Goodreads feminist reviews - Doctor Strange and Philosophy

 

Book: Doctor Strange and Philosophy: The Other Book of Forbidden Knowledge (2018), ed. Mark D. White. 

3.5-4/5. Goodreads review also here.

 This is an anthology of 22 essays having to do with the crossover of philosophy and Doctor Strange (including themes from both the 2016 movie and the comics). As with any book which contains a number of essays written by different authors, some of the essays in this book I quite liked, others I liked, others were more meh, and some I actively disliked. 

Philosophy is also a hit and miss subject for me depending on the specific branch and how it's approached - I tend to really like ethics, and also prefer the more scientific areas of philosophical study (such as speculative physics or various themes in metaphysics), but there's a number of other topics - and specifically also the manner in which they are generally expressed - which are quite liable to either frustrate or bore me in various degrees - an important factor as to why is that I may have a pet peeve about random white dudes stating subjective thoughts, opinions and beliefs as absolute Truths, as philosophers often do :S xD

But anyway xD, some thoughts about the book (warning, LONG xD) -

Both a meme and a great study of ethics 

+1 Like I mentioned above, in this book I especially enjoyed the essays which discussed ethics (virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism, in this case), as well as those delving into scientific matters and speculative physics. I particularly liked one essay which discussed quantum mechanics and the MCU Multiverse, and another one which considered what the plot of the 2016 Doctor Strange movie can tell us about the scientific method, regarding how new empirical evidence can lead to new theories and scientific approaches in our understanding of the world (couple of quotes below).

+1 Another essay I really enjoyed, written by one of the three female contributors of this book (note on that below), tackles gender and race biases in both philosophy and superhero comics - both worlds historically majorly male and white -, and the ways in which the Doctor Strange movie subverts some of these biases (such as making the Ancient One - an authority and knowledge figure - female, or greatly improving the role and status of Wong as a Master sorcerer in contrast to his role as the manservant of Strange in the comics). The essay also tackles the problem of whitewashing in movies (while I adore Tilda Swinton both in general and as the Ancient One, and I love that they chose to make the Ancient One female, I also think that they could just as easily have chosen a female actress of Asian descent, with no problematic stereotypes involved). Overall, this essay was a great feminist and intersectional read (couple of excerpts below).

 "What if it's a woman? You know, why can't it be? You know already the idea that the Ancient One is the head of all sorcerers; now that person is also a woman. I'm already interested, and I'm already feeling liberated from the chains of cliché." (The Art of Doctor Strange)

Tilda Swinton's Ancient One in the MCU

-1 Unfortunately, gender bias in philosophy and the comic book world, as criticized in this essay, is fully present in this book as well, ironically. Out of 22 essays, it seems that only three were written by women, and if I remember correctly, only one female philosopher is mentioned in the whole book :S

More women than 14%? Yes xD

+1 A couple of other essays also accurately commented on how Nietzche was an infamous misogynist and Heidegger supported Nazi mindsets, comments which I appreciated because we need to hold historical figures accountable for their problematic aspects.

-1 Something which I lacked in an essay tackling St Augustine, another infamous misogynist who was quite pedestalized in an essay which discussed more religious interpretations :S - I also fully disagreed with that essay's idea that the journey and character development of Strange mirrored 'St' Augustine's life, but ah well xD.

Please, but "St" women-should-not-be-educated Augustine wishes he were this cool. Also, Strange did appreciably grow out of his initial male entitlement, can Augustine say the same? No.

 

-1 And regarding social activism topics, I also have to say that I deeply disliked one essay which had the baffling objective of convincing the reader that the servile role of Wong in the comics as the personal manservant of Strange, in itself an issue deeply steeped in classism and a racialized context, is not wrong or problematic at all and actually empowers the character of Wong! We can encounter deep and meaningful friendships when a master/servant dynamic is also (regrettably) involved, such as Frodo and Sam from The Lord of the Rings. *But* the fact that this kind of dynamic might evolve to develop a meaningful interaction does not mean that we should not also be fully critical of the power dynamic and the classism and racialized/gendered aspects of a master/servant relationship in the first place.

MCU's Strange and Wong be like wtf

This particular essay I found deeply offensive in its endeavour to claim that it's actually servitude which gives Wong's life meaning and boosts his self-confidence and self empowerment (wtf), and that both parts of the master/servant dynamic get benefits out of the arrangement. It's a neoliberal-oriented 'choice' approach that ultimately completely glosses over the fact that it's a classist and racist system which has made Wong into Strange's servant in the comics, same as his father was the servant of the Ancient One, and his father before him, and so on. If we take this 'choice' approach and make minimal parallels with say, oppressed women in a patriarchal society, or enslaved black people in the USA, I think it becomes clear enough how offensive and illogical this interpretation is - the ludicrous idea that oppression and a servile function to the privileged groups actually gives your life meaning and that you reap ample positive benefits out of a deeply unequal power dynamic.

Wong is certainly Strange's friend in the MCU, but he's also been a Master Sorcerer in his own right from the beginning, and the actual Sorcerer Supreme since the Blip. So yasss.

Thank Agamotto that the role of Wong was vastly improved in the MCU. I can't help but wonder whether the author of this essay would think that now Wong's life does not have meaning because he's a powerful Master sorcerer in his own right, and is now the actual Sorcerer Supreme. Heh.

"From the comic books, Wong came across quite like a manservant or sidekick. I think with our version, we're happily putting that to bed and updating his story for a modern audience. (...) He is someone who is very serious about his job. He's very otherwordly, wise (...) There's a quiet confidence to Wong. He's stoic. He's foerever watching and loyal. I think he comes from a long line of that." (Benedict Wong, The Art of Doctor Strange)

-1 And now comes the big topic. While there were at least three essays in the book which tackled this matter more accurately, or at least following the reasoning I would have chosen, there is a discourse which I kept finding in several other essays which frustrated me time and time again. According to all these essays, the scientific aspect of Doctor Strange, initially a brilliant neurosurgeon, is something which went hand in hand with his arrogance, narcissism and materialistic view of the world. This materialism and his scientific aspect, as linked to the mechanistic current ('we are made of matter, and nothing more'), would be then opposed to the greater empathy, integrity and altruism that Strange shows as the movie progresses, which these essays repeteadly linked to his newfound 'enlightenment' and 'interest in spirituality', and the broadening of his mind.

Nope, Strange is still all about the science and the knowledge, his improving his attitude and his ethics has nothing to do with embracing the study of magic, which he approaches in a similar way as his former medicine studies, anyway.

While some of the points and philosophical stances described in these essays were interesting from a purely philosophical point of view, it's a huge misconstruction to say that science equals a lack of altruism or a greater materialistic and shallow mindset (wtf), and that it's an 'interest in spirituality' which makes someone more altruistic and empathetic. That's just both offensive and factually wrong. Like the Ancient One tells Strange, it's 'arrogance and fear' and his narcissism which have kept him from expanding his mind, not his interest in empirical science.

Why do people keep associating science with a lack of empathy or a more materialistic view of the world, wtf. Doctor Strange keeps a scientific mindset all the time, it's his entitlement and narcissism which get better disregardless of that!

'Which is?' 'It's not about you'.

 

 And even though the 2016 movie's director, Scott Derrickson, also commented on this inaccurate correlation between 'selfishness and skepticism' and 'altruism and spiritual enlightement' as Strange's journey (for example, in the art book), in my opinion the movie itself does a great job in addressing Strange's journey from narcissism, selfishness and materialism to a more altruistic, accountable and ethical mindset, yes, but it's not necessarily linked with a journey of 'spiritual enlightement', or 'from skepticism to mysticism', more than a combination of changing his entitled and arrogant attitude and becoming 'more self-reflective' as a result of suffering 'personal loss and trauma', as Derrickson also comments on, and widening his understanding of the universe by considering areas of study that he was unaware of. But in the MCU and Marvel comics universe, magic and the Multiverse are real and liable to be studied in an empirical fashion - just like science is.

Thus, it's also a huge false equivalence to link the evolution of Doctor Strange as a sorcerer to the potential higher merits of real world spirituality (and pseudoscience) as opposed to empirical science. The essays seemed to repeteadly link Strange's scathing remarks about the unscientific nature of chakras or acupuncture (I mean, both things *are* objectively pseudoscience) with a narrow-minded view of the world which needed to be expanded. Being open-minded is the actual point of scientific curiosity, skepticism, and the scientific method, and that is exactly what Doctor Strange does - When shown actual empirical evidence that the Multiverse exists, and seeing that in the Marvel universe it is actually possible to draw energy from other dimensions to create 'magic' (thus linking magic way more to technology and science than spirituality), he just expands his view of the universe when shown that there's more to what he had learned, and includes the study of magic to his existing knowledge (excerpts below from the essay about the scientific method I also mentioned earlier in this review).

Strange does not ditch modern medicine to embrace acupuncture, chakras and spirituality. He actually studies and performs magic following a very similar method to the science and technology we're more accustomed to, and he's shown actual empirical evidence and contrasted information about it.

Hell yeah to the scientific method

 In our real world, however, the theory addressing the existence of a Multiverse is an actual field of study in speculative physics, yes (and other essay in this book talks about this in the context of cosmology and quantum mechanics), but it *is* speculative. And spirituality, while valid on its own, simply and objectively cannot replace science if what we seek is the empirical understanding of the universe. Strange's Sorcerer path *is* undeniably heavily inspired and linked with Eastern martial arts and spirituality, both in aesthetics and ethos, but the way he studies and harnesses magic is rather more in line with science and technology than with actual spirituality as we would understand it in the real world (as is also the way with many MCU perceptions of magic as science and technology 'not yet understood', as also portrayed in the Thor movies). Overall, the whole discourse when these particular essays (and there were a few :S) tackled this topic was a huge false equivalence fest.

-1 I also disliked the way that a couple of essays seemed to need to add the disclaimer that 'religion and science are not incompatible, in fact they are fully compatible because I will now give you some examples of historical scientists who also believed in God or were interested in spirituality or alchemy'. Obviously, individual people are entitled to their personal spiritual or religious beliefs (as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on anyone else or enforce inequality against oppressed groups, which is the flavour of criticism I go for when I say I'm critical of religion). But the issue regarding the science-vs-religion discussion often doesn't have to do with individual beliefs, it has to do with the fact that enforced religious systems have historically hindered or prohibited science systematically, by imposing unscientific mythological concepts as Truths, and literally persecuting and murdering people who offered advances in science instead of abiding with those religious 'truths' as to the nature of the universe (and also persecuting religious beliefs which deviate from the systemic dogma). The fact that Newton believed in God (totally fine, but irrelevant in this discussion), or that Descartes (rather unscientifically) claimed that God is an innate proof of our reasoning nature (which let's be real, it's a bit wtf xD) are really neither here not there regarding this issue :S

Anyway, have another gif about sorcerers and books xD

 

+1 While discussing the influence of the pacifist-oriented ethics of Eastern martial arts on Strange's ethos as a sorcerer as well as a surgeon, there's a reference and quote to the 1970s series 'Kung Fu', which I really like, so kudos for that!

- And finally, this is more an anecdotic discussion than something I liked or didn't like - There's one essay which discussed mind-body dualism as illustrated in Doctor Strange by the astral bodies. However, the author seemed to keep trying to rationalize the way astral bodies were portrayed in the movie, not just comparing them to philosophical theories of dualism as an interesting exercise, but actually trying to find logical consistency between them, as if the portrayal in the movie would either confirm or discredit said theories of dualism.

The Ancient One show Strange his astral form

While the astral bodies in Doctor Strange are clearly inspired both by spirituality currents and by various philosophical explorations about mind-body dualism, as a fantasy and sci-fi movie it doesn't need to be fully consistent with all these currents, nor do we really need to judge the accuracy of the depiction of Strange's astral body and its properties in regards to what philosophy has had to say about dualism - especially considering that dualism is, as of now, mostly devoid of any empirical scientific proof! The exercise of questioning how Strange's astral body is or isn't consistent with existing philosophical theories of dualism and transference between the mind and the body is certainly interesting for purely academic purposes, but the way the author seemed to be actually thorough and serious about how a fantasy and sci-fi movie with astral bodies confirmed or denied real life philosophical theories of dualism both puzzled and amused me xD

Goodreads feminist reviews - The Cinderella Complex

'Cinderella Complex', PilarErika (also IG)

 Book: The Cinderella Complex: Women's Hidden Fear of Independence (1981), by Colette Dowling. 

  3.5/5. Goodreads review also here.

  Pro: Feminist self-help book about harmful emotional dependence, and gender roles in heteronormative unhealthy relationships - still relevant today 

 

This is a feminist self-help book which helps women become more conscious about the 'Cinderella Complex': The way societal upbringing and patriarchal gender roles make women experiment both problematic emotional (and financial) dependence and a deep fear of independence. I think these issues are really important and not discussed often enough, because emotional (and also financial) dependence in relationships still affect many women today. 

Some people have remarked that this book is somewhat 'obsolete' when it comes to unequal heternormative relationships with traditional gender roles because it was written in the early 80s and refers to the 60s and 70s - But I think that it is unfortunately not 'obsolete' at all. Emotional dependence is a real problem that is still affecting many, many women today, and it's still very much alive and perpetuated 'thanks' to traditional (and very problematic) children's fairytales and the media in general (the glorification of emotional dependence and the concept of romantic love as seen through a patriarchal lens in songs, books and movies, for example). 

I totally recommend that everyone read books such as this one, because it makes both women and men think about the harm that patriarchy and gender roles have done and still do to women, and how many relationships today between women and men are deeply influenced by traditional gender roles and power dynamics, strengthened both by male privilege and the brainwashing of the media regarding romantic love and relationships.

Con: Non-intersectional

 This book focuses primarily on white, American middle-class heteronormative women, though. The emotional dependence issue can still be very relevant to all women, I think, disregardless of other factors, but it's worth mentioning that it's not a very intersectional book in that respect, and that not all women would be able to get out of harmful relationships or get their 'freedom' (financial independence, jobs, education, etc) with the ease that the author sometimes describes.

 It's not just about becoming conscious of the way society has trained women to be afraid of independence - Privilege and position in society are as important when it comes to 'springing free'. It can already be quite hard for white, cishet middle-class women to get away from an abusive relationship, or to be able to become financially independent if they're trapped in a marriage where the husband holds all the financial power and likes to stay that way. It's way harder to do so if you add race, class, sexual orientation or gender identity to the equation. Being conscious of the psychological problems which make women dependent is very important, but in many cases it's not enough to actually be able to 'spring free', unfortunately.

It's mostly a problem of omission, seeing as the author does focus on her experience and women with similar upbringings, but the book does have a couple of cringeworthy vocally anti-intersectional moments as well. There's a point when the author states that getting household help would help (middle-class) women get more independence - while throwing lower-class (who are often poc) women under the bus 😕. There's also another anti-sisterhood cringeworthy moment with the mention of two women who, apparently as a way to become 'less afraid of independence', decide to have affairs with married men. Which is never cool in my book and also a bit hypocritical, considering it throws other potentially dependent and miserable (house)wives under the bus as well :/.

Other remarks 

I'd also like to mention that, while I agree with the fact that, as a result of patriarchal upbringing, many women actually contribute to the loss of self-confidence and independence they experience, the author sometimes seems to paint husbands/partners in too good a light, being stifled by their wives/partners' emotional and financial dependence, and actually encouraging them to get jobs/activities and/or become less dependent in other ways. It's regrettably very true that women often bring the dependent dynamic to the equation because of their upbringing and the media they consume, but men are also brought up in a society where male privilege and gender roles where they are expected to be the more active and dominant partner are everywhere, and thus are key to the problem as well, and more so than women. 

And while the author does also mention oppressive husbands and men who hold all the financial and executive power, she never seems to focus on the fact that many men promote this system and seem to be pretty happy with the arrangement, never actually encouraging any of the women in their family to gain any independence whatsoever. The system does benefit them in so many more ways than the trifling bother of having an emotional dependent girlfriend or wife, after all, so an important percentage of them are pretty much OK with it all :S 

The book also seems to assume that women end up in relationships, be they emotionally dependent or not, omitting the cases of women who actually prefer just casual encounters or who are just not interested in relationships. Once again, this is written from the author's experience and point of view, and so she does focus on the effects that heteronormative/allosexual/amatonormative relationships have on women. But sometimes one can get the impression that a relationship is still a given step in a woman's life, instead of just critisizing the fact that most women always feel they have to go for that because they've been taught to be dependent on a man and to seek for someone to save them. It's true that a woman can 100% be in a relationship while 'loving herself' and not losing her independence, but choosing to stay without one in a 100% happy way is another possibility that, as I recall, is not mentioned in this book.

These comments aside, I wholeheartedly recommend everyone reading this book, because emotional and financial dependence is a deeply problematic issue that, as a result of our upbringing, can become very subtle and hard to be concious of, and it severely affects women's happiness, freedom and wellbeing.

-Some quotes (these are screenshots from Goodreads, quotes added by me) with great points on female socialization, gender roles and imposter syndrome. Click on individual pics for a larger size!