Batman and Noblesse Oblige

Lately, I've found myself thinking a lot about why I enjoy consuming Batman and Batfamily stories. Is it because the authors of those stories can hand-wave expenses that would devastate members of the working class, like bills for medical emergencies? Certainly, the allure of living in America without the crippling fear of medical debt is, well, alluring. And members of the Bat clan do get injured very often, and they never have to worry about a bill at the end of it. But what of the henchmen that Batman and his family of vigilantes fight night in and night out? I'm pretty sure the Penguin isn't handing out comprehensive medical insurance to his goons. Black Mask? Definitely not. The Riddler? Actually, the probability seems quite high to me, but access would be locked behind so many riddles that it would make our current healthcare system look straightforward in comparison. So, for all intents and purposes, does this mean that Batman is basically just a rich guy perpetuating a system of inequity? Like, say there’s this guy, trying to support his family. And he promises that this will be the ‘one last job’ before he goes straight. After all, crime pays better, and they just need that lucky break. Then Batman comes along, breaks his tibia, and now this guy has crippling medical debt on top of his preexisting condition of being poor. And now he needs to do more crime to dig himself out of the hole he’s in. Right?

But then, many fan stories and canon stories go out of their way to mention the charities and donations Bruce Wayne has set up in honor of his parents. I'm willing to bet there's a running joke in Gotham: "he got sent to Thomas Wayne hospital? Which one?" Many fan stories also point out how Wayne Enterprises employees always get the best benefits (including supervillain hazard insurance. Ah, fanfic. Never change.). So one could argue that Bruce Wayne is trying to combat the problem from both angles - curb the symptoms (crime) alongside the causes (inequity). it’s not just “rich guy beats up poor people instead of going to therapy;” there’s more to it. Bruce Wayne tries to make his city a better place, not just as a pointy-eared vigilante at night, but as a CEO during the day. In other words, Batman embodies the essence of noblesse oblige.

Now, I can see the confused looks (figuratively speaking). What the heck is noblesse oblige? I’ll admit, when I first thought up this essay topic, even I wasn’t entirely sure. The definition I was operating under was a vague understanding from a half-remembered anime I watched a decade ago called Eden of the East, and given its sci-fi nature, I wasn’t sure the anime was exactly providing the audience with the original concept. So, before we get too far into this, we should probably establish a working definition of noblesse oblige.

Now, the phrase literally translates from the French as “nobility obligates.” Let's break that down. Nobility - those with power who typically did not earn it through acts of their own, but instead through winning the genetic lottery - being born into the right family. We can also look at this from another angle. Nobility - the behavior expected of those considered nobility. To be noble is to be ethical, responsible, and just. Think the Code of Chivalry, like the Knights of the Round Table. And then, “obligates.” A sense of responsibility, a duty to act. But act in what way, and to whom? Admittedly, the original phrase does not spell out the answers to these questions explicitly. This is where we turn to definitions.

Merriam Webster defines noblesse oblige as “the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth.” In other words, nobility [the class] obligates nobility [the behavior]. This definition provides an answer to the question of “act in what way -” act honorably, generously, and responsibly. But we still don't have an answer to the “to whom” question. Oxford Languages (that’s the one Google uses on the search results page) utilizes the definition “the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged.” Toward those less privileged. So, nobility [the class] obligates nobility [the behavior] towards non-nobility [the class]. In other words, if you are in a position of privilege, you are on the hook. You have a responsibility to give back to others who have less privilege than you.

So who does noblesse oblige apply to in our modern, capitalistic era? After all, where I live, in America, we don’t have nobility [the class]. In capitalism, money is king. So, therefore, those with the most money (particularly if it's generational wealth) should be those to whom noblesse oblige applies. To be more specific, I would argue that, at minimum, it applies to anyone with a net worth of $1 billion or more. At $1 billion, you would have to spend approximately $34,000 per day to use it all up in one lifetime. Let that sink in for a second. Per. Day. That's assuming you're spending $34k each day for 80 years straight. I don't know about you, but I know people who survive on $34,000 a year. And yes, I know that net worth does not mean you have access to all that money at a moment’s notice. My point still stands. That level of capital accumulation is stupid high, and under the philosophy of noblesse oblige, it's time to be giving back to others. In other words, if you’re a billionaire, you’d better also be a philanthropist.

We still see echoes of the concept of noblesse oblige all around us - Uncle Ben’s infamous line “with great power comes great responsibility,” for example. Spiderman can’t just web around the city doing whatever he wants - he has an obligation to use his powers to help others. He has the power and potential to do great good, and therefore is obligated to do so. (In contrast, his villains, who use their power for personal gain, are, well, villains.) Many institutions of higher education also espouse the values of noblesse oblige - my alma mater, Elizabethtown College, has the motto “Educate for Service.” I’d argue we even see it in the philosophy of our American political system - politicians are elected public servants, given power with the expectation that they will advocate on behalf of their constituents (before you come at me, note that I said “the philosophy of our political system,” not the reality of our political system). 

Now, why am I focusing on Batman instead of Spiderman? As I said before, “with great power comes great responsibility” is the most well known reimagining of noblesse oblige for the modern era. Well, it comes down to the alter ego. For all that he has great power as Spiderman, Peter Parker is always struggling to get by in normal life. Spiderman can make a difference by giving of his time, abilities, and energy. But Peter Parker doesn't exactly have extra cash lying around to donate. Bruce Wayne on the other hand? Literal billionaire. He's got money to burn. This man can make a difference as a regular person, not just as a superhero. And remember my earlier statement on who, in real life, would be the nobility obligated in a modern setting? It wouldn't be everyman Peter Parker, who probably still makes minimum wage and can barely afford his crappy NYC apartment. No, it would be generational wealth-inheriting billionaire Bruce Wayne, who has an ancestral mansion and a butler. Peter Parker embodies only one definition of nobility [the behavior], whereas Bruce Wayne embodies both [the behavior and the class].

So. How exactly does Bruce Wayne, the Batman, reflect the concept of noblesse oblige? The Batman film (2022) engages with this concept more directly than I believe any other live action Batman has before, and therefore is a great place to start our examination. At the start of the film, Battinson ignores his public persona. He is The Bat, and anything he has to do as Bruce Wayne is a distraction from his Mission. In his mind, being Batman is his family legacy (22:15). He tries to do everything as Batman, even things that are much more difficult as Batman than Bruce Wayne, like entering the Iceberg Lounge. Alfred tries to encourage him to embrace his role as a Wayne on multiple occasions, to little avail. And Mayor hopeful Réal makes the apparent neglect of noblesse oblige crystal clear with her words to Bruce: “Mr. Wayne, you know, you really could be doing more for this city. Your family has a history of philanthropy, but as far as I can tell, you're not doing anything” (1:01:50). In fact, later in the film, that same sentiment is echoed by Thomas Wayne via recording: “Giving back is not just an obligation, it's a passion. That is our family's legacy” (1:41:16). Legacy is one of many core themes in The Batman, both one’s obligation to uphold legacy and the dangers of legacy being corrupted. Batman starts out calling himself “vengeance,” but by the end, that moniker has been embraced by Riddler's followers - kind of like how the Waynes’ legacy of philanthropy was corrupted by those who took advantage of the Renewal Fund for their own criminal purposes (2:35:15). It’s after this brutal slap of reality that Bruce sacrifices his commitment to Vengeance. Batman switches from “beat up everyone that’s breathing too loudly near me” mode into “light a flare and guide people into the dawn like a modern day Moses parting the Red Sea” mode. He embraces a role of hope, of being a helper and a hero. Looking towards the future instead of mired in the past. However, despite the amount of setup given for encouraging Bruce Wayne the person to become less of a hermit, the film does not engage meaningfully with Bruce Wayne the billionaire’s obligation to engage in philanthropy. To be fair, the film is already 3 hours long, and there were a lot of themes to wrap up, but I would have personally enjoyed a short scene between Mayor Real and Bruce, wherein Bruce establishes a professional relationship, promising to be more proactive in philanthropic endeavors and in overseeing the usage of those funds. Perhaps we will see this occur in the sequel. However, in the film’s defense, I believe there is a very valid reason we don’t see progress on the philanthropic front. It’s because this film depicts a Year 2 Batman - one who hasn’t yet developed the mask of Brucie Wayne. The thing to remember when discussing Bruce Wayne is that there are three personas (or, at least, I would argue so): 

There is Bruce Wayne, the orphaned billionaire who has never managed to overcome the trauma of violently losing his parents. Bruce Wayne is the young man who looked into the eyes of Dick Grayson, the last Flying Grayson, and saw himself. Who has adopted many, many people into his vigilante lifestyle in an effort to rebuild his family. Bruce Wayne has been characterized as everything from abusive, to neglectful, to loving, to emotionally constipated, depending on who is writing him. Bruce Wayne lives a very private life. You could say his natural element is Wayne Manor.

There is the Batman, the literal mask worn on the streets of Gotham to disguise his face so he can beat up bad guys and solve crimes. The Batman is typified as extremely competent: in combat, in detective work, and in disappearing when your back is turned. The Batman belongs in the shadows of Gotham alleys and on Gotham rooftops.

Many have said that the Batman is the true man, and that Bruce Wayne is the mask. I would argue that this is not only untrue (depending, of course, on which iteration of the man you’re working with), but it’s incomplete. There is a third persona - Brucie Wayne. Brucie Wayne is the mask worn in public to disguise the fact that he is a vigilante. Brucie Wayne is typically an airheaded playboy with a passion for philanthropy. (Once he begins adopting kids, the Brucie Wayne persona usually evolves into an airheaded rich man with a heart of gold, passion for philanthropy, and an adoption problem.) Brucie Wayne’s natural element is galas and charity events.

First came Bruce Wayne. Then, after training as a young adult, Bruce Wayne adopted the mask of Batman. Finally, in order to obfuscate his secret identity, Bruce created a third layer persona, that of Brucie Wayne. Brucie Wayne is the mask hiding the Batman mask, which in turn hides the man Bruce Wayne.

The Batman is the persona that fights injustice by throwing himself at problems. Batman is the one who attempts to weed out corruption. Batman is the one rescuing normal citizens from muggers and mobsters. Batman is the one who sat with a little girl and held her hand while she waited to die, afraid but no longer alone. Meanwhile, Brucie is the persona that fights inequality by throwing money at problems. Brucie is the one who constantly throws charity fundraisers and galas. Who ensures his employees are well-compensated. Who consistently hires felons and others society looks down upon to help them escape poverty and hardship. Who throws around scholarships like candy. Who  created the Wayne Foundation, a charity organization that routinely manages social services for Gotham.  It’s through both Batman and Brucie that Bruce Wayne exemplifies noblesse oblige.

However, Bruce Wayne is a fictional character, and Gotham is not a real place. His wealth and gadgetry aren’t real. All the good he has done is aspirational, not actual. While Bruce Wayne may uphold the Platonic Ideal of noblesse oblige, how does noblesse oblige actually pan out in real life? Do those with nobility [the class] act with nobility [the behavior]? Well, unfortunately, we’ll have to wait for that answer. In the process of writing this and doing research, my outline has transmogrified into a much bigger beast than originally planned. I think this will end up being a two or three parter. Next time, we’ll cover some real life billionaire philanthropists, examine how they managed to accumulate their wealth, and if we have time, I’ll argue that the very concept of noblesse oblige itself is inherently flawed and posit a more sustainable solution to inequality and injustice. Thanks for your time, and here’s to the next one.