Playing Devil’s Advocate: a look into the many (mis)representations of the Devil in our culture
The commodification of Satan serves to perpetuate religious abuse.
Despite popular belief, Satan is not an inherently Abrahamic — referring to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism — character. Religions as old as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have their own versions of the devil, a personification of evil and a harbinger of doom to all those who heed his world. But increasingly, the modern-day devil is seen not as a religious boogeyman or the remonstrance against immoral behaviour, but rather as another way to make money, whether that be through streaming a Netflix show or buying a Halloween costume.
A brief history of Satan
The term “Satan,” meaning adversary or accuser, is a Hebrew word, and the concept of an angel that tests humanity originates from the Torah. However, the majority of the modern representation of the Devil comes primarily from depictions in Christianity. A corruptive force that stands in opposition to God’s inherent purity and innocence, Satan was originally an angel who fell from grace because he thought he could challenge God’s power. Satan is associated with the sin of pride, as well as considered the first sinner. In the Bible, he is referred to as a liar and represented both as the snake of Eden and as a dragon.
Aside from these fundamental personality traits, there is not a lot of description about Satan in either Christianity or the other Abrahamic religions. The purpose of the devil in religion is to serve as a warning, a guide on what not to do. At its core, Satan is religion’s representation of the absolute worst version of what a person could become and, to depict that, Satan must be a figure that is malleable and transmutational. The devil could look like anything, behave like anyone, because every person has the potential to lose their way and be swayed into his hand.
And yet, when we think of the devil in pop culture, we have very strong views of what he looks like. A basic Google image search will show you a red horned man with a goatee and hooves, and no Halloween costume is complete without the horn headband, the tail, and the pitchfork. When you ask why such an almost-comical caricature exists, no single easy answer comes to mind.
There are references to Satan as a horned beast and a red dragon in the Bible, but the imagery could also be attributed to Pan and Hades from Greek mythology. Dante’s Inferno depicted the devil to have three heads, one of which was red with bat wings. In any case, the many iterations of Satan — some more monstrous and animalistic, others more humanoid and barbaric — have mutated over the years.
However, depictions of the devil didn’t shift to comical in nature until Satan began to feature as a character in children’s animations. A notable example would be the 1929 Disney short “Hell’s Bells”. “Hell’s Bells” was a huge cultural shift because not only did it set up Satan as a joke character, it marked the beginning of the devil’s commodification, informing further depictions such as the Devil in the Cuphead game and cartoon, and HIM from Powerpuff Girls. This marked the devil’s (second) fall from grace as he went from a terrible monster you needed to stay away from to a comical adversary for kids to laugh at as he failed and their cartoon protagonists triumphed. And so, the devil became a caricature for children and Halloween costumes, no longer feared but ridiculed.
The late 1900s and early 2000s saw the rise of a different interpretation of the devil, one that was much more sympathetic. TV shows such as Lucifer, Supernatural and Good Omens, and comics like the DC extended universe explore the devil in a more favourable light, depicting him as the victim of an unsympathetic God or angelic hierarchy.
There are two possible reasons for this. On one hand, by making the devil a favourable character, you reduce the severity of the behaviour he’s associated with. How evil can vices really be if Satan himself isn’t that bad of a guy? By reducing the sins of the devil, humanising the worst creature in existence, are we not finding a way to justify our own bad behaviour?
We must consider that thought experiments such as “could the devil be a good guy?” are the natural reaction and critique of a society traumatised by religious institutions and wishing to voice its discontent. There is no such thing as an evil religion, but institutions are just as capable of being corrupt as individuals.
Historically, religion has been used as the excuse to colonize and oppress people, the justification being that enlightened pilgrims are saving “savages” from the devil by leading them to the way of God. When a religion is forcefully inflicted in such a manner and at such a scale, when you are repeatedly called devilish for your culture, beliefs, and practices, would you not find sympathy for the devil? What God exists other than an unsympathetic one if he orders your destruction? And if God is unfair to you, perhaps he is unfair to the devil you find yourself compared to.
Either way, modern media has transformed the devil from a warning to a victim or a fool. And it begs the question, is this acceptable? Religion is a major aspect of many people’s lives. Is it alright to take an integral part of so many people’s religions and mould it to suit the needs of entertainment and corporations? No. The commodification of anything is manipulating people for capitalistic gain. Taking advantage of, or even going as far as to mock, a person’s religion for money, humour, or prestige is fundamentally disrespectful. But that doesn’t mean the exploration of Satan as a character with depth is wrong or disrespectful. In the end, it’s all about intent and context.
Religion impacts not only those who practise it but also all those who are exposed to it. And it is the right of any person to grapple with the things that impact them as they wish, assuming they are respectful with the material. No one is stopping you from seeing Satan as he was intended to be seen from the religious context, or as a unique and dynamic individual worth exploring the implications of, as long as both groups understand and respect the many different contexts the devil is a part of. Exploring the role of the devil in religion is a great way to critique religious institutions and the way they wield and use power, and I believe all institutions need to be critiqued regularly. But there is a difference between exploration and exploitation, and commodification falls solidly in the latter.
