An Everyman Inside of a Superman: A Cluster Analysis of Action Comics #1
by Rebekah Hayes | Xchanges 18.1/2, Spring 2024
Contents
Conclusions
Through synthesizing the meanings found in these visual clusters, Superman’s rhetorical meaning has become evident. Superman represents systemic social change in corrupt and unaware governing systems. In order to bring change, Superman seemingly must represent dominance over those imbalanced systems he opposes. Thus, the destruction of the car and the doors and his punishments of Butch and Greer show Superman’s rhetorical opposition and dominance over normative culture, which had allowed alienation from others, economic devastation, and political manipulation to remain the standard. Thus, this study affirms the usefulness of cluster criticism in examining comic books and discovers that Superman’s rhetorical meaning is complicated by his superhuman ability to overcome and dominate evils of his generation and his own overbearing justice.
In answer to Superman’s rhetorical meaning in relation to his enduring legacy as an American symbol, Superman’s multitude of rhetorical meanings argues that 1938 America was imperfect and this meaning continues to be relevant today. Superman stood against economic privilege, alienation, and barriers to justice, suggesting even as America was experiencing these challenges, people like Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster could envision a country that truly represented the values of equality and connection. When considering the panels in which Superman stood against abuse, but inadvertently became the abuser, historic and contemporary issues in America seem evident. The United States is meant to stand for justice, but the Black Lives Matter movement, among many other groups similarly desiring a more just society, reveals that a need still exists for social movements and narratives that break barriers between the people and their leaders and access to justice. Even today, America continues to struggle with equality and acceptance, which makes Siegel and Schuster’s enduring representation of an answer to inequality relevant for continued study.
Regarding the process of implementing cluster criticism in a comic book issue, the visual analysis was successful because it revealed more complex understandings of Superman’s opposition to the economically powerful, his ability to take power from the undeserving, new analysis of his opposition to specific barriers, and his dominance over villains and the American government. These findings support visual cluster criticism as a method that should be implemented in the rhetorical analysis of comic books. The method revealed insights into Superman’s rhetorical associations that would not have become apparent without identifying the key term and noticing the significant clusters around the term “Superman.” For instance, the use of cluster criticism revealed significant clusters in the use of doors and telephone wires and the analysis identified the sheer intensity of the iconic green car. Other methods that do not look for intense and frequent uses of particular terms in connection to a key term, such as methods used by Cross and Paris, would not have identified these cluster terms as significant to the work, but they are essential to recognizing the unconscious rhetoric embedded in Superman’s origin. Cluster criticism reveals relevant modern rhetoric about systemic change that Siegel and Schuster embedded in Superman from his introduction.
Furthermore, future researchers seeking to use cluster criticism to analyze comic books could compare the rhetoric of Superman’s introduction to newer Superman narratives, even if those narratives have been studied using different methods or frameworks. Excellent examples for future study are All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison, Superman: Red Son by Mark Millar, or Max Landis’s Superman: American Alien. However, as this study of Action Comics #1 was limited to a single issue, any application of visual cluster criticism to a series of comic issues, in a collected volume, would be challenging due to the large number of visual elements over a series of issues. As such studies are conducted, Reid’s concern about the array of scholarly interpretation should be considered because the visual elements in the clusters around Superman did lead to complex interpretations. Although the array of interpretations can be understood by connecting them to each other, future studies would likely benefit from choosing key terms carefully to manage the various elements that would need to be analyzed in coordination with each other.
Ultimately, this cluster analysis finds Superman’s role as an American symbol to claim that America does not possess one homogenous meaning or value. Instead, America was and is flawed and needs transformation and challengers to norms. America still needs the ideal of heroes because they can confront barriers and normative expectations and instill hope that the everyday individual can alter society for the better. However, with this hopeful belief comes caution about corrupt power and the actions taken to solve these problems. Although many of the same struggles evident in Superman’s rhetoric persist in contemporary American society, they have changed, and like Siegel and Schuster’s Superman suggests, people can shape the values of America for better or worse.