Fantastic Four: First Steps, the newest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has all the action you’d expect, but also some interesting takeaways for civic engagement.
Even if you’re not a fan of comic book movies, stick with me, because the producers did a good job of modeling how a critical component of pluralism works. Specifically, how you can create common purpose among various, even opposing, stakeholders.
One scene in particular conveys pluralism’s importance in a free and diverse society like the United States. It also models a path for engagement that makes human dignity and respect foundational to interactions with others. That’s particularly important in a country of 330 million people with myriad, profound, and conflicting differences.
In the movie’s finale – mild spoiler alert! – Earth prepares to meet its end at the hands of the planet-eating villain Galactus. In this dark moment, the Fantastic Four are given an impossible choice to spare the Earth from annihilation. If two members of the heroic team – Reed Richards and Sue Storm – surrender their newborn child to Galactus, he will leave their planet in peace.
The reason for this bargain goes deeper into comic book lore than I’ll cover here, but it’s the terrible decision given to the newly minted parents: your planet or your child.
This moment of despair turns into an incredible example of pluralism that transforms a fear-driven mob into fellow citizens mobilized against a shared existential threat. Broadly speaking, pluralism is the state of citizens from different backgrounds and beliefs agreeing to coexist.
The George W. Bush Institute’s Pluralism Challenge series has shown how a shared mission or challenge among different people is an essential component of making pluralism work well. In the film, that takes on a very literal meaning.
As Galactus’ terrible proposition becomes public, calls for Richards and Storm to give up their baby intensify. Fear turns to rage as an angry crowd marches on the Fantastic Four’s headquarters, demanding the heroes sacrifice their son. Certainly, this gets into the tension that can exist between individual and communal rights. And we can empathize with the mob in this situation because of course we would want to live. Do the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” as Star Trek’s Mr. Spock suggested?
Storm short circuits this question, however, by doing something unexpected. Instead of relying on the Fantastic Four’s superpowers to overwhelm the mob, she peacefully walks outside the safety of her compound carrying her child. Standing in the center of the crowd, Storm introduces her infant son to them in person. In doing so, she forces the mob to invest in him as a human being and a fellow citizen, not a thing to be used as a bargaining chip. That connection suddenly makes their sacrificial demand more difficult.
“I will not sacrifice my child for this world, but I will not sacrifice this world for my child,” Storm declares. She makes clear her commitment to both the individual and saving the day for everyone. It’s this dual pledge to the individual and the community that flips the switch, turning the lawless mob into fellow citizens. From this point on, first the mob, and, soon after, the countries of the world put aside their differences and commit to devising a new strategy that doesn’t sacrifice an innocent life.
Obviously, this situation resolves way too neatly given the existential stakes. But it’s a comic book movie with limited time to wrap up the plot, so we can forgive them for glossing over those complexities.
But the scene should remind Americans that we have a duty to juggle our civic obligations with personal beliefs or interests. In practice, that means agreeing that fellow citizens can have different beliefs and opinions. It means respecting the central role that non-violent disagreement plays in American politics and culture.
Alternatively, there are moments where we have to put our differences aside to tackle common challenges that affect everyone’s lives. Usually (hopefully), that’s not a Galactus-level threat. Instead, it might be administering sanitation services or creating child literacy programs in our communities.
Yet it’s understandable to get discouraged when divisive headlines seem to dominate traditional and social media. Wouldn’t it be easier to disengage or limit interactions to our comfortable social circles?
Maybe, but research suggests that’s not what most Americans want. More in Common’s 2025 study, The Connection Opportunity, reveals five insights on the desire to build relationships across divides:
- Most Americans want to connect with others who are different – and are most interested in finding opportunities for cooperation.
- Americans, however, also say they lack ways to make meaningful connections.
- Americans are most worried about finding ways to connect across political divides compared to other areas.
- Two factors are the biggest predictors for a person’s willingness to engage with different groups – if their community encourages bridging divides, they’re more likely to seek engagement; and if they have high anxiety over awkward interactions with an opposing group, they’re less likely to seek engagement.
- Connections reinforce the desire for future connections. The more people connect, the more they want.
Make no mistake, pluralism requires consistent attention, and it times, persevering through uncomfortable conversations and situations. But it’s both worthwhile and desirable. Americans want to build relationships with people who are different from themselves. Doing so doesn’t mean compromising identities or deeply held beliefs, but it does mean approaching fellow citizens with grace.
And who knows? That ability to put aside differences – even if only temporarily – to rally behind a common mission or challenge might just save the world. And that’s fantastic!
