Marvel's religious pluralism in Thor: Love and Thunder

We went to see the latest Thor film on the weekend. It was highly enjoyable, and is the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has theological implications that piqued my interest. There are some spoilers below the film poster - read on at your own risk of spoilerisation. There are also some spoilers for some of the Marvel TV shows, especially Ms.Marvel.

There was a lot to like in this film, from the opening few scenes that showed Thor trying the patience of the Guardians of the Galaxy until they went their separate ways, through to the reunion of Thor with Jane Foster in her guise as The Mighty Thor. I felt it was Natalie Portman's best performance in a Thor movie as she was given some material to work with both as Jane and as her version of Thor. 

Mining the same vein as Thor Ragnarok, this film contained a lot of comedy. It was fast-paced, thanks to the direction of Taika Waititi, who also voices the character Korg. It does feel like the difference between the first two Thor movies, which were helmed by Kenneth Branagh and Alan Taylor, and the most recent two is linked to the choice of director. There is also a strong musical theme in the movie, with Guns 'n' Roses songs prominent during major set pieces.  

The plot is fairly basic. There is a being called Gorr who possesses - and is possessed by - the Necrosword, a black sword that can kill gods. He embarks on a revenge mission to wipe out all gods in the universe after his god fails to intervene and save him and his daughter who are the god's last faithful worshippers.

Thor gets involved when Gorr attacks the Asgardian colony on Earth. That's more than just an attempt to kill another god - Gorr wants something else, which will lead him to his ultimate goal. 

On returning to New Asgard, Thor discovers his lost love, Jane, now possesses Mjolnir, Thor's hammer that was destroyed in the previous Thor movie. This begins a very funny sequence where Thor tries to reconnect with Mjolnir, causing his new weapon, the axe Stormbreaker, to get jealous. That sounds ridiculous, but it works surprisingly well and provides some light relief. 

Thor also tries to reconnect with Jane as they go into battle together. This includes a detour to Omnipotence City, where all the gods live. And that's where the theology gets interesting.

Marvel has gradually been co-opting every mythology into the MCU. That includes Greek myths in Eternals, Egyptian gods in the series Moon-Knight, and most recently djinns from Arabian and Muslim stories in Ms.Marvel. Now it seems they have decided that all gods exist somewhere in the universe and they are all characters. 

But - and this is an important point - Marvel have also decided that gods are not worthy of the worship afforded to them. Zeus basically says this when Thor challenges him to intervene and do the right thing. Humans - and presumably other creatures - exist to suffer for their gods and there is no eternal reward. It's an incredibly bleak perspective from a mortal point of view. 

Back when Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 was released, I wrote about how the movie depicted deicide. This film goes a step further into active antitheism. The gods are depicted as powerful and capricious, only interested in their own affairs. 

Marvel are hedging their bets a bit with this stance, though. Nobody really cares about the Greek, Norse or Egyptian pantheons. Marvel can do what they like with those redundant religions because nobody will get upset about what's said about those gods. Things would change quickly if Marvel started turning the gods from the big current religions into movie characters. 

Marvel might be testing that water with having a Muslim superhero in Ms.Marvel, where her religion is an important aspect of her character. However the supernatural characters in that show are djinns, which are a bit like Christian beliefs in demons. They're supposed to be real, but not something that can be blasphemed against so it's reasonably safe to make them aliens from another dimension instead. 

There has been a definite trend in the MCU from a god-like character being evil in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 to the sheer narcissism of "actual" gods inviting the audience to question whether any gods are worthy of worship in Thor: Love and Thunder. Especially gods - or Gods - who let children die while the prayers of their followers go unanswered. It leaves me wondering where they might go next.

When God revealed the secret of workplace success to Bender the robot

The Planet Express crew

There is an episode of Futurama where Bender, the robot crew member of the Planet Express spaceship, is accidentally fired into deep space. As he speeds into infinity, he becomes the home to a microscopic civilisation which he inadvertently destroys after they start worshiping him as a deity.

With all the life on him wiped out, Bender continues to drift entirely alone until in a far corner of the universe he bumps into God. This gives him the opportunity to ask where he went wrong. As he sees it, when he tried to give people what they asked for, it resulted in their extinction.

I watched the episode again recently, and, as it always does, God’s reply made me laugh. He says, in a suitably booming voice full of gravitas, 

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

I actually think this is really good advice for anyone in the workplace. Work can feel a bit of a thankless task sometimes. But, actually that’s part of the point – if you are doing what you are meant to be doing then everyone around you should be experiencing work without much hassle. People who don't get noticed often don't get thanked. 

But not being noticed isn't a bad thing. Most of the time, the bumps in our experience of work are caused by people not getting things right. Inadequate planning, or delayed decision-making, or subpar delivery, or missing deadlines, all cause problems for everyone else on the team. Similarly, negative experiences of services are almost all due to things not going well - every complaint is pointing out a flaw in the experience.

But when everyone is doing their job correctly, things just happen without anyone really noticing. If the system works the way it should then people don’t notice the system. The stuff people need to do their jobs is there for them to do their jobs. The things that service users need to happen, happen.

And often, when you do everything right that you are meant to do, people won’t really know whether you have done anything at all.

Divine personality types in the workplace

I was sorting out my home office over the Christmas and New Year break and was distracted by one of the books I acquired while doing my MSc in Business Psychology. It’s a book called Inside Organizations by Charles Handy, a companion book to a TV series from 1991.

The book offers 21 ideas for managers, and is a mix of organisational psychology ideas. Quite a bit has changed in terms of working environments in the past 30 years, but a lot of the book is about working with people, and people haven’t changed that much. 

One chapter is entitled ‘Find your God’ and Charles borrows from the ancient Greek pantheon to illustrate four different workplace personality characteristics. I’m a bit sceptical of profiling tools like this as I feel there are way more than four blends of personality traits which create different people. But it’s an amusing diversion and I was intrigued by the religious angle.

Charles starts off by commenting on the diversity of religious expression in the classical world and outlines his thoughts that like-minded people were attracted to the veneration of the same gods so met people similar to themselves in the temple they chose to attend. I’m not a hundred per cent convinced that there was that amount of free choice in religious observance in the classical world, but broadly speaking he has a point. 

Furthermore, he theorises that certain personality types were attracted to certain deities based on the personality type of the worshipper. In some ways we see this play out in organised monotheistic religions as well. Different groups emphasise different teachings and different aspects of God’s personality within world religions, which is why we get schisms and sectarian disputes, even wars. And different groups attract different types of people – authoritarians are drawn to authoritarian structures, for example.

The four gods Charles identifies as work personality types are:

• Zeus – the leader with “personality” who wields power and expects people to follow orders and deliver results

• Apollo – the god of logic who wants everyone to follow the carefully delineated rules 

• Athena – the goddess of warriors and adventurers, with an emphasis on team-working and a fascination with innovation

• Dionysus – the god of excess, although Charles describes him as the “god of the free spirit”

There are probably aspects of all four gods that appeal to everyone. Zeus-type personalities place great store on selecting the right people to build a team of skilful experts who they can rely on. I have always informally done that, and have built up a network of people I know will help if I need it. The routine, security and predictability of Apollo-type personalities can also be comforting at times. Uncertainty isn’t conducive to long-term happiness or productivity. That’s one lesson we all learned from 2020! I also value being part of a high-functioning team sharing delivery of objectives, like the Athena-people. When I look back at the times when I have felt the most satisfied in work it is usually linked to being part of a smooth-running high-performing team. 

But the one god whose characteristics most resonated with me was Dionysus. Charles is very careful not to describe Dionysian rites which focused on drinking lots of wine, probably because that doesn’t sound like very professional behaviour. Instead he describes Dionysus-people as the ‘free spirits’, who tolerate working in organizations as long as the organization doesn’t get in their way. 

He sums this up, saying “they see the organization as serving them rather than the other way round”, which is something I have often thought with regards to bureaucracy. To borrow from Christianity for a moment, is the Sabbath made for man, or man made for the Sabbath? In other words, do the processes exist to help people do their jobs, or do people end up having to complete endless forms in order to feed the bureaucracy? 

A slightly more positive way of framing that is people choose to work in organizations so that they can do the job they love to do. Charles specifically uses doctors as an example of free spirits who tolerate the organization’s existence, because it’s hard to practice medicine outside a healthcare organization. (It’s not impossible, the extreme Dionysus-people doctors are probably working in a remote field clinic for an NGO somewhere.)

As someone who finds satisfaction in planning and delivering communications, the way Charles describes the Dionysus-people feels very natural. He identifies some key aspects of their approach to work that I recognised in myself.

“To a Dionysian, the quality of the work is paramount... They are craftsmen obsessed with their craft, uninterested in power or position as long as they have enough to guarantee them their freedom to work as they wish.” 

I really concur with the obsession bit. When I was tidying up the office I found a folder of samples of promotional material that I had kept for inspiration. I also found a ring-binder full of good copywriting techniques and tips that I had gathered from a number of different places. I did that on my own initiative because I wanted to improve as a writer.

I’m not sure about being uninterested in power or position, but if that means not being impressed by other people’s job titles, then, yes, I have a history of saying frank things to people much higher up the organizational structure than me. However, I definitely value autonomy in my work and in the past have struggled with very directive management. 

Charles goes on to say that Dionysus-people are team players “when they have to be” although they “prefer to be left alone to get on with work in their own way.” They are “loners” and as people they “seek respect, influence and freedom.” There’s an interesting distinction there between ‘influence’ and ‘power’, which reflects changes in terminology since the book was written. I think now ‘influence’ would be seen as ‘soft power’, with potentially more to be gained by influencing people who hold powerful positions than holding those positions oneself. 

I also wouldn’t describe myself as a loner, but I am an introvert and I do like time by myself. 

Charles concludes that organizations find Dionysus-people “uncomfortable” and that they don’t respond to the usual people-management tools like promotions or reprimands. He says, “They seem to have a loyalty to their craft or profession which overrides their commitment to the organization.” This makes me think of doctors who act as whistle-blowers to expose deficient care, or military personnel who leak documents to reveal cover-ups and war crimes. 

Organizations have changed massively in 30 years. When Charles wrote that book, email was not present in many organizations and the interconnected nature of modern-day working would have been regarded as futuristic fiction. But as I said, people are still people, and personality types still impact heavily on the way individuals work in organizations. If the gods of ancient Greece are archetypes, which is certainly a valid way of interpreting those religious expression, then those archetypes probably still apply.