Does knowledge of his Kryptonian heritage influence Superman's early actions?

[bat39]

An idea I had after reading The Other History of the DC Universe # 1, and its related to a discussion we're having over on the thread for that series.

Basically, at one point, Jefferson Pierce AKA Black Lightning, reflecting on Superman, thinks that Clark's weakness is wanting to be liked and accepted by people - with the implication being that this is due to being the last of his kind. He attributes this to Superman's willingness to not rock the boat too much or take any radical action. There's a pointed reference to how this Superman isn't someone who'd demolish tenements in Suicide Slum to force the construction of better housing (unlike the original Siegal/Shuster Superman).

Now, the Superman in this series is clearly modelled after a more mainstream Silver/Bronze Age take on the character - one who's clearly aware of his full origins at the start of his career.

Which did get me thinking - how much does Superman's knowledge of his Kryptonian heritage influence his actions in his early career?

Does knowing he's an alien, and the sole survivor of another civilization, shape him into more of a status quo-ist who wants to be loved and accepted by human society and thus strives to be more of a Boy Scout and less of a vigilante?

Contrast this with the Golden Age Superman, who didn't know he was from Krypton early on, grew up presumably believing he was a human who happened to have extraordinary powers, and was therefore more willing to shake things up and challenge the status quo.

There does seem to be a pattern to this - consider the New 52 Superman, who starts out as a kind of 21st century take on the "champion of the oppressed", and starts the transition to a more 'classic' take on Superman once he learns about his Kryptonian origins.

Now, I don't think the explanation for this is Superman just wanting to be 'liked' by mainstream society. But I do wonder if he feels that, as an alien and an outsider, he doesn't really have the right to interfere too much, even though he feels a duty to help out where he can.

Thoughts?

[Vordan]

Superman Smashes the Klan definitely explores something similar to what you’re saying. He doesn’t fly at the start, not because he can’t but because he subconsciously refuses to out of fear of rejection. Part of his character arc is coming to terms with his heritage and accepting it, allowing him to fly. I’d say honestly while I do think Clark’s fear of rejection and desire for public approval does play a part in how he operates, it’s moreso the Kents teachings that restrain him for both good and ill.

[bat39]

Superman Smashes the Klan definitely explores something similar to what you’re saying. He doesn’t fly at the start, not because he can’t but because he subconsciously refuses to out of fear of rejection. Part of his character arc is coming to terms with his heritage and accepting it, allowing him to fly. I’d say honestly while I do think Clark’s fear of rejection and desire for public approval does play a part in how he operates, it’s moreso the Kents teachings that restrain him for both good and ill.

Interesting. I've only read the first issue of Superman Smashes the Klan, unfortunately...hoping to catch up on the other two soon enough!

Yeah, I agree with your point about the Kents. I think they're another factor for sure. The only versions of Superman who start out as vigilantes are the ones where the Kents are already dead when he first puts on the suit.

[manwhohaseverything]

The goldenage arc was modelled after tarzan.Clark didn't know what he was.He didn't dwell on his past that much.But,he acted out the alien heritage. Trying to push his limits by acting on his physical impulses like racing a locomotive or trying to leap higher and higher,Not being corrupted by strength in general.The whole clark kent fake id was created out as a way of acting out his alien heritage in secret.There is also clark's earlier rivalry with the machines which can be attibuted to the fact that krypton was essentially doomed by advancements of such kind instead of being saved and overdependence on them.Clark built a secret citadel for collecting and hording things.Tarzan did'nt know he was human.He ran around in the jungle like a blending as beast.But,created handmade tools such as spears with stones and sticks.He caused trouble for the human natives of the jungle who killed his mother gorilla.He almost ate a person thinking himself a beast of some kind ,not knowing what he is.But,couldn't go through with it.Because humans have an instinct to be repulsed by such thoughts.Tarzan's natural instincts took over and he is human,not a beast.Similarly,clark's instinct took over and he is alien so he flies.Obviously,riceburrough's tarzan is far more hardcore and superman is for kids primarly.so the arc is tame to say the least.People have also Attributed a racist intent as well to tarzan(Let's face it,the character is a product of the era). I might be wrong in this assessments.This is my take on it.

I do believe,Silverage kal el wanted to be accepted by the earth people more.Goldenage superman wasn't anything like that(His s sheild was literally for pissing of authorities like the police).But,his lonliness was more than adequte enough reasoning for it.And at the end of the day ,he did more than often not put doing the right thing than his own desire for family by even rejecting lois.He also sucked when it comes to family,in general.

Your argument falls apart.why?postcrisis superman who is entirely called human and was born on earth.Basically,thinks more about what others thought of him.He was more boyscoutish and is known to passionatley dissapprove of vigilantism.Other than some "shoving bank robbers in trashcan" moments.The guy was more tame than silverage guy could ever be.I believe,comics code at first and then donner influence is the reason superman lost the "gladiator" like radical aspects.Donner wanted a knight and a jesus figure.While,superman of the past was more moses and spartacus figure who challenged the state for his people(working class people in goldenage.Aliens/kryptonians is silverage ).

For me,Luffy from one piece is the most similar to goldenage superman than any.He is a D.He acts out the part.But,he doesn't know or is indifferent about his heritage.In the world of one piece,someone with D has certain attributes.For example,dieing with a smile on the face.They chase after dreams.

Interesting. I've only read the first issue of Superman Smashes the Klan, unfortunately...hoping to catch up on the other two soon enough!

Yeah, I agree with your point about the Kents. I think they're another factor for sure. The only versions of Superman who start out as vigilantes are the ones where the Kents are already dead when he first puts on the suit.

Funny you mention that,I don't think the kents would ever approve of clark's vigilantism or "The Superman" as the people began to call him.And they shouldn't,I hate stories where kents basically have clark put on a costume and be vigilante as a boy.

[Agent Z]

Tearing down houses in Suicide Slums would be the worst way to get better housing. Jefferson's views on Superman aren't the entire picture and are colored by his own less than pleasant experiences.

That said, Superman's status as an endling has been examined in a few comics and adaptations so there is some merit to the idea.

[manwhohaseverything]

as a guy that read almost all kinds of superman.I feel there is a merit to what Jefferson's views by extension people that have that persepective of superman.There is the new frontier and dcau.Tearing down houses is just an example.It's not the critique.The critique is the lack of radical elements to character and his entire character being about doing what is socially accepted good.Revolutions(violent or non-violent) might be futile,stupid and tragic ala spartacus.But,they do cause certain movements.Superman should have the tragic elements to him as he is basically hugo danner in a strongman suit. A character that does harmless good while ok.Just doesn't seem to say anything.It doesn't challenge anything or any notion.

[manwhohaseverything]

"They(batman and wonder woman) are my friends.But,neither of them would sacrifice their principles"
There is an implication that clark would by this statement.Just so he can have people not be afraid of him.

[manwhohaseverything]

Clark basically admits that he does it for claps.

[The World]

I don't think so, or at least it doesn't make any sense to me. If anything you would think understanding how fragile existence can be would motivate Superman to be even more vigilant when it comes to crime and living with dangerous status quo's.

For most of the existence of Golden/Silver Age Superman's existence they simply weren't allowed to talk about that sort of thing. Messing with the way things were and what not. The only reason we talk about this to the degree we do is because of how radical his beginnings were when he was being written by two lower class jewish teens.

Post-Crisis Superman like most Post Crisis heroes just doesn't care. They're all sort of divorced from reality and live in big clubhouses fighting other people that live in big clubhouses. Kids stuff but written for adults.

[Frontier]

Clark basically admits that he does it for claps.

This is Justice Lord Superman, though.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is Justice Lord Superman, though.

Mainline superman says he has the same temptations.They are basically the same.The whole arc was about a why.Clark was basically playing the hero.He did good because it was what he was taught to do.Then he became a pariah due to darkseid.That basically had clark chase after people's acceptance.Which inturn made him loose sight of why he was doing what he does.The arc was about giving a proper 'why' to superman for not killing or not taking over or whatever badthing.Clark needed to do that for right reasons.Which was putting a moral limit on yourself,not to play the hero or "people will be afraid of us diana".Clark decides to be that by the end.

Honestly,the arc is pretty good.But,the idea that superman is being subjected to this arc is basically my problem.This is not what a champion of the depression era should have for an arc.Why is it that batman,wonder woman..etc are protrayed as these radical figures(sometimes flawed) that will do right by others within their own moral constraints.While,superman has to be constantly be made into this mediator figure(centrist? that too for the wrong reasons).This entirely gives of this perception that clark is just a guy that's defending a status quo.The boyscout that can't do something that will look bad in front of people.I deplore the idea of clark even having thoughts like "what will people think",in the first place.That shouldn't be how an individual's decisions should be made.Only image-conscious fake politicians do that.If you are about doing the right thing as an individual,Then "what will people think" being factored into it is darn disgusting.We are not even talking about constructive critcisms,disagreements...etc here.Clark doesn't do something cause he is afraid of people's emotional feelings?seriously?

[Steel Inquisitor]

Mainline superman says he has the same temptations.They are basically the same.The whole arc was about a why.Clark was basically playing the hero.He did good because it was what he was taught to do.Then he became a pariah due to darkseid.That basically had clark chase after people's acceptance.Which inturn made him loose sight of why he was doing what he does.The arc was about giving a proper 'why' to superman for not killing or not taking over or whatever badthing.Clark needed to do that for right reasons.Which was putting a moral limit on yourself,not to play the hero or "people will be afraid of us diana".Clark decides to be that by the end.

Mainline Superman didn't know Justice Lord Superman completely, Lex was just the straw that broke the camel's back for him before he snapped. Regular Superman wasn't that unhinged.

Honestly,the arc is pretty good.But,the idea that superman is being subjected to this arc is basically my problem.This is not what a champion of the depression era should have for an arc.Why is it that batman,wonder woman..etc are protrayed as these radical figures(sometimes flawed) that will do right by others within their own moral constraints.While,superman has to be constantly be made into this mediator figure(centrist? that too for the wrong reasons).This entirely gives of this perception that clark is just a guy that's defending a status quo.The boyscout that can't do something that will look bad in front of people.I deplore the idea of clark even having thoughts like "what will people think",in the first place.That shouldn't be how an individual's decisions should be made.Only image-conscious fake politicians do that.If you are about doing the right thing as an individual,Then "what will people think" being factored into it is darn disgusting.We are not even talking about constructive critcisms,disagreements...etc here.Clark doesn't do something cause he is afraid of people's emotional feelings?seriously?

Golden Age Superman is long dead and DCAU Superman isn't that Superman, even Golden Age Superman moved on by the 50's because DC needed to do new things to make him relevant. Those are the characters niches, so Superman needs something else to stay unique in their trio. He's not defending the status quo, he's just the straight man and the rational figure, and Batman and Wonder Wiman don't really do much to change their own status quo in the DCU, DC won't allow it. It's illusion of change. It's refreshing how Superman cards how people view him because he understands the world will trust him more off he's not doing something crazy or being a dick for no reason. Superman isn't about the individual, that's very Objectivist/Randian (Luthor's philosophy), he's about helping everyone. Sure we are, and Superman will listen to constructive criticism over Batman who will pout and get surly whenever someone asks him not be a terrible person. Clark has self awareness and reflects on his actions and how it affects the world around him. Because he lives with them all, he's not afraid to talk to people when he's just flying on patrol. Why wouldn't super-hero care about hurting peoples feelings? He wants to help people, not hurt them.

[Agent Z]

I don't think so, or at least it doesn't make any sense to me. If anything you would think understanding how fragile existence can be would motivate Superman to be even more vigilant when it comes to crime and living with dangerous status quo's.

For most of the existence of Golden/Silver Age Superman's existence they simply weren't allowed to talk about that sort of thing. Messing with the way things were and what not. The only reason we talk about this to the degree we do is because of how radical his beginnings were when he was being written by two lower class jewish teens.

Post-Crisis Superman like most Post Crisis heroes just doesn't care. They're all sort of divorced from reality and live in big clubhouses fighting other people that live in big clubhouses. Kids stuff but written for adults.

People react to situations and events in different ways. No two minds are alike and that applies to two version of Superman.

[manwhohaseverything]

Why wouldn't super-hero care about hurting peoples feelings? He wants to help people, not hurt them.

If superman is about doing the right thing then:
wrong,he would help cause it's the right thing to do.If the right thing to do is not help them and hurt their feelings.That would happen.
Moreover,talking about the individual isn't objectivism.Where the hell did you get that?Objectivism states that men are driven by self interest and there is no such thing as altruism.geez! I specifically said individual because there are choices that an individual make choices on behalf of himself.as free agent.Superman is such an agent.But it is not necassary to be that,if you are in a group with a structure,hierarchy and mode of operation.You can not or maybe will not act take decisions unanimously,because the group's approval or the authority figures approval will be required.

[bat39]

Mainline superman says he has the same temptations.They are basically the same.The whole arc was about a why.Clark was basically playing the hero.He did good because it was what he was taught to do.Then he became a pariah due to darkseid.That basically had clark chase after people's acceptance.Which inturn made him loose sight of why he was doing what he does.The arc was about giving a proper 'why' to superman for not killing or not taking over or whatever badthing.Clark needed to do that for right reasons.Which was putting a moral limit on yourself,not to play the hero or "people will be afraid of us diana".Clark decides to be that by the end.

Honestly,the arc is pretty good.But,the idea that superman is being subjected to this arc is basically my problem.This is not what a champion of the depression era should have for an arc.Why is it that batman,wonder woman..etc are protrayed as these radical figures(sometimes flawed) that will do right by others within their own moral constraints.While,superman has to be constantly be made into this mediator figure(centrist? that too for the wrong reasons).This entirely gives of this perception that clark is just a guy that's defending a status quo.The boyscout that can't do something that will look bad in front of people.I deplore the idea of clark even having thoughts like "what will people think",in the first place.That shouldn't be how an individual's decisions should be made.Only image-conscious fake politicians do that.If you are about doing the right thing as an individual,Then "what will people think" being factored into it is darn disgusting.We are not even talking about constructive critcisms,disagreements...etc here.Clark doesn't do something cause he is afraid of people's emotional feelings?seriously?

I think it's less about "not wanting to hurt someone's feelings" and more about not wanting to come across as some kind of tyrant or wanting people to trust him. He doesn't want to become an overlord that people fear, or a benevolent dictator. He just wants to help people. Of course, when you take it to extremes, you have a situation where Superman is totally bound by 'red tape' and just resorts to sermonizing and moralizing.

And of course, the theory I outlined in my original post was that maybe he feels he shouldn't interfere too much with human society, being an alien and an outsider. (Remember Jor-El's "It is forbidden to interfere in human history"? from the Donner movie. That perfectly encapsulates what I'm talking about.) On the flipside of course, you have the Kents' influence and his upbringing as Clark Kent which makes him a law-abiding US citizen who doesn't want to become some kind of criminal or terrorist...even if for a 'good' cause.

Since you bring up Batman and Wonder Woman...well Batman, in many incarnations, is a vigilante who operates in the shadows. He doesn't care about his public image. He wants people to be afraid of him. He wants criminals to know that he isn't bound by the law. In fact, he wants them to believe that he's even more ruthless than he really is, and that he's prepared to kill.

As for WW, she's a warrior princess from another civilization. Unlike Batman and Superman, she wasn't raised as a normal US citizen and doesn't feel as bound by the norms of Man's World...though she does respect it's laws within reason as an ambassador (official or unofficial).