"No One is an Alien! Except All of the Aliens.": How Superman Media, Writers, and Fans Endorse Assimilation
Note: I've discussed this topic before in a bit of detail here, here, and here, but I'm taking this opportunity to hammer out the common threads between these posts using explicit textual evidence. I am fully amenable to correction or further discussion, especially as it pertains to more recent comics. This essay/meta strictly contains textual analysis of the Superman media and presumes the audience has a working knowledge or concern about Superman, xenophobia, assimilation, and cultural socialization in adoption. The audience is 1) encouraged to do their own research and 2) remember that this contains no strictly academic sources.
Introduction
A prevalent problem within Superman fandom — writers, long-timers, and "normies" alike — is the failure to recognize when the tropes and proclivities viewed as an essential staple of Superman lore implicitly promote assimilation and xenophobia. Putting aside those who deny the fact of Superman being an immigrant, many people will pay lip service to the immigrant narrative but in fact regularly embrace interpretations which undermine the full exploration of his relationship with his Kryptonian heritage. This includes, most especially, any version of Superman that makes the forsaking of Krypton seem like a moral imperative or the logical narrative conclusion. Even the iterations which do not actively demonize Krypton — i.e., depict just about all non-Earth-raised Kryptonians as dangerously ignorant, draconic, warmongering, or incapable of empathy or complex emotion — are nevertheless fine with minimizing its presence outside of mentioning it as fodder for easy conflict (or conflict resolution). The result has been an image of Krypton which encourages both Superman and the audience to distance themselves from Krypton, if not reject it outright. Instead, Superman is encouraged by the narrative to retreat into the arms of the cozy conservative Americana of Smallville, which is then defended and excused by Krypton's prior lack of relevance and/or consistent evilness. To the extent either of those claims are actually true, they are a product of authorial and editorial decisions which minimized Krypton's positive impact and narrative importance from the outset, with the intention of eschewing Superman’s immigrant identity.
"Krypton’s Never Been Important,” and “Has Always Been ‘Evil’”: Common Reasons Fans Refuse to Acknowledge Assimilationist and Xenophobic Rhetoric
The presumed unimportance of Krypton is a significant aspect, if not the foundation, of the tendency to treat Kryptonian lore as either negligible or unworthy of a mostly positive status quo. Sans the aforementioned use of Krypton and its inhabitants as plot fodder, the excision of Krypton — or its most positive and impactful elements — is often deemed a critical aspect of Superman storytelling. Some fans will offer the “believability” of (modern) Krypton’s disregard for humans and of Superman’s distance from his culture, while others insist that Krypton’s inclusion somehow degrades the importance of Earth. It stands to reason, then, that if it's demonstrable that this current attitude was not inherent to Superman media and is the result of (malicious) authorial, editorial, and otherwise creative intent to remove or misrepresent Krypton, then this claim no longer holds water.
Krypton's lore on Earth-1, the universe of the Silver and Bronze Ages of DC Comics, was highly developed in Superman stories for a long-dead planet. Not only did Superman frequently time travel to try and save the planet or simply have a strange experience there, to the point where it was canonized that Superman was named after himself [e.g. Superman (1939) #123, #141; World's Finest Comics (1941) #191; World of Krypton (1979) #2], but Superman (1939), and occasionally other associated lines, contained a secondary story series called "The Fabulous World of Krypton", in which Kryptonian lore, including myths and history, was developed quite fervidly. (In this post, I discussed some of them.)
The Superman Family #182 & Superman #282, respectively
Far beyond that, Krypton's legacy — in the form of Superman himself, Kandor, Supergirl, Krypto, Beppo the Super-Monkey, Brainiac, the Phantom Zone, and in the many results of its absence — continued to feature in Superman (1939), Action Comics (1938), DC Comics Presents (1978), Superboy (1949, 1980), Adventure Comics (1938), Supergirl (1972, 1982), Superman Family (1974), World's Finest Comics (1941) and other Superman-adjacent series until the effective end of the Earth-1 universe in the Crisis on Infinite Earths event. Despite being dead, Superman’s Kryptonian parents Jor-El and Lara are mentioned or featured in hundreds of stories from this era.
So, the question of Krypton's (un)importance to Superman lore isn't reducible to non-inclusion or non-relevance; despite the planet exploding around 3 Earth decades prior to the canon timeline of Earth-1, writers back then constructed the lore in ways that allowed Superman to discover the vestiges of Kryptonian culture and people. It was through a combination of the Kandorians, his own technology, the occasional trip through space and space-time, and sheer luck that Superman was able to retain a connection to his heritage, the foremost of which he confirms in [DC Comics Presents #21].
DC Comics Presents (1978) #21 and Superboy (1949) #79 respectively
The idea that Krypton is unimportant is typically intertwined with the claim that Krypton has "always been that way," i.e., full of morally egregious, emotionally constipated beings — the logic being that Krypton's supposed unimportance means that negative depictions of Kryptonians are tolerable and even encouraged for story purposes. However, we know again from the pre-crisis lore that their supposed inherent evilness is emphatically not the case. Superman himself explicitly described Krypton as a mostly peace-loving, technologically advanced society whose people did not believe in the death penalty and were likely more morally enlightened than Earth's people [e.g. World's Finest Comics (1941) #292, Action Comics (1938) #565]. (Given that science is a fundamentally philosophical pursuit, such that it was not even considered wholly separate from today's notion of philosophy until around the 1800s and still has subfields of philosophies dedicated to specific sciences, this is not outside of the realm of believability.)
Superman’s description is fully corroborated by other stories outside of these. The people of Krypton do not accept tyranny or slavery, they combat it [e.g. Superman (1939) #176, #264; Superman Family (1974) #182]. They do not kill their most heinous criminals [e.g., The Phantom Zone (1982)]. They live in a science-based society that values its members’ well-being, including providing mass inoculations and therapy [e.g., Superman (1939) #307–309, #409]. Most importantly, they couldn’t colonize other planets even if they wanted to, but they believed in interplanetary cooperation to the extent they could practice it without working spaceships [e.g., Action Comics (1938) #574] and were on good terms with Kryptonians who were not part of their intraplanetary federation [e.g. Krypton Chronicles (1981)]. Jor-El and Lara even named an alien named Rol-Nac Superman’s godfather [e.g. Action Comics (1938) #378]. The idea of Krypton as this awful, colonial place simply does not gel with the depictions of it in pre-crisis Earth-1.
(Even the New Earth universe established that Kryptonians physically couldn’t colonize other worlds, albeit for a different reason.)
Thus, when some fans and writers claim that the influence negative depictions of Krypton have on future Superman storylines and on audience engagement with the planet doesn't matter, one must wonder why it supposedly doesn't matter, given that Krypton was a regular and positive aspect of Superman stories prior to the Crisis on Infinite Earths event in 1985. Despite Krypton having its flaws — the existence of Bokos Isle, the over-obstinate Science Council, and the Phantom Zoners to start — those never undermined the tragedy of Krypton's explosion or diminished the importance of Superman's connection to his heritage. Rather, it added a complexity and a realness to a planet that was otherwise utopian. How could the reputation and significance of Krypton seemingly change overnight?
"No One is an Alien, except All of the Aliens": Superman’s Distance from Other DC Aliens and the Veneer of Multiculturalism
When people extol Superman’s virtues and discuss his impact in the DC universe, on the audience, and on wider pop culture, there’s a peculiar focus on emphasizing Superman's humanity. Of course, at least in English, “humanity” is another term for “morality,” such that the language encourages such a conflation. However, the way people use the term “human” to refer to Superman reveals that the conflation is actually quite crucial in obfuscating the truth. That is, when the term humanity is juxtaposed against Superman’s very real alien identity (in this case, alien relative to Earth), it functions as a denial of that identity and the experiences which accompany it. Encompassing Superman in humanity — which seems inclusive yet transparently never includes other famous DC aliens, by the way — is a covert method of enforcing assimilation. People don’t say this as a means to recognize Superman as a fellow moral agent or capable of empathy; they’re saying it to distance him from his alienness, as if being human is the highest standard and ultimate reward one can achieve.
(Interestingly, the term "human" in pre-crisis was applicable to species outside of Earth, including the Kryptonians. Intelligent life on Earth was referred to as "tellurian," "terran," and simply "Earth people," [e.g. Superman (1939) #249, 307; Action Comics (1938) #500 and #518]. One must wonder why this usage fell out of favor.)
The devaluation of nonassimilative alienness is most apparent when comparing Superman’s experience and treatment to that of his fellow aliens. For them, Superman’s assimilation, real or perceived, is actually a very pronounced flaw; not only is it harder for them to relate to him generally, but Superman’s disconnection from his Kryptonian culture, real or perceived, seems to make him lesser. That’s not in the sense of his value as a person or a hero; it’s in how his losses and feelings of difference compare to their own. (Depending on the interaction, it can also subtly mimic real-life dynamics between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” (usually racialized or culturally connected) immigrants.)
World’s Finest (1941) #256
It is important to note, as I did in this post, that the Thanagarians were somewhat unfair in their judgments here. Many of Superman’s stories from this same era/universe, i.e., Bronze Age Earth-1, reckoned with his feelings of being an alien and a permanent outsider on Earth. Earth-1 Superman was a constant victim of hate speech, psychological manipulation, and social ostracism for being an alien. (He was even hate-crimed in the story right after this one [World’s Finest Comics (1941) #257]). Had they been honest with him, Superman likely would have understood their plight. Moreover, genuine or not, the Thanagarians were strangely unsympathetic to Superman, given the fact that his planet had been destroyed. He was as connected to Krypton as he could be given his circumstances, and undermining that when he was trying to express sympathies was cruel. Even so, Superman felt a connection to Earth that the Thanagarians did not, having lived most of his life there and, in his own words, been given a home by Earth when he was homeless. It’s understandable that two people who ultimately felt no connection to Earth at all would be exhausted of it — and [World’s Finest Comics #256] still introduces valid distinctions between their alien experiences, even if they weren’t expressed well.
Superman (1939) #309
That said, the Thanagarians’ comments in [World’s Finest Comics #256] were more aptly articulated in the post-crisis/New Earth universe, where Martian Manhunter told Superman that their experiences with being alien are not the same.
Martian Manhunter (1998) #0
The Superman of New Earth was born in a birthing matrix on Earth rather than naturally on Krypton, courtesy of John Byrne’s Man of Steel (1986). He had little desire to use the knowledge of Krypton, which was conferred to him through Jor-El’s technology or to really identify as Kryptonian. While the austerity of Superman’s attitude lessened with Byrne’s removal from the books in 1988 and was officially nixed by Mark Waid’s Superman: Birthright (2003), there was and still is a pronounced tendency for Superman to associate more with humanity than with Krypton. In contrast, New Earth’s Martian Manhunter was similarly a victim of a planetary cataclysm, as stated above and depicted in J.M. DeMatteis’ Martian Manhunter (1988), but was a participant in the Martian culture and people long enough to not identify with Earthpeople. This contrast is why Martian Manhunter’s words do not carry the same misunderstanding of New Earth Superman’s character that the Thanagarians’ assessment of Earth-1 Superman had. While the Thanagarians were operating off of underinformed beliefs about Superman’s connections to Krypton and Earth, Martian Manhunter was not; the fact that they had functionally equivalent experiences (outside of their ages when their planets were destroyed) allowed him to make these observations correctly. Martian Manhunter was Martian, and Superman didn’t have very much tying him to Krypton at all. While some authors would pay lip service to Krypton when mining it for storylines, Superman as a representative of Kryptonian culture or people — Krypton as something meaningful to Superman that could exist simply for its own sake — was basically dead in the water. Put succinctly, Martian Manhunter was just… correct.
Man of Steel (1986) #6 & Superman (1987) #2 respectively
Even the very concept of there being other living Kryptonians from New Earth was on an embargo, hence the convoluted writing decisions necessary to include characters like Supergirl and Zod without really using them. While this editorial decision did eventually lead to the expansion of the Superman Family in interesting ways, that expansion came heavily at the expense of Krypton’s original denizens. For example, New Earth’s Kara Zor-El (Supergirl) wouldn’t be reintroduced into Superman lore until Superman/Batman (2003), despite other versions of Supergirl existing in the 90s. Thus, New Earth’s Superman didn’t even have the luxury of speaking to a real (and non-hostile) Kryptonian for a long time.
Speaking of Kara Zor-El, her depiction in the post-crisis/New Earth universe and beyond make the persistence of negative depictions of Krypton and of the belief that Krypton doesn’t matter extremely questionable. Time and again, as recently as Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (2021), Kara mourns Krypton (or Argo City) and her life there. She’s uncertain about her path as a resident of Earth and often somewhat resents her cousin Kal (Superman) for not having many memories about his Kryptonian heritage. This is so common that some fans call her the real child of Krypton, for much of the same reasons that Martian Manhunter felt the need to differentiate his experiences as an alien from Superman’s own. Now, Kara’s backstory — whether she was the older cousin born and raised on Krypton prior to an accident causing her to land on Earth 30 years after Kal or the Argo City denizen who left at 15 — makes having Kara adopt a similar attitude to post-crisis Superman far more difficult to get away with. Moreover, given that Kal was already fairly distant from Kryptonian culture at the time of Kara’s reintroduction, it’s likely that writers believe using Kara as the vessel for Kryptonian cultural representation lessens the need for Kal to engage with Krypton himself while also lessening fan criticism about Krypton’s noninclusion. However, neither of the aforementioned reconciles or justifies perpetuating the idea of a warmongering Kryptonian culture in Superman books. Rather, Kara’s response to Krypton’s demise just becomes unintelligible when the tragedy of Krypton’s explosion is undermined by draconian renditions. And in general, there is an emotional and relational distance between the Supercousins that didn’t exist on Earth-1.
Supergirl (2016) #21 and Batman/Superman (2022) #8, respectively
Between Kara, Martian Manhunter, and the Thanagarians, the picture of why people believe that Krypton isn’t or shouldn’t be relevant to Superman’s lore — at least in such a way that would warrant a consistent, mostly positive depiction — begins to take a better shape. The distinction between the portrayal of Superman’s alien status/immigrant identity and those of other aliens is largely his connection to Earth. There is no version of the Superman mythos where this connection does not exist at all, but it is emphasized and prioritized in some universes more than others. Why? Recall the last statement of the opening paragraph: “People don’t [reference humanity] as a means to recognize Superman as a fellow moral agent or capable of empathy; they’re saying it to distance him from his alienness, as if being human is the highest standard and ultimate reward one can achieve.” When Superman fans and writers express their love for Superman’s humanity, it is only in a sense that it is not and cannot be extended to other aliens. Including them would transparently contradict the characters’ wider lore and understanding of themselves, while Superman’s lore provided the necessary foundation for this portrayal to take root and be accepted with a bit of effort. His backstory is that he was raised on Earth past infancy or toddlerdom. A common attitude toward adoption, particularly crosscultural or international adoption, holds that the erasure of the child’s original cultural background is acceptable. The expectation that parents try to encourage them to embrace that culture has only recently become more popular; many believe that being forcibly disconnected is a sign that the child shouldn’t or won’t ever care. In other words, the children are treated as blank slates, not products of their context. This is often amplified when the adoptive parents are white Americans or Europeans, and the children are not, with the presumption of the adoptive culture being superior to the original culture justifying the erasure. The result is that Superman, the Kryptonian orphan from the stars adopted by a lovely rural American couple, is thought to be far better off on Earth than Krypton.
Recall the question presented in the last section of this essay: “How could the reputation and significance of Krypton seemingly change overnight?” The answer to that question should be more obvious now. John Byrne’s Man of Steel (1986) changed the reputation and significance of Krypton, with significant help from successive comic runs that compounded or failed to address the underlying biases his work instilled within the lore. The editorial mandate forbidding the presence of other living Kryptonians in New Earth, remaining in place even after Byrne left Superman, dealt the killing blow.
All of the aforementioned is why the “no one is an alien” theme common to modern Superman media, including the most recent movie, finds its ally in the U.S. American “melting pot.” The melting pot is seen as the metaphorical bastion of multiculturalism. People from all countries, religions, and cultures can come to the United States and find their place amongst the teeming masses. Allegedly. As the term suggests, the melting pot actually functions to homogenize, sterilize, and erase the various cultures within the country. However, the faux promotion of multiculturalism and unity makes the melting pot seem like a progressive conception. The people who extol Superman’s immigrant identity while refusing to engage with it or their understanding of Krypton on a deeper level are functionally the same as the liberals who espouse melting pot theory, right down to the refusal to acknowledge that cultural differences are acceptable and even often necessary to gain a broader understanding of the world.
It’s in this vein, fans will decry the use of “alien” to describe Superman, despite “alien” being a relative term meant to denote foreignness and unfamiliarity; it is only prejudice that confers unsavory connotations. The refusal to use it only gives people room to ignore or deny that Superman is an alien to Earth. Ostensibly in the pursuit of inclusion, those people tend to dismiss anything that coincides with him being an alien as unimportant. Writers do this too: his connections to Krypton, his status as an immigrant who feels outside of American and Earth culture, and his struggles with having lost his home planet are brushed over to the point where people assume he has no trauma related to it. If they do believe he has trauma, it’s only in the sense that they want Superman to pursue being human. His loneliness (if he feels it at all) is framed as an inherent result of being an alien and not attributed to the people who do or would ostracize him for that; his feelings of not belonging can only be resolved by blending in rather than being accepted as he is; and his isolation is addressed by letting others dictate how he exists in a space rather than finding others like him. His appeasement of others for his own safety and relative ability to “fit” is framed as his problem and not a societal one — or if it is a societal one, it’s the result of people wanting to retain culture rather than discard it in favor of a nebulous American identity. There’s nothing wrong with Superman, per sé, other than that pesky Krypton. He’s just overthinking his place and clutching onto "the old world," complete with all of its flaws and none of its virtues. In other words, a Superman who is attuned with his Kryptonian culture is refusing to join the melting pot. (This is also the reason people insist that “Superman is just what Clark does”; conflating his Kryptonian identity with his hero moniker allows them to dismiss the Kryptonian connection as overplayed or receiving too much focus.)
Hitman (1996) #34
We know from Earth-1 that the false dichotomy between Earth and Krypton, and for Earth to always be the “right choice,” doesn’t have to be the case. It is possible to establish an equilibrium, and Superman doesn’t need to join the melting pot in order to be a great hero. Yet despite the fact that the “No Kryptonians” mandate was dropped decades ago, resulting in the more prominent original Kryptonians reappearing in the 2000s, many fans and writers simply refuse to accept (explicitly and tacitly) another path for Superman. That is to say, there isn’t a need to return to the exact framing of Earth-1, but even the stories for Prime Earth which seek to rectify New Earth’s flaws still carry the echoes of the melting pot. The nuance of Superman’s experiences and perspective on Earth has been compromised in the wider conversation of his lore, and many people seem to prefer that compromise despite its origins and implications. Fortunately, this can be fixed. Unfortunately, this is an issue that transcends mediums.
“It happened in Smallville!”: the Complicity of (Modern) Superman Adaptations
The list of Superman adaptations which have contributed to the devaluation of Krypton in the wider Superman mythos is lengthy, given that they are both products of and influences over the comics that were in production at the time of their development. However, some adaptations are both more popular and more recent than others and thus have more immediate relevance to this essay. Those are Smallville (2001–2011), My Adventures with Superman (2023–ongoing), and Superman (2025).
Smallville (2001-2011)
Smallville (2001–2011) is a widely acclaimed television series that aired on the WB/CW channel. It followed Clark Kent (Superman) prior to his adoption of the Superman moniker, who was embroiled in a never-ending battle against the various “freaks of the week,” heinous criminals, and the pitfalls of young adulthood. Most of the Superman fans who have watched the show, even those who disdain certain narrative decisions, would agree that Smallville largely warrants its praise. However, as Smallville pertains to this essay, it is one of the main purveyors of assimilationist rhetoric in Superman media outside of the comics.
As mentioned in the introduction, Krypton is typically used as fodder for conflict, and this was as true for Smallville as it is for the comics. Beginning very early in the show, Clark blames the A.I. of his Kryptonian father Jor-El, his powers, his being an alien, and other things associated with Krypton for his life troubles. As the seasons progress, whichever Kryptonian persons, states of being, and artifacts become relevant are also more severe. The most notable examples of this are Kal-El as a reference to “alien Clark,” the distortion of villains as being Kryptonian creations, and the portrayal of almost all Kryptonians beyond Clark as antagonists.
Superman’s Kryptonian name “Kal(-El)” was used to refer to Clark in states where he was “unrecognizable,” most notably when he was hyped on Red Kryptonite, often considered a substitute for drug use in the show. In the episodes “Red” [S2:E04], “Exile” [S3:E01], “Phoenix” [S3:02], and “Crimson” [S6:E13], Clark used his Kryptonian name as an alias while unabashedly engaging in dangerous, selfish, and destructive behaviors, regardless of the person or people with whom he is interacting. Amongst his transgressions were theft (of credit cards and from banks) underage club attendance, engagement party-crashing, and flagrant disregard for others. The show heavily insinuated that Clark on Red K is more uninhibited than he is controlled by the Kryptonite. This became even more pronounced in “Upgrade” [S9:E17], when Zod’s clone took advantage of Clark’s addled mind to try and convince him to take over the planet Earth. While it is true that Red Kryptonite could make Superman act out of character in the comics [e.g., Superman (1939) #163], that was far from the only or the most prominent effect it had on him. Strange transformations — changes in his weight, height, powers, appearance, and abilities — were all more common. Moreover, combined with the fact that Kal-El was hardly used to refer to Clark otherwise, this caused many audience members to associate his Kryptonian name and identity with inconsiderate, rash, and “alien” behaviors. The show clearly insinuated that a version of Clark not hellbent on being “human” (metaphorically or literally) would be ruthlessly criminal and distant on his best day, a far cry from Clark’s actual behavior on Earth-1 (or Earth-2).
Blaming villains’ existence on the Kryptonians themselves was also common. Putting aside the fact that the aforementioned “freaks of the week” were actually Kryptonite-infected, the villains Brainiac and Doomsday were created by Kryptonians on Smallville. Brainiac was built by Jor-El to help win a civil war on Krypton before being corrupted by Zod and being used by Kara’s father Zor-El to destroy the planet [S7] . Zod also created Doomsday as a “son”/weapon with his wife Faora, as revealed in “Bloodline” [S8:E08]. On Earth-1 (again, the Silver and Bronze Age universe), Brainiac was first an alien, then a computer from the planet Colu, which helped secure the Kryptonians’ near-extinction by stealing Kandor for his collection. Kandor contained most of the people who believed Jor-El’s claim that the planet would explode and the space arks intended to be used to evacuate Kryptonians from the planet before its explosion [e.g., World of Krypton (1979) #2]. Doomsday was created for the Death of Superman arc in 1992, for the New Earth universe. He’s an ancient Kryptonian monster who managed to free himself from his prison and make his way to Metropolis, where he tore through the city until Superman fatally confronted him. Though the Superman mythos has since further complicated Brainiac (and has attempted to do so for Doomsday), it was and remains disturbing that clear bastions of Kryptonian suffering have since been used to blame them for their trauma and mass extinction.
The last point is simple and partially deduced from the previous paragraphs. All of the Kryptonians who were born and raised on the planet — besides Clark’s mother Lara’s clone, his cousin Kara (who is still repeatedly encouraged to try to “fit in,” which she understands as hiding), and his father’s former assistant trapped within the Phantom Zone — just about every Kryptonian present in the show is or becomes a villain. Zod and his clan, Aether, Nam-Ek, Zor-El, and Jor-El himself through the A.I. were just a handful of examples. Kryptonian artifacts like the aforementioned Brainiac, the Phantom Zone, and the crystals forming the Fortress are destructive either in themselves or because of human flaws (for which they still receive the blame). (Even the explosion of Clark’s rocket, caused by Clark in an attempt to circumvent Jor-El, led Martha to miscarry after it magically cured her infertility in the first place [S02:E23].)
In Smallville, there is very little from Krypton in this show that isn’t villainized, derided, or only valuable for how it could further the plot.
My Adventures with Superman (2023)
Somewhat like Smallville, My Adventures of Superman (2023), often abbreviated as “MAWS,” follows the life of a young adult Clark Kent in the first days of his being/becoming Superman. He’s a college student and Daily Planet intern who’s new to the Metropolis scene. Unlike Smallville, MAWS predicates the entirety of its Kryptonian lore and its second season on the concept of Krypton being a colonial empire. The planet Krypton was destroyed by Brainiac, who was once again an A.I. built for warmongering purposes, just on a galactic rather than planetary scale [S02:E10]. This time, Brainiac purposefully destroyed Krypton as punishment for abandoning their colonial and imperial tendencies, fearing that he would be deactivated and hating the betrayal of their ideals [again, S02:E10]. It’s confusing in a meta sense. Brainiac’s creation by the Kryptonians is clearly an attempt to victim-blame them for their own destruction, again as it was in Smallville, yet the justification was simply that they tried to repent and pursue peace. (Mind, the peace talks only occurred after the Kryptonians found a planet they couldn’t take over, which somewhat undermined the sincerity of their desire.) The Kryptonians were not even allowed the luxury of realizing their errors because Superman’s origin story requires that the planet explodes regardless of what they do. Once the fact of Brainiac’s nefarious purpose was established, he was simply the easiest way out. What better excuse than an A.I. programmed to cause destruction to deliver the lore’s greatest cataclysm, while simultaneously eroding the narrative opening for redemption?
MAWS is all the worse for using Kara — again, whose second comic backstory includes having been born on Krypton, witnessing the theft of Kandor, and surviving the explosion of Krypton herself — be Brainiac’s arm of destruction. Kara was brainwashed, yes, but without digressing, that seems to be a common trope which facilitates her distance from her cousin Kal by playing on (and ultimately demonizing) her trauma and loyalty to Krypton.
Superman (2025)
As with the previous entries, Superman (2025) is well-liked by audiences and critically acclaimed. It followed Superman over the course of one week, beginning after he lost a fight to a masked villain named the Hammer of Boravia, the fight being retribution for interfering with Boravia’s invasion of its neighboring country Jarhanpur. As the plot unfolded, the villain Lex Luthor stole and released a video of Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van, Superman’s Kryptonian parents, directing him to take over the planet Earth and form a harem of human women by which to resurrect Krypton. Superman was told to rule without mercy over these simple, confused beings who are weak in mind, body, and spirit. Humanity promptly abandoned Superman, and Luthor, took advantage of the opening to imprison and torture him as well as shoot another immigrant named Malik Ali. By the end of the movie, the reputational, relational, physical, and other ramifications of the video’s release are essentially resolved, with the exception of Superman’s view of his Kryptonian parents being utterly compromised.
Now, the movie’s lesson that a person can choose who they become regardless of outside pressure and should take personal responsibility for that is perfectly fine, even very necessary in this era where all kinds of violence and bigotry are increasingly common and encouraged. However, that lesson need not, should not, come at the expense of Superman’s immigrant narrative — which is only technically allegorical in the sense that aliens aren’t real — and is probably all the more useless for choosing to sacrifice that narrative. Superman being an immigrant (refugee) is intrinsic to his history and lore, bar none. Demonizing Superman’s home planet, its culture(s), and its people using xenophobic (and white supremacist) narratives of immigrants infiltrating the country to impose their laws, rape the women, and replace the white citizenry is doing a disservice to the character and, more importantly, to all of the fans and writers who are or were victims of these narratives in real-time — including his creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster. In the same vein, having the xenophobic villain character be validated in his hatred by a message which confirmed his biases rather than using that as an opportunity to educate the audience on xenophobic propaganda was an extremely out-of-touch misstep on Gunn’s part, considering he went out of his way to market the movie as an immigrant narrative.
Portraying Superman as a victim of these xenophobic narratives — from being brutalized by the police, imprisoned without trial because he as an alien doesn’t have rights, slandered by the media, and distrusted by random citizens who loved him a moment ago, his teammates, and having Lex call him the wrong species on purpose — and then doing everything on a meta and grander narrative level to undermine what these scenes were meant to be criticizing before the scenes even occur is truly impressive. The message‘s content and the fact that it’s undoctored implicitly justified all of the treatment Superman received as a result by way of prejudiced confirmation bias, which is amplified in countries (such as the United States) in which pretenses to safety and “cultural cohesion” should erode immigrants’ civil and criminal rights. The hatred and fear of the other is cultivated in people specifically so that they do not question what governments do to those people, whether they are guilty of something or not. Gunn making the message true without criticism, and having just about every character not care about Superman’s well-being, very blatantly made this seem acceptable.
Moreover, the framing of the message and the response to it encouraged the negative judgment of Kryptonians as a group and thus motivated both Superman and the audience to want Superman’s distance from Krypton.
For one, the lack of other Kryptonians in the film, save for an inebriated Kara at the end, de facto made Jor-El and Lara the representation of all other (born-and-raised) Kryptonians, which in turn invited the rejection of Kryptonians as a species and culture(s). Some respondents, if this gains any real traction, may argue that that’s not the case; but it’s not really difficult to conceptualize that people who are part of minorities need diverse representation in order to avoid conveying unsavory messages about those minority groups. As it was, many audience members came out of the Superman movie either believing that it was good that Superman was raised on Earth and/or praising Gunn for not making Superman “too alien” by having him discard Jor-El and Lara’s message. In fact, the scene where he is comforted by Jor-El and Lara’s message is explicitly called back to at the end, where their message is replaced by videos of the salt-of-the-earth Kents. Considering that Superman had those videos the whole time, one must wonder why that was supposed to be significant if not for the fact it signaled a fundamental attitude shift — not toward the overt message of choosing who he is as a person (since Superman’s personality didn’t change, just his attribution for why) but toward being human. No longer will Superman be comforted by foreign videos with foreign videos and foreign people; he’ll fully embrace being human, complete with kindly old American farmers.
For two, none of the characters in the movie actually provided evidence that Superman was going to act on those directives before Superman was wrongfully attacked and imprisoned, yet all it took was for Lex Luthor to accuse Superman of grooming to further legitimize his mistreatment. This was an obvious attempt to compound the already diminished goodwill of the human (American) populace toward Superman, and it worked. In order to be distanced from the mental category of “Other” in people’s minds, Superman was forced to rescue the entire planet from Lex’s pocket universe malfunction while weak from Kryptonite torture and about 50 other things and then give a speech about how he was actually just like the humans. There was no real meditation in the film about how everyone’s (sans Lois, the Kents, and Terrific) treatment of Superman after the message was unethical and unjustified on multiple levels. Superman being victimized was wrong because he was a nice person who was “different” from the other “old world” Kryptonians, not just in general. In a time where immigrants are actively being targeted by multiple prominent administrations during a huge right-wing political shift, this was, at minimum, an egregious writing mistake.
I encourage people to go read @jesncin and @polytropic-liar ‘s posts on this for further elaboration.
Conclusion
When Superman’s immigrant narrative is neglected, villanized, or diminished — when there’s no pathos added by the loss of Krypton, his family, and culture — the result is just a guy with powers. A conspicuously American (for there is no true “neutral”), humanity-obsessed guy with powers. As was argued in an earlier section, this is a key function of the melting pot; to sterilize, homogenize, and erase cultures and differences in the pursuit of one “unified” culture. People are entitled to their preferences; but there is nothing interesting about a Superman who is disconnected from Krypton beyond the minimum expected by the backstory, and many writers thus far have been unable to avoid perpetuating extremely assimilationist narratives. So much of Superman’s previously established lore, which comes from Earth-1, functioned on the inclusion of Krypton and its vestiges eventually, in ways outside of the villainization or exclusion of the entire planet. Conscious choices to excise Krypton despise that result in, at best, extremely uninspired stories. More importantly, choosing to remove or demonize Krypton contradicts the Doylist purposes of making him an alien outside of explaining his powerset: to represent immigrants and to be a champion for the common, oppressed people. It’s not difficult to find that Clark bears a striking resemblance to his Jewish creators, who were second-generation immigrants themselves, or that Superman was created at the tail end of the Great Depression just prior to World War II, during which millions including 6 million Jewish people, would be murdered. Hiding his identity, personal history, and place of origin is a fundamental part of Superman’s lore. One could argue, for the most part, that Krypton itself as a concept was not important until the 1950s; but the expansion of that aspect of his lore has only ever increased the potency and longevity of the larger allegory, and the urge to remove, undermine, and villainize Krypton decades after that expansion, as I have demonstrated, is borne of xenophobic and assimilationist intent bar none.
I will clarify here: the portrayal of Kryptonians as unabashedly evil, colonial, draconic, and what else would be xenophobic and assimilationist even if almost everything presented in this argument was untrue or unsupported. The first goal of the essay was merely to prove that the stark contrast between the Kryptonians of Earth-1 and the Kryptonians of later renditions provides undeniable evidence, if not absolute proof, that the “evil” depictions were xenophobic in intention or heritage. The second goal was to explain how and why these depictions are (or come off as) assimilationist and xenophobic using direct textual evidence as opposed to word-of-mouth accusations. The third and final goal was to convey how deeply embedded these tendencies have been in Superman media and express that Superman’s immigrant identity is essential to his character. Writers have to decide what to do with it; but ignorance to the nuances of immigrants’ lives or plights isn’t absolution for missteps, and blatant jingoism simply shouldn’t be tolerated.
"He's a Fairy, I Do Suppose": A Queer Analytical Perspective on Superman (Part 1/3)
Future Links: Part 2, Part 3
Note: This is commentary on the evolved perception of Clark Kent as it relates to the U.S. American standards of masculinity, effeminacy, and queerness. This is a textual analysis, which also presumes that readers are familiar enough with Superman that not everything need be directly cited. Further, though I am familiar with queer (and feminist) academic theory and history, I do not claim this work as an academic pursuit and do not (as of yet) make direct references to any particular theorist, philosopher, historian, and so on. Feel free to add any insight or thoughts; we're all friends here.
Introduction
The importance of the Clark Kent identity to the Superman mythos has been long debated in Superman media, fan circles, and academia. Depending on the exact content and framing of the analysis, Clark can be a metaphor for a particular type of immigrant experience, a covert display of misanthropy from the powerful, or the everyman. He can be one aspect of a disordered whole, a precise half, or the entire neater whole, with Superman’s relevance being complementary to the interpretation of Clark. Though the appeal of the rearmost interpretation has faded somewhat, Clark Kent is often regarded as the “real identity,” with Superman being either the most potent manifestation of Clark’s good nature or “just something he does.” However, one of Clark Kent’s many manifestations, and arguably the most important, was the Fairy — the effeminate antithesis to Superman which served as the premiere cover for the aforementioned alter ego, as well as the iteration upon which all others are constructed through their adoption, alteration, or rejection of his aesthetics and implications. The concept of the disordered whole and thus of Superman as “real” hinged on the Fairy identity. As such, the image of Clark constructed in the modern era reveals potent mechanisms underlying the fundamental relation of Superman to queerness and nontraditional masculinity: namely, that in spite of the stark contrast between Clark Kent and Superman, the man behind both personas (Kal-El) occupies a blurred third position, where cisheteronormativity is both transparently incoherent and vital to his continued success maintaining a secret identity.
Some Context: Superman and Clark Kent as Opposite Personas
Superman is often described as incontrovertibly masculine, an ideal representation of traditional images of men and the expectations heaped upon them by patriarchal norms. His towering physique and awesome capabilities underpin the resolute and authoritative personality he projects to enact change. To the extent that the aforementioned norms are intertwined with familial nuclearization, Superman’s status as the “greatest (and strongest) hero” works in tandem with stereotypical male roles of “protector,” “provider,” “leader,” and so on, buttressed by the general perception of him as the true embodiment of physical power. For these reasons, of the two primary personas with which this essay is concerned, Superman is typically the preeminent masculine figure even if he’s not the predominant identity; his presence, compassion, and heroics are consistently framed as paternalistically benevolent or righteously domineering, such that he’s often considered as the superior moral and behavioral guide in most situations even by other heroes his age.
In the larger Superman mythos, Clark Kent is typically constructed to be the opposite — effeminate, or at least enough unlike Superman that few people suspect a connection without ample evidence, despite any physical or attitudinal similarities. More specifically, Clark is “mild-mannered,” which has been construed to entail pervasive shyness, timidity, submission, and cowardice, in addition to a relative feebleness and delicate sensibility not expected of a man his size and age. He dresses poorly and hunches over to shrink himself, sometimes speaking with a stutter or nervous air. What attention he does attract for his sharp writing ability and communication skill as a reporter is often trumped by his reputation for being unabashedly scared, frail, and accident-prone. Clark’s friends and neighbors are more likely to regard him as gentle and sweet, but they find themselves exasperated at times depending on the current context. Clark also literally and figuratively lacks paternalism in most cases: in the Earth-1 and New 52 universes specifically, Clark is notably a bachelor, while Earth-2 and New Earth are not bachelors but have no children. He is also not considered a role model or a guide, at least to the same extent or type as Superman, such that a traditionally paternal image is usually attributed.
It should be noted most of these distinctions are not entirely cogent or consistent in universes such as New Earth, where the motion to make Clark Kent the “real identity” — here distinct from persona, in that the character’s embodiment of and positive relation to ascribed traits and descriptions is sincere — led to the excision of many previously prominent “effeminate” traits within the Clark Kent persona. Nevertheless, the belief that the distinctions between personas should and do exist, at least nominally, remains the most important aspect of Superman's secret identity quagmire.
The Pantywaist and the Strongman: Earth-2, the Golden Age, 1938–1952
[Superman (1939) #67, "The City Under the Sea"]
Men regarded as effeminate or otherwise deficient in masculinity are implicitly presumed to not be (traditionally) heterosexual, as the initial construction of the heterosexual identity is reliant on a stable masculinity. That is, gender expectations for men under patriarchy include assertiveness and dominance — especially over women, who are expected to be submissive and passive. On an individual level, the effects of these displays are most prominent in men’s personal and sexual relationships, creating an environment in which the establishment of a heterosexual relationship acts as an easy indication of masculine prowess. In turn, this creates the cyclical reinforcement between perceived masculinity and heterosexual performance, as traditional heterosexual dynamics tacitly mandate the submission necessary for a man to sufficiently prove his masculinity.
The Superman of Earth-2, also known as the Golden Age Superman and Kal-L, was the first to establish the Clark Kent persona and thus the first to employ the masculine/effeminate dichotomy that would come to define the character in the wider mythos. Though Earth-2’s Clark Kent is considerably more outspoken than many later depictions, bearing the weight of 1940s expectations, he is mild-mannered and diffident depending on the context. He avoids overt grand displays of chivalry to avoid detection, to the point of seemingly abandoning others from time to time, engendering a reputation for pronounced cowardice [e.g., Superman (1939) #1]. He also generally refuses to engage in degrading or disrespectful behavior, making him seem conformist at best and submissive at worst. Decades of embodying these traits, and a tendency to regress to form when he does defend himself or others, create the general perception that he is effeminate (or painfully dull, which often overlaps with the former, as it is seen as an expression of unmasculine passivity). It should be clarified here that effeminacy and femininity are not synonymous; Clark is treated as a particularly weak man for having traits perceived as feminine, namely submissiveness, but is not necessarily feminine himself.
[Superman (1939) #5, "The Slot Machine Racket" and #15, "The Evolution King", respectively]
It follows that Clark’s interactions with Lois Lane, his coworker and love interest, illuminate perceptions of and responses to his effeminacy. In fact, Lois’ attraction to Clark is likely the most reliable barometer of the perception of Clark’s masculinity in-narrative; not only is she the character with whom he most interacts, but the predominant narratives of women’s desires in the 1940s were largely filtered through heteronormative and patriarchal lenses, such that a greater attraction to Clark than, say, Superman would be considered aberrant. Concordantly, Lois’ negative descriptions of and dismissal of Clark in this era — both extant from the beginning and compounded in severity by her own assertive nature, which is juxtaposed against Clark’s — aptly reflect the interplay between traditional gender roles and heterosexuality and related social mores: “pantywaist” referring to both a coward and an effeminate man [Superman (1939) #7, “The Three Kingpins of Crime,” & #8, “The Carnival Crooks”] and “a miserable specimen of humanity” [Superman (1939) #17, “Muscles for Sale”] being amongst them. When asked why she avoids him, Lois tells Clark not to ask her for another sob story, only to reaffirm his status as a “spineless, unbearable coward” after an altercation with an aggressive man attempting to force her to dance [Superman (1939) #1]. Expectedly, Lois continues to lack an actualized romance with Clark through this era because she views him as unmasculine, which lessens her attraction to him (with the irony being that Clark is Superman and is thus the worthiest of her attraction in a traditional sense). Thus, the aforementioned avenue of using heterosexual norms to assert his masculinity is barred to Clark, making it so he must rely on alternate methods of asserting his masculinity or otherwise cope with the consequences of his failure.
Given that the Clark Kent persona in the Golden Age largely exists in service of Superman’s endeavors, most especially the protection of his secret identity, Clark cannot truly escape his conundrum without increasing the risk of exposure. Establishing an honest romance with Lois or another woman would entail both becoming appealing in a traditionally masculine sense and informing her of his alter ego, neither of which Superman is inclined to do lest he and his associates be subjected to blatant violations of safety and privacy. This status quo results in Clark’s feigned shortcomings situating him in an ever-nebulous space of “effeminate heterosexuality,” wherein he ostensibly experiences opposite-sex attraction but is so pitiful at upholding a traditionally masculine role that he cannot establish, maintain, or defend a heterosexual relationship. Such a failure arguably constitutes a form of queerness in that it defies traditional expectations of men under patriarchy, which makes Clark "strange" — and thus, a target of persistent harassment and doubt.
[Superman (1939) #17, "Man or Superman?", #17, "Muscles for Sale", and #22, "A Modern Robin Hood!", respectively]
As aforementioned, Superman is the masculine alter ego and leading persona. The Clark Kent persona serves to shield him from the various unsavory consequences and annoyances of heroism. However, because Clark Kent primarily interacts with humanity, there’s a profound sense in which Superman’s masculinity is divorced from human expectations and standards. Significantly, Superman embodies traditionally masculine norms with ease, due in large part to his great powers and physique, such that he need not entertain many other engagements with gender expectations; yet he struggles with a sense of alienation precisely because he cannot sincerely participate in the relationship rituals that those around him find valuable. A neat example is when Superman, though technically guised as Clark, fears that he’ll crush a woman’s ribs if he forgets himself in a fit of passion [Superman (1939) #7, “The Black Gang”] but there’s also the more pervasive, aforementioned sense in which he cannot pursue a romance for fear the woman would be harmed or disappointed when he cannot perform normally. The alienation worsens the panic Superman develops when confronted with the potential reveal of his secret identity. Generally, the reveal — even just to love interests such as Lois or good friends — is too ruinous to entertain, much less tolerate, such that he lies or engages in blatantly manipulative behaviors to maintain the secret [e.g., Superman (1939) #19,” Superman: Matinee Idol”]. Superman stuffs his suits into secret panels, closets, or drawers, of which he is so protective that he’d rather hope (guiltily) the discoverer die than blackmail him, even in dreams [e.g., Superman (1939) #6, “Mission to San Caluma” & 19, “Superman’s Amazing Adventure”; Adventures of Superman, “The Mystery of the Stolen Costume,” chapters 1–2]. His terror at being discovered is so great that it clouds and confuses many of his personal interactions and concerns, which is compounded by any belief that someone is actively investigating him.
[Superman (1939) #7, “The Black Gang”]
Thus, despite ostensibly being the superior and stronger persona, Superman functions as more vulnerable in emotional and social situations where his physicality is not useful. Concurrently, he is first and foremost concerned with his own protection, given that his social circle in the Golden Age is almost strictly delimited to coworkers and hypothetical wives, all for whom Superman is meant to be a secret. This interacts curiously with what is known of Clark Kent’s reality. It is for Superman that any consequences exist — as Clark Kent’s effeminacy and bachelordom in this era is contingent on Superman’s needs — which raises the question of what Superman is or represents such that perpetual social distance is preferable to anyone being in-the-know regarding his identity. After all, Earth-2 Superman’s alien status was not revealed to him until 1948 [Superman (1939) #53], and Clark's lack of favor with Lois and dearth of masculine flair persisted until the end of the era [as pictured in the beginning of this section, in Superman (1939) #67, "The City Under the Sea"]. Fortunately, the Silver and Bronze Ages seem to offer more concrete illumination than the Golden Age.
The name "Kal-El" translates to "Star-Child" in Kryptonese (now referred to as Kryptonian), the word "El" meaning "Star" and "Kal" meaning "Child." The name "El" was adopted as a patronym by the ruler Erok, who successfully conquered the Kryptonian continent of Urrika and founded its oldest city Erkol, to celebrate being blessed by the stars [The Krypton Chronicles #3 (1981)]; Erok named his infant son Kal to continue the tradition of star-blessings. With regard to the oft-touted Hebrew translation, "Kal-El" refers approximately to "Voice of God," with "El" alluding to "Elohim" or "God." This essay considers both of those translations with regard to how they could relate to Superman's position in the wider universe (both his section of the DC lore and DC lore in its entirety) as well as his Jewish-coding more generally.
I'll clarify at this point that my analysis is primarily pre-crisis based, i.e., based on comics from 1938-1986, as comics from the post-crisis era and beyond (to the extent that I have read them) can be very lackadaisical regarding his Kryptonian heritage, which tends to be the aspect of him that is most Jewish-coded. In this perspective, the pre-crisis universe, to me, is the most direct and profound iteration of the character.
I believe it's important to establish what a star is. It's a giant, flaming ball of plasma undergoing nuclear fusion [NASA, "Star Basics"], but if a sufficiently large round mass with its own "cleared orbit" becomes subject to a star's gravitational pull (and makes the star subject to its own, albeit less) that star becomes a "sun," having attracted a planet [Wikipedia, "Clearing the Neighbourhood"; Wikipedia, "Planet"; NASA, "Gravity & Mechanics"]. If there are no other masses around the star, then it is simply a star. From the perspective of us humans, a sun is generally preferable to a regular star, as a sun's solar system contains within it the possibility for life. In fact, the sun is associated with power over life (and death) for myriad reasons, many relating to crops, health, and safety.
Religious Influences
The Kryptonians worship the Sun God Rao, sometimes believed to be inspired by the Egyptian God "Ra." Rao is the name of both the omnipotent deity who governs the sun and the sun sphere itself. Rao became the singular Kryptonian deity of note following a great flood predicated by the prophet Jaf-El, the brother of Kal-El's distant ancestor Tio-El [Krypton Chronicles (1981) #3]. Prior to the flood, Jaf-El demanded his fellow Kryptonians abandon polytheism in favor of monotheism, i.e., the worship of Rao, and was promptly rejected until an optical illusion convinced his audience of Rao's presence and wrath. Many mythologies do in fact carry some myth or other of a flood; however, given that the cited story explicitly references Noah's story from the Book of Genesis, inspiration for the story is easily attributed to the Hebrew Bible. This is further legitimated by the text. Just as God punished mankind for its wickedness, so did Rao, by sending a flood to decimate all Kryptonians. Other than the arks, which were eschewed in favor of winged animals, the base story is fairly similar.
Another event seemingly inspired by the Hebrew Bible — the one of David and Goliath in the Book of Samuel, exactly — was the Kryptonians' rebellion against their tyrant enslaver Taka-Ne [Superman (1939) #264]. This one involved the Kryptonians using headbands to launch rocks at their enslavers until the enslavers fled, from which the Kryptonian headband commonly seen on characters such as Jor-El was derived. From then on, this headband, which Supergirl would eventually claim as part of her costume, would denote clan belonging then citizenship on Krypton. Later, a boy aptly named Val-Lor would inspire a rebellion against another set of enslavers called the Vrangs; not only was this act of bravery lauded in Kryptonian history, signifying the value of rebellion, but the Vrangs would eventually return to menace Superman, forcing the Phantom Zoners to assist him with defeating them out of centuries-old spite [Superman (1939) #176; Action Comics (1938) #548-549].
Superman's origin is also a Moses allegory, with his journey in the rocket to Smallville evoking imagery of Moses being hidden in the Nile. Author Len Wein also referenced the Hebrew Bible in [Superman #338], entitled "Let My People Grow!," in which Kal-El and his cousin Kara Zor-El freed the Kandorians from approximately 30 years of captivity under Brainiac. Kal and Kara flew them to a planet much like Krypton which the Kandorians called "Rokyn" or "Rao's Gift," much like Moses leading his people to the promised land during the Exodus.
Putting the history aside, many Kryptonian rituals of significance — e.g., weddings and naming ceremonies — occur under the concentrated light of a red sun [Action Comics (1938) #378, #484], and everything from nursery rhymes to prayers to swears involve the sun god Rao in some capacity [e.g., Action Comics (1938) #299, World's Finest (1941) #297]. Additionally, the prevalence of the ending "-ra" in Kryptonian women's names ("Lara," "Kara," "Allura," "Thera," "Faora," etc.) [Krypton Chronicles (1981) #3] does suggest possible references to Rao are popular naming conventions, as the possessive form of "Rao" is "Ro" (masculine) and may be "Ra" (feminine) [Krypton Chronicles (1981) #2]. All this to say, Rao is implicitly and explicitly an important figure in modern Kryptonian culture, in the same way that Abrahamic religions worship some version of capital-G God and incorporate that into things that are not necessarily religious in themselves.
Kal-El was officially named (christened) under the light of a red sun [again, see Action Comics (1938) #378]. When Krypton was on the verge of exploding, and his parents were readying to send him away, Lara told Jor-El that she would stay with him because "Kal-El was born to live among the stars." [Superman (1938) #257]. This statement is intriguing because it reveals a belief that one's name controls one's destiny, otherwise known as nominative determinism.* If we assume that this is a belief persistent on Krypton, despite their otherwise science-based actions and philosophies, then it stands to reason that Kal was named Kal-El as a signal toward some higher calling. Mind, both Lara and Jor-El were "star-inclined" in their own right; Lara was an astronaut, while Jor-El was more of a Jack-of-all-trades including rocketry [e.g., World of Krypton (1979) #1]. Jor-El also wore a red and yellow sun symbol on his green shirt, which distinguished him from his twin Nim (who wore blue, purple, and white [World of Krypton #1; Adventure Comics #304]) but not from his father Jor-El I [again, World of Krypton #1]. Both Jor-Els (as well as Jor-El I's brother, Zim, accidentally) made advances in rocketry which ultimately led to Kal-El's successful landing on Earth.
*It's worth noting that a letter to the editor in Superman #226 made a joke about a hypothetical son of Superman born on Christmas named No-El was rejected by the editor for Superman because naming someone "No" would give them bad luck. Additionally, Kru-El (the Phantom Zone villain) is Jor-El's cousin, signaling that the nominative determinism route may have some (support.
If the act of holding one's child under the red sun was meant to act as a blessing on Krypton, and if we assume for argument's sake that nominative determinism was a prevalent belief on Krypton, then the act of naming one's child Kal-El while having a background in star-related fields and being on a planet that one knows to be dying constitutes a blatant attempt at saving their life. While Jor-El and Lara would use scientific means to save him (mind, that were not as well tested as they could have been, given prior history of failure and the banning of rocket experiments as a result [e.g., World of Krypton]), Jor-El also says "May the winds of space favor his course," [Superman #257]. Space wind is also known as solar or stellar wind, which is a stream of charged particles released by stars [Wikipedia, "Solar Wind"]. In other words, it's still something of a plea, if very indirect, for the god and the star named Rao — and suns and stars thereafter — to help their son. Superman is referred to as "star-child," "star-born," "a titan of the stars," or something similar is continued across the pre-crisis universe, both in dialogue and in the narration text, signaling its relative importance to his lore.
The fact that Superman gains his powers from the yellow sun is a well-known fact, even amongst those who are not otherwise fans of DC. However, many people do not know or have forgotten that he is powered by all yellow stars and that they need not even be yellow for him to derive some sort of power, so long as they are not red (or green, though that is rarely mentioned). A red sun is a sun that has dimmed significantly due to its age. The exception for red is explained by the fact that on his home planet — which had a red sun and greater gravity — Superman would not have any powers; thus, any situation which mimicked one or both conditions would depower him [e.g., Superman (1939) #191, 206]. However, given the religious and cultural importance of the red sun and its linkage to the god Rao, it is not difficult to extrapolate that Superman's vulnerability under a red sun may very well be symbolic of being subdued by or an agent for a higher power. A superpowered being who can move and even relight suns [e.g., Superman (1939) #415] being rendered powerless by one that is red, for the sheer fact that it doesn't *provide* him enough power, is forced to once again succumb to the whims and circumstances of his environment. In some circumstances, if Superman does not account for his escape, he will be trapped in whatever land exists under that red sun [e.g. Action Comics (1938) #300]. This rolls over well into Kal's relationship with higher beings and entities; he interacts or is associated with one at least a few times over the course of the pre-crisis universe. He encountered an entity implied to be capital-G God (Rao) directly in [Superman Annual #10: The Sword of Superman; DC Comics Presents (1978) #29], was called "the Master Programmer's Angel of Death" by the new and improved Brainiac that viewed all of Creation, in [Action Comics (1938) #545], prayed for Rao to fix a rift in the dimensions (which worked) in [Superman Spectacular (1982) #1], and was visited by Kryptonian spirits in [DC Comics Presents #82].
Given all of the aforementioned, it's not far-fetched to suggest that Kal-El (at least in pre-crisis) is quite literally meant to be a "Voice of God." He derives his powers from the stars — also known as heavenly bodies — and is only vulnerable to two colors out of the entire spectrum (again, red and its direct opposite, green). The stars can revive him and, in the vast majority of circumstances, heal him from diseases and injuries that would otherwise be fatal.
It should also be said that pre-crisis Kal-El, under the influence of a red sun, tends to respond "humanly" and grows wild and unclean after too much time away from either the light of a yellow star (or otherwise non-red and non-green stars) or civilization. To be himself, he must have the light of a yellow star. This means undergoing whatever trials and tribulations exist for him under that red star in order to escape its light, much like the character tests of various myths.
Potentially Religious/Indirectly Religious Influences
In situations where Kryptonite is present, there's largely nothing religious to compare it to, of which I'm aware, but exposure to the yellow sun does not relieve or lessen the impacts of Kryptonite radiation. Only removal of the Kryptonite does. We could conceptualize that as (symbolic of) another test of character and strength, but it is also true that Superman's fear is derivative of the nuclear fear of the Cold War. In that sense, we could understand it as something that is ultimately meant to bond Kal-El and the people (usually Earth humans) whom he protects, even though villains use it to do him harm. Next to a red sun, magic, and things of Kryptonian origin, Kryptonite is one of the few things that can weaken or kill Superman, making it apt as a symbol of fear.
With regard to magic, Kal-El is also vulnerable to the magical, mystical, and preternatural, which is understood by some to be devilry (though I'm not entirely sure if that has strict roots in religious texts). If we assume for the sake of argument that to perform magic is to generally disorder and warp that which should be beyond one's control and that supernatural creatures are generally considered abominations, then magic's positionality as the counter to a science-based world, a world in which we can presume Rao exists (on some level) also explains why it can affect Superman. Not only is it not scientifically justifiable, which Superman's existence is in DC lore, but it also somewhat contradicts intelligent design, in the sense that an intelligent designer would leave some things but not others in the control of the designed. This would explain why Superman was vulnerable to malicious magic, such as that performed by a man who looked conveniently like Satan, Dracula (repelled by holy things), and being turned to stone [e.g. Action Comics (1938) #378, Superman #344; World's Finest Comics (1941) #257]. Interestingly, there was a powerful spirit in [World's Finest Comics #285-288] who wanted to possess Superman but could not, suggesting that to do something truly evil or harbor an evil entity, Superman has to be either willing or very susceptible to manipulation. However, Superman can also occasionally turn magic into his advantage but only at the cost of his powers or the need to force magic to mimic/induce his powers [e.g. DC Comics Presents (1978) #18].
The last topic is what it means to live amongst the stars. As aforementioned, Lara said that while preparing to send Kal-El away, in reference to his name. This is where his immigrant and alien identity become relevant again. There was a storyline in which Kara and Kandorian therapists — believing Kal to be depressed and compensating for the loss of Krypton with Earth — tell him that he is actually from Earth. Kal begins to believe it, which causes them to fear that him no longer feeling outcasted means that he will no longer care for others outside of Earth [Superman (1938) #307-309]. Though that's something of a problematic implication, the general sentiment behind it — that Superman should be concerned about the welfare of others, at least partly due to camaraderie, and be willing to leave Earth or wherever he is regularly — does motion toward a type of "live amongst the stars" belief. Kal-El's greatest struggles are relational and psychological, and the fear that he would let these struggles ground him to Earth stems from a fear of him rejecting his destiny. He IS Superman, he was meant to be Superman, he was chosen to be Superman. To be the "Star-Child" is to also allow the stars to nurture and guide you; to be a Titan of the Stars is to preside over them and those who orbit them. Even when Rokyn was established, the Kandorians did not allow him to stay out of duty. They recognized that he had a higher calling than merely dwelling on Rokyn, as much as he wanted to [again, Superman (1939) #338]. That's not to say that Superman doesn't belong anywhere but that he belongs in a fundamentally different capacity. Even the Spectre said as much [again, DC Comics Presents #29], but he said that Superman had not yet developed the mindset for his duty. That suggests to me that Earth-1 Kal, who already loves space, who already is known across many worlds as a savior, has a fundamental psychological paradigm shift to make for himself.
Conclusion
Kal-El's various tensions, based on all of the aforementioned, are not just due to the fact that he is an alien and immigrant, although those take the most immediate precedent on Earth. They originate from the inevitable conflict between someone's power is very close to a deity's and those who simply cannot comprehend such a state and would never be in it. That is also why, in real life, people who complain that making Kal too godlike or too Jesus-y are simultaneously close but not quite there (again, at least for pre-crisis). Kal is a Moses allegory, at the barest minimum, and he also is very much like a deity. Actually, he is arguably much stronger than many, if not most, actual gods in various religious and spiritual myths. The problem is that people largely associate the concept of God or gods with very powerful tyrants or distant creators, and not someone like Superman who is benevolent and good but occasionally makes a mistake or acts in a human manner. In this sense, Kal is more like a demigod. Furthermore, much of Kal-El's modern imagery quite literally makes him "down to Earth" in a way that people tend to appreciate (for many reasons), and they don't want that image dispelled in favor of someone they would fear. Like the fictional DC denizens, they prefer he blend in and not stand out, with the exception of using his powers for the good of humanity. To be Kal-El, the Star-Child, the Voice of God, is to accept a permanent place of ill-fitting or assimilation as (part of) your destiny — at least until you have the mind to ascend to higher things than larping as a reporter who gets shit-talked everyday.
@khassjitrachash, @jesncin, @forestofsprites, and @malakaiblackscloset.
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Hey, folks! Here’s my latest attempt at writing! It’s a murder mystery inspired by the Adventures of Superman radio show and Batman: The Long Halloween, though it takes plenty of reference from different comic versions of Clark and Bruce. I hope you all enjoy!
