Download PDF
Contents
Literature Review
Before this article answers the designated research questions, it is important to delve into relevant research to understand current perspectives on Superman (Tye; Regaldo), the rhetorical analyses that have been conducted about early Superman comics (Cross; Paris), and the method that will be applied in this article (Foss; Reid).
Histories and Cultural Studies of Superman
When investigating Superman’s rhetorical meaning, historical and cultural studies are valuable although they often indirectly provide insight into Superman’s symbolism. Within the available historical research on Superman, Larry Tye’s book Superman: The High-Flying History of the Man of Steel is a notable biographical account of Superman’s creators. In this history, Tye investigates elements of Superman’s rhetorical symbolism, although he does not claim this investigation as a rhetorical study. For example, Tye asserts that Superman’s Jewish creators, Siegel and Schuster, include many references to Judaism, such as allusions to the biblical character Moses and the fact that Superman’s birth name “El” originates in the Hebrew language (Tye 65). While Tye offers insight into seemingly intentional symbolism embedded in Superman comics due to his creators’ biographies, his book is a biography and history rather than a rhetorical study of visual elements of Superman comics.
In contrast to Tye’s work, the book Bending Steel: Modernity and the American Superhero, by Aldo J. Regalado, explores Superman’s significance as a progenitor of various heroes. In his study, Regalado identifies various intersecting rhetorical frames that informed Superman’s introduction, such as “the American Revolution’s rhetoric of freedom,” opposition to “modernity,” “the Great Depression,” “anti-Semitism,” and “aggressive white masculinity” (18, 80, 102). While Regalado’s claims are useful, he does not perform a formal rhetorical analysis because his project is a cultural analysis that stretches beyond Superman. Furthermore, Regalado does not provide close visual analysis of Superman comics as he takes a broad view of many superheroes.
Rhetorical Analyses of Superman
Although indirect rhetorical studies are useful, formal rhetorical arguments about Superman are needed. In my research, I found only masters’ theses which addressed early Superman comics in the field of rhetoric. Importantly, in David J. Cross’s masters’ thesis, he interprets Superman by examining “rhetorical studies of historic events,” and examining visual and textual elements of Superman comics through a historical lens (13). Cross finds that Superman supports modernity, which greatly contrasts with Regalado’s interpretation of Superman as opposing modernity (23). Also, Cross claims Action Comics #1 promotes isolationism through a narrative in which Superman confronts a lobbyist (64). Cross’s methodology combines visual rhetoric and history but does not use a particular method to collect significant images and does not spend extensive time collecting the overall meaning in Action Comics #1.
Another relevant work regarding the rhetoric of Superman is Sevan M. Paris’s rhetorical analysis of Superman through his thesis How to Be a Hero: A Rhetorical Analysis of Superman’s First Appearance in “Action Comics.” Paris’s thesis examines “how Superman’s creators accomplished the rhetorical heightening visually” in order to influence children to be engaged in a type of heroism feasible for children, such as defending innocent peers (6). To Paris, rhetorical heightening is an element that emphasizes the importance of specific messages. Paris argues that rhetorical heightening, such as through panel structure, was used to persuade children to employ everyday heroism. While Paris’s findings are valuable, he focuses on Superman’s audience as children which discounts the value of interpreting the comic as a literary artifact which has evolved beyond a juvenile audience and has influenced adults.
Cluster Criticism
In contrast to the methods used by Cross and Paris, the rhetorical method of cluster criticism for visual artifacts relies on a systematic identification of important elements. Cluster criticism is a process in which an artifact is examined by a rhetorician who identifies “key terms,” visuals or words that recur or are significant, then categorizes “cluster terms,” recuring words or visuals that are “clustered” around the key terms (Foss 63-65). In my search of visual cluster criticism, I did not locate any research in which cluster criticism has analyzed Superman or comic books.
Furthermore, although Kenneth Burke, the originator of cluster criticism, did not focus on cluster criticism as a method of visual analysis, in her article, “The Hay-Wain: Cluster Analysis in Visual Communication,” Kathaleen Reid adapts cluster criticism to analyze Hieronymus Bosch’s painting the Hay-Wain and proves the value of cluster criticism in analyzing artifacts from visual media. However, Reid finds visual artifacts offer limited elements to help identify cluster terms, visual analysis must account for the ways visual artifacts differ from textual artifacts, and “multiple realities” may arise due to scholarly interpretation (Reid 51-52). Reid concludes, “Despite these issues that arise from the application of cluster analysis, the rhetorical perspective helps open the door for more research regarding visual communication” (52). Ultimately, Reid found that cluster criticism is a viable rhetorical approach to visual rhetorical scholarship, and she suggests scholars investigate various applications.
Having surveyed historical, cultural, and rhetorical approaches to Superman comics, it is apparent that studies of Superman can be further developed. Tye and Regalado provide knowledge based on history and culture, but neither author studies the character within a rhetorical frame nor do they provide close analysis of Superman’s debut. In contrast, Cross and Paris work within the field of rhetoric, but Cross does not focus enough on the method of selecting images and Paris’s findings limit Superman’s meaning to an audience of children rather than examining how Superman inspired an entire genre of comics that have influenced contemporary American adults. After considering alternative rhetorical methods for analyzing Superman, I have concluded that visual cluster criticism (as articulated by Foss) is a useful methodology for selecting images to analyze. The following study will offer insight into cluster criticism’s ability to uncover more unconscious rhetorical meanings embedded in Superman and will answer Kathaleen Reid’s call to investigate cluster criticism’s viability with an array of visual media by analyzing a comic book.