Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A A R O N TAY L O R
W
ITHIN THE PAST DECADE, THERE HAS BEEN A GENERAL INCREASED
theoretical interest surrounding the lived body and pop-
ular representations of the body. Examples include em-
bodied phenomenology (developed from the writings of Marcel
Merleau-Ponty), Foucault’s work on sexuality and institutions, and a
renewed investment in cognitive studies. Adopting Spinoza’s rejection
of the Cartesian cogito (which implicitly divides the subject into mind
and body), contemporary theorists are beginning to embrace a much
more corporeal worldview. The shift of critical foci away from dichot-
omous conceptualizations of the human subject is not a return to
biological determinism. It is a recognition that the subject and his/her
corporeality are not mutually exclusive. One’s somatic existence is not
distinct from one’s psychic existence. Body is no longer that which is
not mind—a mere vessel that houses the brain. Furthermore, the latter
is no longer privileged over the former. Physicality is not base un-
ruliness in need of discipline from a transcendent intelligence; the two
are integral to lived experience and work in tandem. The relocation of
critical attention to issues of corporeality is a major shift for Grand
Theory and signifies an abandonment of archaic epistemologies that do
not credit the inescapable fleshiness of the human subject.
In particular, cultural studies have invested in the corporeal approach
to examining popular representations of the body. A consideration of
344
Investigating the Engendered Superhero Body 345
their backs, and heaving their anti-gravity breasts into readers’ faces,
defy all the laws of physics’’ ( Jones and Jacobs 340). Though read-
ership continues to be dominated by adolescent, heterosexual males, I
would argue that the explicit eroticism in both superhero and super-
heroine points to a potential bisexual reader subjectivity. Certainly, I do
not mean to impose an ahistorical comic reading experience, as popular
representations of sexuality and physicality continually change. How-
ever, the contemporary return of the repressed superbody may shake up
the dominant, moralistic discourses by which it has been surrounded
since Frederic Wertham’s condemnatory study, Seduction of the Innocent,
published in 1954.
I would argue that the superbody constitutes a polymorphous sexu-
ality, or at least a sexuality that dualistic logic cannot constrain. The
categorical fluidity of the superbody and the irresolute subjectivity of
the reading subject disrupt conventional categories of ‘‘man’’ and
‘‘woman.’’ What may be emerging is the ultimate androgyny of the
superbody. Superhero comics continue to be marketed according to
‘‘the old, old moulds, in which women are wenches, bitches, or weepy
blond recreation equipment’’ (Wood 18), and men’s musculature
reaches Schwarzeneggerian proportions. Commercial success is still
measured by the numbers attracted to the hard bodies in tight spandex.
And yet, the sheer otherness of the superbody—its strange powers, its
anatomical exaggerations, its continual reconceptualizations—should
render these antiquated strategies obsolete. The subversive potential of
the popular superbody to undermine the culturally enforced, dualistic
engenderment of the body is great. Whether comic artists and their
publishers can cultivate such subversion is anyone’s guess. As comics
remain largely ghettoised in North America after almost a century—
popularly regarded as infantile subliterature—their ability to impress
upon cultural norms remains quite limited. More likely, their cre-
ations’ bodies are destined to labor under the hegemonic cycle of re-
pression and exploitation.
In order to explore the representations of engendered superbodies,
I will refer to two popular contemporary superhero texts which feature
the same characters, but whose representations of these characters are
drastically different: JLA: New World Order and Kingdom Come. Their
subject matter is ostensibly the same (both feature DC’s sacrosanct
Justice League of America) and the two texts were produced within a
year of each other. However, their stylistic and thematic approaches are
Investigating the Engendered Superhero Body 347
whose central subject is the body of the male hero. Porter delights in
drawing the massive bodies of the men in dynamic totality and Ross
elevates his personal favorites, Superman and Captain Marvel, to god-
hood in larger-than-life splash pages. Both artists occasionally reveal a
penchant for uniting the fragmented bodies for the reader in moments
of glorious, hypermasculine spectacle. Thus, the reader is invited to
ogle the bodies of these men in much the same way as the bodies of the
women. In both books, the same three characters receive a dispropor-
tionate amount of ‘‘objectification’’ when compared with other heroes,
and so, it is at this point that I turn to the bodies of Superman, Wonder
Woman, and Batman for a few final observations.
The Superman of JLA has a body that matches the one described by
Camille Paglia: ‘‘very phallic, glossy, gleamingly hard-edged, hyper-
masculine’’ (Kipniss 150). A subtle (and probably unintended) eroti-
cism is evident in Porter’s exhibitionist stylizations—a whiff of sex
that is not lost on many critics. For Mark Kipniss, many of Superman’s
battles are rendered ‘‘in violently homoerotic terms’’ (157). JLA is no
exception: witness the struggle/coupling between the Man of Steel and
the villainous alien Protex on page 84, panel four. In light of Kipniss’
assertions, Protex’s earlier question to his adversary, ‘‘Can you feel me
filling you up?’’ takes on an entirely different level of meaning (79/3).
Kingdom Come also feminizes the ‘‘phallic’’ body of Superman. Ross’
painting softens the hard edges of his body, and his figure takes on
more recognizably ‘‘human’’ proportions. Partly due to Ross’ use of live
models for his work and his ‘‘realist’’ aesthetic, partly due to the nature
of the narrative, the Superman in Kingdom is fallible, rather than phal-
lic. At the story’s end, the restoration of his glasses signifies a return of
the repressed Clark Kent, his long-ignored, effeminate alter ego, and
thus, an emerging femininity. Superman is dead. Long live Superman.
Wonder Woman has had many incarnations: Amazon princess,
fashion designer, Gloria Steinem’s model feminist, among others. A
cursory glance at JLA might confirm the suspicions of many comic
cynics that she has become just one more bubble-breasted supertramp.
Upon closer inspection, one discovers a muscular physique that would
put Demi Moore (ca. G. I. Jane) to shame. Here, her athleticism def-
initely takes precedence over her attractiveness; ‘‘she no longer looks
like a fugitive from Penthouse . . . [but has] a strong, well-defined chin,
and the slim muscular body of an Olympic swimming champion.
William Moulton Marston [her creator] would approve’’ (Robbins
356 Aaron Taylor
NOTE
I would like to thank Mark Langer at Carleton University for his contributions to the
development of this article.
Works Cited
Berger, Arthur Asa. The Comic Stripped American. New York: Walker
and Company, 1973.
Investigating the Engendered Superhero Body 359