Great news, I finally have some work to show you!

Finally, I’ve been waiting for you to give me something to publi- … Jesus Christ!  Are you alright?

            Hey, lay off!  Quarantine has been hard on all of us.  We all have our different ways of coping-

This is so not okay-

            What?  What’s wrong with having a few drinks on a … Wednesday night.

That’s not what-

            Sure, I’m having a couple extra drinks as a result of quarantine, but that’s hardly something to make an issue of.  Plus, I’ve been eating better, working out more, all of which are good things!  And to quote the greatest movie of all time, “You’re not my fucking mother!”  So just cut me some slack, alright? 

… I’m not talking about that; I’m talking about that.

Is that astrology?  What are you, a 14-year-old with no discernible personality?  Or a 40-year-old wine mom who unironically thinks The Secret is onto something?

            No, I’m just … doing research for this essay.

No way.  Absolutely zero chance.  As your publisher, I can’t let you put out something as stupid as ‘an essay on astrology’, whatever the hell that means.

            You know perfectly well it’s not really going to be about astrology.  It’s-

‘A way for you to play around with ideas’, save me the rationalization.  Even if there’s an essay in there, you should find a different topic.  I’ve been looking at the analytics; reception to the Ashnikko essay was generally positive, but it had limited reach because of how niche it was.  You need to write about something mainstream/popular in order to draw in more readers.

            Astrology is mainstream.  A 2005 Gallup poll showed over a quarter of Americans believe, to a certain extent, in astrology.

Few of whom are attracted to academic essays on obscure topics/media.  Can you at least tie in something a little more … relevant?  A little more popular?

Way ahead of you.  I’m planning to tie in an anime that came out 10 years ago (that I’ve only watched about half of), a playwright from the 1500’s and an obscure subreddit that I really like.

… You’re trying to make my life difficult, aren’t you?

Absolutely.  Here’s the context: I’ve been in more than a few plays in my time, Doctor Faustus among them.  Actor, director, technical crew; you name it, I’ve done it.  As a result, I know theatre folk pretty well.  But one thing that has always surprised me is the large percentage of the theatre people were into astrology.  Even conversations not directly about astrology were connected back to it in some way.  Most recently, a friend of mine was venting about a colleague, complaining how the colleague’s behaviour was “such a Scorpio thing”.   Naturally, I was asked about my astrological signs, to which I replied that this stuff didn’t really appeal to me, so I wasn’t super familiar.  This, of course, prompted them to give an unrequested “Intro to Astrology” lecture.

Hmm, an unrequested lecture on astrology, sounds familiar…

Essentially, Astrology (specifically, Western Astrology which began around the 2^nd Century CE) is the practice of divining information through interpretation of the absolute and relative location of planets and stars.  This is based on the belief that the absolute and relative locations of the celestial bodies:

• Exert a change on one’s psyche, leading to temporary changes in behaviour.
• Can be used to make predictions about the future.
• Are predictive of your true nature.

The absolute location is defined by a planet’s proximity to a particular constellation, which are referred to as the signs of the Zodiac (Capricorn, Gemini, etc).  For example, I am apparently a Leo-Sun, meaning the Sun was in the Leo position at my birth.  Similarly, I am an Aries-Moon, meaning the Moon was in the Aries position at my birth.  The relative positions of the planets are also believed to have an effect.  For example, Leo-Suns are predicted to be outgoing, while Aries-Moons are predicted to have a need for approval.  Per my astrologically-inclined friend’s interpretation, the combination of the two would suggest that while I’m outgoing, I play up my outgoing nature because I am looking for approval.

The collected sum of all the planets’ absolute and relative locations (and a few other factors) make up the complete horoscope.  The horoscope is essentially an annotated topological map displaying the locations of the planets and what Zodiac they were in at your time of birth.  The horoscope can then be analysed to determine the information listed above.  The horoscopes that you read in the paper are essentially simplified versions of this, using only the sun sign (generally seen as the most important sign) in order to divine information.  Because Western Astrology is not a singular system, there are many variations in practices and methodologies; but what I’ve described is true of most forms.

But surely you don’t believe any of this, right?  Like, you have to know that this is all bullshit.  Why do you even care about this pseudoscientific nonsense?

            Of course I don’t really believe in it; astrology has no predictive power.  Anyone with even a basic background in science would be able to tell you that.  And to be honest, I didn’t really have much interest in it, save maybe as a cultural practice.  What interested me was this tweet this friend had reposted:

I … what?

            This is Dayna Lynn Nuckolls, a fairly well-known astrologer who refers to herself as “The People’s Oracle”.  She essentially mixes astrology with social justice, hence her tagline: “Divination for Liberation”.  The above tweet is fairly representative of her work; she does her astrological analysis through the lens of social justice.  So where an analysis may say, for example “Geminis should help someone in need”, Dayna would in turn probably suggest “Geminis should support marginalized people in their struggles”.

Okay, cool message I guess, but what’s the point you’re trying to make?  Surely you’re not going to make the argument that astrology, a centuries-old pseudoscience, is somehow a liberating force.  And how does this tie in to any of the other stuff you said you were going to include?

         No, I don’t think astrology is inherently liberating, and I will elaborate on that point.  Here’s my basic thesis:

            One can examine an ideology through its content, its form/representation, and what the ideology ‘is doing’; factors that are interrelated but not the same.  This essay examines 4 seemingly unrelated texts: The People’s Oracle twitter feed, the Witches vs Patriarchy subreddit, Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood.  Across these different texts, I find there are ideological through-lines as well as differences.  Moreover, when I analyse one of the ideological through-line, I find it fulfils the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy.  Analysis of this Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy and those who indulge it lays bare the ideological space they are occupying and speaks more broadly about the world we find ourselves in today.

Okay, but what do you mean by ‘ideology’?

            There are a lot of common misconceptions about what an ideology really is.  To clarify, I’m going to be using the definition of ideology developed by Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau.  Per their book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, ideologies are like quilts made up of a number of ‘proto-ideological elements’ bound together through a ‘nodal point’.  A proto-ideological element is essentially an ideological belief (e.g. “We should take care of the environment”, “We shouldn’t send people to die in a pandemic in order to raise share-holder wealth”, etc).  The nodal point is the core belief which in turn gives the proto-ideological elements their meaning and ties them all together (again, like a quilt).  Certain combinations of nodal points and proto-ideological elements quilt together with greater or lesser ease.  A particular nodal point can change which proto-ideological elements it quilts without representing a core change to the ideology.  On the other hand, a change in nodal point represents a fundamental change in ideology, even if all of the elements remain the same.  Changes in quilting are fairly easy/common, whereas changes in nodal point are much rarer and represent massive changes in ideological outlook.

I think I get what you’re saying, could you provide an example of what you mean?

I can do you one better!  I can even diagram it for you.

…What?

            In the above diagram, we have 4 square proto-ideological beliefs (anti-capitalism, internationalism, queer liberation and environmentalism) ‘quilted’ together by the circular nodal point (anti-domination), giving them their signification.  In this ideological diagram, the anti-capitalism is understood through the anti-domination nodal point (e.g. “I am against the unjust domination of one by another, thus I am against the domination of proletarian by capitalist under capitalism).  Additionally, the quilting also puts the proto-ideological beliefs in conversation, but always in the terms of the nodal point (e.g. “I am against capitalism because it is killing the environment, and environmental degradation will in turn result in greater domination of the weak by the strong”). 

Bizarre way to show it, but it makes enough sense.  What does this have to do with any of the media you’re analysing?  I mean, surely you’re not going to argue there’s an ideology to a subreddit?

            Of course I am!  Witches vs Patriarchy is a subreddit, a dedicated community within the larger website Reddit.  It is “a woman-centered sub with a witchy twist”, that is, a tongue-in-cheek subreddit promoting women’s liberation.  Specifically, the subreddit takes the image of the witch as the icon of liberation.  While witches have long been used as a feminist motif, witches and witchcraft have seen a resurgence in interest due to an increased circulation of Caliban and the Witch by Silvia ‘Perpetually looking distressed’ Federici.

Glad you found another way to shoe-horn in Caliban and the Witch.  You talked about this last time.

            I really just like it is all, high on my recommended reading list!  But I’m not going to be talking about Caliban and the Witch, there are other reasons I’m interested in this.

            For a long time, I just passively enjoyed the subreddit (among my top 10).  But like with The People’s Oracle, there were a few posts that piqued my interest and made me think “Huh, there’s something going on here”.  To be specific, my interest was in the more explicitly political posts.

            And, of course, there’s this absolute gem (pun intended):

            Based on some of the above posts, I think you could probably diagram the ideological quilt of Witches vs Patriarchy as such:

            Leftism, as an umbrella term, covers a broad range of ideologies from democratic socialism to Maoism to anarcho-communism and everything in between.  And while leftists fight like cats and dogs over what is ‘really’ leftist or not, most would agree that leftist ideologies are anti-domination at their core.  Using Mouffe and Laclau’s definition of ideology, I would argue that a leftist ideology is one that has anti-domination as its nodal point.  And so, with Witches vs Patriarchy, we have an example of occult leftism, where anti-domination quilts in occultism with other standard leftist beliefs.

Oh, okay, so like The People’s Oracle?

            Well, not exactly.  I think there’s a significant difference between the leftism of Witches vs Patriarchy and the ‘leftism’ of The People’s Oracle.  Specifically, while there is some content overlap and their form is relatively similar (i.e. social media as text), there are important differences in content of both text’s ideological positions.

Oh god, you’re not planning on rambling on about Leftism, are you?  That’s a great way of alienating your audience.

            While tempting, I’m actually not going to be talking about leftism specifically.  Rather, I want to compare the ideological structure of the two and underline why the difference is important.  Let’s look at some more of The People’s Oracle’s tweets.

Note here how the language betrays the logic.  In the first tweet, the attribution of “images of violence against Black people” flooding her twitter feed are a direct result of the “Scorpio transit” (based on time of writing, I believe the movement of Uranus out of Scorpio and into Taurus) and the series of eclipses to occur between 2020 and 2022.  Similarly, her revelation about white people using their feelings as justification to exact violence on people of colour is seen as being clearer because of the aforementioned movement of Uranus from Scorpio to Taurus.  In both cases, The People’s Oracle’s belief in social justice/anti-domination is understood through their occultism.  This suggests to me that the diagram of their ideological quilt looks like something this:

So what’s your point?

            It means that, at its core, The People’s Oracle holds an occultist ideology with leftist elements.  This is contrary to what we see in the Witches vs Patriarchy subreddit, which has a leftist philosophy with occult elements.

No, I mean, why does this matter?  Aren’t these two groups fundamentally in sync?  A lot of The People’s Oracle’s tweets are basically identical to stuff posted on Witches vs Patriarchy.

            You’re 100% correct, they’d almost certainly be in lock-step; and that’s precisely the danger!  I mentioned earlier that exchanging proto-ideological elements is a simpler process as you are essentially saying “I misapplied my core beliefs, but now I see how to correctly apply them”.  Changing one’s nodal point is much more difficult, but it can be facilitated by exposure to ideology with similar proto-ideological elements but a different nodal point.  Herein lies the problem with The People’s Oracle: because her ideology is so similar to leftist ideology (i.e. those with anti-domination as their nodal point), she can facilitate someone’s transition in nodal point from anti-domination to occultism.  And once those people have occultism as their nodal point, it’s much easier for them to quilt in some rather nasty proto-ideological elements due to their natural affinity to occultism (e.g. anti-science, reactionary social views, etc.)

I really doubt people are suddenly going to become occultists because of some random astrologer’s twitter feed.

            I agree, there’s a reason true occultism is very niche, but it reminds me of a well-known political tactic: entryism.  The basic idea is that a person or group will enter another group to influence it, usually to reorient them ideologically.  Put in the terms we’ve been using, entryism can be seen as an attempt infiltrate a group through shared proto-ideological elements and then reorient their nodal point (as facilitated by those shared beliefs).

I’m sorry, what?  That seems super theoretical and nearly impossible on a practical level.

            You’d be surprised, it’s both common and potentially very scary.  Let’s take the example of ecofascists, a group well known for their entryism.  Ecofascists are a variety of fascist that essentially argue we need a fascist government in order to preserve the environment.  They usually justify this with some bizarre ramble about how immigrants and Jews and The Gays™ don’t care about the environment, there’s only so many people the Earth can sustain, etc.  You might diagram their ideology as such:

Ecofascists are notorious for entering environmentalist spaces, espousing many of the same beliefs as the environmentalists, and then trying to push some nonsense about how if we just got rid of immigrants, the environment would be saved.  Their ultimate goal, of course, is to recruit people into ecofascism.  They generally achieve this by the pipeline below:

First, the ecofascist approaches the un-radicalized environmentalist (left) through their shared environmentalism.  Then, the ecofascist attempts to get the environmentalist to quilt in some of their fascistic proto-ideological elements (centre).  Remember, this second step is fairly easy because the ecofascist is only trying to get the un-radicalized environmentalist to say “I misapplied my core beliefs, but now know how to apply them”.  And the difficult final step, the conversion to ecofascism (right), is facilitated by the similarities in ideological networks between the environmentalist with fascist characteristics (centre) and the ecofascist (right).  While ecofascists are seldom successful, they can pull it off and recruit people.  Ecofascists tend to rely on two tendencies to help them:

1. If you are unaware of the ecofascists’ intentions or are uncritical of your ideological beliefs, you can find yourself ideologically shifting towards them without even realizing.  Ecofascists seldom identify as ecofascists in order to obscure their goals to the people they’re trying to radicalize.
2. We have a psychological bias to accept facts that come from our ‘team’.  And since the ecofascist usually self-presents as an environmentalist, other environmentalists are primed to accept the ecofascists’ arguments with less scrutiny.

So, basically, Witches vs Patriarchy’s nodal point is anti-domination and quilts in occultism, whereas The People’s Oracle is fundamentally occultist but quilts in anti-domination.  The latter is potentially dangerous because of the potential to convert people’s nodal point to occultism (due to its great overlap with other anti-domination ideologies).

            Yes, and because occultism has an affinity for some very negative ideological elements; you have a high potential for a very ugly ideological evolution.

            There’s also another aspect in which The People’s Oracle and Witches vs Patriarchy differ: how they engage with their ideology.  To do this, I’m going to bring in a bit of Slavoj Žižek.

Slavoj Žižek…  Wasn’t that the guy who you cited last essay?  Shouldn’t you bring in something new?

            Well, yes and no.  I cited Slavoj Žižek, a Lacanian, but the ideas I was using were from Lacan himself.  I haven’t had a chance to read Lacan’s work, which is famously difficult to follow (much like another post-structuralist with the first name Jacques).

            Žižek is an academic with varied interests, but he is most famous for his work on ideology; what it is, how it works, etc.  He’s a bit of a celebrity philosopher due to his use of both high and low-culture texts as objects of analysis.  Quite famously, he used Coke and Kinder Surprise (a chocolate egg containing a plastic toy) as objects of analysis in his film The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology. 

Analysing low-culture texts with complicated ideas…

            Yeah, caught me, I’m very much a fan of Žižek’s style.  Anyways, in both First as Tragedy, Then as Farce and The Sublime Object of Ideology, Žižek explains differences in how people ‘approach’ their ideology.  The first is question of distance; to what extent do you ‘identify’ with your ideology, to see it as true.  You can either have an identificatory relationship (e.g. “I know my ideology is correct, it is self-evident”) or a cynical one (e.g. “I know what I’m doing/saying is not true, and yet I still do it”).  Most scientists have identificatory relationships with science; “Science is true because that’s the science of it”.  Similarly, most people in Western societies are cynically capitalist; “I don’t really believe that money is magically imbued with value, and yet I continue to operate as though it does”.  The latter example is what Marx described as the Money Fetish (deriving from the word for a religious practice, not from the word for sexual predilection).

The second question is your ‘mode’ of engagement, which is basically how you deal with things that appear to contradict your ideology.  Žižek says there are two basic modes: symptomatic and fetishistic (different from how Marx used the term).

An example of symptomatic engagement with ideology is casual racism.  While the casual racist would never say out loud that they think people of colour are usually criminals (what would the neighbours think!), they do believe it.  That is, they’re not committed to racism as an ideology, but they do hold a few of the beliefs.  Let’s imagine the casual racist develops a friendship with a person of colour.  Because the casual racist engages symptomatically with racism, this contradiction shakes the foundation of their racism and leads them to eventually disavow it.  That is, in symptomatic engagement, contradictory information leads to a weakening of the ideology’s grip.

            This is not the case in fetishistic engagement with ideology, shown perfectly in Nazism.  Let’s imagine a Nazi has had good relations with his neighbour for years; they go to barbecues together, share gardening equipment, etc.  Then one day, the Nazi discovers his neighbour is a Jew.  You might expect that this would lead the Nazi to re-evaluate his beliefs.  Instead, “My God!”, the Nazi exclaims, “This proves how dangerous the Jews are!  They are sneaky and can even trick a good Aryan like me that they pose no danger!  All the more reason they need to be exterminated”.  To put it more clearly, the contradictory information (that his neighbour, a Jew, is a nice guy) did not shake the Nazi of their ideology because the Nazi engages fetishistically with their ideology. 

People engaging fetishistically with ideology usually accomplish this through the process of Ptolemization of Ideology.  This is the process whereby information contradictory to an ideology is explained away using the terms of the ideology.  The term ‘Ptolemization’ comes from the debates between Copernicus and his heliocentric model and the followers of Ptolemy and their geocentric model.  Whenever Copernicus would provide evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, the follower of Ptolemy would come up with increasingly bizarre explanations for how Copernicus’ observations actually showed the sun revolves around the earth.

Alright, lemme guess, you’re going to and try to apply this to The People’s Oracle and Witches vs Patriarchy?  Try and figure out their distance to their ideologies and their modes of engagement?

            Am I that predictable now?  Let’s start with The People’s Oracle, what do we think of distance?  Well, I cannot find any tweets of hers in which she engages with information contradictory to her ideology (e.g. a false prediction, critical questions raised about astrology, etc).  But this is not surprising; her career is bound up in her customers believing in astrology.

            What I would say is that, if you’re willing to stake your livelihood on astrology, you likely have some degree of belief.  I also support this claim based on the fact that she frequently refers to her long-form discussions of astrology as ‘church’, suggestive of genuine belief similar to religion.  This would suggest that The People’s Oracle has an identificatory distance to astrology, believing it to be genuinely true. 

The next question is mode of engagement: symptomatic or fetishistic.  Again, the lack of contradictory information makes it difficult to know the mode of ideological engagement.  My prediction would be that The People’s Oracle engages fetishistically with her ideology.  I would justify this by pointing to the nature of astrology; it is a practice based on making vague predictions about the future.  Because of this, contradictory information is easily A: rationalized away by incompleteness of analysis (“Gosh, I forgot to consider that Saturn is in Capricorn) or B: reinterpreted as confirming the prediction (“I know I predicted good things and then bad things happened, but here’s how those bad things are actually good!”).

Okay, so The People’s Oracle has an identificatory and fetishistic engagement with their ideology.  What of Witches vs Patriarchy?

            This is actually the much clearer example.  First off, the question of Witches vs Patriarchy’s distance to its ideology is actually answered in the subreddit’s stated goal: “[To] embrace and poke fun at the mystical aspects of femininity that have been previously demonized … by the Patriarchy”.  That is, the members of Witches vs Patriarchy regularly make fun of the whole concept of witches, there is an implicit “Though I’m posting something about witches/magic, I’m aware witches/magic aren’t real”.  This is a very clear example of cynical distance towards ideology.  But what about mode of engagement?  Well fortunately, we actually have an example of how Witches vs Patriarchy deals with contradictory information in the form of posts such as below:

            Here we have an example of contradictory information: occultism generally advocates magical healing, which as we all should know, doesn’t really work (or at least, doesn’t work as well as science-based medicine).  And so, what is the response of the Witches vs Patriarchy?  Do they double-down, say “Actually …” or engage in some other kind of Ptolemization?  No, presented with this contradictory information, they modify their ideological beliefs; one can engage in both science and occultism in their proper fields.  This is a quintessential example of symptomatic engagement!  Thus, Witches vs Patriarchy engages with ideology with cynical distance and in the symptomatic mode.

            Žižek refers to this position, cynical distance to and symptomatic engagement with ideology, as the “ideologico-critical” position.  He argues that we should aim for the ideologico-critical position as it allows us to best determine what our genuine beliefs are, stop unconsciously acting out ideological beliefs when we may not want to, and be able to re-evaluate our ideology if necessary.

Great, so Žižek would be a fan of Witches vs Patriarchy.  Fantastic news.  Now can you please ‘quilt in’ some of the actually popular media you promised earlier?

            Well, let’s not say that yet.  Do you remember that play I was in that I mentioned earlier, Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe?  It had been in the back of mind as I was doing research on The People’s Oracle and Witches vs Patriarchy for its use of occult elements (and was ironically written during a plague).  This play is how the trope of selling your soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge/power came to the anglophone world!

The basic plot is this; Doctor Faustus is a genius polymath who has grown tired of ‘natural’ sciences (chemistry, botany, law, etc) because he has essentially learned all there is to know about them.  However, what does interest him is occult knowledge: “These metaphysics of magicians / And necromantic books are heavenly! / Lines, circles, scenes, letters, and character, / Ay, these are those that Faustus most desires.”  In order to gain access to the occult knowledge (and the power that it grants), Faustus makes a deal with Mephistopheles, a representative of Satan.  In this pact, Faustus would be granted occult knowledge/power for 24 years, after which he would be taken to hell, to which Faustus agrees.  Upon getting this knowledge/power, Faustus goes on several adventures where he flaunts his power.

            At one point, Faustus questions his decision to sell his soul and considers repenting.  Mephistopheles puts a stop to this by introducing him to the seven deadly sins, after which they essentially throw a rager to show Faustus how it’s good to be bad.  Of course, all good things must eventually come to an end.  As Faustus is approaching the end of his 24^th year, his last act is to summon Helen of Troy, whose beauty (in)famously caused the Trojan War.  Upon seeing her, Faustus delivers one of the most famous monologues in theatre history: “Is this the face that launched a thousand ships?”  After this, Faustus’ time is up and he is dragged off to hell.  End of play.

Brutal.

            Very.

So, can we back up a bit?  What is Faustus referring to when he says “Lines, circles, scenes, letters, and character”?

            It refers to the magical shapes and symbols involved in Western occultism.  One of the most important of these is the circle intersected with lines in a geometric pattern.

Wait a second, those look familiar…

            Aha!  You’ve outed yourself as a weeb!

N-, no!  I only watch it because some of my friends do!

            Just keep telling yourself that.  Yes, you’re probably recognizing it from the popular anime Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood.

            Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood follows Edward Elric and his brother Alphonse.  Edward is a state alchemist, that is, he does alchemy for the state military of Amestris.  Alchemy, in the Fullmetal universe, is essentially a science/art in which you use a “transmutation circle” in order to deconstruct a material and then reconstruct it in a useful way.  The transmutation circles are allusions to the magic circles in the Western occultist tradition.

Wait, how do you know it’s the Western tradition?  Cultures the world over have attributed magical significance to geometric shapes.

            Well, I’d say the similarity between the zodiac symbols and the symbols in the transmutation circle is unlikely to be a coincidence.  But for a more robust answer, you need to know the larger plot.  Edward is on the quest for greater alchemical *knowledge* (and thus, greater *power*) so that he can recover his Alphonse’s body as his soul is currently bonded to a suit of armour.  Why is this?  Because Edward accidentally *sacrificed* Alphonse while trying to resurrect his mother through alchemy (a taboo in this universe).

            While seeking out this information, the brothers come across a dangerous conspiracy: the state of Amestris is engaging in mass human-sacrifice in order to generate philosopher’s stones.  Philosopher’s stones are powerful amplifiers of alchemy (and thus, of value to the government, since state alchemists are essentially powerful soldiers) but can only be generated through human-sacrifice.  Upon learning this, the Elric brothers find themselves in the crosshairs of the homunculi, powerful monsters, who are in on the conspiracy.  These homunculi are named after the *seven deadly sins*, vaguely corresponding to their traits (e.g. Gluttony has a body-horror mouth-stomach, Lust resembles a traditionally attractive woman, etc).

What’s the deal with the asterisks?

            I’m trying to emphasize the similarities to Doctor Faustus, which features the Western occultist tradition.  In both works, the protagonist seeks greater *knowledge* (and the *power* that comes with that knowledge).  To accomplish this, both commit a *sacrifice*; Faustus sacrifices his soul while Edward (accidentally) sacrifices his brother.  And in both works, the personified *seven deadly sins* work against the protagonist; tempting Faustus and physically opposing Edward.  Thus I would argue that Hiromi Arakawa (the creator of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga upon which the anime is based) has likely read the works of Christopher Marlowe and used them as partial inspiration for Fullmetal Alchemist.

Wait a minute, that’s quite a claim.  Didn’t you say Doctor Faustus is the origin of the trope of selling your soul?  Don’t you think it’s more likely Arakawa was influenced by the trope or Western occultism generally, rather than Marlowe directly?

            That’s what I thought at first as well!  My strongest argument for this claim comes from a tiny, relatively unimportant detail.  In Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, it is revealed that Führer Bradley, ruler of Amestris, is actually the homunculus Wrath.  Only one problem: like the other homunculi, Wrath cannot procreate.  And as anyone who’s studied European history knows, a ruler without an heir is a big problem.  So, what is done?  Well, they pretend that Pride, another homunculi whose form is a young boy, is Wrath’s adopted son and heir-apparent.  Of course, they can’t just continue to call Pride ‘Pride’, so they give him a name: Selim.  Selim.

… Is there something I’m missing here?  What’s the significance of the name Selim?

            Well, it’s a very specific choice in name, it’s a variation of a common Arabic name, Saleem.  Specifically, Selim is a spelling most often found in Turkey and is associated with three Ottoman sultans sharing the name.  Why is it notable?  Well, Arakawa is very specific with name-choice and world-building, the choices she made were never haphazard, as you can see below.

• Amestris is based on Nazi Germany.
  • Their leader is referred to as Führer.
  • The names of Amestrians are generally European (Edward, Alphonse, Hohenheim, etc).
  • They engaged in the Ishvalan War of Extermination (often explicitly referred to as a genocide).  They are also frequently characterized as militaristic.
  • Many of the Amestrians have blonde hair and blue eyes, evoking the idea of the Aryan Race.  Supporting this idea, in flashbacks to the Ishvalan civil war, the colours are muted with the exception of the blue eyes, which are highlighted.

• Xing, a neighbouring kingdom, is based on Orientalist tropes.
  • The eyes of characters from Xing appear to be depicted having an epicanthic fold, a feature seen with high frequency in East Asia and stereotypically associated with it.
  • The name ‘Xing’ (pronounced ‘Shing’) is evocative of the Chinese dynasties Shang, Xia and Ming.
  • The characters from Xing often have names of East Asian origin (Ling Yao, Lan Fan, Mei Chang, etc).
  • Prince Ling Yao’s bodyguards are extremely dedicated to Ling Yao’s safety.  This is evocative of the extreme subservience expected under so-called ‘Oriental Despotism’.
    • I am aware the idea of Oriental Despotism is no longer seen as valid in academia.  It still, however, plays a role in Orientalist understandings of the East by the West.
  • Characters from Xing often use kunai, a Japanese weapon.  Ling Yao uses a scimitar, another weapon with Orientalist undertones.

• The Ishvalans are based on aspects of the Jews during WWII as well as the Palestinians.
  • The Ishvalans are/were a stateless nation within Amestria, periodically engaging in uprisings against Amestria.
  • They practice a different religion than the Amestrians, praising Ishvalah.  Ishvalah appears to be a portmanteau of two gods originating from the Middle-East: Ishtar and Allah.
    • Worth noting, of course, that Judaism also originated in the Middle-East.
  • As mentioned before, they underwent a genocide at the hands of the Amestrians.  This has prompted some, like Scar, to undertake retributive justice.

I’m sorry, you’re rambling again.  What does this have to do with the name Selim?

            Good catch.  My point is, with this extensive world-building, it seems highly unlikely that Arakawa would randomly choose a Turkish variant of an Arabic name for Pride, especially since Selim is to be heir-apparent to Amestris. 

Okay, I buy that.  But what does that have to do with Marlowe?

            Marlowe has another much less well-known play, The Jew of Malta, which is loosely based on the Great Siege of Malta.  I’ll spare you a summary of the play, but essentially it begins with Selim Calymath (based on Selim II) arriving in Malta demanding the tribute money the Knights of Malta owe them.  Following much subterfuge and double-dealing between all parties (The Knights, The Ottomans and the titular Jew of Malta), the play concludes with the Knights as ultimately victorious, dealing a humiliating defeat to the Ottomans and taking “Proud Selim Calymath” (as he is often referred) as a hostage.

… And?

            You missed the most important part: “Proud Selim Calymath”, just like how Pride in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood takes on the name Selim.  And I already anticipate your next question: no, Selim II was not known as prideful.  Quite the opposite in fact, as his two epithets were Sarı Selim (Selim the Blonde) and Sarhoş Selim (Selim the Drunk).  It also wasn’t attributed to Selim I (known as Selim the Grim) nor Selim III (who lacked any significant epithets) nor to any of the Selim Girays (rulers of the Crimean Khanate).  The only work associating the name Selim with pride is The Jew of Malta.  This is quite significant when you consider that there are many, many European kings who were known for their pride or even bore the epithet “___ the Proud”.

            So when you consider A: the numerous overlaps between Doctor Faustus and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood and B: the specific choice of the name “Selim” for Pride and its association with the little-known The Jew of Malta, I’d say that makes a pretty strong argument that Hiromi Arakawa both read and was influenced by the works of Marlowe.

I stand corrected.

            Now, I want to loop back and bring in all 4 texts again.  Between The People’s Oracle, Witches vs Patriarchy, Doctor Faustus and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, what do you think is the through-line?

Wonders never cease: you’re getting to the point without me even prompting you!  Hmm, the most obvious thing would be magic, though in different forms.

            Correct!  Let’s dig a little deeper into that.  How does the magic, in its different forms, work?  That is, what are the mechanics behind these various forms of magic?

What do you mean ‘mechanics’ of magic?  It’s magic!

            Not all magic systems operate the same way.  Some magic is inherent (e.g. “I am the descendant of the original grand mage”), some systems are based on willpower (e.g. “If I believe hard enough, I can do great magical acts”), while others rely on different mechanics.  I would argue that, across these four texts, the magic operates according to the same mechanics; magic as knowledge.

How so?

            In short:

• The People’s Oracle: Greater knowledge of astrology allows for more accurate predictions (again, based on the absolute and relative locations of the celestial bodies).  More accurate predictions can be leveraged in order to improve one’s quality of life.
• Witches vs Patriarchy: To the extent that the occultism is genuinely believed, greater knowledge of magical practice translates into greater self-empowerment and ability to act without impact from oppressive hierarchies.
• Doctor Faustus: Faustus’ soul is traded for “necromantic books” of which “A world of profit and delight, / Of power, of honour, and omnipotence, / Is promis’d to the studious artisan”.  That is, studying these magical texts will teach you the magical techniques to become powerful to the point of “omnipotence”.
• Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood:  Greater alchemical knowledge allows an alchemist to engage in increasingly complex alchemy and for specialization.  In this case, knowledge is literally equivalent with power as alchemy is arguably the strongest force in this universe (with the state alchemists being essentially super-soldiers).

Makes enough sense, but what’s the significance?

            Well, I’d like to make the argument that all of these texts are a form of power fantasy.  A power fantasy is a piece of media in which a character, usually the protagonist, fulfils all their wildest desires.  People generally enjoy power fantasies because it’s a sort of voyeuristic wish-fulfilment; we enjoy watching the protagonist fulfil X because we’d like to be X (but haven’t achieved it).  For example, the male power fantasy is one wherein the protagonist fulfils traditional expectations of masculinity (e.g. extreme physical strength, sexual prowess, etc).  As a result, the male power fantasy is generally titillating for men, particularly for those who see themselves as failing in some aspect of masculinity. 

Additionally, the power fantasy has to be recognizable by the audience.  That is, for the power fantasy to titillate, the power fantasy must occur in a context that is recognizable by the audience.

The texts you’ve been talking about don’t really strike me as anything like a traditional power fantasy.

            You’re right, I’d argue that these four texts represent what I call the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy.  I would define the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy as one in which the protagonist fulfils their desires through forbidden knowledge that is attained through some kind of sacrifice.  In The People’s Oracle and Witches vs Patriarchy, having occult knowledge/power is a form of taboo, representing a sort of sacrifice of one’s social standing.  Additionally, use of magic circles in Western occultism always requires sacrifices, even if the ‘sacrifices’ are construed as ingredients.  While alchemy is legal in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, the inciting incident of the text is the botched alchemy to bring back the Elric brother’s mother (resulting in the sacrifice of Alphonse’s body).  Moreover, sacrifice is baked into the very logic of alchemy in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood; “To obtain, something of equal value must be lost” is the first law of alchemy.  Finally, Faustus has to literally sell his soul order to receive occult knowledge from the devil themselves, hard to imagine a greater sacrifice.

Wow, what an insight.  The “Forbidden Knowledge” power fantasy is a power fantasy through forbidden knowledge.  Brilliant revelation, especially for a term you created…

            Well, let’s think about the implications of this power fantasy.  As we said before, we find the power fantasy titillating because it represents a voyeuristic wish-fulfilment wherein one sees one’s desires fulfilled.  As such, deconstructing a power fantasy allows us insight into the desires of those titillated by the power fantasy.  Desires are, of course, structured in part by our understanding of the world, which is in turn influenced by the actual material reality of the world.  So, by deconstructing the power fantasy, we gain insight into the target audience’s desires, understanding of the world and material reality.

Well get to it then!  Tell me how you’ve understood my psyche because I … let me check my notes … ah yes.  Because I like an anime.

            The first thing to note about the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy is the aspect of sacrifice.  What does a power fantasy, in which you can theoretically have any and everything you desire, really say when it includes the idea of sacrifice?  Because we know that it has nothing to do with anything inherent to the idea of magic, as there are plenty of magical power fantasies that don’t involve sacrifice (e.g. Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, etc).  So why is it included in these works?

I suppose that is a bit strange.

            Not terribly, in fact I think it’s very revealing.  Here’s my thinking: for a power fantasy to titillate, it has to A: voyeuristically fulfil the desires of the audience and B: be recognizable to the audience.  It is this second point I think explains the incorporation of sacrifice.  I’d argue the aspect of sacrifice implies that a traditional power fantasy is not recognizable to the audience of these works, hence their gravitation to the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy (or similar fantasies).  That is, the incorporation of sacrifice into the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy renders it recognizable to the audience (and thus titillating). 

I buy it.  But why would these people not be able to recognize themselves in a traditional power fantasy?

            Well, the dis-identification with a traditional power fantasy comes from the fact the audience cannot recognize the protagonist as ‘just having power’.  That begs the question, what kind of people wouldn’t be able to identify with ‘just having power’?

I’m … not sure.

            Okay, let’s try the inverse: who do you think could identify with ‘just having power’, having power for no particular reason?

… Someone who has power for no particular reason? 

            Yes, and what category of people have power for no particular reason?

I mean, people born rich come to mind.

            Exactly!  And if we were to generalize it, you might say people with social privilege (e.g. the wealthy, white people, cis heterosexuals, etc).  That is, for these privileged groups, it’s easier to recognize (and thus be titillated by) a traditional power fantasy wherein characters ‘just have power’.

But surely you’re not saying only people with privilege enjoy traditional power fantasies?

            No, of course not.  Nor am I saying that privileged groups can’t recognize and be titillated by non-traditional power fantasies.  I’m arguing that people with privilege are more likely to recognize ‘just having power’, as it is less likely to be foreign to them.  Similarly, oppressed groups are more likely to find a character ‘just having power’ as jarring because it is further from their lived experience. 

Let’s use the classic example of a traditional male power fantasy as an example, James Bond.  In the film Goldfinger: there’s a well-known scene that has aged … rather poorly.  In it, James Bond is receiving a massage from a woman named Dink when he is approached by friend and ally Felix Leiter.  Bond instructs Dink to introduce herself to Felix and then to “Say goodbye to Felix” as the two are going to have “Man talk”.  Bond then has Dink leave, but of course, not without slapping her on the butt before leaving.

            Am I saying a woman can’t or shouldn’t enjoy this?  No, of course not.  Am I saying women couldn’t be titillated by this traditional power fantasy?  Obviously not.  What I am saying is that men are more likely to be titillated by this scene and women less likely.

Okay, reasonable enough.  So, who’s more likely to be drawn to a Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy?

            You can probably see where I’m going with this.  If people who can’t recognize the traditional power fantasy because of the ‘just having power’ aspect, they are likely to be people without privilege, marginalized people.  These marginalized people are then drawn to fantasies like the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy because their implicit logic (i.e. “Were it not for this sacrifice/forbidden knowledge, I would not have the power I have”) is something they can more easily recognize.  That is, they recognize the assumption of not-having-power as the default assumed by the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy.

That’s a claim, gonna need to back that up.

            As evidence, let’s consider the audiences of these works.   If you look through the twitter feed of The People’s Oracle, you’ll notice that the vast majority of comments (of those twitter accounts with identifying information) come from women, particularly women of colour.  Witches vs Patriarchy is also an overwhelmingly female subreddit.  While the average person may now associate the theatre with the wealthy (who can afford tickets), Elizabethan theatre was historically considered a low-brow affair.  Certainly, some wealthy aristocrats did attend the theatre, but the works of Shakespeare, Marlowe and Ford were mostly aimed at the rabble; lower class folks for whom social advancement was impossible.  And, of course, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is aimed at one of today’s most oppressed groups: weebs.

You kind of undermine your claim with that last point.

            Well of course I’m kidding.  But identification with the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy doesn’t have to come from a societal oppression.  It could come from the particular attributes of the individual drawn to it (e.g. feelings of having no control over your surroundings).  Or  it could well come from just being near the bottom of your social totem pole (e.g. being part of a relatively niche subculture).

Okay, so basically the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy tends to appeal to people who can’t identify with the ‘just having power’ of a traditional power fantasy.  And because marginalized people are less likely to identify with ‘just having power’, they are disproportionately drawn to the Forbidden Knowledge power fantasy.

            Yes, and like I mentioned, that doesn’t mean privileged people only identify with traditional power fantasies and marginalized people with Forbidden Knowledge power fantasies (or other similar power fantasies).  I am simply pointing out a tendency.  What is more interesting, however, is how these power fantasies manifest.  To do this, I’m going to specifically put Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood and Witches vs Patriarchy in conversation.

What do you mean “how they manifest”?

            When I say this, I refer to how the power of the power fantasy is shown and utilised.  Let’s start with Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, how is the power shown there?  While I’ve not finished the show, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that Edward and the gang do ultimately save the day, ending the dangerous conspiracy and getting his brother’s body back (the latter being a little less certain).  More than that, this will likely be achieved at least in part by Edward’s skill in alchemy.  After that, everything will be returned to ‘normal’; Amestris will avert from its genocidal ways under the leadership of Mustang, Edward and Winry will end up together and Alphonse will catch up on the experiences he’s missed.

Probably a fair prediction.  What’s your point?

            What’s important to note here is the fundamental optimism of the power fantasy here.  Through alchemy, Edward is able to ‘set right’ the world, his actions are both positive and consequential.  More than that, through his actions, Edward is not only able to prevent a bad thing (the conspiracy) from occurring, he is able to fundamentally change the system to prevent something like that from occurring again. 

Okay, I’ll buy it.

I also want to point another thing out, the Fullmetal Alchemist manga, upon which this anime is based, began printing in 2001.

… That’s an odd detail to include, why do you mention it?

            2001 is situated solidly within the optimistic period many countries, including Japan, experienced post-Cold War.  This was the era when people the world over were proclaiming that Francis Fukuyama was right; with the fall of the USSR, the world was on the inevitable march towards liberal democracy.  It was, after all, The End of History, things were only looking up!  So the sort of optimism in the ability to right political wrongs and set things ‘in order’ shown in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is certainly in keeping with the zeitgeist of the times.

And?

            Just keep that thought in the back of your mind.  Let’s compare the optimism of the power fantasy as manifested in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood with that of Witches vs Patriarchy.  Certainly some of the posts display that same kind of general optimism that is shown in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, like the example below:

But these do not represent the bulk of the posts.  A larger proportion of the posts are like below:

            Note here the fundamental meekness and pessimism of how the power fantasy manifests here.  In these people’s wildest dreams, wherein they can solve their problems with magic, this is what they come up with: simply dropping out of the world so it can no longer bother you.  No grand dreams of destroying capitalism or undoing patriarchy or whatever else; these posts suggest that is not even conceivable to them even with the help of literal magic.  Their only aspiration is to just ‘drop out’ of these oppressive systems.  Take this post for example:

            Let’s examine the assumptions of this power fantasy.  And I remind you, in a power fantasy anything is possible (hence ‘fantasy’).  In this post, the manifestation of the power fantasy is the ability to get someone to leave you alone when they’re harassing you.  Note here that there is almost an implicit assumption of harassment, that there will always be men harassing women (but at least in the power fantasy, there’s a way to get it to stop…).  I’ll refer to this as Patriarchal Realism: the belief that patriarchy will never be fundamentally undone.  It’s a slight modification of the term Capitalist Realism, from a book of the same name by Mark Fisher.  In it, Fisher argues that for many people “it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism”, that is, even if people are anti-capitalist, they don’t really believe it will ever be fundamentally undone.

Sadly, the implicit pessimism expressed by Witches vs Patriarchy comes close to the point of political nihilism, of despair.  It asks; why bother even trying when oppressive systems will never be truly undone, better to just try and drop out of those systems.  I’d argue that the despair is operating like a Sinthome (which you may remember is the Lacanian term for a symptom the subject ‘enjoys’).  When systems like capitalism and patriarchy are seen as entrenched and impossible to undo, despair is almost enjoyable.  This is because despair functions to lift the burden of responsibility from the subject.  In the Western canon, the sin of sloth encompasses not only laziness, but also nihilism and despair.  I say this as a great fan of the subreddit; it is a sin that Witches vs Patriarchy is very much guilty of.

Wow, it is kind of depressing when you put it like that… why do you think that’s the case?  Why is this kind of despair implicitly baked into Witches vs Patriarchy?

            Witches vs Patriarchy was created in late 2018.

Okay, and?

            The world has changed a bit between 2001 and 2018.

Things are pretty dire these days.  But what does that have to do with Witches vs Patriarchy?

            There is a (not un-founded) general sentiment, particularly among young people, that the world is really, actually coming to an end.  Not in a strictly apocalyptic sense à la a meteor, but there is a general feeling of ‘things are unravelling’.  Our lifespans are shortening, the economy is crashing (again), the far-right is globally ascendant.  We’re going through a global pandemic as the globe continues heating.  All the while an increasingly out-of-touch elite get richer and richer and richer while an ever more militarized police force is used to maintain the status quo.  It is, perhaps, no surprise that deaths of despair, particularly alcoholism, are rising rapidly.  Despair certainly feels like the mood du jour, and not without reason.  This generalized despair, I’d argue, is apparent in the relative pessimism of the power fantasy as manifested by Witches vs Patriarchy.

So, what’s your prescription to Witches vs Patriarchy then?

         Well, I’m not sure I have one to give, or rather, I’m not sure I should give one.  It’s not a super great look for a guy like me (white, cishet, able-bodied, etc) to tell a largely female community how they should subjectivize their objective oppression.  Who am I to say “Actually, you’re responding to oppression incorrectly” when communities like this may represent a brief reprieve for marginalized people?  As long as this behaviour does not become paralyzing, occasional flights of fancy are not only understandable, but important!  What’s more, I’d be intellectually dishonest if I didn’t note that I am 100% guilty of the same thing (no matter how ‘ironic’ I may claim it is):

Wow that’s … something.  Perhaps, rather than something pointed at Witches vs Patriarchy, you could offer a more general takeaway?  Something positive to end on?

            Political despair, in its various forms, can sometimes be appealing; perhaps even inevitable periodically.  But we cannot allow ourselves to fall to despair over dire conditions.  To do so is to make political despair a self-fulfilling prophecy.  We not only have to believe we can effect change; but we have to dream big.  Not dreams of ‘dropping out’, but dreams of actually dismantling those systems that make us want to drop out.  We have to dream of potential futures where we construct something new and not fall to the trap of assuming oppressive systems will never really be undone.  And then, with those dreams in mind, we have to organize to make those dreams a reality.  Because as great as a cottage in the forest, a commune in Sweet Water, or whatever else may sound, we all deserve better than that.