A Life of Mastery

by duane sharrock

If there is anything that occupies professionals, especially if they are parents or caretakers of parents, it’s how to balance work and life while trying to master their career goals. We have many articles about balancing life and work, maintaining motivation, beating depression and anxiety, getting enough sleep, self-discipline, professional development, creativity, exploration of hobbies, sacrifice, ambition, and defining success. For all of this advice, we need to put our goals in perspective. So, of course, how can we not explore The Batman?

Yes, The Batman is a comic book character. He is fictional. And he’s crazy. What else is he? Is he a psychopath? A sociopath? Can we place him into a categorical ideal to which we may aspire but should never become?

What is the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? Writers have claimed that some successful CEOs possess psychopathic tendencies and that the most effective undercover cops have a sociopath’s tendencies. Are these assertions research-supported or are they similar to urban myths? Where does narcissism enter the picture? Why can’t successful industry leaders be normal? Why do the extraordinary need to be mentally ill? Is this another urban myth? Is there something truthful about this myth? And even more importantly: how should future writers characterize the obsessions and motivations and demons of the Bruce Wayne/Batman dichotomy?

Quentin Tarantino, through his characters, says some things about superheroes. In Kill Bill 2, Bill discusses the interesting characteristics of Superman and most superheroes.

“As you know, I’m quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating.

“Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology… The mythology is not only great, it’s unique.

“Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone.

“Superman didn’t become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S” – that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears – the glasses, the business suit – that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us.

“Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak… He’s unsure of himself… He’s a coward.

“Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.”

– Bill’s Superman speech from Kill Bill http://spaceninja.com/2006/06/bills-superman-speech-from-kill-bill/

I buy into the idea that this is very important when navigating the DC Universe of superheroes. However, I disagree with the simplification of the Batman (as well as the simplification of Superman, for that matter). Here’s why.

Bruce Wayne has no superpowers, per se. It is his intellect and drive and creativity that makes him a “superhero”, so he doeswake up as Batman. He is a lifelong learner. He is highly teachable and has developed his skills to frightening levels of expertise under the tutelage of a handful of mentors. He is an expert of various disciplines: martial arts, forensic psychology and other forensic sciences, gymnastics and acrobatics, driving/piloting almost any vehicle in existence, etc. In many ways, he is James Bond with a cowl. The difference though is the cowl. The cowl was designed to inspire fear.

Bruce Wayne, in the depictions that interest me most, is a special kind of monster. He is a monster that protects normal humans from other monsters. In Arkham Asylum, this point was the focus of the story and why the Joker is his most disturbing nemesis. I am not the only one who considers these issues. For example, the writer Matt Hunt makes a diagnosis of Batman herehttp://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/comic-books/batman-sociopath.htm. I disagree with some of his explanations and his rationale declaring Batman (Bruce Wayne) is not a sociopath, but mainly because I think these points should be explored in ways that support the idea that Bruce Wayne is a sociopath (but somewhat socially acceptable due to how he channels these impulses and interests), but may possibly fit a description of psychopath:

“First described systematically by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941, psychopathy consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.”  

What “Psychopath” Means: It is not quite what you may think By Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitzhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means

In Grant Morrison’s graphic novel Arkham Asylum, this theme is played up nicely, especially with Dave McKean’s artful but disturbing images exploring Bruce’s psyche during the interview with the staff psychiatrist. The authors ask how much of Bruce Wayne’s rage and fear consumes the “little boy” still stuck in the past and in the alleyway where his parents are killed in front of his eyes? From the Christopher Nolan movie Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne says, “They told me there was nothing out there, nothing to fear. But the night my parents were murdered I caught a glimpse of something. I’ve looked for it ever since. I went around the world, searched in all the shadows. And there is something out there in the darkness, something terrifying, something that will not stop until it gets revenge… Me.” The story itself makes clear that much of his motivation is to seek justice, but it is also what drives him towards maximizing the impact of fear, power, rage, and violence. The frightened little boy who was powerless to save his parents found an amazingly sick outlet.

Bruce Wayne revels in the fear he gives criminals. He revels in his superiority of intellect, self-control, persistence, and relentlessness. He is bold and practically fearless. But it also makes you wonder why anyone would think that his willingness to pummel criminals has anything to do with the victim that Batman happens to be saving. Isn’t he acting out some kind of psychodrama that might occasionally achieve a sociopath’s or psychopath’s satisfaction?

Another insight emerges. Maybe the costume does more than inspire fear in the superstitious and cowardly criminal. It might also be a means to hide from himself what he truly is and to hide from others the feelings and emotions that twist and distort his face as he carries out his violence and as he satisfies his obsessions.

After watching Dexter’s last season on Showtime, other things occurred to me. Bruce donates to charities and attends charity events because he wants to be appreciated, seen as a benefactor, as something good. Even as Batman, he chooses a costume and manner to inspire fear, but it is also utilitarian, useful as armor, and he may intentionally, or unconsciously, aim to belong to a knighthood. Maybe he even began his journey towards becoming The Batman with the image of an avenging, monstrous knight. Consequently, the act of attaching himself to the police is symbolic as well as useful. In addition, he does this out of fear of what he might do if he couldn’t provide a socially accepted manner of justice. He does this to assuage his suspicions or uncomfortable awareness that he enjoys this lifestyle “too much”. There is also the reason I was driving at: that he wants the public to recognize him as a force for good. For all his violence and intimidation and terrorism, he has a positive impact on crime statistics, and he is not a murderer. He lives to serve his community, and he lives by a “code”; he is a knight.

But just how deep can a writer or actor go into this darker possibility before the Batman repels, horrifies, or disgusts its readers and viewers? How much ritualism could be explored as Bruce Wayne allows the benevolent smile to fall away as he suits up as Batman? Frank Miller touched upon this aspect of the superhero when he wrote Daredevil and Batman. But how deeply, more thoroughly, should writers explore this aspect? How explicitly depicted? What goes through his mind when he is locked on to a special kind of criminal and vets him? Does he distinguish between supervillains and common criminals? Which does he prefer to pursue? Could he have a ritualized culminating ceremony, something he does when he is victorious over the criminal? Should it be frightening and disturbing? Or should it be something subtle? For example, depictions of the Batcave indicate that Bruce is something of a “collector”. Does he take something from his vanquished foes by force? Wouldn’t it be interesting to depict Bruce’s occasional visits to the Batcave, his strolls down memory lane, while holding a casual phone conversation with a reporter or a prospective date about his hobbies, about what he does for fun? The audience/reader can get glimpses into his obsessive, constant exercise and training regimen painstakingly scheduled to push his limits but not to injure his body, optimized for growth and improvement; his constant studying of psychological journals, forensics, financial records, digital tracking; his hunt-related collaborations with experts in their various fields; his development and maintenance of informal network connections.

There is also, finally, the issue of mastery. What activities does he perform to reflect on his crime-fighting? He is a master of many arts, after all, and we know that mastery involves some form of reflection in addition to practice and study. So, the question must be from a what does he do to reflect point of view rather than an if he reflects.

In my exploration of the craziness of Bruce Wayne, I came across an article Masks of Sanity by a forensic psychologist on anger, madness and destructive behavior, Dr. Stephen Diamond, who said:

Indeed, when used glibly and indiscriminately, the term” psychopath” is merely a means of avoiding or projecting the problem of evil and the inherent potentiality for evil in us all. It would be a dangerous error to naively comfort ourselves with thinking that so-called psychopaths are the only ones among us capable of evil deeds. Were the vast majority of German citizens perpetrating the Nazi holocaust all depraved psychopaths? How about the otherwise law-abiding, stable, responsible person who suddenly commits a violent crime of passion? Evil is an ever-present potentiality in each of us, given the right temptation, threats and circumstances. “Psychopaths” are not the sole purveyors of evil. But by better understanding the angry, resentful, bitter roots of psychopathy, we will be better prepared to deal with and reduce the pervasive and insidious problem of human destructiveness and violence.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200908/masks-sanity-part-four-what-is-psychopath

These questions open up the possibility that Bruce Wayne is no psychopath at all. He can be highly motivated and disciplined, but he is also a hero in that he has a conscience and is moral, rather than amoral, despite the gray and dark world he inhabits.

He is, however,  a cautionary tale of how the path to mastery can take us all into the dark. In an online discussion, I explored the Batman problem as a problem of preparation for all challenges and dangers. I talked about a flood.

Let’s explore it as a real event rather than as a metaphor. In the last 10 years, we have witnessed destructive flooding resulting from powerful hurricanes. We can focus on the impact of specific US cities and states: New Orleans, LA; various cities in New Jersey; and NYC. Despite our best meteorological/weather systems in place and employed, these weather events managed to kill people, destroy property, and disrupt businesses. Weather is based on physical laws, thermodynamics. But people were swept away, drowned, battered to death under collapsing construction. It might be argued that, in some cases, the impacts on people’s lives was reduced based on improvements on forecasting systems and disaster response protocols. But how useful were these improvements for the people who died?

I am reading Anathem by Neal Stephenson. It is science fiction, but should not be ignored. The author generates some powerful ideas and responses to today’s most distracting preoccupations. Here is part of an interesting discussion:

“Describe worrying,” he went on.
“What!?”
“Pretend I’m someone who has never worried. I’m mystified. I don’t get it. Tell me how to worry.”
“Well…I guess the first step is to envision a sequence of events as they might play out in the future.”
“But I do that all the time. And yet I don’t worry.”
“It is a sequence of events with a bad end.”
“So, you’re worried that a pink dragon will fly over the concent and fart nerve gas on us?”
Orolo and Erasmus, Part 4, “Anathem”

The discussion goes on to explore the various contingencies and why some contingencies are irrational because they are statistically unlikely. Pink dragons are unlikely, for example. But why are they unlikely? And, why is the fact that something is unlikely result in our discarding or ignoring in our planning? The color pink and the argument made me think of the “black swan” anecdote of which many of us are familiar. How often are we disturbed by the occasional metaphorical black swan? After all, it is the thing we did not expect, couldn’t even imagine, or would never allow ourselves to believe possible that it would happen to us at that certain time and place, or due to the unexpected variation, etc.

In the end, we could not be prepared. Statistics are not reality. So we are left with worrying about everything and preparing for everything. Which is impossible to achieve.

I can only imagine preparing for hand to hand combat by studying a martial art, mastering it, learning how to use firearms, knifes, broom sticks, and possibly studying up on improvised antipersonnel responses (uses of fire, water, and everyday household items to use in various ways to repel attackers with superior numbers, strength, or fire power). But even then, what do you do with the time left over? How do you live if you need to imagine just one more contingency, one more possibility, one more threat and how best to respond to it? And is this a life worth living?

Truth is approached in the metaphor of Batman. In considering what he lives and how he lives, we can fill in the blanks. We know that his life is nearly empty but maybe he is not a sociopath or a psychopath. And we know, that despite what authors do to make him human, he cannot actually enjoy life nor enjoy what makes life worth living, because of the cost of his pursuits. Even in comic books, there are limitations. He made mastery his life purpose, and this pursuit is endless and time-consuming. It is everything. It is also all he’s got.