This week I started my Master's program at Eastern Kentucky University. Part of the two year program requires either taking all courses and passing a comprehensive exam, or writing a thesis and defending it. Due to the fact that most Doctorate programs require a thesis, that will more than likely be the avenue I take. I'm not sure if I will for for a Doctorate degree, but I think it will be best to write the thesis and leave that door open. So that brings me to my thesis topic. All of the professors I have talked to make a point to say that when doing a thesis, make sure that you pick a topic that you are interested in because you will be spending an extreme amount of time working on it. It still has to relate to Criminal Justice, but there are many ways to link certain topics back to it. With that being said, here is the idea I have, and I would love to hear people's opinions on it. I love Pop culture and recently I've seen a large movement that I find very interesting. My idea is to write a thesis based on the shift in society from your love of typical heroes, the ones that have little to zero flaws and tend to always do the right things, to the new group of anti-heroes who people seem to be able to relate more to. I guess you could say this started a long time ago when some people looked up to mobsters because of the outlandish lives they lived, and even more specifically guys like John Dillinger who would not steal from the common man, but from banks and corporations. Today however, this idea has become increasingly evident with the explosion of these anti-heroes in comic books and on the big screen. Take for example Deadpool, which became the highest earning R-Rated movie of all-time. I can think of a few different directions I can go with this, but the paper is typically between 40 and 80 pages, so I will have to get very specific about this phenomenon in order for it to go over well. So what do you guys think? What do you think would be the best approach for this? Just remember this has to show a relation to the Criminal Justice field.
I usually see theses like this relating the representation of character as they relate to cultural identity following international conflict. Morally ambiguous characters only started becoming popular after the morally ambiguous Vietnam War, etc. So you could blame the outbreak of anti-heroes as a result of the current unrest overseas and the people that fight these wars that are clearly damaged, imperfect and human people trying to bring stability to their world. I suppose you could make similar correlations to the publics reaction to police violence. How society need protecting but sometimes bad things happen because the people protecting them aren't perfect.(?) I like the idea of pop culture as a window to societal pressures inherent to the era they were created in.
You mentioned the Viet Nam war, but really like I mentioned before, the anti-hero started even before then in the 1920-30's and so on with mobsters. In fact things got so bad that J. Edgar Hoover decided to fight back against it. He was the first person to really start using the media to fight the idea that mobsters were actually good guys forced to do bad things because of society. He start radio programs, America's top 10 wanted system, comic books, and so forth to try and gain the support of the country for the FBI.
I like the idea. I went to hunt down my favorite quote near this topic, which I realize has very little to do with your question--though I suppose it could point to one avenue of analysis: https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/good-and-evil-on-cable/?mcubz=0&_r=0 " Both shows are deeply interested in moral agency, but in “Breaking Bad,” we’re watching a protagonist who deliberately abandons the light for the darkness, whereas in “The Sopranos,” we’re watching someone born and raised in darkness turn down opportunity after opportunity to claw his way upward to the light." You could also examine a spectrum--the characters who are good guys but just violate the law, the characters who violate the law and have some interpersonal darkness (Firefly's Mal, at times, though it's really light-colored darkness), and the characters who do truly evil things, but who for some reason we can still identify with as protagonists. And there could be a look at "good guys" in general, and how often they're law-abiding or otherwise. Burn Notice guy is totally a good guy, but I doubt that there are many hours when he doesn't commit some crime or other. And a look at characters who are kind to their own people, and abandon all morals with the rest of the world. OK, random thoughts.
Well, the first thing they'll ask you to defend is the argumentative thesis statement of your statement: And then the hypothesis of your argument: Namely I would ask you to defend that such a shift even exists. How would you quantify it? Can you prove to me (the bloodthirsty professor who lives to pillory somebody's thesis) that stories of anti-heroes have increased to the exclusion of typical hero stories? Citing Deadpool (I haven't seen it) is anecdotal at best. If we play that game, I could list a bunch of modern stories that do exemplify the typical hero story, so you'll have to be able to demonstrate the veracity of your hypothesis before an argument can be entertained. If you were in a "softer" liberal arts or social science program, you could get away with skirting hard quantification, but with criminal justice? I don't know anything about the study, but the subject is based on legal boilerplate, Constitutional interpretation, and judicial precedent... I would think that would be one of the harder, "factual" fields that goes out of its way to define the undefineable in universal terms that can be applied to everyone (if that makes sense). You would know much better than I. The next thing I'd do, assuming you can put forth a cogent argument as to why your thesis is correct, would be to prove a counterfactual... that is to prove the inverse of your argument. If A caused B than B could not have happened without A to cause it. This is where most arguments go to die, particularly in my field of history. The classic counterfactual argument we always used as an example was in regards to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Argument: The Soviet Union collapsed because the United States forced them into an economic war they had no chance of winning. If that is true, than the counterfactual most also be true: The Soviet Union would not have collapsed if the United States hadn't forced them into an economic war they had no chance of winning. You get the idea. Whatever you write about, be ready for the counterfactual. Professors start foaming at the mouth when they sniff a faulty counterfactual in an argument. Some of them get aroused I think. Can't blame them... it's their chance to be academic badasses when they have you squirming in that chair. ETA: forgot to add that the Russian example does not hold up to a counterfactual as there were many factors that may have led to the collapse of the Soviet union independent of each other.
Yes that definitely brings up something that I need to look deeper into. How can I measure the change from the popularity of your standard hero to anti-hero. I could bring up the popularity of several different anti-heroes through different types of media, but what standard do I use? I can't just use dollar amounts, like the amount of money the movie Man of Steel made compared to Deadpool, that would be too narrow. I guess it is a good thing I have a year before I have to start writing this, so it gives me plenty of time to iron out the details.
pay close attention to what she is actually saying... it ties into the self-perception of what constitutes a good guy, and how the media plays a role in this. Former Undercover CIA Officer Talks War And Peace ---- this ties into the massive inequality aspects in society, which you can quantify and defend. as for anti-hero we are looking at the dark side, those who society has thrown out as being a pariah, being redeemed. the dark side fantasy of many on the edge of taking revenge on a society which has more or less by passed them and outcast them. the anti-hero provides a path to recognition and redemption, the main aspect being recognition and a rise up from the lower caste much of today's population find themselves in. i.e living pay check to paycheck, in some low-level job, which is well below anything they are truly capable of. Living conditions which do not allow for upward mobility or advancement. Multiple unfair events, in which a suppressed violent reaction remains a part of their day to day thought pattern. The need to simply laugh, or exhibit extreme sarcasm in resolving what in many cases is simply an absurd turn of events, their mind at one level relating to the dark side character, while moral and ethical rules freeze them from acting out on their base instincts, to conform with society. So the anti-hero being brought back into the fold of society is a resolution to their suppressed base instinct desire. The absurdity of maintaining a societal norm in the face adversity, and somehow being recognized for the sacrifice made by not going off the deep end. take a look at the movie Going in Style... a bunch of old guys lose their pensions to corporate greed and decide to rob a bank... are they good or bad guys, if in the process their motivation is to help those who have been hurt by the banks and corporations technically stealing from them thru legal means? The ambiguity of right and wrong based on what society has defined as acceptable, possibly being redefined thru these types of stories. Then as you point out this started in the '20s with a government sponsored counter-action, in the depths of the depression and prohibition. Emerging from world war 2 and a redefinition of heroes and sacrifice being tied back to a patriotic duty. fast forward to the counter culture of the '60s, the clamp down of the '70s, followed by the Rambo type psych-op of the '80s, and into the wild wild west of the nascent internet and information sharing of the '90s and its crash pre 911. Post 911 and the open legal loss of many basic rights, culminating into the financial failures putting millions out of work, and a return to the underpaid and overqualified workforce, while those responsible got bailouts and enriched themselves in the process. It's not that difficult to see the anti-hero being rooted for, especially when you add comedy to the format. Comedy is a major factor in psyops, to appease population during bad times. The anti-hero in these cases is being used as a release valve, to keep society at large from exploding and into a full frontal attack on the pieces holding the perceptions of a fair society together. the moral compass being rewritten as even your darkest desires at some point needs to find the common good for society and redeem itself by secretly suppressing itself and sacrificing this internal identity to save the world from what could have been unleashed upon them. A choice of acting out in a manner to disrupt society or a continued suppression of the animal instinct to kill a threat via an act of violence so depraved it could work as a catalyst to revolution and uprising against society as a whole. This is the quiet look at the polarization and acceptance of violence as a solution to a difference of opinions, currently being brought forth within society today. People see themselves as the underdog, the outcast, sacrificing what they must in a hope of recognition their ideologies for a newer and much fairer society will prevail. The sad part being the psych op engine has created a monster which works to exclude opposition, vs. trying to find common ground. The thought being in as far as they can create a clear division those affected by the actions of the upper echelons and corrupt government will fight each other vs. uniting and defending themselves from the threat they instinctively know is the actual cause. Their focus is redirected to minor issues of social equality based on exclusive personal attributes, vs. a fight of inclusive equality. Defined as I am different because of my ethnicity, sexual orientation, or whatever categorizing demographic that can be perceived to provide an edge in the fight for resources. Whereas an inclusive equality is based upon the actions and merit of a person, who they are and what they bring forth in helping not only themselves but those around them. The reason why MLK resonated with so many is he was not asking for an enforced systemic rebalancing, but for a societal recognition of equality. This is what made him so dangerous to the powers that be, he was calling for an inclusive equality, not for some special exclusionary enforced equality, that defines the differences and demographically creates a special needs group. The latter pitting those at an equal socioeconomic scale against each other. Alternately creating a false front of recognition thru a redistribution of wealth, which in actuality created a co-dependency between special needs and the state. If you want your pittance, then jump thru these hoops, and abide by the rules set forth by the governing class. Never realizing they were being denied the true resources for success, and the hoops and rules were designed to not only distract but to enforce a decision process to stay down in the lower echelons of society.
Ok now that I have read your post more thoroughly, are you saying the anti-hero has become more popular because they are more of an outlet for the common man that can use them as a surrogate for their own hidden fantasies to act out, or that the idea of an anti-hero is a tool used by the upper-class to allow the less fortunate to release their feelings through entertainment and comedy so that they don't actually act out towards them? Or a combination of both?
I don't think the anti-hero is new to our culture. It looks new because Superman is the most famous and has a reputation, lately, of being a really good guy. That's not true imo. Superman is an anti-hero. He used to do tons of evil stuff. Just look at this bastard: You also have guys like Conan. Conan was a thief, loved fighting, killed over nothing and delighted in the lamentations of the women when he drove his enemies from the battlefield. In "Tower of the Elephant" Conan is breaking and entering with no higher moral purpose. Both of these guys are nothing compared to the original, Achilles, seen here dragging his enemy behind his chariot to mutilate his body so that he has trouble in the afterlife. People have always loved anti-heroes.
I believe it has been a tool of the upper-class for a very long time, specifically because we use these as a surrogate for our own hidden fantasies. We can go way back to the Norse and Greek myths and see anti-heroes; even Shakespear is littered with them. to say there are more today is a misconception, one on a per capita basis, and another as a percentage of the sheer volume of available media. higher education and literacy rates coupled to mass production, and the speed at which information is sent received and converted from one medium to another. These days it's so fast you have books converted to movies, and then fandoms, creating everything from fiction to songs, to short videos supporting the base story. from a pure volume perspective, you would be correct, as a function of percentages vs. rates of propagation you have your work cut out for you. in perspective the world population in 1917 or a century ago: was approximately 1.7 billion with an urban population of around 360 million or 20% urbanized. compared to today we have 7.5 billion people with an urban population of around 4.1 billion or 55% urbanized. communications: in 1917 average wait time for an overseas letter was 3-4 weeks, compared to instant face time over video chats, and instant go live broadcasting we have today which is available to anyone with an internet connection. you can argue propagation speed, the anti-hero message reaches more people faster than ever before. Lack of true global boundaries in economies and media propagation, limited only by language translation, and distribution channels available to a publisher. the other aspect is a cultural difference in what defines an anti-hero. is it truly the same at a global scale? are you limiting this to western cultures only or taking on a global view?
If you look at the great depression and prohibition, in a sense this was society acting out in a full frontal attack in what was deemed an oppressive ruling class. During this time we also had the unions organizing and violently fighting back. financial fall out with a very large number of the population unemployed. denied a basic escape route of socialized drinking. whatever jobs were available, were at their base equivalent to slave labor... i.e it barely paid for a room and just enough food to keep going. (living wage issues) revenge on the what the majority view as thieving bankers i.e Dillinger becomes robin hood ... stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor. A grand vicarious life of great adventure played out in the newspapers. the speakeasies of the mob and their fight against the system and their dictates of the morals and ethics members of society must adhere to. The rebellious spirit awakened but channeled away from the true fight. contrast this to: the union, on the other hand, were the inclusive solution and portrayed as dangerous, apt to get you killed, maimed, and hoodlums of the worst kind. Obscurity of the press and tactics being used to force press coverage, i.e these were the terrorists of the day, causing great suffering and making things worse for their fellow man. Bolsheviks, communists, Marxist, looking to overthrow society via violent means, traitors to all who had built this great country. the upper class used the first two to their benefit while demonizing that which could truly hurt them. the bread and circus of ancient Rome, entertain the masses and give them just enough bread to keep them quiet. when the masses begin to demand more bread and an equitable system based upon an equality of merit, it becomes dangerous and what the upper class sees is the French and Russian revolution at their doorstep, waiting for the Marie Antoinette catalyst of "let them eat cake". Better to appease them for a few decades than to risk one's own neck to the guillotine. Welcome to the '50s where a week's wages could pay the mortgage. and slow corruption, as this generation who fought for this retired, and died off. Essentially creating the path to slowly regain their power between '72 and 2010 and the social economic inequality of the '20s. -- I say '72 because this was the beginning of defining the new enemy with gas line rationing and shifting the attention away from the domestic home front to a common enemy in the middle east. The opening of trade doors with China, and the birth of the global economy, where union negotiations became more of an if you do not want us to move overseas you will accept this contract. When the Teamsters threatened the entire security of the national infrastructure, this needed to be mitigated. It was an unexpected wildcat strike, the Teamsters for years had understood and kept a relationship with government interests. The new contract, however, fell short and members felt betrayed in what would become the first steps in weakening the unions collective bargaining powers. By the time the '80 rolled around it was more or less a done deal. However, the '90s were like a godsend, where the gold rush of the internet gave those with some understanding of how the internet worked a bargaining chip to jump from job to job demanding higher wages. If you weren't changing jobs every two years you were seen as having reached your cap. This was fantastic for the elites, it killed the concept of company loyalty, seniority, and job protection... i.e greed of the common man allowed them to introduce "right to work" or you can quit whenever you like and likewise I get to fire you whenever the heck I feel like it. as for anyone thinking we are making progress with the minimum wage being pushed up to $15 an hour --- I would remind them of Briar Rabbit --- Something I found to be a fascinating reoccurrence out of the Obama admin. the $15 an hour is just a few pennies over the cutoff for Medicaid. What this means is upon receiving this wage increase, you lose your medical benefits, and are now responsible to get your own insurance thru the ACA. Bingo instant enrollment number jumps and subsidy dependencies. Of course, the state legislatures want this, it takes pressure off their Medicaid expenditures. The fake opposition is to make the people feel like they are winning some Herculean fight while being screwed over in the process. How many though actually understand the standard middle class or comfortable living wage, where you can actually have vacations and a savings account is a very simple formula. It's the same one banks used until the '70s to determine if you could afford to secure a mortgage on a house... one week take home wages from the head of household equals your mortgage/rent payment. In many metro areas this is about 1500 a month or $50 an hour = 104k per year... this is if you were to actually match the spending power of a '50s thru early '70s union worker. then again $15 an hour sounds wonderful to anyone making 7.5-8.5 an hour, heck it almost doubles their wages, until this raise is sucked away by mandatory medical insurance. this is the shell game being played out. Who knows if their propaganda machine holds, as more people come to realize what is occurring to them.
I think I would narrow things down to how much the anti-hero has taken over Pop culture. Sure I would reference the past, and how the movement was at a height in the 20's, and of course would reference the use of the anti-hero in classic literature, but from my experience the anti-hero is definitely more advanced today. Truth is, guys like Superman, Roy Rogers, The Lone Ranger, etc. are just not as widely accepted as the anti-hero types that people feel they can relate more to. Many times the bad habits these anti-heroes have, and the negative things they do, can be ignored not only because of the positive things they do as well, but because the outsiders feel empathy for them because they feel that the anti-heroes' action are a necessary response to the constraints of the society we live in. I also think it will be important to talk about some of the real life anti-heroes like John Dillinger, Bernard Goetz, and others.
Yes they have, but I think with the internet, and specifically forums, the anti-hero has become iconic. Just take for example the idea of a forum troll. Some people feel that an internet troll can be viewed like an anti-hero, someone that may muck up a forum, but for some provide entertainment... and many times will say things that others may be thinking, but don't have the courage to say. Hell, not to make this a debate, Trump somehow got elected, and I think a large part of that is because of his trolling, and how some people viewed his place in society.
@Lewdog - Hi there! That's an interesting topic to work on. What I'd start with is your definition. How do you define anti-hero, for your purposes? And are there modern examples in the real world? If you're going to take this out of the realm of movies and books, and bring in the notion of the criminal justice system, you'll need to make that connection, I reckon. Are there examples of where the modern fictional anti-hero has influenced actual behavior? I think you're on to something when you start considering internet trolls. I can see where the criminal justice system lags behind dealing with them, on occasion. It's a new phenomenon. The criminal justice system needs to get its skates on, in order to meet this challenge before it overwhelms us.
I will agree to a certain extent the fictional anti-hero today is much bloodier than in the past, but the robin hood story line remains a classic go to, in various forms. At the crux of the anti-hero as he is providing a service to society in a domain which society deems immoral or unethical. the thief who gets back on those who prey on the weak, or the con man who puts the bad guys back in their place. More recently the high violence needed to stop what would otherwise be unstoppable force placed well above the law. They are allowed to be the vigilante exacting the eye for an eye, which human nature recognizes as a natural law, but tsk, tsk it away with concepts like turn the other cheek or two wrongs do not make a right. As far as taking over pop-culture I don't know that it has, other than a higher number of delivery formats, and a much faster turn around or shorter shelf life. Personally, I would say it has been weaponized, however, when it comes to pop culture and the media just about the entire output is weaponized. Most of it for the sale of shiny baubles and trinkets, but the underlying complacency and apathy can also be linked back to how they achieve this disconnect from reality. People do not care because they are being provided with an escape, a fantasy to associate with. Whether you are cheering for your favorite sports team, villain, or harry potter it boils down to the same thing. thumbs up or thumbs down for the defeated or humbled gladiator in the arena. the perception of a greater evil being defeated, and rejoicing in this as if we had a part in it beyond simply being an observer. As for internet troll, it serves a purpose in the suppression of information, as such it will be condoned to a certain extent. The other side of this where there is a call for punishment at a legal level, you enter into a realm of denying a person their freedom of expression. At a forum level or self-regulating/moderating community, this is handled thru bans and expulsions from a community. Taking it beyond this gets dangerous because you would be giving up your own rights in order to solve a problem, which already has a solution. There is nothing that stops the ball from rolling down the slippery slope of what is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes regulating how a person chooses to express themselves. Especially when it begins to be applied in regional, national and global edicts of what constitutes illegal language written and or spoken. You are no longer allowed to say anything negative about the government, and its elected officials... in a theological society, you must adhere to all its edicts and not question or stand against the faith or the teachings of the high priests. The older satirical pieces were written as comedy to bypass the laws of the day, which would have authors thrown in dungeons or worse executed for speaking out. We complain about censorship or point to book burnings as a sign of intolerance. The troll is like your Huckleberry Finn, a community might spring up agreeing it is vile and needs to be removed from the library of said community. Should their morals and beliefs be enforced and applied across all communities?
You'll go blind from reading and researching before you write a word. If you want to save yourself some pain down the road, try looking for a viable source of evidence before you settle on a thesis/argument. It's much easier to write an argument from solid evidence than it is find solid evidence for a predetermined argument. Argumentative papers are like court trials: you hear the evidence before you reach a conclusion. I don't know anything about your program, but if you have to defend a criminology thesis, I imagine you'll need hard data If you're going to dabble in pop culture, you'll need to find a way to define it narrowly enough so it can't be picked apart and thrown back at you. For every piece of pop culture "evidence" you cite in favor of an argument, I can come up with two that refute it because pop culture is so broad and undefinable (unless, of course, you can reduce it to a quantifiable term). And remember that you can't prove a negative--that A has no effect on B. So if you say that Deadpool is evidence of (blank) about (blank), I can counter by saying that movies A, B, C were the opposite of Deadpool and were just as popular. And while you have to defend your argument, I do not have to defend my counterargument. You have to do it for me. You have to cite evidence as to why my counterargument is invalid, and you can't because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that my sources did not have an effect on how people view hero/anti-hero. That's what makes anecdotal evidence so dodgy. Wear a cup, bruh. And some phone books under your shirt so the professors can't shiv you in the chow line.
I had a talk with the one of the doctor's in the faculty at my university who specializes in the field of 'pop culture.', and then a discussion today with the doctor I do my Grad assistantship under, and they have given me a really good idea of maybe writing my paper about a couple specific subjects. I could write about some of the most-well known anti-heroes in history and tie them into specific anti-heroes in media that are very similar and in what ways. A second idea is to write a paper that gives some of the most popular positive reasons that anti-heroes in the media use as excuses for their negative behavior, ie. revenge for someone else, to fight back against control and oppression, or redistribution of wealth. With the second idea, one doctor pointed out that I could also include how the reasons for an anti-heroes positive actions has changed over time. Just a few examples that could be used for the second idea could be Robin Hood for the redistribution of wealth, V from "V for Vendetta" would be a good example of fighting back against oppression and government control, and The Punisher and Deadpool would be great examples of revenge. I could also tie the entire idea of an anti-hero to the Rational Choice Theory of criminology. By using the Rational Choice Theory, it would help me tie in the anti-hero subject into my field of study. "In criminology, rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory_(criminology)
There are a lot of smart comments on this thread! It might be easier if you posed it not as the rise of the anti-hero, but the decline of the "pure" hero, and how that relates to the public's relationship with law enforcement. Cops are no longer seen by many as upstanding defenders of what is right and good, like the Lone Ranger, but as dangerous and temperamental individuals with badges and guns. My 2 yen.
You know why that is? It's not because cops have all of a sudden gotten worse... it's because of the rise in technology that has allowed law enforcement to be filmed so easily, and the rise of social media where news can spread and go viral in just minutes. Sure there are some new problems with policing, but technology and the media play the largest role in this new belief that the police are no longer to be trusted.
1/ This sounds very much like the advice of your "pop culture doctor"; a comparison of how pop culture mirrors the real world. It bears - to my mind - zero relationship to criminal justice, and is more sociological - in its evidence - than scientific. As a counterfactual, I'd ask you to demonstrate the pop culture representation of Fidel Castro (It's cheating if you only pick anti-heroes that have pop culture counterparts). 2/ Again, this sounds sociological rather than scientific. "Reasons for negative behaviour" sounds like an excuse to regurgitate "The dog ate my homework". Especially as it's suggested you include "some of the most popular"; so you exclude those that don't support your argument? "I promise to tell some of the truth, only as much of the truth as supports my case, and may or may not include something that isn't true."
IMO this may be a better field to explore. How the rise in easily-accessible media has made it more difficult for the authorities (in general - not just the police) to ONLY broadcast what is effectively government propaganda, leading to more accountability for those authorities.
