Duel Identities

If you don't subscribe to Netflix, here's a write up about the documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press from The Atlantic. The documentary is pretty good, though, if you're sensitive to profanity and frank discussions of awkward experiences, you may not enjoy it. There are some problems (like most documentaries, it manipulates via music what you're supposed to feel throughout certain sections, and the second half feels too heavy on "broad strokes" style storytelling since the ostensible focal point is Hulk Hogan, and that section is finely detailed. Still, it's a worthwhile viewing.

I don't want to talk about free speech, though. I'm interested in a strange, protracted argument that Terry Bollea (the man most people identify as Hulk Hogan) gives during his time on the witness stand. The details are embarrassing, but it isn't the details that Bollea is giving that made me sit up a little, it was the crux of the argument: According to Bollea, Hulk Hogan bragged on-air about the size of his manhood, but the man Terry Bollea doesn't have equipment of comparable dimensions. Again, the details are less worthwhile than the sordid fascination about a sex scandal, it's the idea of having a separate identity.

Who's Who?

Stephen Colbert has a Wikipedia page. Importantly, Stephen Colbert also has a Wikipedia page. If you didn't bother following those links, you may want to, because it's kind of the whole point. See, Colbert (the character) speaks, thinks, and acts differently than Colbert (the person) does. Malcolm Gladwell talks about this in--you guessed it--Revisionist History, Season 1 Episode 10, "The Satire Paradox". As a guest on Colbert's show, Gladwell expresses his unease at trying to reconcile Colbert's offstage personhood with Colbert's onstage personality. (He also uses the phrase "acrobatic eyebrow" that I think is amazing and want to steal.)

Drilling down at which mask is the "real" Stephen Colbert not only presupposes a lot of things that I'm not curious about right now, but is also bypassing the broader question: Who's responsible for what Stephen Colbert says? Or, to put it back into the introduction, who's responsible for what Hulk Hogan says? And is Hulk Hogan a different person than Terry Bollea? Is Stephen Colbert different than Stephen Colbert?

I'm Batman

There are plenty of ways of exploring this idea of who someone is "inside" versus outside. Because I'm so big into comics and superheroes, it's logical for me to think of the Batman. It should be clear, however, that there's an interesting case of who's who when it comes to pegging responsibility onto people with dual identities (though not dissociative identity disorder, because I don't know enough about that to speak on it).

Let's say a fellow in Gotham City is mistaken for being a criminal. He's running from Batman and then, as is usual for (even presumed criminals in Gotham City, he is physically assaulted by the man in the cowl. He's injured and handcuffed, then dropped off at the GCPD. After expensive medical interventions, he recovers, but is saddled with massive health care bills. He decides to sue...Bruce Wayne. Aside from the fact that there's no reason for him to pick the billionaire (let's just say it's because he knows that Wayne is rich and can afford it), does Bruce Wayne have a moral responsibility for paying some recompense for the man's injuries?

On one hand, the Batman did the assault. So why should someone else pay for that mistake? Bruce Wayne didn't drop out of the sky and fracture the guy's ribs; Batman did. It wasn't Bruce Wayne's fist that broke the man's jaw; it was Batman's. If anyone ought to be on the hook for reparations, it ought to be Batman, not Bruce Wayne. That's fairly obvious.

But because we know that Bruce Wayne is Batman, we view this thought experiment differently. Bruce Wayne wasn't there, but Batman was. However, wherever there is Batman, there, also, is Bruce Wayne. The same person, with or without a mask, has a continuity of existence that demands that Bruce Wayne be held responsible for the actions of Batman. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, it isn't so clear-cut. For example, what if someone else was dressed up as Batman? The cape, cowl, everything. Nightwing does it all of the time--in fact, it's one of Batman's favorite tricks to throw suspicion off of his alter ego. Now, Bruce would (probably--mind control is real in comics) know whether or not he had done the assault, but if no one else can prove that he was the Batman who attacked the civilian, did Batman actually do the assault? If it's not the Batman but a Batman, should Bruce Wayne be responsible for the actions of someone who represents him, invokes his name, assumes his symbol?

Think of this quote from Batman Begins:

That's a good movie. (Source)

If Bruce Wayne is Batman, then he's also these symbols and legends. They are part of that identity. The transmission of those values into the mythos of Batman are part of what gives Batman his power. To lose those would be to lose his identity--that is, himself. So Batman's symbols aren't strictly symbolic; they're actual. 

Moreover, there's a scene from Batman Beyond, the late '90s cartoon, that has this conversation between old Bruce Wayne and his future-tech enhanced protege, Terry McGinnis. In it, Terry asks why Bruce knew he was being mind-controlled. He replies:

One of the great indications the showrunners knew their character. (Source)

If Batman is how Bruce Wayne thinks of himself, then what Batman does is what Bruce Wayne does, even without a cowl. 

What About Hulk?

It's kind of poetic in that a man whose stage name came, in part, because of a character in comics (the Incredible Hulk, obviously) whose identity has been the source of plenty of conversation (and stories) is now the focus of what it means to have dueling identities makes me smile. In fact, a similar analysis of a lot of superheroes--particularly those who hide behind a mask--could be looked at the way I did with the Batman. The thing is, Batman provides a more extreme version of what I'm discussing here, in part because he considers Bruce Wayne his mask, which is different than Spider-Man or Daredevil. 

But what about the Hulkster? It's one thing to come up with a hypothetical and comic-book story where these themes are played out. But in real life? With real life consequences? With (if you follow the assertions of the documentary) our democracy at stake? It's kind of crazy. We would assume that "Terry Bollea is Hulk Hogan, Hulk Hogan is Terry Bollea, case closed." And, indeed, that seems to be what the jurors considered.

That gives me pause. Not that I think it would change the course of the case, but instead that we don't have a mechanism for parsing this out. We generally think of ourselves as temporally, mentally, and experientially contiguous. Yet we are all Theseus' ship, particularly when you consider how even the cells that comprise your body aren't too terribly long-lasting (not seven years, as is sometimes bruited about, but a panoply of different ages). In a concrete way, Hogan is Bollea, but it's obvious, to hear him speak about himself and his character, he's created them as separate entities. Indeed, his manhood size is different depending on whether or not he's speaking of Bollea or Hogan. This is Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, but in real life.

Colbert (the character) has gotten in trouble in the past for some of his antics, and it becomes difficult to parse out who was saying what--as if there really are two different Stephen Colberts. Do we hold Stephen Colbert (the person) responsible for what his character says? And what does that mean, knowing that Colbert's job is to say outrageous things? 

It's hard for me to figure out. Identity is not so simple as I used to think. I dunno. Maybe there's a Netflix documentary on it that might help form my thoughts.