About a year ago, after
receiving tons of recommendations and seen many memes, I decided to watch
JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure. While I found it difficult to be impressed the first
10 episodes, it started to peak my interest after getting into part two, even
further with part three and finally my interest evolved into love for this
series at part four. The reason I believe that it took me, and many others, a
little time to warm up to the series, lays in the work philosophy of JoJo’s
Bizarre Adventures’ creator & mangaka: Hirohiko Araki
Araki is a mangaka that highly
values curiosity, he also fully takes the advantage of splitting the series into
different parts: everyone having its own themes, style, characters, location to
give it some variety, but also giving it opportunity to improve aspects criticized
in earlier parts. For example: while part 3 had a great villain and main hero,
its side characters weren’t as well developed; which is why they got much more
attention in part 4. Thus we have a series that can improve more subtly and yet
not disappoint readers whom for instance were perfectly fine with all aspects
of a certain part.
And the reason I’m writing
this essay is to focus on an aspect that Araki, in my opinion, improved
massively in part 4: its villain, Yoshikage Kira.
While earlier villains, Dio and
Kars, weren’t intimidating but functioned well as antagonist in their
respective narrative…Yoshikage Kira stands on his own. What makes Kira such unique
design compared to earlier villains is that while e.g. Dio wishes to conquer
the world, Kira just wants to live a peaceful life and has no wish to stand
out. On the outside he just seems to be a regular working man and a fine
citizen: however, in secrecy he murders women and starts developing romantic attachments
to their hands.
Because of that we have a
different villain, one not driven by ambitions, revenge or lust for power, but
simply by lust for murder while wanting to stay anonymous. And that is, in my
opinion, a much more terrifying evil. This character has been discussed before,
however, I wished to dwell deeper into the rabbit hole and discuss the evil of
Yoshikage Kira from a more comparative, critical level. Because of Kira, I
decided to read a report on the banality of evil.
Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of
Evil
Jerusalem, in 1962, the political
theorist and philosopher Hannah Arendt was covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann
for The New Yorker (Arendt, 1963). Eichmann was the one in charge of the
mass deportations of jews to the ghettos and various concentration and
extermination camps: Treblinka, Sobibor Auschwitz and many more. During the
trial, he admitted that he was responsible for the transportations, yet he
claimed that he wasn’t guilty of the deaths of millions of people or the hand
of the “Final Solution”; “guilty to god, but not the law” (Arendt, 1963, page
24). He was simply a man carrying out orders and following the model of being a
good citizen. A dozen of psychiatrists assured the court and everyone else in
the room that he was “normal”, “At least more normal than I am after examining
him”, one of the psychiatrists claimed (Arendt, 1963, page 29).
Moreover, there wasn’t any
sign of a hate for jews or any form of anti-Semitism. In other words, there
wasn’t a sign of him actually doing it for either a personal reason or a quest
for power. However, as mentioned earlier, despite admitting that he was in
charge of an essential part of the Holocaust, he denied being guilty of
murdering millions of people. He tried to argue his way out of his death
sentence by referring to Immanuel Kant’s Categorical imperative, saying that
his actions were just to “follows the rules of the country as each man should”
(Arendt, 1963, page 138). Not only is this an incredibly wrong interpretation
of the moral philosophy but also a naive way of running away from the
responsibility of his crimes, which the court rightfully called out. When his
first method didn’t work, he tried to get away with a sort of martyrdom; uttering
clichés to make it out that his life didn’t turn out the way he intended: “I
don’t know, everything was like a terrible curse. What I wished, needed and
planned to do, destiny stood in my way” (Arendt, 1963, page 55). However, the
court found him guilty of his crimes and he was executed by hanging.
The case of Adolf Eichmann was
probably best remembered by Hannah Arendt’s famous words:
“For when I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level, pointing to a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial. Eichmann was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III ‘to prove a villain’ Expect for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all. He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing. It was sheer thoughtlessness, something by no means identical with stupidity, that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period” (Arendt, 1963, Page 287 – 288).
“For when I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level, pointing to a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial. Eichmann was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III ‘to prove a villain’ Expect for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all. He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing. It was sheer thoughtlessness, something by no means identical with stupidity, that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period” (Arendt, 1963, Page 287 – 288).
Kira and Eichmann aren’t the same
Before continuing, I just want
to make clear that this essay is in no way trying to claim that Yoshikage Kira
and Adolf Eichmann are the same. One is a fictional character from an over the
top series, and one was a very real person responsible for millions of deaths.
You can also discuss that they had different backgrounds and were raised in
different ways. Most importantly, what motivates them differs greatly: while
Eichmann gladly followed orders and wished to make a “career” of his line of
work, Kira was driven by lust while also wanted to stay anonymous. One gladly
stayed in the spotlight, while the other one built his life around not being
seen or standing out from the crowd.
Also, even if Adolf Eichmann
denies being guilty of murder… it IS technically correct that he himself didn’t
directly murder anyone during his time in the Nazi-regime. Yoshikage Kira, on
the other hand, murdered all of his victims first hand; he wasn’t merely part
of a group or system that performed all the killings. With that said: while
their personalities are different, there are connections to make.
Banality: a category of evil
While re-watching JoJo’s
Bizarre Adventure Part 4 and reading trough “The Banality of Evil”, I couldn’t
help to notice that there were some similarities between Kira and Eichmann.
Lack of direct ambition: None
of these personalities had an actual ambition that made them do the immoral
things they did. One could make the argument that Eichmann’s ambition was to
make a career, however, I don’t see a career in a cause you don’t fully believe
in as something ambitious: I would rather call it opportunistic. When reading
about Eichmann’s life you can’t help to get the feeling that it was a
combination of coincidence and simply taking several opportunities that got him
in the position he had during the Holocaust. Not the hard work and idealism
seen in most villains or tyrants in history. Kira takes it further by not even
pursuing a career or even standing out from the crowd: His whole life he tries
to makes his existence as anonymous as possible by avoiding getting the highest
grades and awards during his time in school, while also avoiding to develop any
close relationships with colleagues.
Even if they act differently,
both of them have a lack of direct ambition. Instead they filled that empty
space with something more practical like lust or a career.
Lack of hate: While both Eichmann and Kira made
horrible things that brought much anger and sorrow for a lot of people, they
themselves weren’t driven by revenge or a general hate for their victims.
Eichmann made it clear several times that he never hated jews; On the contrary,
he claimed to have “private reasons” to not hate the jews (Arendt, page 30),
and thus his choice of career wasn’t driven by a personal vendetta or revenge. It’s
the same for Yoshikage Kira: he targeted specifically women but it wasn’t
because he expressively hated them or had a bad history with them; it was
simply because he was attracted to hands and didn’t have a way to preserve
them. One could even make the argument that if he could preserve a hand, he
wouldn’t need to continue to kill women, and therefore save himself a lot of trouble
(more on disdain for trouble later
on). It would, of course, still be an evil act; however, at least not as
systematic.
Distance: This aspect covers two areas. First
off is a form of “existential distance”: both Eichmann and Kira, although fully
aware of their actions, try to distance themselves from the implications of
their actions almost to make it more acceptable. Kira for instance sees the
murders as a form of “dating”: he goes out on dates with the hands, buys them
gifts, talks to them about everyday life and it’s also implied there are sexual
elements in the so called relationships. When the hands start to decay, he
simply “breaks up” with them to find another “partner”.
Eichmann not only made it out
like he was simply doing his job like a good citizen: he even went as far as to
try to use Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy to justify his actions, and thus
distance himself from the thought that he deliberately made the choice to
follow those orders. Both, in their own way, tried to in some way downplay the
evil part of their actions to make it more “normal”.
Secondly there is a more
physical distance: when both are about to get caught for their actions, they
both flee from their homes and go into hiding with new identities. There are of
course villains, with ambitions, that go into hiding after being discovered,
but often later continue their ambition, but with a different strategy.
Eichmann and Kira on the other hand try to really get in their new identities
and stop with their actions to hide themselves. Kira was the one who most
wanted to escape into his new identity, as he puts it himself: “I don’t need
any intense joy, but I didn’t want any deep despair either. My goal was to live
a peaceful life, like a plant”. Eichmann seemed on the other hand to miss the
old days: now having to work at a Mercedes factory (Arendt, page 238). He
must’ve felt it used to be a much more dull life as he was caught bragging
about his former achievements and what a career he made in Nazi-Germany
(ironically, both he and Kira were caught just because of their bragging).
Disdain for trouble: the title of this section might sound
off, since there isn’t a single villain (or hero) that wants trouble in their
quest or ambition. However, while most villains understand that complication
comes with the territory when dealing with for example world domination: both
Kira and Eichmann seemed to want to avoid trouble at all costs and simply
continue with their lives. Yoshikage Kira especially makes it clear that he
wishes to continue on with his life in his infamous monologue (Länka). Adolf
Eichmann does not give us a monologue, however when reading The banality of Evil it is clear that he
simply wished to continue with his tasks in peace and that, from the previously
mentioned quote from the trial; he almost felt destiny was against him, talking
more like a blue collar worker not happy with the extra work rather than
admitting to be a big part of the Holocaust machinery. Good or evil, people
driven by an ambition usually accept that there will be complications and extra
work. Both Kira and Eichmann are in comparison almost allergic to trouble and
simply wanted to live by their routines and sleep well during the night.
After making these connections
to Kira and Eichmann, you can’t help to feel that two completely different
personalities share a similar form of evil. When we usually discuss evil
characters or villains, we mostly think of someone that acts morally wrong to
achieve a selfish goal: conquer the world, gain wealth, gain power, spread
chaos for personal enjoyment and so forth. There are also, of course, more
morally complex antagonists, which have well-meaning goals, but don’t hesitate
to make evil actions: sacrificing friends to form a peaceful kingdom, bringing
anarchy to a society to bring absolute equality for all, or cook and sell drugs
to make money for their family. All of these examples represent what I would
call a more “active” evil: whatever motivates them to act evil, they all aim to
make a change and make those decision to break away from their
everyday life. From these characters perspective: to achieve their goals they must
makes these morally wrong decisions. One could make the argument that they are
“forced” to do evil acts to reach their goals (at least the morally complex
villains). They are aware that it won’t be an easy life, but accept it to
either make their life better, or to carry out a grand mission. In short: They
take a grand leap of faith and take actions to create something more in life.
Yoshikage Kira and Adolf
Eichmann in other words represent a more passive form of evil, a unimaginative
and banal
evil. They aren’t striving to make grand change, but have decided to make their
evil acts a routine for every day in their lives. Even they themselves admit
that the evil they do, they don’t have to: no one or nothing is forcing them to
do it; rather, they do it gladly for their own comfort. No ideals, no grand
plan and in no way to change the world for the better or worse: they simply
want to continue hurting people while staying in a banal existence. The lives
of people around them are simply means to achieve short term goals that never
last.
The spectrum of motivation
For a long time I believed
that an interesting villain is always someone that brings a grand change and is
driven by motives that you can in some way sympathize with. Like Colonel Kurtz
from Apocalypse Now: he deserted from
the US army because he finally saw the meaninglessness of the Vietnam War, and thus
gathered a rouge unit to make their own meaning of this bloody conflict.
Although his anarchistic tendencies bring great harm to people around, he is
simply seeing the nihilistic nature of politics in war and tries to make a
point to both the capitalists and communists. How else will they get the
attention of our protagonist, who will rise up and not only challenge their
strengths, but also their world views? After all: antagonist comes from the
greek word antagonistēs, which means “opponent”, “competitor” or
“rival”.
With that said: While
Yoshikage Kira made me realize there are more ways to make villains interesting
in popular media, Hannah Arendt’s coverage of Adolf Eichmanns trial made me see
that there is one active and one banal evil. The active more visible and
damaging, while the banal is less visible but much more frightening. It isn’t
simply about if it’s an idealistic conviction or not, motivation itself is a
spectrum. Kira proved to me that a villain doesn’t need an idealistic
justification to become interesting: when we get to see his everyday life, we
see the life of a regular working man that just happens to enjoy murder.
I have for a long time known
that motivation makes a character stick with most of the audience: however,
Kira proved that motivation can even be a banal daily routine as long as you
write in details and give us a relatable villain. While reading about Adolf
Eichmann, I realized why I found Kira so fascinating: Because that’s when I
realized there is an evil that is much more real
and closer to our lives. Both Kira
and Eichmann are simply trying to deal with their daily life problems…even if
it means to murder. We rarely meet visible and active villains like Dio, Darth
Vader or Sepiroth, but we hear about the passive and banal evil personalities
in the news, like Ted Bundy, that had a simple everyday life yet caused so much
grief for so many people. Yoshikage Kiras powers are pure fantasy and
unrealistic, but his evil is incredibly real and is happening every day; that
is the frightening aspect of the banality of evil: Being evil because you can.
The art of writing another form of evil
I love active and idealistic
villains in video games, manga, movies etc. The speech that Gene delivers to his
soldiers is a haunting yet correct prediction of what kind of lives awaits for
soldiers after the Cold War. Judge Frollos religious conviction and will to
hunt down the romani in Paris is terrifying and also fascinating. Finally
Griffiths relentless will to achieve his ambitions are first inspiring, and
then chocking when you understand how far he is willing to go. All of these
villains really grab me, at least from a more aesthetic or theatrical
perspective, as they portray a grand fantasy of how far humanity will go in
terms of immoral actions. At most, they make us reflect on our ideals and how
we should relate to them: should they cross the moral boundaries? Or is there a
limit we should always impose on our thoughts of actions?
Moreover, Yoshikage Kiras
banal evil is more terrifying on a more existential level. It is obvious that
he acts immorally, but on the outside he is just a person wishing to continue
with his life without any obstacles, like the rest of us. And just like Adolf
Eichmann, he lacks a direct ambition, hateful drive, he keeps a distance to his
actions, and has an almost allergic relation to trouble in his everyday life:
some of the ingredients of the banality of evil.
I am certain that there are
more villains out there that have similar traits, if anything I hope so since
this kind of evil shows an incredible opportunity to write more existential
villains. I even believe, with the right writing and right setting, that a
banal villain could even make you question your own banal existence: make you
wonder if in the long run you are harming someone and if you do, are you
willing to give it up or simply mask your whole life to continue this trite
everyday life. Both villains and heroes work best when they become a form of
reflection of our ambitions and dreams. But what if they become a reflection of
our everyday life?
References
Arendt, Hannah. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem – a report on the
banality of evil. 4th Edition. Gothenburg: Daidalos AB.
