they actively try to understand the features of those interactions through distinct concepts bearing on how they treat and are treated by others. Examples include concepts related to authority, civil liberties, harm/welfare, human rights, justice/fairness, law, prerogative rights, respect, and rules (cf. Damon; Kohlberg; Piaget; Turiel). They propose that these conceptual understandings begin in childhood and tend to become more abstract, elaborated, and multifaceted with age.
Moreover, Social Cognitive Domain Theory (SCDT; cf. Smetana, Jambon, and Ball; Turiel; Turiel, Killen, and Helwig) argues for the qualitative distinction between nonmoral and moral acts while highlighting the ubiquity of their frequent co-occurrence in social events. Research indicates that common criteria people tend to use to distinguish between these acts include impersonality (e.g., whether it is should be up to individuals to decide to engage in the act), rule or authority-contingency (e.g., whether the act’s permissibility depends on the existence of rules or authority dictates governing the act), and generalizability (e.g., whether others in a different institution, country, etc., should engage in the act). Each type of act, along with criteria and examples, is discussed next.
One category of nonmoral acts, personal/psychological, involves acts usually considered to be up to individual discretion, independent of the existence of rules or authority dictates, and not generalizable. These acts generally bear on considerations related to privacy, autonomy, preferences, and personal prerogative rights. Examples include choosing one’s friends and which coffee or tea to drink in the morning. Another category, conventional/societal, pertains to acts not up to individual discretion, dependent on rules or authority dictates, and not generalizable. These acts bear on considerations related to group functioning, social cohesion and unity, authority, rules, norms, and tradition. Examples include forms of interpersonal greeting, forming lines at the grocery store, and adhering to the policies laid out in course syllabi (Smetana, Jambon, and Ball, 24-29; Turiel, 52-68; Turiel, 903-909; Turiel, Killen, and Helwig, 167-182). For SCDT, these categories of acts, their associated considerations, and our attempts to understand both, help explain the heterogeneity of social action and judgment common in the nonmoral realms of everyday social life.
In contrast, Moral acts are not up to the individual, independent of rules or authority dictates, and generalizable. These acts bear on considerations related to harm/welfare, human rights, and justice/fairness—the latter of which is the focus of the present analysis. Examples include hitting, bullying, stealing, and lying. Unlike nonmoral acts that are either (1) matters of personal agency, expression, or development (personal/psychological) or (2) in the service of social cohesion and stability (conventional/societal), moral acts have intrinsic consequences for persons bearing on their inherent worth/dignity (Smetana, Jambon, and Ball, 24-29; Turiel, 52-68; Turiel, 903-909; Turiel, Killen, and Helwig, 167-182). Throughout the course of everyday social interaction, moral acts, considerations, and understandings sometimes conflict with nonmoral ones.
A brief survey of Peter Parker/Spider-Man illustrates the ubiquity of such heterogeneity in social interaction and judgment. Spider-Man’s decision to wear a blue and red suit falls under the personal/psychological domain of action, as most people (including him) would likely view the decision as one that is up to him to decide, independent of rules or authority dictates (e.g., no one should order him to wear a particular suit), and not generalizable (e.g., his fellow multiverse counterparts are free to wear suits of their own choosing). In contrast, as a Daily Bugle employee, Peter Parker engages in many actions that are determined by rules and authority dictates. He is expected to attend and leave the office at designated times, submit work by specific deadlines, needs approval from his boss to perform certain duties, and presumably is mandated to complete employee training. These acts, belonging to the conventional/societal domain of action, are also not matters of personal discretion (e.g., he cannot decide when to adhere to work deadlines or whether to complete the trainings) and not generalizable (e.g., he does not need to seek approval from a boss of another newspaper company).
Compared to these nonmoral acts, the acts most closely tied to his superhero mission are moral. The use of violence, protecting others from violence, and his pursuit of justice are just a few examples. Consistent with popular conceptions of superheroes as moral or ethical agents (Fawaz, 7; Jenkins, 40; Martin 18-23; Miczo, 3), Spider-Man approaches these actions as if they are not subject to personal discretion (e.g., his motto connecting power and responsibility), are independent of rules or authority dictates (e.g., he frequently breaks the law), and are generalizable (e.g., believing that both every day and his fellow-superpowered New-Yorkers should do what they can to help and protect others).
These differing acts often coexist or conflict during social interactions, as in situations where, for instance, individuals criticize or disobey a law, norm, or authority dictate they believe is unjust. In addition, one may be able to recall a situation where, upon learning new information about a person—information reasonably understood as nonmoral or morally neutral (e.g., that the person was unaware of the potential harmful or unjust consequences of something they said or did)—they altered their understanding of the person’s act in accord with this new conceptual shift. In both examples, moral and nonmoral considerations together contribute to individuals’ understanding of social events.
This relationship between moral and nonmoral considerations is also important to understanding the superhero mission. Miczo, in his examination of superheroes’ communication strategies and relational dynamics contends that in addition to having abilities and using them for the wellbeing of others, a key distinguishing feature of superheroes is that they protect the public sphere in general and two kinds of social activity constitutive of the sphere (3, 14). One social activity deals with individuals’ ability to freely pursue their self-interests, as in going to the store, attending school, or meeting up with friends. The other social activity deals with individuals’ ability to voice opinions and deliberate on matters of importance. Superheroes stopping criminals from robbing banks and supervillains from ruling over societies as dictators, are preserving the first and second forms of activity, respectively.
Miczo (3-4) further asserts that this public sphere implies a plurality of views, and this plurality, which effectively means that no superhero is in a position to protect the sphere on their own, helps create the conditions for superheroes to work together to advance their mission. Miczo therefore suggests that by and large, the superhero mission is carried out against the backdrop of considerable viewpoint diversity—a theme explored in recent scholarship on superhero media and moral development (Martin, 27-32; Martin, 76-82; Martin, 20-23; Martin, Killian, and Letizia, 211-215). Concerning superheroes, Miczo suggests a conception of moral action as situated within a broader social ecology consisting of people with diverse views on matters of social and moral significance trying to negotiate life together. And as the following analysis attests, SCDT suggests a similar conception of moral action with its emphasis on distinct moral and nonmoral social concepts. Whereas Miczo’s analysis focuses on their interactions with other superheroes, the present analysis examines superheroes’ interactions with others more broadly.
This paper builds on previous work highlighting the potential affordances of a developmental analysis of superhero comics by applying SCDT to events from three superhero comics–Seventh Circle (2016, Daredevil), Trial of Jean Grey (2014), and Peace on Earth (1999, Superman). I argue that examining a common narrative feature of superhero comics, the relationship between justice and other social concepts such as the law and intentionality (cf. Bainbridge; Curtis; Martin; Martin, Killian, and Letizia), is useful for exploring the nature of and nuances within the relationship between moral and nonmoral considerations more broadly. The ubiquity of multiple forms of justice considerations within superhero narratives notwithstanding, each superhero narrative is primarily discussed from a distinct justice perspective concerning the fair treatment of persons: retributive (Seventh Circle), procedural (Trial of Jean Grey), and distributive (Peace on Earth).
For each comic, the analysis highlights potential areas of consistency between how justice concepts are portrayed and interrogated within the medium and how research on moral development suggests moral concepts are generally understood in nonprototypical situations. Nonprototypical situations refer to situations that include multiple, competing considerations bearing on social concepts. Scholars more commonly refer to these situations as contextualized or multifaceted (Smetana, Jambon, and Ball, 26-27; Turiel, 55, 114-129; Turiel, Killen, and Helwig, 167-168, 179, 181, 187-188). The paper contends, in line with Miczo, that understanding superheroes requires an understanding of not only the decisions they make concerning their exceptional abilities, but the social backdrop against which these decisions are made, contested, and reconsidered. And to the extent parallels are drawn between the relationship between the social and moral in the lives of superheroes and those who read about their exploits, SCDT, with its emphasis on social interaction, meaning making, and conceptual distinctions between moral and nonmoral considerations, affords opportunities to think about their usefulness. Some of the developmental research examined in service of these parallels include two considerations common within the genre and explored in other work (cf. Martin; Martin, Killian, and Letizia): considerations related to harming and helping others. Despite the limited sample size of the superhero texts, the paper expands the contours of what constitutes scholarly inquiry of superhero narratives by encouraging more developmentally oriented superhero scholarship on both conceptual (theoretical) and empirical grounds.
Before exploring these justice considerations, it is worth noting the speculative nature of the preceding enterprise. In his analysis of how superheroes’ actions, beliefs, and symbolism align with notions of sovereignty, Curtis (13, 58) notes two features of superheroes (and by extension, superhero narratives) germane to the present analysis. On the one hand, their exploits are open to interpretation, partly due to, among other things, different writers offering their own “takes” on the superheroes (e.g., a writer deciding to explore a superhero’s humanity or moral complexity more than a previous writer). So, in a sense, superheroes’ cultural relevance is tied to a specific time period or localized cultural context. At the same time, superheroes must represent something that transcends specific periods and cultures and goes beyond relativism. Similarly, others contend that social science research can be brought to bear on discussions about the (cultural) significance of superheroes given the parallels that exist between how (1) superheroes relate to others interpersonally and to regulatory authorities (i.e., the state) and (2) these relations play out in the real world (Miczo, 3, 7-8, 28-29; cf. Martin; Martin, Killian, and Letizia). In keeping with this work, the essay focuses on the broader principles of justice addressed in the chosen superhero narratives, and how these principles “point to” considerations not too dissimilar from those we bring to bear on our own social relations.
“You Want to See Him Punished Just as Much as I do”: Retributive Justice in Seventh Circle
Scholarly analyses of superhero narratives suggest that one form of justice superheroes often explore is retributive justice, which emphasizes trying to “set things right” through punishment (cf. Bainbridge; Phillips and Strobl; Sharp; Weston; Vollum and Adkinson). This form of punishment is often achieved through violent means, resulting in either physical harm, incapacitation or death. These narratives may also afford opportunities to explore how retributive justice considerations conflict with those related to what research suggests is another prominent feature in many superhero narratives: procedural justice. Procedural justice pertains to the fairness of relevant processes, which for many superhero narratives take the form of due process in the court of law. Whereas retributive justice is more concerned with what justice means for the victims, procedural justice is more concerned with what it means for the (accused) perpetrators. One superhero who frequently explores these tensions is Daredevil (cf. Bainbridge; Henderson; Peters; Rosen; Taslitz).
Daredevil narratives explore these tensions in both within character and between character contexts, as Daredevil’s actions often intersect with those of both Matt Murdock the lawyer (within) and the vigilante known as Frank Castle (between; henceforth referred to as Punisher). Seventh Circle (2016), written by Soule and illustrated by Kudranski, sees the Daredevil and his sidekick Blindspot face off against the Punisher to protect Sergey Antonov, a known violent and well-connected criminal as he is transported from New York to Texas to face a fair trial for his alleged crimes. Whereas Daredevil and Blindspot believe Antonov should receive a fair trial, the Punisher believes the longer he lives the more people will die, and therefore it is better for society if he is killed. Although both retributive and procedural justice themes are important to the story, the analysis of Seventh Circle focuses more on the former.
In Seventh Circle, art and panel transitions, particularly in issues two and four, allow readers to situate certain behavioral choices in the context of the perspectives informing those choices. This is evident in the multiple instances where Punisher’s perspective clashes with Daredevil’s and Blindspot’s. There are three features related to the depiction of their articulated disagreements worth noting. First, they occur often and vary in tone, as some are articulated immediately following a physical altercation (as determined by panel presentation order) and others after a few panels of more normal conversation without a physical altercation.
Second, the core of the disagreement, centered around the nature of justice Sergey deserves, has at least two dimensions. It is not just that Punisher believes it is best for society if Sergey is dead. He believes Matt Murdock agrees but just wants the legal system to render justice by death penalty. As the Punisher tells him during the story’s conclusion (issue #8) once Daredevil succeeds in stopping the Punisher from killing Antonov, “[y]ou want to see him punished just as much as I do.” On one level, Seventh Circle explores disagreements about retributive justice in terms of whether it should occur legally or extra-legally. On another, it explores whether Daredevil’s response to Punisher’s assertion they both want the same thing—where he states that Sergey’s fate should not be decided by the Punisher or Daredevil—is based on a substantive belief in due process.
Third, on multiple occasions and between different interlocutors (Punisher and Blindspot, Punisher and Daredevil), the disagreements occur in panels with a black background and a close-up of the speaker in the foreground. Sometimes the foreground includes Punisher and his interlocutor speaking and visible, Punisher and his interlocutor visible but only the Punisher speaking, or only Daredevil visible and speaking. These black or “blank” panel backgrounds convey the idea that although Daredevil is the comic’s titular superhero, both perspectives are important and should be understood. And collectively, the number and nature of the articulated disagreements—considering the ubiquity of violence in both the series and genre more broadly—suggests that the fighting and speaking, in many ways, serve the same ends. They aim to communicate one’s position on the nature of retributive justice.
In addition to the art and panel transitions, McCloud (24-59) suggests that readers of superhero (or in the case of the Punisher, vigilante) comics frequently engage with another common feature of superheroes that may accentuate the importance of their positions on justice: the symbols they wear on their costumes. As a type of icon used to represent concepts, ideas, and philosophies, the symbols Daredevil and Punisher wear can be viewed as more abstract reflections of their differing views on retributive justice. Whereas the two D’s on Daredevil’s chest (along with the mask design) are meant to engender fear in those he brings to justice, these aspects of his costume do not necessarily reveal anything specific regarding his views on what harm is acceptable in service of retributive justice. The Punisher, on the other hand, wears a skull that could reasonably symbolize death. This read of the skull is consistent with his actions, as for Punisher, death is the only option if the crime warrants it. Daredevil’s sidekick Blindspot does not have a symbol. Through characters’ literal acts (physical and verbal), the choice of panel background, and their worn iconography, readers of Seventh Circle can engage with and interrogate competing perspectives concerning fair punishment.
As noted above, SCDT contends that observing or directly experiencing an act’s consequences for others through social interaction plays an important role in understanding the constitutive features of moral acts. Such interactions also inform people’s understanding of nonmoral acts that, unlike moral acts, tend to be construed differently (e.g., as being up to the individual, contingent upon rules or authority, not generalizable). When experiencing social interactions involving multiple and often competing considerations (e.g., one moral consideration versus another, one moral consideration versus a nonmoral consideration), people may try to coordinate these considerations. This involves weighing or balancing the multiple considerations potentially relevant to a given situation and making a decision that resolves the complexity or ambiguity that arise given these multiple considerations (Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, 318-320; Smetana, Jambon, and Ball, 34-38; Turiel, 27-29). As diverse social interactions and judgements are common in everyday life, SCDT suggests that the same goes for processes of coordination.
In a study of coordinated reasoning, children and adolescents considered (among other things) whether someone in a hypothetical scenario would have a right to not help a youth they notice in pain and crying from falling while walking to soccer practice. This “helping” consideration was in conflict with another consideration, as stopping to help would mean they would be cut from the team for being late to tryouts. 1 Despite the situations used in this study being hypothetical (a “stealing” situation is discussed in the next section; Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, 296; Turiel and Nucci, 100-101), it is worth noting that they include situations that participants could reasonably see themselves or someone else encountering in everyday life. Therefore, the parallels between the findings of the study and the events in the comics advance the aims of the essay by suggesting a form of “real world validity” to the superheroes’ actions and associated perspectives. The researchers considered participants demonstrating coordinated reasoning if they clearly acknowledge conflicting elements (e.g., acknowledging that on a personal level, the person has the right to help or not help) while also providing an evaluative resolution to the conflicting elements (e.g., believing that despite the person’s personal right not to help, they are morally obligated to help; Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, 320).
When considering how the clash of perspectives examined in Seventh Circle may relate to coordination, SCDT suggests that how superheroes like Daredevil (and in the case of Punisher, vigilantes) situate themselves regarding an act’s consequences for persons may relate to their perspectives on retributive justice. 2 Daredevil, who is also a lawyer, is keenly aware of both the promise and failings of the legal system as well as the risks and rewards of operating outside of the law to achieve justice. SCDT considers acts governed by social convention such as laws, policies, and authorities, as belonging to the societal domain. Unlike acts within the moral domain, acts within the societal domain are dependent upon the existence of laws, policies, rules, or other social conventions. Violating these conventions is considered wrong, but not morally wrong (cf. Smetana et al.; Turiel.; Turiel, Killen, and Nucci). This suggests that as with understanding people’s distinctions between acts in everyday social interactions, understanding the distinctions superheroes make concerning justice matters requires taking into account differences in kind and not just degree.
Colloquially or anecdotally, people experience this domain distinction when determining that an act can both be legal and immoral or that in certain situations illegal acts are morally justified if not obligatory. Martin suggests that this distinction, particularly as it manifests within social contexts where police officers are either corrupt or ineffective, is an important feature of more socially grounded superheroes (Martin, 53, 75-76). Fully aware of the risks of ensuring violent, well-connected criminals receive due process, Daredevil nevertheless defends the merits of due process and importance of trusting the legal system to maintain and when necessary, restore citizens’ faith in the legal system. It is not his “place” (nor the “place” of anyone operating outside the law for that matter) to be judge, jury, and executioner. The Punisher, on the other hand, believes that once certain criminals “show you who they are,” the only viable option is to kill them if one is really interested in preserving innocent people’s welfare.
Although scholarly attempts to derive pedagogical and/or empirical implications of superhero media for people’s social and moral understanding are tentative (Martin, 23; Martin 148; Martin, Killian, and Letizia, 205), the conflict over justice depicted in the Daredevil-Punisher relationship is nevertheless consistent with research on coordination in situations involving harm. Whereas people view hitting someone when unprovoked as wrong, responses vary when either the unprovoked harm situation includes a victim with a history of antagonizing others or when the protagonist harms an aggressor who was attacking someone else. They also found that when the protagonist commits the harm in either self-defense or to prevent someone from harming another, people are more likely to view the harm as acceptable when the recipient of the protagonist’s harm is an antagonist (Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, 299; Turiel and Nucci, 103-104). In other words, people appear to understand the situations involving an antagonist and an aggressor as more complicated and thus contributing to more coordinated reasoning where multiple considerations are balanced.
Connecting these findings to Seventh Circle, how Daredevil and Punisher weigh the relative importance of retributive justice and procedural justice may be associated with how they appraise “consequences for persons” considerations. It is possible that in Daredevil’s view, the “persons” for which consequences of committing a(n) (im)moral act apply include those victimized by criminals but also the criminals themselves. Therefore, readers can explore whether or to what extent his superhero mission and its associated challenges are informed by his attempts to balance considerations related to the moral violations committed by criminals toward victims and killing criminals to avenge past or prevent future victims. Insofar as the Punisher focuses primarily on the consequences of acts committed by criminals for the persons victimized by those acts, one could see how his process of weighing the importance of retributive and procedural justice concerns results in a different approach and set of challenges and animating considerations.
Another process relevant for understanding social events involves the use of informational assumptions, which are the beliefs people may hold pertaining to matters of “fact” bearing on the nature of physical, psychological, and social reality (cf. Martinez and Posada; Wainryb; Wainryb and Turiel). Some examples of beliefs people hold about the world—with potential sources for these beliefs in parentheses—include the efficacy of a particular medical, behavioral, or therapeutic practice (e.g., science, authorities considered experts of sufficiently knowledgeable in the relevant area, personal experience, etc.), what happens when people die (e.g., religion, philosophy, etc.), what constitutes a person biologically and psychologically (e.g., religion, science, philosophy, personal experience, etc.), and whether an institution is corrupt (e.g., personal experience, etc.). According to SCDT, these worldview assumptions can inform how people interpret the meaning of a morally relevant event, and these interpretations can in turn inform how those events are evaluated. Much of the research in this area examines how people’s informational beliefs inform their understanding and evaluations of morally relevant acts bearing on the treatment of persons with regards to harm/welfare and justice/fairness.
Some examples of issues research on informational assumptions investigate include abortion, capital punishment, corruption, and the use of harm in specific contexts to achieve specific ends (e.g., parents using corporal punishment and culture practices involving a form of ceremonial harm with the goal of facilitating healthy youth development). 3 Another way to view the conflict in Seventh Circle from the perspective of SCDT, then, is to consider what their articulated disagreements suggest about the informational assumptions underlying their positions. Readers can examine or interrogate how beliefs about persons, God, institutional corruption, and the efficacy of the legal system may inform their perspectives on retributive justice and their associated morally relevant actions towards criminals. Concerning Daredevil’s perspective, SCDT suggests two informational sources are his experiences with Catholicism (and associated beliefs) and dual “occupations” of lawyer and superhero. Concerning the Punisher’s perspective, sources include serving in the Marine Corps, the murder of his family, and being denied justice for the murders due to police corruption.
“You’re Angry Because You’re Fighting an Act of Nature. And I Am Angry It Found Me”: Procedural Justice in the Trial of Jean Grey
The above analysis suggests that concerns about accountability (a retributive justice matter) sometimes conflict with concerns about due process (a procedural justice matter). One comic narrative that explores the nuances of this conflict is the Trial of Jean Grey (2014), written by Bendis and illustrated by Pichelli, Immonen, and Marquez. Like Seventh Circle, the story explores the tensions and complexities that sometimes arise when retributive and procedural justice considerations collide. Whereas the discussion of Seventh Circle centers around retributive justice, however, the analysis of Trial of Jean Grey focuses on procedural justice. It centers around a member of the X-Men, Jean Grey, who years ago was “chosen” by an uber-powerful cosmic entity known as the Phoenix Force to be its host. Under control of the Phoenix Force, Jean Grey sent a star into supernova, destroying 11 planets. Although Jean Grey died sometime after this event, a younger Jean Grey from the past, along with the rest of the members of the original X-Men, are brought to the present by a present-day X-Man, Beast.
A member of an alien race, Kallark of the Shi’ar Empire (henceforth referred to as Gladiator) learns of the younger Jean Grey’s arrival to the present and devises a plan to kidnap her so she can face a galactic tribunal for older Jean Grey’s crimes. Although the younger Jean Grey has not yet become a host for the Phoenix Force and thus has not yet committed the atrocities she is accused of, Gladiator, a member of the Imperial Guard responsible for enforcing Shi’ar law, believes she nevertheless must be held accountable. Gladiator’s actions set in motion a conflict between those who agree with him and those who presumably believe this act represents a violation of procedural justice because this version of Jean Grey is currently innocent (X-Men and Guardians of the Galaxy).
Through its use of time-travel, Trial of Jean Grey interrogates the relationship between harm (violence) and justice (accountability) in a way that raises ambiguities and complexities often absent in other superhero narratives where the perpetrator-act relationship and due process are clearly defined and understood. Throughout the story, readers engage with these nuances while also witnessing the actions and motivations of Gladiator, someone who is resolute in how these notions should be applied in this instance. He is therefore not persuaded by the questions and arguments posed by others with different perspectives (including, of course, Jean Grey herself).
During a meeting with kings and queens of different planets in part one, Gladiator informs them that the younger Jean Grey is on earth and that his Empire, the Shi’ar, will retrieve her to face trial for her future crimes. Despite both King J-Son and the Supreme Intelligence noting that Jean Grey has not yet committed the crimes, Gladiator reiterates that she is accountable. His conviction is further underscored by the fact that from the first panel with Gladiator on page nine to the last panel with Gladiator on page ten, his emotional expressions vary considerably but his belief remains constant. Whether justifying his position with anger (page nine) or a smile (page ten), the calculus is simple. Crimes were committed, planets were destroyed, and the person responsible must be punished.
Although unable to persuade Gladiator in the story’s conclusion (part six) to reconsider, Jean Grey makes her case for why she believes conventional understandings of the perpetrator-act relationship and therefore due process do not apply to her situation. She questions why she is the only one on trial, yet her older self was controlled by a force that no one else would be able to control. As she remarks to those who deem her guilty, “[y]ou’re angry because you’re fighting an act of nature. And I am angry it found me.” During a fight that ensues between Jean Grey and Gladiator shortly after she articulates her case, another member of the Imperial Guard, Oracle, notices—through her mental abilities—that this younger Jean Grey is displaying new powers stemming from a different mind-powers relationship than the older Jean Grey demonstrated. She believes that these new powers and mind-powers relationship suggest that this Jean Grey is now a different person, and thus should not be held accountable for the crimes committed by the older Jean Grey. Consistent with scholarship on informational assumptions (cf. Martinez and Posada; Wainryb; Wainryb and Turiel), it appears that for Oracle, this new information about Jean Grey alters her understanding of Jean Grey in a morally relevant way. Gladiator is not convinced, however. Yet, with Oracle’s insistence coupled with threats from the X-Men and Guardians of the Galaxy that Jean Grey is under their protection, Gladiator eventually relents, convinced they will eventually regret their decision (part six; “[h]istory will repeat itself and you will die at her hand”).
Arguably one of the ways Trial of Jean Grey challenges readers’ understanding of procedural justice, particularly with respect to the harm-accountability relationship, is through complicating two processes McCloud believes are central to readers’ mental interaction with or close participation in the comics experience beyond simply reading text and viewing images. One process, called closure, refers to observing the parts of an act or event (e.g., as communicated via a panel) and perceiving its “whole.” This is one way for readers to mentally represent and relate elements within a comic panel or series of panels in a unified way. A common example is when lines and shapes (e.g., parts of a face) are perceived as a unified whole (e.g., a complete face). A related process involves the gutter or the space between panels. According to McCloud (66), it is here that “human imagination takes…separate images and transform them into a single idea.” As a rough parallel, SCDT contends that understanding how people make sense of social events requires considering both individuals’ interpretation of the total event as well as the features of interactions that occur between individuals (Turiel, 8, 41). In other words, understanding others’ social judgments requires, within reason, an attention to a multitude of factors potentially informing those judgments.
One useful context for exploring the implications of this space between panels in Trial of Jean Grey for the present argument is the presumed context informing Gladiator’s judgments about Jean Grey’s culpability. SCDT asserts that the primacy of social interaction and construction in moral understanding means that the expressed character of moral judgments is not fixed. Instead, sometimes moral judgments include reflection and deliberation and at other times manifest as automatic or unreflective “snap” judgments. Thus, seemingly quick moral judgments made in the present does not necessarily preclude past reasoning. Similar moral judgments could have been made using “slower” processes in the past, making it easier to judge quickly in subsequent situations (Turiel, 897-898). For instance, one can imagine a parent who, after working through moral judgements concerning their first child’s actions, makes faster determinations when the second child engages in similar behaviors. McCloud’s view of the role of the gutter in understanding comics similarly affords an important role for cognition and reflection, or at least suggests as much. Whether through processes of construction or filling in the spaces between panels, the ability of people’s imaginations to consider and reconsider abstract concepts in relation to concrete and varying circumstances contributes to both their understanding of justice matters in their everyday lives as well as justice matters in fictional lives.
As the major proponent of the view that this younger Jean Grey is guilty, the above analysis has implications for understanding the factors underlying Gladiator’s quest for justice. Specifically, his resoluteness while displaying emotions varying in emotional valence could be interpreted in a constructivist manner, in that his convictions may result from reflections and deliberations in the years following the catastrophic event until his awareness of Jean Grey’s return. This view of his quickly articulated and unwavering belief as being formed through social interaction and construction may also explain why, when pressed multiple times on the issue of holding someone accountable for crimes not yet committed, he appeals to the wider view of the Shi’ar empire. Although this appeal could be explained by his official role within the empire and his loyalty to its leadership, it could also be understood in constructivist terms. Given his role and experiences living through the amount of destruction and loss of life caused by Jean Grey and frequently interacting with those affected by it, it is likely his view of Jean Grey’s culpability is considerably informed by others’ experiences and perspectives. In addition to an individual’s own development or conceptual capabilities and the contextual features of an event, others’ perspectives on the event are important influences on the construction and application of moral judgments (cf. Turiel; Gibbs). In many ways, the gutters between the panels communicating his moral conviction can afford opportunities for readers to consider and interrogate the nature of these potential influences on his decision making.
Given the myriad considerations readers may bring to bear on their engagement with the Trial of Jean Grey (e.g., the magnitude of the crime, nature of the Phoenix Force, the importance of enforcing laws, roles of intentionality and personhood in assessments of accountability), it can be argued that the story both invites readers to participate in this process while also complicating its outcome. Because in many superhero comics the perpetrator-act relationship, as well as the appropriate and inappropriate forms of due process, are clearly defined and understood, the characters are faced with deciding between whether their brand of justice should supersede other considerations. Seventh Circle highlights competing perspectives on retributive justice, but the perpetrator-act relationship is clearly defined. Further, it is clear what the parameters are when it comes to whether the procedural justice matter of due process is upheld (allowing Sergey to have a fair trial in Texas) or violated (killing him before he arrives). Similarly, Batman’s frequent clashes with the Gotham City Police Department 4 and Luke Cage’s interactions with Harlem police (cf. Martin) around matters of procedural justice often include clear definitions and parameters. In contrast, Trial of Jean Grey encourages readers to interrogate the very nature of procedural justice (in the form of due process) and its relationship to both harm and retributive justice considerations when the accused can simultaneously and reasonably be construed as both the same as and different from the person who committed the crime.
Although research findings related to coordination in situations involving indirect stealing (e.g., whether it is alright for the protagonist to keep money that someone else dropped unknowingly) do not share the same “conceptual match” as the findings on harm situations and the retributive justice perspectives in Seventh Circle, the findings are nevertheless informative. Participants presented with the hypothetical stealing situation, as well as readers of Trial of Jean Grey, can reasonably construe both situations as ambiguous. For some participants in the study, there was disagreement concerning whether taking the money that fell from the person’s pocket was really stealing. In Trial of Jean Grey, there is disagreement concerning whether the younger Jean Grey should be punished for something that from her perspective, she has not committed. Another contributor to this ambiguity, as with the harm situations, is the type of person who would be the “victim” of the indirect theft. Although the appreciation of the potentially ambiguous elements of the situation is associated with age, people are less likely to view the act of keeping the money as wrong when the person who dropped it is an antagonist (Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, 300). Here again, we see evidence of an “antagonist-effect,” whereby participants’ morally relevant judgments are informed by the nature of the persons involved in the event. In Trial of Jean Grey, there is disagreement over whether this Jean Grey is actually an antagonist (yet).
Concerning coordination, findings suggest that, in addition to the consequences an act may or may not have on persons, people’s moral understanding of an act/event considers psychological features of persons, such as their relevant knowledge and intentions. For instance, it appears that for some people, the fact that the person dropped the money unknowingly contributes to the ambiguity of the situation from a moral perspective (e.g., is it really stealing?). Applied to Trial of Jean Grey, the story’s events suggest that knowledge and intentionality have a significant bearing on the conflict between those who want the young Jean Grey to face the intergalactic tribunal and those who do not. And as suggested earlier, how these person-level features can encourage readers to interrogate notions of procedural justice in a way that explores complexities and ambiguities via the use of time-travel may offer certain affordances usually absent with other narrative devices.
It is also worth considering to what extent the two sides of the accountability issue weigh the relative significance of the consequences of the act for persons on the one hand, and the psychological features of the person committing the act on the other. Readers may consider whether the situation involving holding the younger Jean Grey accountable for the older Jean Grey’s actions is always a straightforward matter for Gladiator whereby punishing her for the number of lives lost is the only consideration governing his actions. They may further consider the type(s) of coordination he can engage in to try to balance the consequences for the act with whether Jean Grey was reasonably aware of and able to control her actions. Similar considerations can be explored concerning those who seek to protect Jean Grey at all costs, but with the considerations flipped, given that they tend to believe she should not be held accountable for something that she has no knowledge of committing because for her it has not yet happened.
As with Daredevil and Punisher’s competing perspectives, we can also ask what beliefs about the world informed their respective positions. In terms of informational assumptions, one potential source undergirding these two perspectives that may share general features with religious or metaphysical beliefs (given the supernatural and mysterious nature of the Phoenix Force), is whether Jean Grey, given her status as an Omega-Level telepath, is able to control any part of her actions when serving as the host of the Phoenix Host. One could imagine what those in Trial of Jean Grey believe concerning this matter could play a significant role in their articulated positions on whether the young Jean Grey should be punished. A related belief that could lead to different perspectives on this matter is whether people can substantively change. If so, then it seems reasonable (as Oracle suggests) to allow her the freedom to live her life with the hope (or expectation) that she will make different choices. If not, then a free Jean Grey will inevitably lead to another catastrophe (an outcome Gladiator is certain will occur).
“They Don’t Want Me There Regardless of What I’m Bringing or Whom It Could Help”: Distributive Justice in Peace on Earth
Although not examined within superhero scholarship as often as retributive and procedural justice, distributive justice also informs superhero narratives in non-negligible ways. At its core, distributive justice is concerned with fair resource allocation, and as a result, decisions in this arena have implications for one’s understanding and legitimization of claims to said resource (cf. Damon). Despite his immoral means, the supervillain Thanos’s motivation in Avengers: Infinity War (2018), is rooted in concerns about overpopulation, fair resource distribution, and the flourishing of life across the universe (cf. Posada; Kragsbjerg). That his actions, however distorted and immoral, are influenced by justice considerations is further supported by the fact that effectively “retires” after succeeding. As with retributive and procedural justice, narratives incorporating distributive justice considerations can inform our understanding of superheroes, (super-)villains, and the everyday citizens affected by their actions.
One of the few superhero comics where distributive justice considerations in a global context are central to the narrative is the Superman comic, Peace on Earth (1999). Written by Ross, illustrated by Dini, and set during the Christmas holiday season, the story explores how Superman tries to inspire people throughout the world to do more for one another when it comes to sharing food and other resources. Influenced by past conversations with his father, the holiday spirit, an encounter with a malnourished homeless girl (and by extension the shelter he takes her to), and his subsequent research into the global hunger crisis, Superman decides to help people in a different way. He speaks before congress asking permission to, for one day, take the surplus food from abandoned fields and storage facilities and distribute it throughout the world to those in need. After receiving approval from congress, the story examines the vastly different experiences Superman has in different countries and locations, and his attempt to make sense of them. Whether due to the dangers or obstacles posed by (1) large and aggressive crowds, (2) corrupt leaders, (3) oppressive regimes, or (4) hostile and distrusting governments and individuals, the nuances inherent in tackling a global distributive justice problem in that manner are evidently clear.
Two of Peace on Earth’s general features that highlight these complexities are its narrative scope and artistic style. Regarding the former, the comic’s use of scene-to-scene transitions, which allows readers to mentally traverse significant distances of time and space (McCloud, 71), contributes to the scope of the story by placing the character in multiple, heterogenous environments in a near simultaneous fashion. A turn of the page puts Superman in a different country and city with its own characteristics. Through these panel transitions, readers get a snapshot of the diversity of reactions to Superman’s actions and how they play out in the social interactions between Superman, those he seeks to help, and the authorities who sometime stand in the way. Collectively, these features portray a Superman who, despite his otherworldly powers and good intentions, is surprised to interact with so many people who do not want him in their country, whose actions can jeopardize his mission, or both. A sentiment summed up nicely when, reflecting on his multiple setbacks, concedes that “[t]hey don’t want me there regardless of what I’m bringing or whom it could help.”
In terms of Peace on Earth’s artistic style, there are at least two ways it contributes to the salience of the story’s distributive justice considerations. For one, unlike many superhero comics that focus on bringing criminals and supervillains to justice, Peace on Earth applies the principle of justice in the service of addressing a real-world issue whereby one can argue that humanity is both the perpetrator and victim. This more concrete, “home-grown” nature of the issue and its implications are reflected in the realistic art style in which the shading, depth, and overall detail of the facial features communicate a sense that these characters can be people we encounter, know, care about, and deliberate with in our day-to-day lives.
The art also helps communicate the emotional weight of the story. One illustrative example comes towards the end of the comic (40-43) when Superman arrives in a country ruled by a military despot he is familiar with through his job as a reporter (as Clark Kent). He refers to him as a “different kind of beast” who squanders his country’s resources, keeps his citizens poor, and forces compliance through fear. Doubtful that the despot will distribute the food (let alone fairly) if he leaves it with him, Superman asks for permission to pass out the food himself. The leader then gives a grinning nod to his soldiers, and they point their guns at the citizens who are nearby watching the interaction. He also criticizes Superman’s attitude on the grounds that it reflects a disregard of his country’s laws, and that he is to blame if he enforces martial law to maintain social order. After realizing the leader is willing to kill his own citizens to get Superman to leave (at one point, Superman shields citizens from gunfire), he decides to leave the food and the country.
During this exchange, one way the art helps communicate the emotional weight of the encounter is by only presenting the leader as a silhouette in the first panel of the first page he is introduced. This silhouette panel also contains Superman’s narration and reference to him as a “beast” and someone those under his rule should despise and fear. Another way is through the back-to-back close-ups of the leader and Superman expressing different emotions on pages 41 on 42 as to communicate the emotional tension characterizing their standoff. Collectively, the use of art to communicate the story’s strong affective character is generally consistent with McCloud’s view (65, 124-129) that the relationship between art and emotional sentiments is an important part of the reader experience as both observer and participator in the story.
Given that the act of distributive justice explored in Peace on Earth is a form of helping others, findings from the coordinated reasoning study that parallel justice considerations in Seventh Circle and Trial of Jean Grey are also relevant here. Particularly, the findings from the helping situation (cf. Nucci, Turiel, and Roded; Turiel and Nucci) may be useful for thinking about potential processes of coordination in the comic, even if the nature of the helping across the two contexts differs. People’s reasoning about helping, as with their reasoning about hitting (Seventh Circle) and (indirect) stealing (Trial of Jean Grey), was assessed in contexts with no apparent conflicting considerations and in contexts in which there were conflicting considerations. For the helping situations, the conflicts either have clear implications for the protagonist (e.g., by stopping to help the hurt youth, the protagonist will be cut from the soccer team) or the protagonist’s sibling (e.g., the protagonist is taking their younger sibling to practice and thus the younger sibling will get cut if the protagonist stops to help). In Peace on Earth, Superman sets out to provide food to different countries in the hopes his act will inspire people to help in more ways. When comparing straightforward and conflicting situations in the coordinated reasoning study, researchers found that people do not distinguish between the contexts evaluating the act. Across contexts, they evaluate the decision not to help negatively. Similarly, one could argue that most people would agree that Superman’s goal to ameliorate the global hunger crisis is a laudable one.
Nevertheless, researchers in the coordinated reasoning study found evidence of complexity (Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, 299, 301; Turiel and Nucci, 103-105) that is also useful for thinking about Peace on Earth. As in the comic, the findings suggest that helping considerations sometimes interact with other considerations. For example, as with the hitting and stealing situations discussed above, people tend to view events involving an antagonist as more complex (and warranting coordination) and are less likely to view the act of not helping the antagonist as wrong. In addition, and also consistent with investigations of the other events, coordinated reasoning is more common in the conflicted situations than in the straightforward situations.
The antagonist-related findings, coupled with the fact that Superman is met with skepticism and aggression on multiple occasions, further suggest the importance of accounting for individuals’ psychological characteristics (e.g., intentions, beliefs, goals, and expectations) when trying to understand a morally relevant act. Moreover, Superman’s encounter with the military despot makes particularly salient the notion that sometimes, justice considerations conflict with societal ones (e.g., related to authority, legality, etc.). Their conflict is not just about differing views on who should distribute the food, but about whether Superman’s justice mission should supersede the leader’s governmental authority and his national’s sovereignty laws. This kind of conflict is in keeping with analyses of superheroes grounded in what they represent in terms of sovereignty (cf. Bainbridge; Curtis). Consistent with the above analysis, competing perspectives in the context of superhero missions can parallel the kinds of competing perspectives people may encounter in other social interactions. For instance, the helping situations in the coordination study also include societal considerations, albeit in the form of the team norm/policy regarding the consequences for being late to soccer practice.
Exploring differing perspectives to one of Peace on Earth’s larger questions—when violating a law or disobeying governmental authority for moral reasons is appropriate—could serve as a fruitful starting point when thinking about some of the considerations Superman (and those he interacts with) may have considered and what those coordination processes may have focused on. In terms of informational assumptions, one potential source, at least from Superman’s perspective, could have been his views on the effectiveness of his approach. He might believe that any assistance that can improve the wellbeing of others, as long as it does infringe on their autonomy, should generally be accepted regardless if sovereignty laws prohibit such assistance. Such a view might be akin to a “greater good” philosophy that informs, at least in some situations, how Superman adjudicates between what acts are morally acceptable and unacceptable, or what acts should be bound by law/governmental authority and what should not. Fawaz (7) suggests questions about the jurisdictional boundaries of superheroes’ morally relevant missions is an important part of their popular appeal.
Superheroes, Heterogeneity, and the Pursuit of Justice
Although the present argument is speculative given the (1) dearth of research investigating the use of superhero comics from a developmental perspective (let alone one rooted in SCDT) and (2) relatively few source texts, the above analysis suggests that, in line with recent work exploring the relationship between superhero media and moral development (cf. Martin; Martin et al.), scholarly investigations of justice considerations in superhero narratives (analytically and empirically) are warranted. The findings suggesting that people understand morally relevant actions involving antagonists differently than those involving others–coupled with the fact that various forms of this distinction feature heavily in superhero narratives (e.g., hero-villain, criminal-victim, innocent-guilty, malevolent force-unwitting host)–point to a potential area of scholarly inquiry when thinking about what it means to treat others fairly across different contexts. Through analyzing justice considerations through source material varying along multiple dimensions (e.g., the nature of their powers, frequent antagonists, relationship with the law, and broader narratives), the paper centers the humanity of superheroes and their interlocutors: a humanity that may sometimes be obscured in the face of or subordinated to their superhuman abilities and larger than life exploits. As noted earlier, the present analysis affords a secondary status to these abilities and exploits through highlighting considerations relevant to everyday social relations.
Three themes from the preceding analysis—the (1) ubiquity of distinct moral and social considerations in everyday social relationships, (2) times when considerations conflict and processes of weighing and adjudicating are employed, and (3) ways our beliefs about the world can inform our understanding of ambiguous or multifaceted issues—have implications for future scholarly inquiry into the portrayals of justice considerations in superhero media. Considering the present essay’s interdisciplinary approach combining developmental psychology with the study of the comic medium and in keeping with previous work (cf. Martin, Killian, and Letizia), these implications are interdisciplinary, meant to engender questions and research investigations that welcome the efforts of scholars across disciplines. In a way, the seeds for such an endeavor have been sown with broader explorations of the appeal of superheroes carried out across the humanities (cf. Eckard; Nama; White; Stevenson) and social sciences (cf. Langley; Letizia; Miczo; Picariello); as well as a recent book based on a multidisciplinary analysis of their counterparts, supervillains (cf. Favaro and Martin). Since the second and third themes depend on the first, the brief example only pertains to the second and third themes.
In terms of weighing competing considerations, scholarly analyses could approach the theme in multiple ways. One way is to focus only on justice and explore potential parallels between how individuals grapple with and eventually make decisions in contexts with competing justice considerations. These kinds of considerations are particularly amenable to interdisciplinary analysis, as superheroes are often motivated by justice and as suggested by the above analysis, their relevant actions often highlight the concept’s interdisciplinary nature. Distributive justice, for instance, not only invites psychological questions about people’s thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors concerning the concept. It also invites philosophical/theological questions about the value of life, obligations concerning resources, political science and sociological questions about the role of institutions and government in sharing resources, and so forth. Thus, scholarly enterprises can explore competing justice considerations that start with approaching the topic from a humanities perspective (e.g., the multitextual and multimodal ways superhero comics depict the conflict and how characters weigh the merits of the positions) and then uses those insights to derive a social science study where people are presented with hypothetical situations with competing justice considerations and assesses their decision-making processes in those situations. Results can be compared to the insights from the humanities analyses, leading to refined and/or additional questions to be explored in a subsequent study, etc. Utilizing these and similar approaches, I believe superhero narratives can encourage us to ask serious questions about the nature and implications of the individual-society relationship when it comes to the fair treatment of persons. If so, then those who like a good superhero story might truly discover something “super.”
Works Cited
Avengers: Infinity War. Directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, Marvel, 2018.
Bainbridge, Jason. “‘This is the Authority. This Planet is Under Our Protection’ – An Exegesis of Superheroes’ Interrogations of Law.” Law, Culture and the Humanities, vol. 3, no. 3, 2007, pp. 455-476.
—. “‘The Call to do Justice’: Superheroes, Sovereigns and the State During Wartime.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, vol. 28, no. 4, 2015, pp. 745-763.
—. “This Land is Mine!:” Understanding the Function of Supervillains.” The Superhero Symbol: Media, Culture, and Politics, edited by Liam Burke, Ian Gordon, and Angela Ndalianis, Rutgers University Press, 2020, pp. 63-78.
Bendis, Brian M., Sara Pichelli, Stuart Immonen, and David Marquez. Guardians of the Galaxy/All-New X-Men: The Trial of Jean Grey. Marvel, 2014.
Bosch, Brandon. “Why So Serious: Threat, Authoritarianism, and Depictions of Crime, Law, and Order in Batman Films.” Criminology, Criminal Justice Law, & Society, vol. 17, no. 1, 2016, pp. 37-54.
Cates, Isaac. “On the Literary Use of Superheroes; Or, Batman and Superman Fistfight in Heaven.” American Literature, vol. 83, no. 4, 2011, pp. 831-857.
Curtis, Neal. “Superheroes and the Contradiction of Sovereignty.” Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 209-222.
—. Sovereignty and Superheroes. Manchester University Press, 2016.
—. “Superhero Storytelling: The Law, Sovereignty and Time.” Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2023, 17438721231169162.
Damon, William. The Social World of the Child. Jossey-Bass, 1977.
—. The Moral Child: Nurturing Children’s Natural Moral Growth. The Free Press, 1988.
Favaro, Marco, and Justin F. Martin. Batman’s Villains and Villainesses: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Arkham’s Souls. Lexington, 2023.
Eckard, Sandra, editor. Comic Connections: Analyzing Hero and Identity. Lexington, 2017.
Fawaz, Ramzi. The New Mutants. New York University Press, 2016.
Gibbs, John C. Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Henderson, Stephen. E. “Daredevil: Legal (and Moral?) Vigilante.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 15, no. 1, 2017, pp. 133-182.
Jenkins, Henry. “‘What Else Can You Do with Them?’: Superheroes and the Civic Imagination.” The Superhero Symbol: Media, Culture, and Politics, edited by Liam Burke, Ian Gordon, and Angela Ndalianis, Rutgers University Press, 2020 pp. 25–46.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. “The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order: 1. Sequence in the development of moral thought.” Vita Humana, 6 (1963), 11-33.
—. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Harper & Row, 1971/1981.
Kort-Butler, Lisa A. “Justice League? Depictions of Justice in Children’s Superhero Cartoons.” Criminal Justice Review, vol. 38, no. 1, 2013, pp. 50-69.
Kragsbjerg, Trine Mærsk. “The Malthusian Alternative and Overpopulation in Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame.” Leviathan: Interdisciplinary Journal in English, vol. 7, 2021, pp. 21-31.
Langley Travis. Batman and Psychology. A Dark and Stormy Knight. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Letizia, Angelo. Graphic Novels as Pedagogy in Social Studies: How to Draw Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
Martin, Justin F. “The Many Ways of Wakanda: Viewpoint Diversity in Black Panther and its Implications for Civics Education.” Dialogue: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Popular Culture and Pedagogy, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 24-36.
—. “Harlem’s Superhero: Social Interaction, Heterogeneity of Thought, and the Superhero Mission in Marvel’s Luke Cage.” Popular Culture Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 43-89.
—. “Superhero Media as a Potential Context for Investigating Children’s Understanding of Morally Relevant Events.” Libri & Liberi, vol. 12, no. 1, 2023, pp. 11-35.
—. “Time-Travel and Teleology: Morality, Society, and the Life of Lucas Bishop.” REDEN. Revista Española De Estudios Norteamericanos, vol. 5, no. 2, 2024, pp. 128–153.
—, Killian, Mark, and Angelo Letizia. “Comics and Community: Exploring the Relationship Between Society, Education, and Citizenship.” Exploring Comics and Graphic Novels in the Classroom, edited by Jason D. DeHart, IGI Global, 2023, pp. 203–228.
Martinez, Cristhian A., and Roberto Posada. “The Influence of Sociocultural Beliefs on Adolescents’ Moral and Tolerance Evaluations Toward Corruption.” Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol. 32, no. 4, 2022, pp. 1515-1529.
McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. Harper Collins, 1993.
Miczo, Nathan. How Superheroes Model Community: Philosophically, Communicatively, Relationally. Lexington, 2016.
Murphy, Sean. Batman: White Knight. Marvel, 2017.
Nama, Adilifu. Super Black: American Pop Culture and Black Superheroes. University of Texas Press, 2011.
Nucci, Larry, Elliot Turiel, and Alona D. Roded. “Continuities and Discontinuities in the Development of Moral Judgments.” Human Development, vol. 60, no. 6, 2017, pp. 279-341.
Peters, Timothy D. “Daredevil as Legal Emblem.” Law, Technology and Humans, vol. 2, no. 2, 2020, pp. 198-226.
Phillips, Nickie D. “The Dark Knight: Constructing Images of Good vs. Evil in an Age of Anxiety.” In Popular Culture, Crime and Social Control: Vol. 14, edited by Matthieu Deflem, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010, pp. 25-44.
—, and Staci Strobl. “Comic Book Crime: Truth, Justice, and the American Way.” Comic Book Crime. New York University Press, 2013.
Piaget, Jean. The Moral Judgment of the Child. First Press, 1932/1997.
Picariello, Damien K., editor. Politics in Gotham: The Batman Universe and Political Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Posada, Tim. “The Gospel According to Thanos: Violence, Utopia, and the Case for a Material Theology.” Theology and the Marvel Universe, edited by Gregory Stevenson, Lexington, 2020, pp. 71–83.
Reyns, Bradford. W., and Billy Henson. “Superhero Justice: The Depiction of Crime and Justice in Modern-Age Comic Books and Graphic Novels.” Popular Culture, Crime and Social Control: Vol. 14, edited by Matthieu Deflem, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2010, pp. 45-66.
Rosen, Louis Michael. “The Lawyer as Superhero: How Marvel Comics’ Daredevil Depicts the American Court System and Legal Practice.” Capital University Law Review, vol. 47, no. 2, 2019, pp. 379-434.
Ross, Alex, and Paul Dini. Superman: Peace on Earth. DC, 1999.
Sharp, Cassandra. “‘Riddle Me this…?’ Would the World Need Superheroes if the Law Could Actually Deliver ‘Justice’”? Law Text Culture, vol. 16, 2012, pp. 353-378.
Smetana, Judith. G., Jambon, Marc, and Courtney Ball. “The Social Domain Approach to Children’s Moral and Social Judgments.” Handbook of Moral Development, edited by Melanie Killen and Judith. G. Smetana, 2nd ed., Psychology Press, 2014, pp. 23–45.
Soule, Charles, and Szymon Kudranski. Daredevil/Punisher: Seventh Circle. Marvel, 2016.
Stevenson, Gregory, editor. Theology and the Marvel Universe. Lexington, 2020.
Taslitz, Andrew E. “Daredevil and the Death Penalty.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 1, no. 2, 2004, pp. 699-717.
Turiel, Elliot. The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge University Press, 1983.
—. “The Development of Morality.” Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Ed., Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by William Damon, Wiley, 1998, pp. 863-932.
—. The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
—. “The Development of Children’s Orientations toward Moral, Social, and Personal Orders: More than a Sequence in Development.” Human Development, vol. 51, no. 1, 2008, pp. 21-39.
—, Killen, Melanie, and Helwig, Charles C. “Morality: Its Structure, Function, and Vagaries.” The Emergence of Morality in Young Children, edited by Jerome Kagan and Sharon Lamb, University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 155-243.
—, Elliot, and Larry Nucci. “Moral Development in Context.” Advancing Developmental Science: Philosophy, Theory, and Method, edited by Anthony Dick and Ulrich Mueller, Psychology Press, 2018, pp. 95-109.
Vollum, Scott, and Cary D. Adkinson. “The Portrayal of Crime and Justice in the Comic Book Superhero Mythos.” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, 2003, pp. 96-108.
Wainryb, Cecelia. “‘Is’ and ‘Ought’: Moral Judgments About the World as Understood.” Mind, Morals, and Action: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, edited by Brian W. Sokol and Jodie A. Baird, Jossey-Bass, 2004, pp. 3-18.
—, and Elliot Turiel. “Conceptual and Informational Features in Moral Decision Making.” Educational Psychologist, vol. 28, no. 3, 1993, pp. 205-218.
Weston, Gavin. “Superheroes and Comic-Book Vigilantes Versus Real-Life Vigilantes: An Anthropological Answer to the Kick-Ass Paradox.” Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 223-234.
White, Mark D. Batman and Ethics. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
Footnotes
- In this situation, helping meant taking the hurt youth to their house so the youth’s parents can take them to the doctor.↺
- The research presented below focuses on people’s responses to hypothetical events where a protagonist chooses to perform a morally relevant act.↺
- See Wainryb for a review of studies suggesting a systematic relationship between diversity in informational assumptions and diversity in evaluations of morally relevant acts.↺
- For an interesting exploration of what could happen if procedural justice considerations inform public opinion about the Batman, Joker, and the Gotham City Police Department in extreme ways, see: Murphy, Sean. Batman: White Knight. Marvel, 2017.↺