Cinema
has always been a lens by which to explore the human condition. Often, movies
are cited as a mirror with which to reflect human choice and fallibility. Rarer
is the acknowledgment that film can be a framing device for the understanding
of the world. Cinematic socialization, often generalized by “the socialization
of the media”, allows for social learning from within the proscenium of the
silver screen. Yet, what happens when we internalize the “wrong” / unintended
messages either through ignorance or intention? This brief paper is interested
in the intersection of media illiteracy and the emulation of villainy. The
continued humanizing and complicating of cinematic villains for the purpose of
dramatic storytelling desensitizes us to the identification of real-life
monsters, while assisting in their creation by giving these would-be fiends
cinematic blueprints for atrocities that they follow; often to the frame.
Resulting in dystopian fiction becoming current events. This propagandistic conditioning toward
villainy has made us vulnerable to the most reprehensively repugnant and
contemptuously foul facsimile of human beings that vie for power, allowing them
to bring cinematic hell on earth to our reality.
FOUNDATIONS
This paper is a continuation, a spiritual sequel, to
my recent essay on the relationship between Trump era policies and dystopian
fiction. In that paper, I laid out the basic
sociological understanding of the media as an agent of socialization. I first
illustrated how nostalgia is used as a conditioning tool before claiming how
MAGA rhetoric uses that conditioning and dystopian fiction as a blueprint to
bring about the horrifically oppressive policies the Trump administration has
enacted (under the guidance of Project 2025). Using that as a base, this paper aims
to look at the way that the media launders hateful ideas and desensitizes us;
particularly through the pop culture archetype of the villain, and our various attempts
to humanize them.
“[Public
and Private life] take on the qualities of spectacle, theater, all forms of
art, on reality to obliterate the very distinction between art and life.” (Lasch
1979:86)
Sociological basics
The fundamental Sociological
concepts to the understanding of how the media can define evil and support the
development of real-world villainy are found in social constructionism. Social
Constructionism is the idea that what we call reality is not concrete and fixed (thereby only
experienced in passivity), but rather actively created, interpreted and
integrated by those who live within it (Burger and Luckmann 1966). This is a constant social process by which we
shape, identify, and define reality through language, meanings, rituals,
beliefs, and behaviors. Thus, to say that ‘reality is a social construction’ is
to say that what we accept as reality depends on the context in which the
elements of that reality are important in a particular time and place. Societies
can construct common realities by the acceptance of certain laws and rituals
within a given collective group. However,
a person’s reality within a society can be drastically different depending upon
variations of social class, gender, race, sexuality, disability, religion,
political ideology, parental norms and values among others.
After the construction of reality
is established, an internalization of that social construction through the
process of the socialization of the self occurs. Socialization of the self is
the process by which individuals learn the development and maintenance of an
independent self-identity. This is how we learn who we are, as a product of
everything around us in the social world. We are both a reflection of society
(Cooley’s Looking Glass Self) and simultaneously attempt to control how other
people see us through an elaborate performance (Goffman’s Presentation of
Self).
According to Cooley (1983), the “Looking
glass self” identifies how the interactions and reactions that we have with
others help to shape our understanding of ourselves. We are more likely to have
a positive self-concept if we have an overabundance of positive interactions
and reactions from other people. That is regardless and often despite behaviors
or attitude to the contrary. Once we realize that our interactions and
reactions to others hold that same power, we attempt to control how other
people see us through establishing and the development of an elaborate
performance that attempts to maintain a particular impression that we “give
off”. Thus, through the words that we use, the clothes that we wear, our
hobbies, interests, and demeanor, we engage in a series of behaviors that attempt
to give off a desired impression. That impression can be varied and has the
ability and likelihood to change throughout a person’s life; both as they age
and within a variety of contexts. Yet, that impression is not internalized into
the self until that performance gains some outside validation from others.
For example, if a person wants people to think
they’re smart, they may wear certain clothes, major in a presumably difficult
subject and only speak using multi-syllabic words, all in the service of “giving
off” the impression of intelligence. Yet,
the person “giving off” that impression is not convinced they’re smart until
someone who sees this presentation, validates it with a response such as: “Hey,
you’re pretty smart.” It is only then when the individual is convinced of their
own performance and thereby finishing the cycle of self-development through
this validation do they believe their intelligence. It is a cycle of
ritualistic self-delusion.
While there is a synergistic quality
to the ideas set forth by Goffman (1959) and Cooley (1983), there is a tendency
to overlook the fluidity of these concepts as they both feed into and solidify each
other. For Goffman (1959) the “presentation of self” is not sui generis. It
needs a foundation to draw inspiration from. That inspiration is found through
the interactions and reactions that people have with the media, particularly
films. Regularly, film stars, particularly through roles they have taken,
become a reference group to model a variety of behavior. While the roles and screen images that
represent certain desired qualities like “coolness” “heroism” “suavity”, “ruggedness,”
“self-reliance” “resourcefulness”, “attractiveness” etc.; shift depending on
historical context (generational differences) and the types of images people
consume. There is a consistency of emulation depending on the values an
individual wants to portray and (hopefully) eventually have validated through
their social interactions. As film portrayals get increasingly more complicated
and nuanced, so too is our understanding of and desirability for a more layered
self-presentation also complicated.
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
In line with Cooley’s and to an extent
Goffman’s analysis, cinema is one of the “looking glasses” of culture. Film
represents and reflects both the period in which it was created, and the desired
representation of a better world by those in power. This literal black and
white moralism on film was exemplified by the development and implementation of
The Hays Code. The Hays
Code were guidelines of self-censorship developed by the Motion Picture Association
of America (MPAA) from 1934-1968. Named after the President of the MPAA from 1922-1944,
Will H. Hays. The code sought to restrict human expression in film by setting
moralistic guidelines that align with conservative White Judeo-Christian beliefs,
popularized by middle class to rich white Americans at the time.
The
Hays code included:
·
Language
restriction: There were restrictions on blasphemy and the use of what was
considered lewd and profane words. Including such mild slights as “damn”
·
The
prohibition against any suggestively licentious nudity, which included actual
or suggested forms (varied by gender expression) or any lecherous behavior. All
of which was defined with a large breadth, that even bare female calves were
included.
·
The
vague ambiguity of “any inference of sexual perversion” which was a euphemistic
dog whistle to mean any non-heterosexual behavior.
·
The
use and trafficking of drugs
·
White
Slavery aka “The sexual slavery of white women”[1]
·
Miscegenation[2]
·
Ridicule
of the clergy
It
also regulated
·
The
use of the flag
·
Religious
(Christian) ceremonies
·
Violence,
Gruesomeness and Torture
·
Sedition
·
Sympathy
toward criminals
·
Prostitution
·
Consummation
of Marriage and the institution of Marriage itself
For
nearly 35 years, there was a rigid moralizing of the images allowed on film
that fit with the principles of religious conservatism at the time. The
breakaway from this into more flexibility brought with it a Hollywood
revolution that saw the rise of the 1970’s renegades: Coppola, Spielberg,
Scorsese, John Milius and George Lucas. These young filmmakers, many out of the
University of Southern California, eventually ran their own studios so that
they could write, produce, and direct the movies that they wanted to create.
This helped usher in the Auteur Era of Hollywood, and normalizing naturalism in
acting.
As I state in a previous essay (2021)
The naturalist acting method that was cultivated by the
Meisner and Stanislavski methods. These methods then became popularized by the
“New Hollywood” of the 1970’s, becoming the default acting approach for most
film and television today. The belief being that this naturalism allows for
greater intimacy and relatability between the actors and the audience; that
through this technique, the strength of the cinematic illusion can be
solidified. Currently, naturalism has such a strangle hold on the industry, that
people do not remember that there even were other styles of acting in other
eras. The over-exaggerations of the 1930’s films, itself a consequence of the
silent film era, are often ignored. In fact, the acceptance of the naturalism
method also informs criticism; with awards going to those performances that
best exude the realistic form, while at the same time condemning other acting
styles of other eras as being “hammy”, or lacking in subtlety.
The normalization
of naturalism allowed the complexity of characters to thrive. This process
allowed characters to be complicated, flawed and “unlikable” (a label that is
still only positively associated with male characters, as complicated female
character’s personalities are still a representation of their complete and
utter moral failing (Bogutskaya 2023)). The popularity of these byzantine
behaviors reshaped storytelling and our relationship with problematic protagonists.
From
Black and White to Morally Grey: the changing of the cinematic Villain.
The presentation of moral complexity
in cinema has brought with it variously valued verisimilitude. The nuance of
the human condition creates compelling drama. As this took shape in our culture,
so too did it show up in our popular media. After the elimination of the Hays
Code and the rise of the New Hollywood darlings of the 70’s and their fragile,
feckless fanatical frauds that populated the movieplexes, we were ready to root
for the bad guy. While this trend started in the 1970’s, the reshading of the protagonist
to be morally ambiguous or apathetic, solidified in the 2000-2010’s with
Prestige TV. What started with Travis Bickle and Michael Corleone led to Tony
Soprano and Walter White. These characters were tortured, angry, dower, and
delectably dysfunctional. We were addicted to the drama.
There have already been a handful of psychological
and sociological explanations for our unyielding affinity for villains. First,
is simple exposure. The more naturalism pushed storytelling into the grit and
gritty dark places, the faster it proliferated in every medium. This often got
mistaken for “realism”, slicing the veil between fiction and reality so thin it
could go into Paulie’s Prison Sauce from Goodfellas. As Hollywood began
the reproduction of popular products, in their pursuit of perpetual profits, we
became awash with morally grey anti-heroes, heart of gold haters, and bad ass
bad guys. The more we are served these depictions, the more they are normalized.
Therefore, we are more likely to have empathy and even learn to like those that
we are supposed to loathe (Gale Kee, Mccoy and Powell-Dunaway 2012).
Secondly, there is “The Halo Effect.” This is
the social psychological idea that if you find a person physically attractive,
it is easier to project positive qualities and attributes to them. Hollywood and
a variety of other media (exclusively anime) portray, or in the case of anime, create
their characters as exceeding and redefining the societal conventions of
attraction. Film and TV are the trend setters of the “sexy stock market”,
setting the value of erotic capital every season. Erotic Capital is the value of an
individual based on their ability to subscribe and achieve Socio-historic and
cultural beauty/body norms in the eyes of others (Hakim 2010). The mechanism of
Hollywood movie making runs on the erotic capital of its camera facing talent;
regardless of what roles they play. The consistency of attractiveness being
both presented and attributed to dubious characters is time honored with “the
bad boy” aesthetic; in which the physical attractiveness of the character is
reinforced with the desired quality of resistance or outright defiance to
authority. Since the 1970’s, the anti-establishment misanthrope, in some form,
has always been a sexual awakening trigger for many people. Almost 60 years
later, this trope has been laconically refined into the crystalized “memeable”
phrase: “If Villain bad, why Hot?”. This tethering of attractiveness
with antagonistic behavior even seeps its way into our current lexicon. Attractive,
but often aggressive women, with acerbic attitudes, are commonly referred to as
“Baddies”. Yet, the investment in a morally grey anti-hero that convinces us ‘to
root for the bad guy’ is conditioned into us through the storytelling structural
convention of “the protagonist paradox.”
The protagonist paradox is the narrative phenomena
where the audience’s proximity to a character, especially if a story is told
from their perspective, with a focus on interiority and motivation, elicits empathy. Simply put: if there is a main character, we
are likely going to justify their behavior. Ironically, one could surmise that
as a character’s actions become increasingly reprehensible, the less likely we
will rationalize their actions. However, the protagonist humanization is often
so complete that even the most egregious behavior is defended by the audience,
especially those within an exclusive fan community that may have built a
parasocial relationship with the character and emulate them, even when they shouldn’t
(i.e. Frank Castle). This happens even though the
character is intended to be a cautionary tale. Whether it be by media
illiteracy or willful ignorance, the protagonist paradox has caused us to blur
the line between fictitious and genuine villainy, allowing the ladder to be undetectable
or sanitized.
The expression of villainy can serve a variety of
purposes in a narrative. Typically, it is used as an antagonistic counterbalance
for the protagonist which allows the main character to be reframed as a hero. This
antagonist as villain trope was common during the Hayes Code which set clear
moral boundaries. But once the code was lifted and we started to shift to a
greying of the protagonists and the rise of the anti-hero, so too did we start
to humanize the villain. As heroes got darker, villains became lighter. The
motivations for their actions shifted from a self-centered core of dastardly
diabolical debauchery to something outside of themselves. Often being the
accountability for, and symptom of, larger social problems. This allowed the
plight of villains to be both relatable and understandable. Because of this, villains
of the post-Haze code became incrementally humanized.
This
humanization of cinematic villains and a shift in their motivations correlates
to the fight for, rise of, and implementation of civil rights and social
justice movements in the US. Like Cooley’s “Looking glass”, Pop Culture is a
mirror reflecting and at time refracting the image of society, forcing us to
look. As the collective understanding of
injustice’s source shifted from the interpersonal to systemic through the civil
rights movement, so too shifted the source of heroism and villainy. Our
protagonists and heroes became more inclusive and had an awareness of
structural and culturally normalized discrimination and oppression. In this
context, as this acceptance of diversity and systemic social critique continued,
many of the “bigger bads” of our current popular culture are a representation
of the systemic evil trinity of Capitalism, Misogyny and White Supremacy. Many
of the humanized villains are victims of, or linked to, these three
interlocking oppressions. These post-Hays Code villains experience tragic loss,
abuse, and/or rail against a variety of injustices from the holocaust, the
environment, racism, and sexism to bureaucracy itself.
These moralistic villains have achieved such public support and adulation that it
has popularized the phrase “This is my villain origin story.” The public understands and accepts
that these systems, as we either experience or participate in them, can be the
thing that makes any of us “break bad.”
Simultaneously,
the unsympathetic villains that have little to no redeeming qualities often
embody one or more aspect of the treacherous trinity. These are your corporate
billionaires, toxic masculine dude-bros, and overt racists. Unfortunately, this
unsympathetic villainy can be used to justify capitalist, misogynistic and
racist behavior that is considered less by comparison. Individuals may excuse
their own horrendous behavior because they aren’t Lex Luthor, or they “didn’t own slaves” (Bonilla-Silva
2022). The blurring of the lines between these systemic evils and our
participation in them, allows us to eliminate cognitive dissonance, while
maintaining a sense of moral superiority through the common declaration: “Well,
at least I’m not that bad.” However, media illiteracy and a drive to access and
obtain various forms of power (social, political, economic), results in people
not only rooting for the bad guy but purposefully embodying them.
Cinematic
vs Real world villainy
Film
and popular culture have long been used as propaganda. Music, tv, theater and
film have been indoctrinating tools that breed support for one or all of the
interlocking systemic evils of Capitalism, Misogyny and White Supremacy. The quality
and “entertainment” of the propaganda obfuscates these intentions. A catchy
hook, “sick beat, or cool action scene can distract us from the promotion of a
variety of social ills. Thereby becoming a recruitment tool for mechanisms of
hate (Simi and Futrell 2024). Yet, the shifting of the cinematic villain also
causes the villain, and their deeds, to potentially be a blueprint to create
those problems in reality
As
indicated above, we have seen “the villain” go from maniacal mustache twirling
to a relatable, albeit misguided, character with three dimensions. Six decades
of this moralizing of villainy has conditioned audiences to rationalize bad
behavior and desensitizes us to the reality of truly cruel and evil people.
Cinema and popular culture have given us a template for the sympathetic villain,
but in those same stories, outlined their redemption arcs. Thus, not only do we
get the “Thanos was right.” And “The Joker has a point.” crowd; howling in their tiny
fiefdom of the internet, but we get villains who are so sympathized that they
are reworked into heroes. Some of these arcs are intentionally designed by
creators of the property (Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender and Nolan
from Invincible[3])
others are forced into heroism through sheer fan appeal due to their
immense erotic capital and charisma (Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Loki
in the MCU). The quality of this turn depends on the writing, as some
horrendous acts are harder to come back from than others. Darth Vader is a
Space Nazi who murdered children after all. But no matter how smooth or clunky
the redemption arc, audiences will salivate and devour it. Media illiteracy
helps with this transition.
Rationalizing villainy, outside of exposure or their sex
appeal, usually comes from an internal place. We are conditioned to put
ourselves in the shoes of the villain, and if we experience anything like what
they have experienced, it triggers our empathy. This happens regardless of the
intent of the creators. Many people who are “symping” for villains, fail to see the
purpose their presence has in the prose. Whether this is being fueled by blind
faith, erotic capital, or a vapidly hollow reading of the text, they are unable
or unwilling to see the villain as a cautionary tale. Thus, their admiration is
misplaced, and if they bully the creators into granting a redemption arc, they could
fracture the storytelling in the process. The audience seems to be glad to
sacrifice theme and narrative satisfaction if it means they can lust after
attractive people on screen.
Another
form of media illiteracy that is more nefarious is when these villains and
their behaviors are rationalized, not for their aesthetic, but for the
qualities that make them villains. Here, the evangelizing of these villains is rooted
in the desire to emulate them. Those
most likely to engage with villainy as a blueprint, are those adjacent to nerd
culture that are in positions of power.
I
state in a previous essay (2025)
These men and the other people hanging on in
their orbit, consume and express a deep affinity for nerd culture beyond just
using pop culture as an extemporaneous example to get their point across. These men often use “geek speak”… as
representation of their In Group status with one another. This is done for
solidarity and as an exclusionary subcultural shorthand. Yet, for many of them,
they seem far more interested in aesthetics rather than the context.
Names and inspirations are
trading on an understanding of the text that, when applied to real life, shows
a value system that reinforces aspects of government control, militarism,
racism, Western globalization and misogyny. Thus, it is the (mis)reading of [Popular
Culture] in this way that veils these ideas as dangerous. Allowing these wealth
tech “Broligarchs” to launder their crypto-fascism through the prism of pop
culture. Making those ideas both more palatable to a broader audience and
provide plausible deniability in the face of conflict, criticism or
consequences.
Succinctly, we are living in a
world where the people in power consume popular culture and delusionally not
only root for the bad guy but use the villain archetype and corresponding allegorical
cautionary tales as blueprints for legitimate public policies. This is why the
current Trump administration’s policies reflect a variety of dystopian fiction (Brutlag
2025).
The historical consumption of the humanized anti-villain archetype, since the elimination of the Hayes
code, has left us vulnerable. We get weak in the knees for attractive
characters regardless of their politics, principles, or past behaviors. No
matter how egregious or reprehensibly vile their actions: be they genocide,
rape, the obliteration of planets, or threatening the cosmos; someone will be
like “Here me out..” This conditioning of a questionable
collective consciousness towards villains, when projected into reality, makes
it difficult to spot those who will do us true harm. These persons seeking
power need only to smile, make promises and use their honeyed words to assure
us that their “past is the past” (Bonilla Silva 2022). It is not a coincidence
that the language of the villain redemption arc, when applied to reality, is like
what perpetrators of Intimate partner violence claim during their cycles of
abuse with their targets (Misogyny). The consumption of media that humanizes
the villain; normalizes, sanitizes and makes excuses for the real villains in
our own lives. It makes them invisible, and regardless of their behavior, conditions
us to the promise of redemption. A cycle that more than enough people will fall
back into; resulting in those real villains perpetually holding power over us. Allowing
them to take advantage of us, and harm us repeatedly, because we think they
will change; because movies and tv tells us that they can.
Since
the rise of so-called “cancel
culture” celebrity redemption arcs have been constructed down to a science.
Whenever a celebrity says, or more prominently, does something racist, misogynistic,
ableist, or generally abhorrent, they go through the process of a redemption arc.
This
Process includes:
·
A very
public apology. The expression
of regret, remorse, and the promise to get help and to make amens
·
Disappearing. There is a distancing of the artist
from the public. This will be a removal from all social media and calls to give
the person time and space to heal. This could last as little as a few months to
years
·
Reemergence- After some designated downtime, the individual
will test the water by doing something small in the public eye to judge public
reception. Sometimes they will acknowledge their absence, often they won’t.
This reinforces that they have learned from their “troubled and turbulent past”
something that ingratiates themselves to their fans more; as the action
humanizes.
This is a process is a form of
celebrity capital furthered by symbolic capital. Celebrity capital is
accumulated media visibility that results from recurrent media representations (Driessens
2013). Symbolic capital is the value of an individual or groups demographics is
a particular social situation (Bourdieu, 1987). Through this process, a
celebrity trades on their celebrity capital (improved by their symbolic capital
through their cis/het white “dudeness”) to avoid accountability. If cancel
culture is the manifestation of accountability, the celebrity redemption arc is
its circumvention. Which means that any mea culpa from a celebrity is usually
performative. Unfortunately, because of our conditioning to the anti-villain
archetype, and our considerably short attention spans, and even shorter memories,
they are forgiven, or at the very least no longer reviled. We have seen this across mediums and genres:
In movies and Tv: Robert
Downey Jr, Aziz
Ansari, Louie
C.K. In music: Michael
Jackson, R.
Kelly, Sean
Combs, Kanye
West, in Politics: Donald
Trump, Bill
Clinton. It is important to note
that there seems to be a direct correlation between the popularity of the
figure (measured by the value of the pop cultural products they produce) with
the public’s willingness to forgive and/or forget their transgressions.
Succinctly, if the public likes their films, music or tv specials, they’re more
likely to give them the benefit of the doubt; in part to absolve themselves of
the guilt of enjoy the pop culture they produce.
SOCIAL
ANALYSIS
This vulnerability to the anti-villain archetype presented
in the media that we consume furthers both the banality of evil and its
humanization through comedy. Contrary to the typical portrayal of movie
villains, the notion of evil is not some grand Machiavellian horror that is
melodramatically grandiose, regardless of what either classical or contemporary
portrayals portend. Instead, it is belief in the inhumanity of others so
completely that actions toward them are not given any modicum of care and
attention. It is listless boredom with which they engage in behaviors and
atrocities, rather than the assumed rageful hate that’s fueling this
cruelty. However, what some films like Schindler’s
List, Come and See (and more recently), The Zone of Interest have shown is that evil is not angry;
it’s apathetic. This is foundational dehumanization in a fascistic state (Stanley
2020). The villain archetype is a distraction from the real evils people in
positions of power have employed. Which often remains undetected because they
either don’t fit the archetype or they are framed as legitimate and therefore
normalized.
The
Sanitation of evil through Media
The media as a mechanism furthers the invisibility of evil’s
plainness through comedy in two specific ways: to humanize the subject
considered evil, and the use of comedy to deconstruct and criticize. The idea of evil is scary regardless of the
form it takes. Albeit a biblical manifestation or one of mundane mediocrity,
the concept of evil is a mechanism of social control by the social order. That
fear is what maintains a set of desired behaviors whether that be action (by
those not in power) or acquiescence (to those in power).
Comedy
is used to sanitize evil through humanization. Just as the (Anti) Villain
archetype is humanized by tragic backstory, and experiences of injustice, so
too do real life villains promote stories about their own humanizing tragedies.
Classic examples often include poverty and abuse. Indicating, similar to the
villain archetype in pop culture, that they are misunderstood and a product of
their horrific upbringing. This is then sanitized through comedy. If a real-life
villain can laugh at themselves and make light out of their performative and
propagandized tragedy, that goes a long way in engendering sympathy in the
audience (especially if that audience is the key to ascending political power). Thus, being conditioned to the humanized
anti-villain archetype primes us to have empathy for real life villains who lay
their tragedies bare.
JD
Vance does this when he talks about Poverty and growing up in Appalachia. Regardless of the truth of it, the story itself is enough for many
to look for a redemption arc. Additionally, JD Vance has often been able to
deflect public ire by laughing off serious comments he made “as just jokes”, or through
self-deprecation. Here
he’s using comedy as a shield; a common tactic whenever someone is attempting
to hold people in power accountable for discriminatory rhetoric.
The
other way that comedy is used to sanitize real life evil is its use to
humiliate those in power. “Punching up”, as they say, has always been comedy’s
weapon against injustice. The idea being that by laughing at the expense of
people in power it robs them of their seriousness, it makes them less scary. However,
this also comes at the expense of humanizing them; without any of the
structural benefits of depleting their power or making any policy changes.
As I wrote in a Previous essay (2025)
While it is easy to write off these individuals as
pitifully sad, insecure, arrested developed man-babies; that is a coping
mechanism for those of us without the same level of access to power and
influence to be able to exist in such an unequal world. However, the
infantilizing and emasculating of these men does not make their decisions and
control over our institutions any less complete. It just makes living within
their tech-bro oligarchy more bearable for the rest of us. Unfortunately, this
normalization still benefits them. No matter how many jokes we make at their
expense, their wealth, status and control allow for a shaping of the world in
their desired image of the pop culture they consume. Therefore, because of the
power that they wield, that representation, no matter how inaccurate, threatens
to become reality.
Comedy does nothing here but
desensitize us to their Rule and normalize their villainous fanaticism. They
are sanitized, and we feel morally superior to them, allowing us to better
exist under their thumb. Therefore, even the mechanisms we use to cope with
this growing fascistic society are weaponized against us; allowing the elites
to amass even more power and shield themselves from whatever criticism we might
be able to cobble together.
CONCLUSION
Since
the elimination of the Haze Code, a reprehensibly restrictive constraint on
creativity, we have been culturally conditioned to embrace and even desire
villainy. Through our popular culture, we’ve internalized the value of the anti-villain
archetype, making us vulnerable to the threat of real-world villains that vie
for political, social and economic power. Comedy is often used to further the
acquisition of power and used as a shield to deflect legitimate criticism. In
the face of such dire circumstances, one of the few things that we can hold
onto is threads of anecdotal evidence that suggest that holding on to hate prematurely ages individuals and impacts the erotic
capital they hold. If it didn’t, imagine a reality where our current leaders
had the erotic capital that is often held by our villains of fiction. How much
easier would we be willing to march to our annihilation with the same exuberance
with which we lust after those in our stories.
REFERENCES
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann
1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge New York: Anchor Books
Bogutskaya, Anna 2023. Unlikable
Female Characters: The Women Pop Culture Wants you to Hate. Naperville:
Sourcebooks
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo 2022. Racism
without Racists: Color Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial inequality in
America New York: Rowman and Littlefield
Brutlag, Brian 2021. “The Sociology of
Nicolas Cage: Simulacrum and Hyper Reality of a 'Massive Talent' in The
Sociologist’s Dojo retrieved at https://thesociologistsdojo.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-sociology-of-nicolas-cage.html
Retrieved on 5/11/26
___________ 2025. “When Reality is
Stranger than (Dystopian) Fiction: The Narrowing Gap between Narrative
Dystopias and Trump-Era Policies.” in The Sociologist’s Dojo retrieved
at https://thesociologistsdojo.blogspot.com/2025/08/when-reality-is-stranger-than-dystopian.html Retrieved on: 5/15/2026
___________ 2026. "I Will Not See
The White City Fall:" Billionaire's Obsession with 'The Lord of the Rings'
and the Cultural Laundering of White Supremacy through Tolkien's Trilogy” in The
Sociologist’s Dojo retrieved at: https://thesociologistsdojo.blogspot.com/2026/03/i-will-not-see-white-city-fall.html Retrieved on 5/16/2026
Bourdieu, Pierre 1987. Distinction:
A Social Critique on the Judgement of Taste Boston: Harvard University
Press
Cooley C.H. 1983. Human Nature and
the Social Order New York: Routledge
Driessens, Oliver 2013. “Celebrity
capital: Redefining celebrity using field theory” in Theory and Society
42(5) pp 543-560 retrieved at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258377783_Celebrity_capital_Redefining_celebrity_using_field_theory
Retrieved on 5/19/26
Gale Keen, Richard, Monica McCoy and
Elizabeth Powell-Dunaway 2012. “Rooting for the Bad Guy: Psychological
Perspectives” in Studies in Popular Culture 34(2) 129-148 Retrieved at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260142449_Rooting_for_the_Bad_Guy_Psychological_Perspectives
Retrieved on 5/14/2026
Goffman, Erving 1959. The Presentation in Everyday Life New
York: Anchor Books
Hakim, Cathrine 2010. “Erotic
Capital” in European Sociological Review 26 (5) pp 499-518 DOI:10.1093/esr/jcq014
Lasch, Christopher 1979. The
Culture of Narcissism: An American Life in An Age of Diminishing Expectation New
York: W.W. Norton Company
Simi, Pete and Robert Futrell 2024.
American Swastika: Inside the White Power Movement’s Hidden Spaces of Hate.
New York: Rowman and Littlefield
Stanley, Jason 2020. How Fascism
Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House
[1]
Though one could argue that the code itself fits that description with all of
its restrictions on sex.
[2]
Christian white supremacists have to keep the races pure after all
[3] Mini Rant, and some spoilers for Invincible
both the comic and the animated series: One villain redemption arc that I
have been happy with has been Nolan Grayson Omni-man. Whereas the comics
truncated this arc and made his overall redemption happen quickly, the show is
taking its time and letting Nolan feel the weight of his actions. In season 4,
when Nolan confronts Debbie (the first time after his murderous rampage at the
end of season one that resulted in thousands of lives lost and her son, Mark
beaten near death) unlike in the comics that sees their reconciliation happen
over a quick three panel spread; the show is more cutting. In some of the most
brilliant writing I have seen in the show, depicts Debbie rightfully laying
into Nolan forcing him to realize that forgiveness and accountability can
mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, after this scene they started to lay the
foundation for Nolan and Debbie’s reconciliation. I aggressively don’t want
that. I understand that redemption arcs can be done, and horrible characters
can learn from their mistakes. But that doesn’t mean that all relationships can
be mended. I believe that Nolan has cause Debbie such irreparable damage that
their relationship is permanently obliterated. If they get back together, like they
did in the comics, no matter how long it takes, it will seem disingenuous End
of rant.
