Source Unknown
I'm about 1/3 of the way through Alexander Dumas' (pronounced 'doōm-ä') Three Musketeers in search of the qualities modeled after in the heart of my own personal hero, the amazing Nightcrawler. On the surface, these characters share common ground in their attraction to campaigning and adventuring and nearly monopolizing the function of the term 'swashbuckling' (I sure can't think of any applications of the word outside of these two instances). A swashbuckler "engages in daring and romantic adventures with ostentatious bravado or flamboyance," as these fictional characters are certainly wont to. But what underlying function or motivation does this honor-loving (as Plato would call it) serve? As a fictional superhero, Nightcrawler's value can be manifested in the real world only in his functioning as idol, so the substance of his idols possesses the impetus of his character.
Image from Excalibur Vol. 1, #1 (1988)
The Musketeers value the heart and soul (two words of vastly intricate semantics-- in some contexts, interchangeable, but often indicative of significant subtleties-- but implacably relating to the basic essences or mature of an individual) primarily in the service of a powerfully endowed authoritative figure, i.e. the king. Their famous mantra-- "All for one, and one for all" (which I actually haven't observed personally as of yet, ~300 pages in)-- reflects their unquestioning faith in a hierarchical system based on fundamental inequalities: all serve a sanctified ruler, who, in turn, serves in the best interests of the masses. This is surely a noble ideal, but presumes to obscure the tendency for power to corrupt; can any one remain just in managing the lifestyle of a collective whole, as in an aristocracy? Antithetically, can a community distribute power evenly to each constituent, as in the most fundamentally pure democracy? Plato, as mirrored in the creed of the Musketeers and Dumas, ascribes purely good constitutionality to the latter, while modern day Americans (purport to) place faith in the former (see The Republic).
In the 19th century French novel, all honor is bestowed upon those who demonstrate blind faith in those held divinely supreme. e.g. the Musketeers to the King and the Guards to the Cardinal, and these higher powers seem irrevocably locked in a conflict of interests. What do these two factions war over exactly anyway? Political power? Or is there more to it? The heroes are virtuous for adherence to their word (supposedly an intrinsic quality of the proper gentlemen), for courage and gallantry, and for general courtesy paid in the company of a neighbor, be it by intimacy with a woman, fraternity between men, or formalities between strangers. Still, a overriding lack of individual agency nags throughout these expressions of chivalry. To what end do these purportedly noble deeds serve? Do they serve any other function than in the preservation of the royalties' privileged status? Is the greatest good, the good of the collective whole, being more aptly served in the will of the King, or of the Cardinal? These heroes are esteemed for serving loyally, never endeavoring to inquire there within and for sacrificing personal welfare in the name of external, 'superior' persons. And how does this conception of virtue relate to the X-Men, which are so often proclaimed to subvert notions of inherent inequalities, for the equivocation of all persons?
Or does the rift between mutant and human demand acknowledgement of such inherent inequality? Are the X-Men avatars of our implicit propensity towards asymmetry and hierarchal systems of indentification? Is mankind best served in the empowerment of each and every individual, or are welfare and prosperity more attainable in endowing an elite with supreme power over the whole, who must place faith in the ruler? Nightcrawler, the Musketeers, and Plato are proponents of the latter creed, but man seems too self-interested on the whole to put such practice into effect, to embrace the will of an other so wholly. In popular modernity, we eschew such concentration of power, normally conceived in the forms of dictatorship and tyranny. Is there, as Plato suggests in The Republic, a realistic alternative in a ruler who serves truly in the interests of the community?
Do the X-Men contribute to the actuation of such distinct classifications , as more extreme mutant activists are known to, or do they fight for an empowerment of all persons of all qualities? Does 'peaceful coexistence' require, or even reflect, individual equality? Or, (again, as Plato suggests) preclude it? Is there something more in Klock's suggestion of "the Ethics 101 debate between the altruist and the egoist," than is popularly conceived of in the creed of Xavier's mutant superheroes? Are we better off in a world where every person has a voice in the machinery of public lifestyles, or should we all place faith in, and more importantly, discover an other who is fit to rule?
"The altruist believes that the most important ethical principle is helping others, so he preaches altruism. If the egoist genuinely believes in self-interest as the most important ethical principle, and if (contra Rand) he believes that a world of egoists is not in his (personal) self interest, he will also preach altruism. Magneto clearly believes that mutants are superior to humans, destined to replace them as the dominant species, and he proclaims as much, bringing every superhero down on his head. Millar's Xavier often seems to believe that mutants are superior to humans ("Our eyes were brighter. Our minds were faster."), destined to replace them as the dominant species, but he preaches integration, perhaps because it is the easiest path to mutant succession."
-Geoffrey Klock. "X-Men, Emerson, and Gnosticism." <http://reconstruction.eserver.org/043/klock/klockprint.htm>
