Avengers: Age of Ultron warns of the danger when we let fear and powerful emotions drive us to trust in power without vigilance

Spoiler warning: This article contains spoilers for Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron

When the times are evil, and the world is at its worst, we look to  protect ourselves and those traditionally dearest to us - our family, our friends, our people. Whatever the motivation - fear, regret, vengeance, or even ambition - it does not necessarily guarantee that we will act cleverly.

In Marvel's latest entry to their Cinematic Universe (MCU), Avengers: Age of Ultron, the inception of Ultron, and the events for which Ultron is the catalyst, serve as an exploration of the danger that such motivations can pose.

The main driving force behind the events of the MCU so far have been these deep motivations, crystallised in forms such as Tony Stark's fears and Loki's ambitions. In Avengers: Age of Ultron, we see Tony Stark's fears exposed. Stark, in response to those fears, seeks control over events, even over the world, as his way to combat the danger that chaos brings. In Ultron, he seeks to create an entity that cares about humanity and will act independently in its stead as a suit of armour around the world.

The Maximoff twins, Wanda and Pietro - Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - enter the MCU driven by a desire to seek redress for what they have suffered at the hands of Tony Stark. Yet, their quest for vengeance against one man, for the death of their parents and to protect their people, draws them into dark and dangerous alliances with villainous figures like Hydra and Ultron, that ultimately threaten far more people.

Into that mix of motivations comes Ultron. The artificial intelligence offers to those seeking action a means - but in their need, driven by their own persuasive motivations, they do not consider that Ultron may have its own purposes and ways of achieving them. In their fear, in their wrath, they are not careful and so they get something for which did not plan.

Stark and the Maximoff twins saw something that could be a tool to their own ends, but they did not consider what that tool might mean in context or what it could do in the wrong hands. Their strong emotional motivations allowed practical necessity to win out over the ideal, and so they perceived that the power of  Ultron could help themselves achieve their goals, but did not take the time to properly comprehend the full nature of the AI and what it might or could do. As the enigmatic Lutece siblings remind us in BioShock Infinite:

"Perception without comprehension is a dangerous combination."

In the old world you were warned to beware Greeks bearing gifts, for fear of a Trojan horse. In all worlds you must also beware false heroes bearing a Trojan cause. Those who will bring their own purposes, veiled within populist solutions, pose an incredible threat to those who are not vigilant and allow their own fears or selfish motivations to blind them. Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron reminds us that they may be used against us and exploited to achieve ends which we never intended.

Fear poisons the democratic well and leaves us ripe for exploitation

Over the past few weeks and months there have been attempted armed assaults on elected officials in two Western countries (The Guardian, 2014; Roberts, 2014); there has been war, kidnap and murder in the Middle East (Swinford, 2014); a deadly disease has posed a threat to three continents (BBC, 2014); and crude and aggressive attempts are being made to stop women from speaking up for their rights (Hern, 2014). All of these events have one thing in common: Fear.

In the UK, from welfare to migration (Wintour, 2014; The Guardian, 2013), fear has started to play too large a part in the political arena, much too often. A rash of issues have been blown up into alarmist struggles, with the disproportionate and scary language used feeding the negative emotions that complicate and confuse matters (Jenkins, 2014).

The US has faired little better. The arrival of the Ebola virus has sparked all sorts of animated and colourful reactions from conservative commentators (Younge, 2014). The fear these events spark upset the order of people's lives, destabilise the things that they depend upon, and that makes them feel vulnerable and afraid, and that fear can lead to escalation (The Guardian, 2013).

Fear, either as a result of fear-mongering or ignorance, is potentially extremely powerful. It can be a potent mover of public opinion, but it does so only by poisoning the popular democratic environment. It poisons debate, it drowns out reason in a howl of noise, and it corrupts our ideals. When that happens, our liberty is at stake. It is a dark road down which we travel when we let fear, and our frightened reactions, override our reason.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the much maligned Florentine political philosopher, gave us an insight into the power that fear, when we let it control us, gives to those who might exploit it:

'And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant... For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.'

That cynical view on how the fears of the people may be exploited serve us now as a warning. During the good times, when people have freedom, and their lives have some measure of stability and security, it is easier for them to think clearly and make good decisions. But when their world is upset, they feel vulnerable and so close ranks.

Fear, whether it is of change, violence, chaos or punishment, can be used to control us, or to steer us towards extreme solutions. As we retreat to familiar ground, shut out others and become less tolerant, we give life to extreme solutions. Our fears present a potentially profitable exploit to others willing to react to the situation and give us a sense of security.

However, as reactionaries offer us the extreme solutions that we, in our fear, desire, they only affirm those fears and exacerbate them (The Guardian, 2013). Fear and reaction can this way become a vicious cycle, each causing the other in turn to escalate.

We need to find a way to be calm, to be considered and thoughtful, as we take important decisions. When the world is at its worst is the time when cherished values like kindness, hope and generosity are needed the most. The answer to violence and danger, to exploitation and fear, is not to retreat into narrow tribal groups. Instead we need to find more friendship, and more support for our most cherished values, amongst more people and across many and more diverse cultures.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Guardian's 'The Guardian view on the terror attacks in Ottawa: hold fast to tolerance and diversity'; 23 October 2014.

+ Dan Roberts' 'Armed intruder had penetrated farther into White House than admitted'; in The Guardian; 29 September 2014.

+ Steven Swinford's 'David Cameron breaks off holiday after 'British' jihadist beheads kidnapped journalist'; in The Telegraph; 20 August 2014.

+ BBC's 'Ebola: Mapping the outbreak'; 22 October 2014.

+ Alex Hern's 'Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears'; in The Guardian; 23 October 2014.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Welfare state presides over 'culture of fear', charities say'; in The Guardian; 18 February 2014.

+ The Guardian's 'Migration: politics of fear'; 30 December 2013.

+ Simon Jenkins' 'Downing Street’s Ebola panic is a classic case of the politics of fear'; in The Guardian; 17 October 2014.

+ Gary Younge's 'Ebola has exposed America's fear, and Barack Obama's vulnerability'; in The Guardian; 19 October 2014.

+ Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince'; from Chapter XVII; 1513. [Buy Now]

When is a Tory not a Tory?

The deal was done and the coalition was formed. I must admit that being on the left, the deal upset me somewhat. That said, if this was a deal done by any other Tory I would have to be impressed by how they sacrificed so much of what they stand for to get Liberal backing. But I'm not so sure there has been that much sacrifice.

You see Mr Cameron has never been a Tory. Yes he represents the party, yes he now represents the country (although Scotland, Wales and the North might disagree), but throughout his leadership he has had no shortage of critics from within his own party. They have never really felt he was singing from the right (wing) hymn sheet.

I would say that this extraordinary compromise deal would confirm those doubts within his own party. But if he isn't a Conservative, what on earth does Mr Cameron stand for?

'Being under the rule of David Cameron is like being in an abusive relationship.'
        ('A Backbench MP'; Metro, 2010)

'I really don't think it's anything to do with politicians whether you [get married]... My view of Conservatism is that it's not for us to tell you [what to do through] the tax system ... This is social engineering for God's sake and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it.'
        (Kenneth Clarke, 2009)

As far as I have ever seen, Mr Cameron has only ever stood for whatever position opposes Labour. Time and again he takes stances on behalf of 'his' party which most of his own ministers find utterly abhorrent. This deal suggests to me that Mr Cameron is a man far less concerned with political stances than with the pursuit of power. In doing so he has increasingly taken on all the characteristics of Mr Blair's type of leadership: populism.

So what do I mean by that? Well from theoretical perspectives leadership can be interpreted as a two-way relationship, counting on a constant circle of feedback to clarify, reinforce and define a unified message. Such a relationship is designed to manage the identity of a group towards in-group members, out-group members and the obstacles faced in achieving goals (House, 1996).

When talking about a populist, I speak of a leader who makes their sole concern the managing of their relationship with followers. As I see it this corrupts the reasons for leading a group of people in the first place; by inverting the nature of the factors to produce an effect where future paths and goals are mapped to manage a fluctuating follower landscape. It is in this that I find a difference between Populist Movements and Social Movements, in forcing activities to become focussed purely upon the maintenance of the group's by-product: power.

When combined with the out-group negativity that, certainly the right-wing press at least has adopted, it breeds a loop of scaremongering and press stunts designed towards managing the dynamics of power, not the achievement of goals. It is the shifting stance that became very familiar with Mr Blair and Mr Cameron is swiftly becoming very adept at tugging at the public's sensitive strings.

 'There is nothing to him. He is like a hollow Easter egg with no bag of sweets inside. Cameron will say absolutely anything if he thinks it might get him elected.'
        (Charlie Brooker, 2007)

These then are my concerns:

+ First that the new Prime Minister commands with far too great an emphasis upon how best to ensure & insure power and not nearly enough on what the purpose of attaining such power would be.

+ Secondly, considering my first concern, should a Conservative administration subsequently become strong enough to govern in a manner unfettered by Liberal Democrats, what affect this could have on British politics. My fear is that a leader with such an amorphous stance before public opinion, backed by a heavily right-wing & reactionary party could blind the public to the realities of serious situations.

While I may be just be another whining lefty, I nonetheless have serious concerns about the serious objectives of this new administration. This is something to be watched with open eyes in the future.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robert J. House's 'Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory'; Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 323–352; 1996.

- For more on Leadership:
Colin Barker, Alan Johnson and Michael Lavalette's: 'Leadership and social movements'; Manchester University Press, 2001.
Dan van Knippenberg & Michael A. Hogg's 'Leadership and Power: Identity processes in groups and organisations'; Sage, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership

+ John Higginson's 'Bull-boy Cameron stands accused of abusing power';

- For more about David Cameron:
Tories call on David Cameron to quit
Tory MPs react to David Camerons Surprise 1922 committee vote
1922 Committee: David Cameron wins vote on rule change

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";

- For more angry Ken Clarke:
Ken Clarke clashes with David Cameron over cash crisis
Clarke in 2003: Supremacy Act “fundamentally incompatible” with EU membership
Ken Clarke brands Cameron plan for Bill of Rights as 'xenophobic'
Clarke slams Cameron rights plan

+ Charlie Brooker's 'David Cameron is like a hollow Easter egg, with no bag of sweets inside. He's nothing. He's no one';

Condemnation & Recognition

This is not the article I wished to begin with. I find it, however, to be unavoidable. So I will use my first post here to roundly condemn Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, the 23rd President of the French Republic, for his 'ethnic' policies towards the Roma people.

These policies, as reported last month, involved orders to target the ethnic Roma people for eviction and expulsion from France. Investigations are already under way to determine whether it is in violation of International Human Rights. It is most certainly in violation of all decent morality, not to mention European Union Freedom of Movement laws.

This kind of cynical abuse of a minority in order to bolster flagging political support, as is the accusation levelled at Mr Sarkozy by his critics, is outrageous.

The only light that can be found in the murky depths of this issue is the bravery of the EU Justice Commissioner in standing up to the French State on this issue. Ms Viviane Reding's actions have been nothing short of admirable and gives hope I think both for the future of the EU and for the peaceful and satisfactory resolution of this issue.

==========
References:
==========
For more on these serious events:
- Nicolas Sarkozy rounds on critics and vows to keep dismantling Roma camps (The Guardian, Sept 16 2010)
- Orders to police on Roma expulsions from France leaked (The Guardian, Sept 13 2010)
- Nicolas Sarkozy tells Luxembourg to take in Roma (The Guardian, Sept 15 2010)
- Germany contradicts French statement on Roma camps (BBC News, Sept 16 2010)
- Reding did not mean the Holocaust, but the 'Great Devouring,' Andor says (EU Observer, 17 Sept 2010)
- European Commissioner likens France's deportations of Roma to Nazi genocide (Telegraph Blogs, 18 Sept 2010)
- Angry Nicolas Sarkozy pledges to deport more gypsies (The Metro, Set 16 2010)

For more on International Human Rights:
- http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
- http://www.amnesty.org/
- http://tinyurl.com/2vze6cm