Why We Sympathize with Villains Like the Joker

Sympathy for villains is a challenge to our moral frameworks. Generally, sympathy is an emotional response to somebody else suffering, often accompanied by a desire to alleviate that suffering. While it's typically reserved for those we perceive as victims or deserving, characters like the Joker blur these boundaries. Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal exposes Arthur Fleck's basic vulnerability—a man rejected by society, ravaged by mismanaged mental illness, and pushed to the brink of despair. Although his actions are horrific, the film's painful backstory prompts viewers to feel a form of emotional recognition. But why?

Our capacity for sympathy can be attributed to the brain's mirror neuron system. Mirror neurons activate when we observe someone experiencing an emotion, allowing us to "mirror" or replicate their feelings in our own brains. This mechanism underpins human empathy and sympathy, enabling us to resonate with another person's emotional state. When we watch Arthur suffer—enduring humiliation, rejection, and abuse—our mirror neurons fires in response to his distress, evoking sympathy, pain, and possibly disgust. Butterflies in stomach.

Neuroscientific research supports this idea. Observing someone's suffering activates brain regions associated with pain, such as the anterior cingulate cortex and insula, even when we're not directly experiencing harm. This explains why we feel sympathy for Arthur as he experiences repeated traumas. The film portrays his pain in a visceral way, making it difficult for the audience not to be affected on a deep neurological level.

However, this sympathy doesn't excuse or justify his actions. The same brain areas that recognize suffering also are well connected  to our moral judgment regions. While our emotional centers respond to Arthur's pain, our prefrontal cortex—the area associated with decision-making and moral reasoning—reminds us that his violent actions cannot be accepted. This duality helps us understand how we can sympathize with Arthur's suffering without forgiving or justifying his crimes.

Another factor in why we sympathize with characters like the Joker is the context provided by the film. Arthur's life is portrayed as a series of unfair rejections. From public ridicule to abandonment by the mental health system, the movie paints a picture of a man literally discarded by society. Chronic rejection can lead to feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anger—all evident in Arthur's gradual descent into madness.

In Joker, Arthur's initial and deep desire for connection—through his job as a clown, his aspiration to be a stand-up comedian, or his delusional relationship with his neighbor Sophie—becomes twisted as he faces continuous rejection. Social isolation doesn't just exacerbate his mental illness; it drives him to seek validation regardless of the mean; violence and chaos were his. Humans are wired to avoid isolation because social connection is essential for survival. Witnessing someone suffer extreme loneliness triggers a deep, instinctive response in us, often manifesting as sympathy, even when that person's behavior becomes destructive.

Another key player in our sympathetic response to Arthur is his history of trauma. The film reveals that he was abused as a child. Developmental trauma is linked to mental health issues like depression, PTSD, personlity disorders and violent tendencies. Understanding this connection helps explain why audiences may feel sympathy for Arthur's plight. His descent into violence can be seen as the consequence of a life marked by abuse and neglect. While trauma doesn't excuse his actions, it offers an explanation that resonates on a human level—he didn't start as a villain; he was shaped by a series of events that led him there. This taps into a another aspect of finding causality and explanation for unusual or unwanted events. We tend to blame society - or and outside cause- to explain the unwanted feelings.

Unlike traditional villains portrayed as purely evil, Arthur is a complex character with both tragic and terrifying qualities. This complexity forces viewers to assess their own moral judgments. Research in moral psychology suggests we're more likely to feel sympathy for individuals whose motives and actions are morally ambiguous because ambiguity allows for multiple interpretations.

Arthur's motivations are steeped in ambiguity. Is he a victim of a broken system, or is he using his suffering to justify violence? The film doesn't provide a clear answer, leaving viewers to wrestle with their emotions. This moral uncertainty creates space for sympathy to flourish, even as we recognize that his actions are inexcusable.

Reflecting on Joker, it's evident that our sympathy for characters like Arthur Fleck is grounded in human nature's capacity to understand suffering. The science behind our sympathy reveals that factors like mirror neurons, social inequality, trauma, and moral ambiguity shape our responses to such complex individuals. However, it's crucial to remember that sympathy is not the same as forgiveness or justification. Understanding the origins of someone's pain doesn't excuse the harm they cause but sheds light on the intricate interplay of biology, psychology, and context that makes characters like the Joker both tragic and terrifying.

In this light, I applaud the creators of Joker for their masterful storytelling. They've managed to craft a narrative that not only portrays the making of a villain but also compels us to confront the uncomfortable depths of our empathy. By humanizing the Joker, they challenge us to see beyond the surface of villainy and explore the profound complexities of the human condition.