Super Mario and the Mirror of Reality

Exploring Personal Identity, Individualism and the Psychology of Class

Relations through the World of Super Mario

 Introduction

A picture of an essay has recently been making the rounds on the internet with the

title ‘Mario the idea vs. Mario the man’. A google search revealed, perhaps unsurprisingly,

but somewhat to my disappointment, that the essay was written and reviewed by comedian

Phil Jamesson (2022). However, the text actually touches on some interesting subjects. For

example it briefly explores the similarities between Mario’s ability to buy life with coins, so

that death becomes a fine that can be paid for, and the ability of the rich in our world to view

legal transgressions in a similar light. The last sentence that we are able to read also describes

Mario as ‘simply a one percenter’ instead of the ‘hero’ we tend to take him for, something I

intend to explore in this essay.

I had started writing this piece as a joke, initially intending to say something dumb

and maybe even funny about the need to reflect upon the value of the life of Goombas in the

world of Super Mario. As you may have seen the size of this file, this is now officially an out

of hand joke. I cannot say that I didn’t expect this to happen and I cannot say that I’m sorry.

To briefly return to the essay that inspired me, I think that stomping turties is of much greater

utility to Mario than the stomping of most Goombas he encounters. For example, Koopa

shells can be used to break walls that Mario otherwise cannot get past, while Goomba

stomping appears to be, prima facie, a completely arbitrary endeavour. Among many other

nonsensical things, this essay will argue why one may consider stomping Goombas to serve a

purpose in a way that resembles the class dynamics of our own world.

Finally, I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no formal or even informal

training in philosophy. Being a psychology student, I am well aware that I am writing

joke-philosophy while coming from a field that has produced many people with bad

philosophical takes, and that I am therefore on thin ice. As I have stated, I am not sorry, but

will ask the forgiveness of everyone who considers themselves to be a philosopher, or is

related to any other field of which I am inevitably going to butcher the insights. I have

managed to convince myself that it is alright for me to write this anyway, given that I do so

under the guise of irony. Anything sensible the reader may find is this piece should be

assumed to be the product of pure coincidence. I would also recommend that you read this in

the vicinity of your preferred alcoholic beverage, or some other sedative substance.

Potentially cringey to very cringey tropes, such as name-dropping, slapping concept labels

where they probably don’t belong, and even the ‘provocative title, explanatory subtitle’ shtick

may cause severe damage to an unprotected nervous system.

 Super Mario and the Mirror of Reality

Can we, with any useful degree of certainty, infer what Mario’s psychology is like by

abstracting from his actions and our understanding of the general principles of human

behaviour? Here, the further question arises of whether the ‘essence’ of a person, their drives

and psyche, can be inferred at all by the aforementioned methods. Sartre, in Being and

Nothingness, seems to express that any uncovered ‘essence’ of a person, as we try to reach it

via this method is more likely to be the product of our forcing the world to fit our hypotheses,

than a reflection of the reality of the person we attempt to describe (Sartre, 1992). He

discusses that Flaubert’s biographer, trying to determine from Flaubert’s actions what his

psyche must have been like, is trying to infer ‘abstract’ desires from the ‘concrete’ behaviour

that flows from the coming together of such abstract desires. According to Sarte, through

such analysis “we have understood nothing; we have seen a succession of accidental

happenings, of desire springing forth fully armed, one from the other, with no possibility for

us to grasp their genesis.”

With living persons, of course, we might always resort to the option of simply asking

them to reflect on what they think drives their actions. Granted that they themselves know

how to accurately interpret and describe their subjective experience, and are willing to do so

truthfully, can we not learn something interesting after all?

This however gives rise to more questions. Can we realistically treat Mario as

‘human’, or at least as an entity that has motives and drives that reflect our own? Second, is

there any way of communication that would allow us to gain insight into Mario’s psyche?

The boring answer to these questions is probably no: we can’t and there isn’t any such way. If

a ‘true’ personality exists for Mario, such as through the determination of canonical vs.

non-canonical material, then it is, ironically, precisely a personality that embodies the sort of

preconceived ‘essence’, externally forced upon a subject, that Sartre denounces. It would be
more a demonstration of the human art of projection, rather than a true understanding of

another entity. If an interactive Mario entity would be brought into existence so that we could

converse with him, I can only imagine it being in the form of an AI chatbot, such as Replika

(Replika, n.d.). Mario’s behaviour would likely be determined by whoever programmed it,

either setting fixed reactions or setting boundaries to its behaviour if machine learning1 were

to be built into the design, all this is likely to be in accord with the preconceived canonical

notion of Mario’s essence, again reducing him to a set of immutable characteristics. That is

the boring answer. But the purpose of this essay is not to be boring or even correct. Its

purpose is to be wrong in interesting ways.

It is important that we also consider that Mario's 'canon' might matter fairly little to us

as we engage with him and the world he inhabits. In the actual games, perhaps the only way

Mario has any actions that, ignoring their scripted nature, can be ascribed to him are in the

cutscenes that are mostly limited to the beginning and end of the game. In fact, most of

Mario's actions throughout the adventure are as our avatar, him being only limited by the

rules of how he interacts with things in the world and how things in the world interact with

each other in much the same way that we ourselves are limited by laws of physics. Don't

Mario's actions then reflect in some way our own desires and thoughts? Does 'he' not tell us

something about our own inner workings and our assumptions about the world? As noted by

Slavoj Žižek in his book Violence (2009), it is often precisely our conviction that we must

focus on the concrete actions that make up reality, that prevents us from truly understanding

the way in which abstract dynamics are ‘real’. Exploring the world of Super Mario via the

1
Machine learning of course would do away with any notion of essence defining our ‘Mario’. However, we
would likely intuitively reject such a ‘Mario’ as being not ‘true to form’. He is imperfect, incomplete, precisely
because he would lack essence. Contrast this to the way we might think of a non-fictional person. You could say
that a friend who is being manipulated into doing something that seems ridiculous for them to do, that they were
‘not really being themselves’. This reveals an interesting problem wherein we, on the one hand may contrast our
friend in opposition to a fictional character by pointing to the fact that he is not predetermined by some author,
while on the other referring to his actions as being somehow ‘out of character’. A word choice that seems to
heavily imply an author. If we then say ‘But is he not the author of his own personality? Does he not determine
at any moment what his character is, thus becoming non-essential again?’, what ‘character’ are we then referring
to when we say that our friend has broken it?
reflection ours has on it and the reflection it has on ours may yet be a valuable endeavour.

Even if the concepts invoked are to some degree our own fabrications, they may very well

still be ‘real’.

The world of super Mario sets us up with a purpose in much the same way that ours

does not. Although we can, of course, decide only to play the first level over and over, we are

ultimately invited to view our actions as being accordant or discordant with a certain

teleology. So long as we don't rescue the princess and thereby save the kingdom, the story is

unfinished. As soon as the story ends, however, so does our ability to explore the world any

further. There is no future for us beyond the completion of our purpose.

Let us take a moment to reflect upon what Mario’s purpose really is; what is really

being saved. Mario seems to be friends with Peach, visiting her birthday and such, but he

may be doing so out of politeness. Would we not hesitate to refuse an invitation to a

princess's birthday? The fact that Peach is a head of state, a monarch to be precise, must not

be understated. With Peach the political status quo is also threatened2. Mario thus also faces a

choice between the monarchy of the gentle kind that princes peach represents (with cake,

flowers, vibrant colours and other such signifiers) and the brutal monarchy of Bowser

(communicated to us by the presence of bones, lava, spikey bits and gloomy colour palette in

his castle). Yet the game never asks us to question the validity of this dichotomy. In fact it not

only refrains from asking the question, but if we ask ourselves this question the world of

Super Mario gives us little in the way of bringing this theory into the world through our

actions. This may well be read as a reflection of the Capitalist Realism that, according to

Mark Fisher (2009), characterises many people’s world view. According to Fisher, the fact

2
It is also worth noting that Mario has to rescue Peach again and again, that is, in nearly each separate game. We
could consider that each game is simply its own contained universe, but it would be more interesting to view
Mario’s struggle to free Peach as recurring over time, like the natural instability of a system. In the same way
the efforts of the working class are used to not only maintain the status quo, but also to bail it out when on the
verge of collapse. One such instance that is likely still in most people’s memory is the 2008 financial crisis.
that so many have internalised Margaret Thatcher’s slogan ‘There is no alternative.’ has led

us to not even consider the possibility of a viable alternative to capitalism.

At any rate; what’s certain is that the princess's life is at stake. An egoïstic reason, if

we assume that there is a friendship between Mario and Peach, is a possibility of course. But

couldn’t it also be that Mario has simply internalised an arbitrary value system?

Let us return to the topics discussed in Jamesson’s ‘Mario the Idea vs Mario the Man’

(2022). Specifically, to the enemies encountered during our adventure. But rather than focus

on Koopa Troopa (referred to by Jamesson as turtie, turts or simply turtles), let us start with

what is to the best of my knowledge the first enemy we encounter in any Mario game:

Goomba. Interestingly the Goombas are somewhat of a loose canon, that is, their abilities and

behaviour seems to vary quite a lot between games. In Super Mario RPG for example, not all

Goombas are allied with Bowser. Some live in Goomba Village where they can be spoken to,

and are shown to live in familial relationships (Goomba, 2022). However, the most

recognised portrayal of Goombas is likely that from the Super Mario Bros series. In these

games, most of the Goombas we encounter are allied with Bowser and seem to invite us to

not consider their value as beings in various ways. For example, their behaviour in what

would be combat scenarios is something we can hardly call sentient at all. Goombas will

walk at a steady pace, only turning around if they bump into a wall and will walk into

bottomless pits if no wall is present to prevent them from doing so. They do not even break

their pattern when coming into contact with Mario, suggesting they are either incapable of

putting up more of a ‘fight’ or are unwilling to do so.

‘Fighting’ Goombas, then, is less an act of retaliation and more of a preventative

tactic. Should the player be off guard or slip up later, it is better if any Goombas are cleared

out of the way so that they don’t accidentally walk into the player, hurting them. Mario is, in
short, not so much threatened by the Goomba itself, but rather by his own recklessness, like

blaming a basketball that you yourself threw, for bouncing back and hitting you on the nose.

Perhaps a similar dynamic can be said to characterise some real world interactions that take

place. Is there not, despite our condition of Capitalist Realism, still this looming threat that

workers could someday say ‘enough’? Depending on where you look, news of union busting

done by Amazon and Starbucks and the like is in no short supply. Are large corporations not

in some sense ‘stomping Goombas’ to prevent them from later falling prey to their own

negligence?

The world of Super Mario Bros presents us with a purpose. It is one where we matter.

The wants and needs of others are of no concern to us, mostly because they have none. This

reminds me of a line of argument I have often heard when discussing socialist policies, such

as the encouragement of worker cooperatives as an alternative to hierarchical business

structures. Frequently, people will name a colleague and say ‘But they are already a deadbeat

now! Imagine if they had voting rights in the workplace!’ The mere thought of people who do

not have any goals that we consider to be worthwhile is enough to induce serious doubt about

granting them and, importantly, ourselves a guarantee of greater freedom. The word

‘guarantee’ needs emphasis here. Under the capitalist, or any other flexible hierarchical,

system of social relations there is never a guarantee, but always a possibility of escaping your

predicament and rising far above the others and, admittedly, far above what socialist relations

could guarantee you if we focus on material wealth and power.

Individualism under capitalism is then, like many other things sold to the masses,

made of rather cheap material. Drop it from too great a height and it breaks, revealing its

interior. Are we not encouraged to see ourselves as the protagonist of our lives? To think we

are indeed that inconvenienced millionaire between the ne'er-do-wells of the world? The
Mario between the Goombas? And much like Mario, that our goals should be pursued, while

disregarding others' wills or subordinating them to ours. Not to forget the fact that Mario’s

goals are themselves subordinated to, even directly in service of, that of a monarchical

system.

The fact that ‘People working minimum wage should become a stock trader/start a

business.’ is clearly absurd in its reluctance to acknowledge the systemic nature of capitalist

power relations, reveals that it isn’t necessarily advocates of socialism who are the ‘life

deniers’. That would resolve inequality by asking that ‘the neighbour’s goat die of pestilence

as well’, or as the joke often repeated by Žižek goes, would ask a fairy to take away one of

their eyes, since it promised that: ‘Whatever you wish for, I will give twice to your

neighbour.’

Is it not, at least in some sense, precisely advocates of capitalism who are life

denying? Who would say that some are simply better off being coerced into being productive,

so as to create surplus for future investment, as opposed to being free, but only reproducing,

and not expanding wealth? In some sense the joke about the fairy fits perfectly well with the

person who denounces the option of unionising or otherwise democratising their workplace in

order to prevent a lazy colleague from gaining something they don’t deserve, at least if we

consider that the necessary outcome is that most colleagues will still be subordinated

workers. Individualism exists under capitalism only in the sense that some individuals are

superior to others, whereas most are forced to sacrifice their time and being to create surplus

value. A sacrifice to a collectivistic greater good, raising the floor in some distant future. All

working so that there may be a new Iphone they can hopefully afford in a couple of years, or

so that energy sources are developed that may prevent climate disaster.

All this is further emphasised by the fact that Mario is himself a Plumber. A working

class profession if ever there was one. Interestingly, it is unsure that Mario’s efforts to rescue
will result in a reward, such as a position of power or other privilege that would secure his

ability to more freely express his will in the world. Perhaps we may consider that Mario is,

not despite, but because of his working class background, a perfect neoliberal subject. One

that internalises the hierarchical systems, so that he acts as if though he may win a

competition, regardless of whether or not we hold any hope of actually doing so.

In closing, the world of Super Mario, despite our limited epistemic access to it,

provides us with a mirror that allows us to reflect on our own world. In various ways Mario

can be said to embody capitalist ideology through his lack of solidarity with other living

beings and a more broad ideology as symbolised through the inability to question and reflect

upon the assumptions underlying the way his world is organised and disorganised. Even if we

see Mario as an extension of ourselves, the limitations of the game reflect to us our own

limitation in changing our world so long as we continue to view ourselves as atomised

protagonists in a world of Goombas. In order to achieve greater solidarity, and through that,

greater individual freedom, we must first acknowledge that others are worthy of equal moral

consideration. We must acknowledge the depth and richness of their subjective experience

and accept their potential for value creation even if they seem unwilling to express it

currently. Thus far, the world of Super Mario Bros has been characterised by movement to

the right in order to advance our story. Perhaps we could invite ourselves to look in other

directions also.
 References

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Zero Books.

Goomba. (2022, February 11). In Super Mario Wiki. https://www.mariowiki.com/Goomba

Jamesson, P. [@Philjamesson]. (2022, 18 februari). Mario the idea vs. Mario the man

[Tweet]. Twitter.

https://twitter.com/PhilJamesson/status/1494724904129859588?s=20&t=doNW3bSsJ

h7THQSMfrmz5Q

Replika. (n.d.). Replika. Replika.Ai. Retrieved March 9, 2022, from https://replika.ai/

Sartre, J. P. (1992). Being and Nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Amsterdam University

Press. http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/BeingAndNothingness_Sartre.pdf

Steup, M., & Neta, R. (2020). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy (Fall 2020). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/epistemology/

Žižek, S. (2009). Violence. Adfo Books.