This book is about comic books and citizenship. These may seem to be an odd couple at first, but this book will show how they might not be such strange bedfellows after all. This coupling depends on a vastly changed notion of society and citizenship, described below.
Society and Citizen
Citizenship is at the heart of this book, but the term needs explication. A brief definition that I will offer at the outset, and which I explain more sufficiently later in the chapter, is as follows: citizenship can be thought of as living in and participating in, indeed refining, continuously and in response to new obstacles, governments by the people and for the people. This constant refinement of governmental structures should always be centered on justice and fairness, and for advocating for vulnerable and wronged populations and individuals.
It is probably an understatement to say society has changed rapidly over the last few decades. Changes in transportation, communication, as well as ideas such as diversity and postmodernism (in its various forms) have restructured how we as citizens go about our lives and how we relate to each other as citizens (Bloland, 2000; Kellner, 2019; Kincheloe, 2001). Suffice it to say that teaching citizenship is now extremely difficult and complex for social studies educators (Banks, McGee-Banks, & Clegg, 1999; Kuhn, Feliciano, & Kostikina, 2019). One pertinent concept derived from postmodernist thought which I think can help call attention to these changes Jean Baudrillard’s (1994) notion of hyperreality (Kellner, 2019). In hyperreality, what is considered real has no origin. Rather, there is only simulacra and simulations. Simulacra do not represent an underlying truth, rather, they only represent themselves, and there are no referents anymore (Baudrillard, 1994; Kellner, 2019; Poster, 2001). Kellner (2019) asserts:
The realm of the hyperreal (e.g., media simulations of reality, Disneyland and amusement parks, malls and consumer fantasylands, TV sports, and other excursions into ideal worlds) is more real than real, whereby the models, images, and codes of the hyperreal come to control thought and behavior.
Baudrillard (1994, 19) bluntly states that “the real is no longer possible” (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2018). A word of caution is in order for Baudrillard however. Kellner (2019) argues that Baudrillard should be read more as a “provocateur” of ideas rather than offering any concrete plans. Following Kellner, I use Baudrillard’s idea not as a plan to pursue, but as a way to question and provoke change.
Hatch and Cunliffe (2018) utilize Baudrillard’s ideas to examine organizational theory. As an example, they cite the practices of the now notorious Enron Corporation. Enron essentially created a simulacrum to hide its unethical practices. Enron created fake partnerships and set up fake offices (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2018). This was a simulacrum with no corresponding truth. Hatch and Cunliffe (2018) go on to note that although these types of unethical practices are not new to our age, they are becoming the norm. Further, Bloland, a higher education scholar also (2000) noted how hyperreality calls into question what is real.
Kincheloe (2001, 4) describes the hyperreal as a state with “so much input” from electronic media that the ability to make meaning may become difficult. He argues that social studies teachers in hyperreality must help their students understand signs and images, especially their political meanings (63). Kincheloe (2001) goes on to critique positivist thought and the supposition that there is one right answer, one uncontested immutable truth. Rather, there are a number of different ways of comprehending, multiple ways of seeing issues all of which offer some insight. We must transcend our limitations and examine our own thinking (and teachers must help students do this) to see these multiple frames. If not “we are unprepared to meet the demand of citizenship in hyperreality” (Kincheloe, 2001, 270). In hyperreality, we must see beyond simple cause and effect thinking and embrace complexity and holism in the causation of events (587). The notion of bullshit is pertinent as well, it is a concept which really seems to epitomize the age we find ourselves in (Duncombe, 2019; Frankfurt, 2005). As Frankfurt (2005) argues, bullshitting is not lying. The honest man tells the truth, the liar knows the truth but chooses not to tell it. The bullshitter however has no regard for the truth, he just says whatever. The bullshitter is unconcerned with the truth, and that makes bullshit “a greater enemy of the truth than the lies are” (Frankfurt, 2005, 61). Plainly put, citizens have to wade through a good deal of bullshit (Drew, Lyons & Svehla, 2010). Illig (2020) notes how citizens are now just flooded with bullshit and misinformation. He (2020) argues that this is an age of “manufactured nihilism” where people stop seeking truth because it is too difficult and people are exhausted by the process. Moreover, Illig (2020) notes how this strategy is a deliberate one, for example by Steve Bannon and Vladimir Putin—it is meant to confuse and overwhelm people. Of course, while there are no doubt powerful individuals who influence the process, this is a systemic issue that goes beyond any individual, it is how media works now (Illig, 2020). Roberts (2017, 2019) similarly argues that we are facing an “epistemic crisis”—we just do not know what to believe. And in that confusion, people may simply drop out of the process or turn to a strong leader for security and order in the chaos. Needless to say, this does not bode well for democracy (Drew et al., 2010; Duncombe, 2019; Illig, 2020; Roberts, 2019).
So where does this all leave us as a society and as a republic? Should we resign ourselves to a state of uncertainty? A more productive route may be to embrace the notion of the ethical spectacle or dream. Duncombe (2019) suggests that the vaunted notions of scientific truth, derived from the Enlightenment, and so appealing to progressives, are outdated. Duncombe (2019, 18–19) points out that while there may not be a “Truth with a capital T” such as many of the Enlightenment thinkers envisioned, there are “small “t” truths,” which have to be presented as “convincing” cases. The truth has to be told, it does not just appear (Duncombe, 2019). Duncombe (2019, 20) asserts:
we need to learn how to tell the truth more effectively. It must have stories woven around it, works of art made about it…It must be embedded in an experience that connects with peoples dreams and desires, that resonates with symbols and myths they find meaningful.
What society wants, and what Duncombe (2019) argues that progressives need to adopt, is a politics of the ethical spectacle or the dream. The notion of spectacle can scare people however because it harkens back to the Nazis, as well as modern advertising (Duncombe, 2019). And both the Nazis and modern advertisers believe their spectacles to be ethical. So, for an ethical spectacle, Duncombe posits some parameters, such as realism but with an eye to changing reality, diversity, and nonhierarchical organization to name a few ideas. While these are abstract, they are at least a start (Duncombe, 2019). Ultimately, Duncombe (2019, xvii) calls for an ethical spectacle which is participatory and open which means that people must help to create it (unlike Nazi spectacles which were created by the government), and it must be adaptable and open to change. Further, ethical spectacles are always known to be a fantasy, but are grounded in real dynamics of power, and they allow participants to think of a better world (Duncombe, 2019). In contrast, Fascist spectacle was presented as the immutable and uncontestable truth (Duncombe, 2019). Some examples of ethical spectacles are the Zapatistas in Mexico and the “Billionaires for Bush” project. The Zapatistas make bold claims and put forth political dreams meant to inspire people, even if these dreams seem impossible (Duncombe, 2019). The Billionaires for Bush project saw people dressed up as mock billionaires and pretend to laud in a very public fashion what they saw as the corrupt policies of the Republicans (although they started out criticizing both parties), for instance, by holding a Million Billionaire March (Duncombe, 2019).
In a personal email, Duncombe (April 25, personal email communication) told me that ethical spectacles can do a number of things. They can unmask an existing truth (e.g., Rosa Parks unmasking racism) or they can help to point to a new reality that does not exist currently (e.g., Jesus’ eating with pariahs to posit a new world where the first will be last). In his book (2019, 168) he notes that an ethical spectacle “must always root itself in the real,” but can offe...