Watchmen, the movie, is due to be released soon, and for those who don't know, it's a superhero comic gone superlative. It won a Hugo Award in 1988, and was named one of the 100 best novels of the 20th century by Time. But more importantly, Watchmen is a deeply philosophical work (among other things), raising complex questions about morality, justice and even the metaphysics of time.
Obviously i haven't seen the movie yet, and i don't know how closely it will follow the original comic/graphic novel. But that shouldn't be an issue here. The question i am going to ask is not directly addressed in the work. Still, i am going to have to ask for no spoilers here. It shouldn't be necessary, because there is no reason to discuss the story because the question is not in the story... but since the title has Watchmen in it, it is almost inevitable that some idiot will want to spoil it for others. So, again, i insist: no spoilers. In fact, don't discuss the plot of Watchmen at all.
----------------------------------
The title of Watchmen - and of this thread - comes from the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", which can translate into "Who will guard the guards?" or "Who watches the watchmen?". It is an expression of the political question of sovereignty, which basically asks that if we assign leaders to protect us from harm, what is to protect us from the leaders should they wish to harm us?
Plato discusses this question in The Republic, and his solution is interesting, and pretty representative of classic Western thought. The assumption is that we cannot trust people to be good for goodness's sake, and that they must have higher motivations. If they consider themselves a part of the group they are watching over, then they can justify screwing the group using the reasoning that they are simply screwing themselves. On the other hand, if they consider themselves separate from the group, and the group is just a collection lesser beings they have a higher charge to protect, screwing the group is less like screwing yourself and more like a parent screwing their children. So what you have to do - according to Plato - is lie to the watchmen... tell them that they are superior to the people they are watching over, and that they have a higher calling to watch over them. Convince them that they do not want to watch over their charges, but that they must, because of this higher duty. In modern terms, what you are doing to the watchmen is a mix of reverse psychology and stroking their ego. The logic is:
The more modern solution is to appeal to competition. This is why modern governments are bicameral (at least). Rather than a single group of watchmen overseeing the society, there are (at least) two groups of watchmen overseeing the society, and each group is responsible for overseeing both society and the other group. Thus, if one group shirks their duties, the other group will call them out on it. (Note, for those who are not familiar with the way modern governments work, i am not talking about political parties. i am talking about branches of government. In Canada - and probably most countries that follow the British model - that is the judiciary and parliamentary branches of government (and also the head of state, the Queen and the Governor General, who count as a third group of watchmen in certain situations). In the US it is tricameral, with the representative, judicial and executive branches. And on a smaller scale, there are still more subdivisions within some of these branches. In each case, these groups have powers over each other, and keep each other in check.)
What do you think about all of this? What do you think are the pros and cons of each option? Do you have any other options?
----------------------------------
After you've thought about this stuff, and maybe contributed to the discussion, take what you've picked up here and give a moment's consideration to it as you watch Watchmen. Assuming the movie follows the comic, you will find that it doesn't really discuss this question at all: instead, it takes one of the answers as given, and shows where it inevitably leads, and then challenges you with a new question about that. Maybe some time much later, after the movie has had time to filter through the public consciousness, i'll start another thread to discuss the question that Watchmen actually raises. But for now, please, don't spoil the movie (or the comic). It's not necessary, and it won't help the discussion.
Obviously i haven't seen the movie yet, and i don't know how closely it will follow the original comic/graphic novel. But that shouldn't be an issue here. The question i am going to ask is not directly addressed in the work. Still, i am going to have to ask for no spoilers here. It shouldn't be necessary, because there is no reason to discuss the story because the question is not in the story... but since the title has Watchmen in it, it is almost inevitable that some idiot will want to spoil it for others. So, again, i insist: no spoilers. In fact, don't discuss the plot of Watchmen at all.
----------------------------------
The title of Watchmen - and of this thread - comes from the Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", which can translate into "Who will guard the guards?" or "Who watches the watchmen?". It is an expression of the political question of sovereignty, which basically asks that if we assign leaders to protect us from harm, what is to protect us from the leaders should they wish to harm us?
Plato discusses this question in The Republic, and his solution is interesting, and pretty representative of classic Western thought. The assumption is that we cannot trust people to be good for goodness's sake, and that they must have higher motivations. If they consider themselves a part of the group they are watching over, then they can justify screwing the group using the reasoning that they are simply screwing themselves. On the other hand, if they consider themselves separate from the group, and the group is just a collection lesser beings they have a higher charge to protect, screwing the group is less like screwing yourself and more like a parent screwing their children. So what you have to do - according to Plato - is lie to the watchmen... tell them that they are superior to the people they are watching over, and that they have a higher calling to watch over them. Convince them that they do not want to watch over their charges, but that they must, because of this higher duty. In modern terms, what you are doing to the watchmen is a mix of reverse psychology and stroking their ego. The logic is:
- If they want to be watchmen, then they can choose to not do their job. But if they believe that they do not want to be watchmen, but that they must, despite what they want, they will grudgingly stick to it. It is the difference between playing a game and doing a job - we have no problem ditching the game, but we feel a great deal of guilt if we think about ditching a job we have to do.
- If they consider themselves as one of the people being watched, then they will consider any shirking of their duties a crime against themselves, which is no big deal. On the other hand, if they think of the people they must watch as "others", then any shirking of their duties will be a crime against others, which is far less acceptable.
- If they consider themselves as superior to the people they are watching, they will feel that any shirking of their duties is taking advantage of weaker people. On the other hand, there is little guilt with taking advantage of equals, and taking advantage of people who are superior is celebrated. Thus, you want to convince the watchmen that they are superior to their charges.
The more modern solution is to appeal to competition. This is why modern governments are bicameral (at least). Rather than a single group of watchmen overseeing the society, there are (at least) two groups of watchmen overseeing the society, and each group is responsible for overseeing both society and the other group. Thus, if one group shirks their duties, the other group will call them out on it. (Note, for those who are not familiar with the way modern governments work, i am not talking about political parties. i am talking about branches of government. In Canada - and probably most countries that follow the British model - that is the judiciary and parliamentary branches of government (and also the head of state, the Queen and the Governor General, who count as a third group of watchmen in certain situations). In the US it is tricameral, with the representative, judicial and executive branches. And on a smaller scale, there are still more subdivisions within some of these branches. In each case, these groups have powers over each other, and keep each other in check.)
What do you think about all of this? What do you think are the pros and cons of each option? Do you have any other options?
----------------------------------
After you've thought about this stuff, and maybe contributed to the discussion, take what you've picked up here and give a moment's consideration to it as you watch Watchmen. Assuming the movie follows the comic, you will find that it doesn't really discuss this question at all: instead, it takes one of the answers as given, and shows where it inevitably leads, and then challenges you with a new question about that. Maybe some time much later, after the movie has had time to filter through the public consciousness, i'll start another thread to discuss the question that Watchmen actually raises. But for now, please, don't spoil the movie (or the comic). It's not necessary, and it won't help the discussion.
