Comic books and alternative views of geopolitics

Wartime comic ‘Spy Smasher’ used common geopolitical messages of the time. (Source Flickr: Paul Pod)

In what ways have comic books been used for geopolitical propaganda in the past?

The key period for this was World War Two. Superheroes signed up to fight for the Allies in droves, and Hitler called Superman pro-Jewish propaganda. A general pattern was that the ‘weaker’ superheroes (like Captain America and Wonder Woman) went overseas and fought in the war effort, while the stronger superheroes like Superman stayed at home. This was because Superman could, theoretically, win the whole war himself. All the superheroes were involved in jingoistic flag-waving though of one kind or another. After World War Two it became much harder to do this kind of thing un-ironically, and over time the link between superheroes and the government has become much more strained.

Are there any examples of comic book fiction becoming fact in geopolitical history?

I think it is more useful to dissolve the boundary between fiction and fact: comic books exist in the world, and therefore the stories told in them are real and can inspire all sorts of political effects. So for instance, we can think about changes in the American (and to a certain extent, British) way of fighting wars that emphasise Special Forces and highly technological weapons systems as being prefigured by several decades’ worth of superhero stories. Similarly, the notion of the United States as an exceptional state that can contravene international law to provide vigilante justice did not originate with superheroes, but certainly has been buttressed by them.

Why do you think more holistic global concerns and challenges (such as climate change) do not attract a stronger narrative in comic books?

There are efforts to engage with issues like climate change in comic books, but they often founder for the same reasons they fail to gain purchase elsewhere. I thought it was quite good, and quite refreshing, but it did not last long. Superhero comics tend to think in terms of good and evil, which is why people like them: people connect to stories that end up reinforcing their sense of self. That is why we worry about terrorism so much more than social inequality, despite terrorism being so minor in comparison in terms of the damage it causes. Terrorism as a story lets us think of ourselves as heroic freedom-fighters, while social inequality asks us tough questions about who we are as a society.

Should comic books objectively try to have a strong geopolitical message (such as advocating democracy) or should they just be for us to enjoy on a more simplistic level?

Comic books are like any kind of art form: they are simply a mode of expression. They can entertain, inform, evoke, provoke, shock, propagandise, and do anything else that music, literature, movies, poetry, and dance can do. Because when most people think of comics they think of superheroes, or Beano and Dandy, they think comics are uniquely a children’s medium. But there has always been a parallel array of comics intended for adults. This is even more developed in other parts of the world, especially the Franco-Belgian and East Asian traditions, where comics are mostly understood as an adult medium. So I would not want to limit comics to being simply either pedagogical or simple entertainment.