A couple weeks back we had discussed the concept of dirty hands. During the lecture, when we were talking about Michael Walzer's "protestant" model of dirty hands it occurred to me that Christopher Nolan's Batman movie The Dark Knight was a good illustration of the concept. The idea stuck in my head and I wanted to take a closer look at why the Batman movie illustrates a dirty hands scenario.
 |
| Someone's hands look a tad dirty! |
Now in Walzer's article he suggests three models for dirty hands. The "protestant" model, the "catholic" model, and the "neo-classical" model. For the purposes of this blog post, I would like to focus on the protestant model of dirty hands.
The protestant model focuses on good men with dirty hands that sacrifice their own salvation to do something good for others. They basically become what is known as a "Tragic Hero".
From Walzer's article, Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands, he briefly summarizes Max Weber's take on the protestant model,
For Weber, the good man with dirty hands is a hero still, but he is a tragic hero. in part, his tragedy is that thought politics is his vocation, he has not been called by God and so cannot be justified by Him. Weber's hero is alone in a world that seems to belong to Satan, and his vocation is entirely his own choice. He still wants what Christian magistrates have always wanted, both to do good in the world and to save his soul, but now these two ends have come into sharp contradiction. They are contradictory because of the necessity for violence in a world where God has not instituted the sword. The politician takes the sword himself, and only by doing so does he measure up to his vocation. With full consciousness of what he is doing, he does bad in order to do good, and surrenders his soul.
I know what you're thinking. How does this relate to The Dark Knight? Well, watch this clip and then we'll talk.
Ok so, what just happened? For those of you who haven't seen the movie, you can read a brief synopsis here. Basically, Gordon and Batman realized that with Harvey Dent dead the people of Gotham would question the legitimacy of the cities government. In order to keep civil unrest from breaking out, Batman decides that they must lie to the people of Gotham and tell them Batman had killed Dent.
This relates to Walzer's protestant model of dirty hands because they are faced with a moral conflict. Should the both of them lie to the people of Gotham to save them or tell them the truth? They end up lying to the people, choosing the immoral action. In essence they are choosing to do bad in order to do something that is good. More specifically, Batman ends up condemning himself in order to save the people of Gotham City by telling them that he was the one who murdered Dent. Batman becomes the tragic hero in Walzer's model, fleeing off into the night, dirty hands and all.
It is interesting to note that while the movie demonstrates the Protestant Model of dirty hands, Walzer actually suggests that the Catholic model does a better job in judging whether or not a person's actions are morally justified. This Catholic model is based on the premise that determinant sins have determinant punishments. Therefore, every time someone comes across a dirty hands decision they need to reevaluate it no matter how many immoral things they have done in the past.
The ramification this has for The Dark Knight is simply that Batman has sacrificed his soul to save Gotham so by the Protestant Model his actions wouldn't matter from now on. He has already committed immoral acts and has been condemned by them. When viewing the movie through this sort of lense it adds a gray area to Batman's morality. Is he actually a hero? Unfortunately, I don't think we have enough information to decide definitively.
This is why Walzer suggests that the Catholic model does a better job representing dirty hands situations. It gives it's users a more black and white view of morality. For whatever immoral acts you do you have a definitive punishment to atone for it.
Batman is not the only film that illustrates the dirty hands concept. I'm curious to see what other films you guys can think of that would fall into one of Walzer's three theories of dirty hands. How does the plot relate to the theory and what are the implications that the situation has on it's characters? Comment below and let me know!
(Credits: The "Dirty Hands" Picture was in public domain. Walzer's quote was from Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.)
Kevin, great post man. It's actually kind of weird, when we talked about Dirty Hands, I thought of the Dark Knight as well! My question is that do you think the dirty hands concept can actually be applied to Batman? While he may be a hero, a watchful guardian, etc, he certainly is not a leader. In fact, he is branded as a vigilante by the Gotham City Police Department, and although Commissioner Gordon is Batman's ally, he is still seen as a vigilante in the eyes of the law. I think that Walzer's moniker of the "tragic hero" fits the Dark Knight quite well, but I'm not sure if dirty hands can be used to justify his actions as he's not a leader and although he is working to better the state (or in this case, the city), he does not have the consent of the people.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when we compare the Protestant model versus the Catholic model, I believe Batman falls under the Catholic model. If you have seen The Dark Knight Rises, you see that Bruce Wayne hangs up his cape for eight years after the events of that fateful night. He doesn't use the death of Harvey Dent as a catalyst to commit more crimes. This can also be seen when he saves Catwoman on the rooftop from Bane's henchmen. When Catwoman attempts to use a gun to kill a thug, Batman knocks it out of her hands and say "No guns." I think this goes to show that he follows the Catholic model in the sense that he still reevaluates the morality of his actions, despite what happened in the past.
By the way, I think Christopher Nolan might have actually had the dirty hands scenario in mind when he wrote the film. If you remember the scene in TDKR when Bane reads Commissioner Gordon's letter in front of Blackgate Prison, Commissioner Gordon says "One day... you may face such a moment of crisis. And in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did, to plunge their hands into the filth so that you can keep yours clean!" "Plunge their hands into the filth" huh? Sounds like dirty hands to me.
Nihir,
DeleteFirst of all, I'm very impressed with your response to my article. You have brought a bunch of really intriguing complexities to my attention that I hadn't thought about. Thanks for being willing to delve deeper into this.
To address whether or not Walzer's theory of dirty hands could be applied to Batman it is definitely important to consider if he is seen as a leader in the society. You brought up that Batman is seen as a vigilante rather than an actual leader, but I would actually beg to differ. I believe that Batman gains consent from the state to act on it's behalf. My evidence for this would simply be, the Bat Signal. To me, this physical object symbolizes Batman's legitimacy as a leader. The Gotham Police Department (GPD) has at least acknowledged a partnership between Batman and government law enforcement. When Batman decides to lie to the people of Gotham, and the Bat Signal is destroyed, I believe that symbolizes his loss of legitimacy as a leader. In this way, the dirty hands theory still applies.
Secondly, you talk about how you feel as though the Catholic model fits Batman's predicament better. I can see how you would feel this way, since Batman does seem to reevaluate his moral actions in The Dark Knight Rises, as you stated. I still think, however, that the protestant model applies. Batman does sacrifice his salvation at the end of The Dark Knight so technically he wouldn't have to reevaluate moral actions. I think that just because he doesn't have to reevaluate his actions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. I'd argue that Batman makes the choice to reevaluate his moral actions, even when it is not needed under Walzer's model. He is a hero after all so it would only be fitting for him to do this.
Lastly, I agree with you that Christopher Nolan definitely had Dirty Hands in mind. I'm so glad you posted that quote because I had it in mind for the article, but it didn't seem as convincing as the clip. It's pretty awesome how well it lines up the theory!
Thanks for your comment!
Kevin
Excellent post, Kevin. I also thought of Batman during our dirty hands discussion. Indeed, I believe the dirty hands scenario is the central theme of the Dark Knight series. I think that's what makes Batman a "dark knight." Like a knight, he courageously and nobly works for the good of others. But he is "dark" because his actions, while necessary, are fraught with violence and deceit, so he sacrifices some of his goodness along the way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Walzer and Machiavelli would assert that a "dirty hands" type leader must always choose to do the thing that is best for the people/the state, even if it's questionable. Batman is not entirely committed to this mindset because, as Nihir alluded to above, he has a no killing rule. Walzer and Machiavelli would say that this is okay -but only if Batman can do what's best for the people without killing. Batman chooses to subdue and imprison his enemies instead of killing them, and usually he succeeds. But not always. If Walzer and Machiavelli went to see the Dark Knight, they would urge Batman to kill the Joker early on in the film- even if his personal morals don't condone murder, he could save Gotham a lot of death and destruction by taking this course of action. So, we see that while Batman will dirty his hands to some extent, he will not cover his hands with blood. In the case of murder, Batman's personal morals prevail over the common good. Batman would say that the ends never justify the means when it comes to murder. Machiavelli and Walzer would say that this quality makes him an imperfect leader.
I agree with Nihir that the Dark Knight follows the Catholic model of dirty hands - and indeed, there is a great deal of Catholicism in Batman's incomplete commitment to dirty hands, which falls just sort of murderous sin.
Hey Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI would like to respond to the last part of your post, in regards to other film examples that illustrate one of Waltzer's three "dirty hands" theories. I think an excellent example is Zack Synder's 2006 film, 300. This film can actually be approached from either Waltzer's Protestant or Catholic model.
The film starts off with a Persian messenger telling the King Leonidas (King of Sparta) that the Persian King Xerxes wants Sparta to be ruled under Persia. King Leonidas refuses to let his state become overthrown by another ruler, so he kicks the messenger down a well; however, King Leonidas knows he will prompt an attack by Persia. Here is where the "dirty hands" scenario begins. King Leonidias begins the war with Persia because he kills the messenger and doesn't submiss to Persia. However, he chooses to carry out these actions in order to protect his state from Persia ("dirty hands").
From a Protestant model: Prompting the war with Persia was an immoral act. However, this act is justified because King Leonidas was protecting Sparta, his state. Now that he will be regarded as "immoral," whatever further actions he chooses to carry out won't matter.
From a Catholic model: Since King Leonidas starts the war with Persia, this "immoral" action will be punished. In this "dirty hands" scenario, King Leonidas is not a tragic hero, but a "sinner" instead.
In order to get together an army to fight against Persia, King Leonidas must have the support of the Spartan Council. However, when he tries to get consent through an Oracle (pretty strange account, watch here), they tell him not to proceed. Now he is faced with two choices: either wait to receive consent after Persia acts (which could hurt the civilans) or go ahead without consent (which means he can only take a small army, and will be defeated). In order to protect Sparta, King Leonidas takes his "personal guards" of 300 men to face the Persian army. Not only does he choose to disobey his council, but he also knows that he will die.
Again, looking at this from a Protestant model we can see how, after his initial "immoral" act to stand up against Persia, disobeying the council and going to war are no longer regarded for evaluation because he has lost "moral privilege" after his first incident. Keep in mind though, that when King Leonidas first prompted the war his "immoral act" was justified ("dirty hands") because he acting with the intent to protect his state from Persia. Now he just carries out "immoral actions,"in order to save Sparta at the expense of his own life.
The Catholic model can even be applied here too, because King Leonidas goes to a war in which he agitated but he receives the ultimate "punishment" of losing his life. This approach may not be quite as clear as the Protestant, because it makes more sense that the "tragic hero" (King Leonidas) sacrifices his life for his state, rather than seeing death as, still a sacrifice, but also as a punishment for his "dirty hands." Both approaches could apply, depending on how you view the plot.
I think what I found most interesting about King Leondias's actions, was his choice to continue the battle, even after King Xeres promised him ultimate power. When King Xeres says, "..when I would gladly kill any of my own men for victory," King Leonidas responds with, "And I would die for any one of mine." This simple conversation illustrates King Leonidas's dedication to his state; he doesn't value personal victory over his people. In this particular scene, King Leonidas is given the option of receiving personal power if he only gives over Sparta. He even says, "This is an offer only a madman would refuse." But, King Leonidas values his people and state more than his own glory.
In talking about our group project, we discussed movies that relate to Machiavelli and Walzer's "dirty hands" issue as well. In my opinion, "Bring It On" is a great example. The head cheerleader stole routines from a team that couldn't afford to compete. Clearly what she was doing was immoral and completely against the rules, but she did what she had to do in order to stay on top. Her motivation was being number one, and if she to steal from a less wealthy team in order to win the trophy, then what's some dirty hands gonna do? The conflict comes with a new head cheerleader. After finding out the truth about the origin of their past routines, she decides to be original (by getting someone to choreograph their routine instead). At the end of the movie, they get second place. The team they had been stealing from won first place. It just proves that some dirty hands will get you where you want to be. If the end goal is to win, and the means are stealing, who decides if it's worth it? Stealing benefitted the team, the school, and their reputation. Maybe if the benefit of the people is our concern, Walzer and Machiavelli would argue that stealing was the way to go.
ReplyDeleteThe Dark Knight is one of my absolute favorite movies because while it remains a blockbuster, it becomes more than that as it asks quite a few philosophical questions. The Dirty Hands problem can be found in even more places in that film. When Batman is looking for the Joker, he chooses to create a device that analyzes all cell phones to locate him. His search is successful, but Lucius Fox tells him that it is absolutely immoral to spy on the entire city even if it is a time of war and offers his resignation if he does continues using it. Viewers immediately jumped on this and argued that it was supportive of the Bush Administration's use of enhanced interrogation and spying on its citizens, while others argued that Fox's rebuke of Bruce Wayne was evidence that the film opposed the technique. This also falls into dirty hands because Batman is doing something bad (spying on the citizens of Gotham) because of extenuating circumstances that require him to save two boatloads of people and stop a terrorist (The Joker).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to what you covered, I absolutely think that Batman suffered for his Dirty Hands. The woman he loved was brutally murdered, he has become a social outcast, his symbol has become reviled, and to add to all that he has a crippled leg. That would almost certainly fit the punishment aspect of the Catholic model for dirty hands. When it comes to feeling guilt, we can take the example of Commissioner Gordon, who ended up getting divorced from his wife, but he also felt such extreme guilt about lying to the people that he was about to tell everybody the truth in the Dark Knight Rises, which fits Walzer's preference for the solution of Dirty Hands.
The Dark Knight Trilogy provides excellent examples throughout for the concept of Dirty Hands and I'm really glad that you chose to analyze it!