by White, Mark
Although diverse and not particularly powerful in the grand scheme of things, the Avengers also understand this. For instance, Thor understands that the difference between right and wrong is important, and so he tells “the slayer of the gods,” Devak, “I have long agreed that some gods are malevolent and dangerous. But your inability to discern between good and evil makes you equally as dangerous.”33 And although he is “not exactly humble” and at times rather brash, the God of Thunder loves the good as all heroes do.34 More than this, however, he understands that justice is perfected or completed by love—indeed, by agape or sacrificial love, the supreme love, the love that the Bible claims is one of God’s names.35 Thor, as a lover of the good, loves justice (treating each as it ought to be treated) and mercy (going beyond, in a positive way, the commands of justice), saying, “I shall not falter in my resolve to protect this planet and save its people!”36 And so he gives protection, even when faced with the terrible ethical dilemma of having to kill an innocent (the human time bomb that the Wasp became by the end of the Skrull invasion) to show this love.37 All of the Avengers love the Good, and since the Good is an aspect of God, they can be said to love God either clearly or through a glass darkly.
Equal Opportunity—for Deities?
Duane Freeman, the representative of the American government to the Avengers, once tried to pressure the team into accepting more minorities into the team, to which Iron Man replied:
We don’t recruit for skin color. The Avengers aren’t about equal representation—the squads are too small for that. We’re about getting the job done—and that’s it. We’ve had minority members for years—from black and Hispanic heroes to gypsies and mythological gods. We’d never exclude anyone—anyone—because of their race.38
Something similar is true of God, both in the Marvel Universe and our own. The Creator is pleased to accept not only human beings, but also any and all free-willed creatures (“gods”) that He has made. He accepts them under one condition, however: they must love Him, and by that He means they must love the Good. In this way, the Avengers are a model for us all, for though they are diverse, they are unified in their love of Goodness itself—or Himself.
NOTES
1. The Mighty Thor #1 (June 2011), reprinted in The Mighty Thor Vol. 1: Galactus Seed (2011).
2. Doctor Strange, vol. 2, #13 (April 1976), reprinted in Essential Doctor Strange Vol. 3 (2007).
3. Marvel Universe: The End #6 (August 2003), reprinted in Marvel Universe: The End (2011).
4. Fantastic Four, vol. 3, #511 (May 2004), reprinted in Fantastic Four Vol. 4: Hereafter (2004); Sensational Spider-Man, vol. 2, #40 (September 2007), reprinted in Spider-Man, Peter Parker: Back in Black (2008).
5. See Strange Tales, vol. 1, #157–163 (June–December 1967), reprinted in Essential Doctor Strange Vol. 1 (2006); Fantastic Four, vol. 3, #511; and Eternals, vol. 4, #9 (May 2009), reprinted in Eternals: Manifest Destiny (2009).
6. Eternals, vol. 4, #9.
7. Fantastic Four, vol. 3, #511.
8. Ibid.
9. Sensational Spider-Man, vol. 2, #40.
10. Ibid.
11. Fantastic Four, vol. 1, #72 (March 1968), reprinted in Essential Fantastic Four Vol. 4 (2006).
12. Silver Surfer, vol. 3, #31 (December 1989).
13. The Infinity War #2 (July 1992), reprinted in Infinity War (2006). Note that this “title” should not be confused with the Prime Celestial, The One Above All, who is a mere Celestial, a servant of the Fulcrum (Thor, vol. 1, #287, September 1979, reprinted in Thor: The Eternals Saga Vol. 1, 2006).
14. The Infinity War #3 (August 1992), reprinted in Infinity War.
15. Exodus 12, 2 Samuel 24:16, 1 Corinthians 10:10, Hebrews 11:28, and Revelation 9:11.
16. She-Hulk, vol. 2, #12 (November 2006), reprinted in She-Hulk Vol. 4: Laws of Attraction (2007).
17. It’s not very clear how he differs from Lord Chaos.
18. In the old literature, Death is often depicted as Eternity’s opposite, which would make him or her a cosmic being. However, during the Chaos War the Chaos King is depicted as Eternity’s true opposite and Death is a clear subordinate. For the old version, see Captain Marvel, vol. 1, #27 (July 1973), reprinted in Marvel Masterworks: Captain Marvel—Vol. 3 (2008); for the new version, see Chaos War #2 (January 2011), reprinted in Chaos War (2011).
19. In Mesopotamian mythology the second-tier god Ea kills his first-tier father—the primordial Apsu—and Ea’s son, the third-tier god Marduk, slays the first-tier primordial goddess Tiamet to become the king of the gods. Enuma Elish 1.4, 1.69, and 4.104.
20. Thor, vol. 1, #300 (October 1980), reprinted in Thor: The Eternals Saga Vol. 2 (2007).
21. Chaos War #2.
22. Incredible Hulks #622 (February 2011), reprinted in Incredible Hulks Vol. 1: Chaos War (2011).
23. Hulk vs. Thor (Marvel Animation, 2009).
24. Avengers, vol. 1, #220 (June 1982).
25. Avengers, vol. 1, #159 (May 1977), reprinted in Essential Avengers Vol. 7 (2010). Also see Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, season 1, episode 7 (Marvel Animation, 2010).
26. Avengers vol. 1, #274 (December 1986), reprinted in Avengers: Under Siege (2010).
27. Avengers vol. 1, #277 (March 1987), reprinted in Avengers: Under Siege.
28. For example, see the Asgardians restored in Thor by J. Michael Straczynski Vol. 1 (2008), after the events shown in Avengers Disassembled: Thor (2004).
29. Thor, vol. 2, #83 (October 2004), reprinted in Avengers Disassembled: Thor.
30. The Infinity War #2; The Infinity Crusade #3 (August 1993), reprinted in Infinity Crusade Vol. 1 (2008).
31. Incredible Hulks #622; Doctor Strange, vol. 2, #13.
32. Eternals, vol. 4, #9.
33. Thor, vol. 2, #78 (July 2004), reprinted in Thor: Gods & Men (2011).
34. Avengers, vol. 1, #220.
35. 1 John 4:8.
36. Thor, vol. 1, #388 (February 1988), reprinted in Thor: Alone Against the Celestials (1992). See also the 2011 film Thor, in which Thor tells Loki, “These people are innocent. Taking their lives will gain you nothing. So take mine and end this.” And then, dying, we hear Thor say the words, “It is over,” echoing the words of the dying sacrificial Jesus, “It is finished” (John 19:30).
37. Secret Invasion #8 (January 2009), reprinted in Secret Invasion (2009).
38. Avengers, vol. 3, #27 (April 2000), reprinted in Avengers Assemble Vol. 3 (2006).
Chapter 15
LOVE AVENGERS STYLE: CAN AN ANDROID LOVE A HUMAN?
Charles Klayman
Once upon a time, two Avengers, the Vision and the Scarlet Witch, had a romantic relationship that led to marriage. Several of their fellow Avengers were skeptical because, after all, Vision is an android and the Scarlet Witch is a human (more precisely, a mutant, but that distinction isn’t relevant here). Whether made of synthetic or organic components, androids are artificial and not what we would call “alive.” But they can look amazingly similar to us (without the love handles and blemishes) and can seem self-aware, as if they have conscious existence similar to our own. So, given their differences and similarities, can an android love a human (and vice versa)?
What Is Love, Anyway?
Inspired by Plato and Aristotle,1 the philosopher and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) categorized four general types of love, which are affection, friendship, Eros (or romantic love), and charity.2 For Lewis, each type of love contains three qualities or elements, which are gift-love, need-love, and appreciative-love. Different types of love might contain unequal portions of elements, and while these elements seem separate from each another, they actually “mix and succeed one another, moment by moment.”3
The most basic need-love often runs the risk of being interpreted as selfishness. We don’t call a toddler selfish when he grasps for his mother with outstretched hands. The toddler simply displays love, which happens to manifest as a need for his mother. Need-love is seen in relation to our own needs and
will not last longer than the need; once the mother has picked up the toddler, the toddler’s need has been fulfilled. Yet not all needs are transitory: “The need itself may be permanent or recurrent.”4
On the other hand, gift-love implies giving—not necessarily out of the goodness of one’s heart, but from the need to give. The mother doesn’t give attention to her toddler because she’s a nice person, but because she needs to give to her child. With gift-love, the person longs to give her beloved happiness, comfort, protection, and so forth.5
Finally, rather than giving or receiving, appreciative-love involves “judgment that the object is very good, this attention (almost homage) offered to it as a kind of debt, this wish that it should be and should continue being what it is even if we were never to enjoy it, can go out not only to things but to persons.”6 So when I say, “I love my weekly pizza night,” I mean that I judge that pizza is such a good thing that I reserve a time once a week not only to savor it but to admire all its qualities and hope that after my demise the institution of pizza-making will continue.
Friends, Lovers, and Significant Others
How do these aspects combine to form the different types of love, and which one best applies to the Vision and the Scarlet Witch? First, let’s consider affection, which is based on familiarity. Clearly, eating pizza once a week becomes a familiar routine, and often things that we grow accustomed to are things that we grow to love. It is also from this type of love that jealousy comes into play: “Change is a threat to Affection.”7 Change my Friday night pepperoni pizza to a sushi platter and witness how I’ll fight to reclaim my pizza night. Change the toddler into a rebellious adolescent and listen how the mother asks what has become of her baby. It seems that a human could grow accustomed to an android over a period of time, yet affection does not seem to be the type of love that the Scarlet Witch had for the Vision. Obviously, as an Avenger, she grew affectionate toward him, especially since they knew each other for thirty-two issues before they became involved romantically.8 While a human can have affectionate love toward an android, affection alone is not enough to pursue a romantic relationship or marriage.
Might friendship be enough to generate the Vision and the Scarlet Witch’s love? While the Avengers are a team, it seems as teammates they would be companions but not necessarily friends. For example, after a hard day of combating evil, we might imagine Wonder Man and the Beast partying away the night together, yet I doubt they would invite Captain America or Hawkeye to join their festivities. They might think these two are excellent teammates and Avengers, but they probably wouldn’t want to spend their leisure time with them. After all, Captain America is too goody-goody and Hawkeye is a jerk.
Not wanting to spend leisure time with a fellow Avenger might not seem right, but Lewis uses the terms friendship and companionship in very specific ways. Friendship is another type of love, while companionship is not. Whereas friends are necessarily companions, companions do not necessarily rise to the level of friends. Companionship arises out of the instinct to cooperate, but friendship arises “out of mere Companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden).”9 The commonality that inspires friendship often manifests as a common vision or a shared way of seeing and caring about the same truth.10 The Avengers, for example, might be friends with one another insofar they share the same interest of defeating villains and have the same vision of good triumphing over evil.
Given Lewis’s handling of friendship, it seems that a human can love an android as a friend. The Scarlet Witch and the Vision are more than friends, however, especially once they declare their love for each other.11 To be “more than just friends” often implies a type of love that is romantic, which Lewis calls Eros, the state of being in love.12 This type of love is often associated with a type of sexual desire, which Lewis names Venus to contrast it from, for example, the type of sexual desire that animals experience. From an evolutionary viewpoint, Eros develops out of Venus, but Lewis argues that Eros doesn’t begin from a physical state. Rather, it begins from a mental state—preoccupation. “A man in this state really hasn’t leisure to think of sex. He is too busy thinking of a person. The fact that she is a woman is far less important than the fact that she is herself.”13
Lewis is saying two things here. First, romantic love does not develop primarily from sexual desire, but rather from fascination. Second, the beloved is a self, which is admirable and unique. This self lurks behind one’s physicality; it is the inner person, soul, or the “real you.” As Lewis says, “Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman.”14 So the romantic lover is in love with a specific, unique individual who cannot be replaced.
The lover sees his beloved as something that is good, independently of any pleasure or happiness that the beloved gives to the lover. The point of Eros is to become one with the beloved. Romantic couples are, as we say, “an item”; whereas friends stand side by side, lovers stand face to face.15 As Lewis says, “One of the first things Eros does is to obliterate the distinction between giving and receiving.”16 In cases of true Eros, the line between giving and receiving vanishes.
Unreciprocated Love
Is it still Eros, though, if the beloved is unwilling or incapable of standing, as it were, “face to face” with the other person? Perhaps, but it would be an unhealthy Eros. Suppose that She-Hulk has a crush on Jarvis, the Avengers’ butler, who ignores her, unwilling to reciprocate her love. Captain America might advise her, “Keep at it! Jarvis is bound to come around,” yet Wonder Man might say, “Give it up! He’ll never go for someone like you.” That’s often the kind of advice we get when we find ourselves in a similar situation: either keep at it until the beloved notices the real us and returns our love or else give up our fascination and preoccupation with the beloved.
Consider the Greek myth of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection. Obviously his reflection was unable to return his love, and poor Narcissus died, unable to leave his own reflection. As in the case of She-Hulk and Jarvis, if love is not reciprocated it can become an obsession or craze. So it seems that a human can romantically love an android, but if the love is not reciprocated it is unhealthy.
While Eros might be unhealthy if it is unreciprocated, for Lewis, there is a type of love that involves loving the unlovable. As paradoxical as it sounds, Lewis relies upon the idea of the Christian God in order to explain the fourth type of love, charity, which is essentially an expansion of gift-love. Lewis makes a distinction between natural gift-love and a share of God’s own gift-love, which he classifies as divine gift-love and Love-Himself.
Natural Gift-love is always directed towards objects which the lover finds in some way intrinsically lovable—objects to which Affection or Eros or [Friendship] attracts him. . . . But Divine Gift-love in the man enables him to love what is not naturally lovable; lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior and the sneering. Finally by a high paradox, God enables men to have a Gift-love towards Himself.17
There seems to be a problem with giving to God since everything is already His, but for Lewis, we can give to God by being kind and charitable: “Every stranger whom we feed or clothe is Christ. And this apparently is Gift-love to God whether we know it or not. Love Himself can work in those who know nothing of Him.”18 Charity is a love where the beloved is not one particular person but rather people in general. So a human could love an android out of charity, but such a love would not be limited to that one particular android.
“No Sister of Mine May Become Involved with a—a—a Robot!”19
It seems that a human can love an android whether that love is affection, friendship, Eros, or charity. Yet Eros seems to be what best describes the relationship between the Scarlet Witch and the Vision. So now we need to determine if an android can love a human in a similar fashion.<
br />
We might think that androids are incapable of love because they are machines, like circular saws and blenders. This argument has a subtle problem, though. It assumes that only humans can love. Obviously this is false, since nonhumans such as Thor or Mar-Vell can love. Still, they’re alive, whereas machines are not. Clearly some machines, such as the mutant-hunting Sentinels, are incapable of love. In a way, though, humans are “flesh machines,” composed of organic components and programmed by a genetic code, operating in response to environmental stimuli. So not all machines are incapable of love.
Perhaps humans and nonhumans, like Thor and Mar-Vell, are persons, whereas androids are not. And perhaps only persons are capable of love. The problem with this line of argument is that personhood is a vague concept. A “person” does not have to be a human; a person is simply a being who has, or is worthy of, rights, such as the right to life or respect. So why should humans, Asgardian gods, and the Kree be considered persons, whereas androids, zombies, and animals are not? Perhaps the former have souls and the latter do not. That answer, however, begs the question of the nature of souls. How do we really know what a soul is and who has one?
