Analyzing Watchmen Theoretically Using Freud, Mulvey, Butler, and Said to Unmask Power and Identity
The main ideas from Sigmund Freud's "The Uncanny," Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Judith Butler's "Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion," and Edward Said's "Orientalism" will all be discussed in relation to and provide insight into Watchmen episodes 6 and 8, which air in 2019. Important thematic components in these crucial Watchmen episodes are illuminated by the ideas of gender performativity, Orientalism as a colonial discourse, Butler's concept, Mulvey's theory of the male gaze, and Said's analysis of the uncanny. After going over some of the most significant critical methods that these theorists have in common, this explanation will look at some of the fundamental distinctions and conflicts that exist between their viewpoints. Lastly, it will carefully examine a single scene from each episode to show how the different ideas interact with one another and provide useful perspectives for understanding “Watchmen.” In the end, this theoretical synthesis shows how Watchmen deals with difficult questions of violence, representation, power, and identity.
Section 1: Examining Conventions and Penetrating the Mind
Although Freud, Mulvey, Butler, and Said came from quite diverse philosophical backgrounds, they all shared some important critical approaches. All want to go below the surface and expose psychological and social dynamics that are hidden while also questioning conventional wisdom. Freud defines the uncanny as a deep psychological ambivalence in which something can be both secretly familiar and unsettlingly foreign at the same time. Meanwhile, Mulvey and Said offer ideological critiques of the manner in which cultural representations maintain power. According to Mulvey, narrative cinema treats viewers as male subjects and embodies the "unconscious of patriarchal society," encoding "the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form" (Mulvey 711). Similarly, Said locates Orientalism as a pervasive discourse with that supports Western dominance over the East. Both look at culture as the environment in which identities are formed to preserve dominant hierarchies and norms. These four philosophers examine the irrational, the unconscious, and the constructed character of the self and society.
Moreover, the four scholars are united in their dedication to scrutinizing the power structures that mold both personal and societal identities. Freud's idea of the uncanny emphasizes how suppressed parts of the self might reappear in disconcerting ways, undermining the subject's cohesiveness. This is consistent with Butler's idea that gender is a performative construct that is constantly plagued by its exclusions. Butler and Freud both challenge us to think about the artificiality and instability of identity categories that appear to be natural.
Conversely, Mulvey and Said highlight how prevailing ideologies influence the very language we use to describe ourselves and one another. According to Mulvey, the "patriarchal unconscious," which views women as passive objects of a male gaze, is the basis of the cinematic machinery (Mulvey 711). This has profound effects on the construction and experience of femininity and masculinity. Similar to this, Said contends that Western identity is defined in opposition to the "Orient," which is produced by Orientalist discourse and produced as a fixed, essentialized alien. According to him, "European culture gained strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self" (Said 11). The significance of representation in forming lived realities and power dynamics is emphasized by both thinkers.
All four of these theorists are interested in the intricate, frequently unconscious processes of identification and disavowal that shape the boundaries of the self. These theorists explore the fractures and cracks in supposedly stable identities, whether it is through the production of the colonial other, the subversive performance of non-normative gender identities, the uncanny return of the repressed, or the encoding of patriarchal authority in cinematic frameworks. They challenge us to think about how power functions not only via overt forms of dominance but also through the categories and representations that define who we are and how we relate to others. They create room for inquiry, opposition, and change by doing this.
Section 2: Conflicts and Disparities
There are also notable distinctions in the frameworks of these thinkers that lead to constructive tensions. Freud, who comes from a psychoanalytic background, is primarily interested in the individual psyche, but Butler, Mulvey, and Said are more interested in how identity is constructed in society. Rather than delving into the psyche of each individual character, Mulvey in particular seeks to comprehend the "political psychoanalysis" of how film replicates patriarchal ideology (Mulvey 711). Butler emphasizes the necessity of comprehending how excluded subjects strategically manage oppressive discourses and expresses caution about the way psychoanalysis might pathologize non-normative identities. Although they have different areas of attention, Said and Mulvey are both concerned with power and representation. While Said addresses the more general legacy of racism and colonial discourse, Mulvey focuses intently on gender and the exploitation of women in movies. According to Said, orientalism is a totalizing ideology that elevates the West to the status of reason and civilization while dehumanizing the East as illogical, archaic, and primitive. Unlike Mulvey and Butler, gender is not Said's primary concern.
Freud's emphasis on the individual psyche and Said's emphasis on dominant colonial discourses are at odds with Butler's definition of gender. Butler believes that while subversive acts like drag modify hegemonic scripts, they may also denaturalize them. Compared to Said's description of a virtually unavoidable discourse or Freud's more fatalistic understanding of the uncanny, Butler's framework allows for greater agency and subversion. Furthermore, despite the fact that power and identity are issues that all four theorists address, their conceptions of resistance and transformation are distinct. According to Freud, the uncanny is a profoundly uncomfortable experience that a person must psychologically process and for which there is little room for group action. Butler, on the other hand, believes that gender performativity creates room for subversive repetitions that have the power to topple repressive conventions. According to her, "the critical task is, rather, to locate strategies of subversive repetition enabled by those constructions, to affirm the local possibilities of intervention through participating in precisely those practices of repetition that constitute identity, and,therefore, to, present the immanent possibility of contesting them" (Butler 281).
Mulvey, on the other hand, advocates for a radical feminist counter-cinema that would subvert patriarchal narrative film structures. "Free the look of the camera into its materiality in time and space and the look of the audience into dialectics and passionate detachment" is how she describes her idea of an avant-garde film that is politically involved (Mulvey 722). This implies a conception of resistance that is more programmatic than what Butler or Freud imply. Foundations of Orientalist discourse are necessary in order to challenge it. Said emphasizes how crucial it is to connect anticolonial activism with other anti-oppressive political movements. Said is realistic about the challenges of completely eschewing Orientalist rhetoric, however, considering how ingrained it is in Western philosophy. These disparate ideas about change and resistance reflect the various political and intellectual philosophies held by each theorist. Although they both have a broad concern for challenging dominant norms and representations, they provide different approaches to confronting and changing oppressive systems.
Section 3: Examining Watchmen from Four Theoretical Perspectives
Hooded Justice is shown in the Watchmen episode "This Extraordinary Being" as a queer black man who was subjected to racist brutality in the 1930s at the hands of white nationalists. The portrayal of Hooded Justice's genesis tale is sad. A key scene depicts Hooded Justice having sex with Captain Metropolis before he is attacked by KKK members and strung up on a tree, symbolizing the long history of brutality against black men through lynchings. This incident strikes a deep chord with the ideas of many of our theorists. The juxtaposition of the intimate intimacy of the gay interracial sex scene with the horrifying racist violence that ensues creates an unsettling atmosphere. This eerie horror is enhanced by Hooded Justice's peculiar outfit, which has a noose and a Klan hood-like appearance.
Said's focuses on how Orientalism presents the 'Oriental' as irrational, depraved...and different and is further brought to mind by the violence committed upon Hooded Justice's queer black body. The dehumanization of the racial other and gay sexuality reflects comparable colonial discourses, even though the actual Orient is not at issue here. However, Hooded Justice's drag-like costumed identity also enacts a subversive take on masculinity, and his covert queer multiracial romance with Captain Metropolis violates a number of taboos, according to Butler's interpretation of Paris is Burning. While Hooded Justice is being viciously attacked, he reworks the imagery that is used to oppress him. Mulvey criticizes the conventional "sadistic" male-aligned audience stance, yet the show's portrayal of the brutality he experiences enables the audience to identify with and through him as a sympathetic person (Mulvey 718).
The subsequent episode "A God Walks into Abar" delves deeper into these themes of trauma, violence, identity, and power. Dr. Manhattan and Angela Abar, two all-knowing, godlike figures, engage in a crucial bar scene that turns into a dreamlike setting for them to dissect Angela's memories, anxieties, and identity as a black woman in a racist, violent society. Dr. Manhattan recalls Angela's horrific past, including the racist murder of her parents and her own near-death experience at the hands of a white supremacist, in an uncomfortable but touching exchange:
Dr. Manhattan: “I'm sorry you had to experience that.”
Angela: “We're all shaped by trauma...Make it stop.”
Dr. Manhattan: “I can't. It's what happened. It brought you here. Trauma is your gateway. It's time you opened the door and stepped through.”
In this session, Dr. Manhattan brings back some of Angela's most painful recollections, delving deeper into the strange landscape of her mind. According to Butler, the scenario illustrates how repressive racial and gender stereotypes have molded Angela. However, it appears that Manhattan is pressuring Angela to face her history in order to gain access to her authority—possibly in order to perform her identity in a more deliberate, subversive manner. In addition, Mulvey criticizes the typical "passive/female" role of women in Hollywood cinema; Angela, a rare, centered black female character, deviates from Mulvey's critique (Mulvey 715). The show asks us to view things from her point of view.
It is also possible to interpret Dr. Manhattan's function as an almost omniscient white male figure "teaching" Angela as embodying a particular form of Orientalist discourse, in which the more trauma-influenced and illogical woman of color is given the truth by the rational Western man. The program thoughtfully addresses these intricate processes, allowing viewers to challenge presumptions and develop their own theories. In fact, this moment sets up a sophisticated conversation between Said's criticism of colonial discourse, Butler's theory of performative identity, and Freud's concept of trauma. The supernatural abilities of Dr. Manhattan to summon and control Angela's memories concretize Freud's theory of how painful events can be suppressed until uncannily resurfacing. The uncanny, according to Freud, "is in reality nothing new or foreign, but something familiar and old—established in the mind that has been estranged only by the process of repression" (Freud 394). Angela's painful history has shaped her identity in ways she hasn't completely addressed, but it is far from foreign to her.
But Butler's idea of identity as an ongoing, performative process also aligns with Manhattan's demand that Angela face and resolve this pain. According to Butler, our identities are dynamic enactments that are influenced by discourses and conventions that come before and after us, rather than permanent essences. Manhattan believes that Angela might start to enact a different sort of identity, one that is not entirely shaped by the racist and sexist violence she has endured, by deliberately "stepping through the door" of her terrible history.
The program does not mistakenly depict this as a simple or comprehensive way out of repressive systems. Angela's guide in this process is the white male Dr. Manhattan, which draws unsettling comparisons to colonial "civilizing missions" and Orientalist stories about Western reason enlightening the backward Other. "The enormously systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage—and even produce—the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively" (Said 11) is what Said contends is involved in Orientalist discourse. Angela is positioned here as the racist and gendered Other being "managed" and "produced" by Dr. Manhattan's ostensibly benign intervention, even though she is not the real "Orient."
Crucially, though, Angela maintains her subjectivity and agency throughout the conversation. "We're all shaped by trauma," she insists, and she questions and pushes Dr. Manhattan, asking him to "make it stop." Her experiences and viewpoint are central, not only obscured or rewritten. Ultimately, Dr. Manhattan cannot make Angela "walk through the door"—she must make the decision to face her past. By acknowledging the enormous influence of dominant discourses, the performance simultaneously suggests that it is possible to process trauma and enact identity in ways that are not entirely dictated by them. Thus, Watchmen presents a nuanced discussion of identity, trauma, and power that draws on Freudian, poststructuralist, and postcolonial theories. It wrestles with the ongoing power of colonial discourses, investigates how performances may both reinscribe and resist hegemonic scripts, and uses the uncanny to destabilize fixed identities. It challenges prevailing portrayals by emphasizing the agency and experiences of excluded people simultaneously. Watchmen challenges us to consider the connections between these theoretical frameworks as we address the pervasive violence of racism, misogyny, and colonialism—all without providing simple answers.
Conclusion
Freud, Mulvey, Butler, and Said's analyses of Watchmen shed light on the way the program explores the ideological, psychological, and representational foundations of power and identity. In Watchmen, people navigate restrictive social scripts and traumatic experiences in a way that is complicated and resonates with concepts like the uncanny, the masculine gaze, gender performativity, and Orientalism. Although these theories differ in how they specifically focus on and see individual agency, they both provide useful perspectives on the topics of the play. A number of complex, deeply unpleasant situations and characters in Watchmen subtly subvert the preconceptions of the viewer. In ways that challenge prevailing narratives, it asks us to empathize with and through eerie, marginalized characters like Hooded Justice and Angela. The program struggles to fully break free from representational dynamics and hegemonic discourses while still reworking them. Keeping in mind the conflicts amongst Butler, Said, Mulvey, and Freud reveals the deep intricacy of Watchmen's exploration of issues related to violence, representation, power, and identity.
Works Cited:
Butler, Judith, and Sue Thornhan. “Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion.” Essay. In Feminist Film Theory: A Reader, 336–49. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1999.
Freud, Sigmund. "The Uncanny." The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, edited by James Strachey, vol. 17, Hogarth Press, 1955, pp. 219-256.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Essay. In Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 711–22. Oxford, England: Oxford Press, 2009.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1978.
