From Harleen Quinzel to Harley Quinn: science, symmetry and transformation

ABSTRACT

Harley Quinn has become an important and popular character in the DC Universe, especially for representations of women scientists in comics and the associated cinematic and TV adaptations. Understandably, much of the analysis of this character has tended to focus on her relationship with the Joker and the gender-based dimensions of this dynamic. However, to distill her identity to these dimensions would be unnecessarily, even unfairly, reductionist, and would narrow our understandings of a rich and complex character. By focussing on her identity as a scientist, this article offers a different analytical lens through which to understand Harley Quinn. Drawing primarily from Stjepan Šejić’s Harleen (2020), with supporting insights from appearances in other DC comics, we examine the ways in which her scientific training and aspirations shape her transformation from Harleen Quinzel to Harley Quinn. Specifically, we demonstrate how symmetry, as an orienting concept, is useful for analysing how scientific logics and practices inform and enable this transformation. In doing so, we hope to both enrich understandings of Harley Quinn and foreground science as a potentially useful broader lens through which to understand other significant themes and characters in the DC Universe.

KEYWORDS:

• Harley Quinn
• Harleen Quinzel
• science
• symmetry
• identity
• transformation

Introduction

Scientists populate the DC universe. Batman/Bruce Wayne, for example, is surrounded by a number of supporting scientist characters, such as Julia Pennyworth in Batman: Endgame (Snyder et al. 2015), who tests and analyzes blood samples for his fight against a Joker virus. But there are also scientists such as Francine Langstrom in Batman Detective Comics: The Wrath (Tynion et al. 2014), who swallows a Man-Bat serum that transforms her into a Batman-annoying She-Bat. Indeed, female protagonists themselves are in the spotlight in the DC science bestiary, such as the botanist Dr. Pamela Lillian Isley, PhD (aka Poison Ivy), Dr. Crystal Frost (aka Killer Frost) and, indeed, Dr. Harleen Quinzel (aka Harley Quinn).

Created by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, Harley Quinn first appeared in Batman: The Animated Series (#22, ‘Joker’s Favor’) in September 1992 and became a staple character as the Joker’s sidekick and love interest in film and comics. According to her origin story, introduced in Paul Dini’s and Bruce Timm’s 1994 story ‘Mad Love’ (from The Batman Adventures, Dini and Timm 1994), Harley Quinn – Dr. Harleen Quinzel – is a psychiatrist at Gotham City’s Arkham Asylum who falls obsessively in love with her ‘puddin’, the Joker, who was first her patient and eventually becomes her lover. Within the text, the ‘ebullient Miss Quinn’ is perceived as ‘one of those annoying pop psychologists, with her own line of self-help books and such’ (240)¹ before becoming involved with ‘hard-core psychotics’ whom Quinn finds exciting, challenging and glamorous (251). In their therapy sessions, the Joker immediately brings to light the ‘classic clown character’ in her name (Harlequin) and associates with her ‘the very spirit of fun and frivolity!’ (254). Eventually, Harley falls in love with the psychopathic clown and quits her job to pursue violent clown delights full-time. This is the beginning of her abusive relationship with the Joker, which has been intensely discussed in research in light of antifeminist possibilities of the submissive female, toxic gendered violence, and other gender discourses (see e.g. Coody 2020; Cruz and Stotlzfus-Brown 2019; Isaacs 2022; Roddy 2011).

The character’s intratextual origins vary, as in so many comic book biographies. In Birds of Prey: Harley Quinn (Conner et al. 2019), Dr. Quinzel’s clown life as Harley Quinn stems from a research-oriented desire not to stand out as a scientist among her subjects: 'I had to change my appearance if I was gonna get this ta work. The place was filled with colorful characters an’ if I was gonna succeed, I was gonna haveta become one a’ them' (Cruz and Stotlzfus-Brown 2019). In Harley Lives (2013) this is achieved by ‘a little make-up, some hair-styling, a new name, and [Harley] was IN. One of them. No barriers’ (Dini et al. 2015c, 182). In ‘Harley Quinn’ (Batman: Harley Quinn #1 (1999)), Dr. Quinzel focused on the Joker because she ‘was hoping to get research material for a book on the serial killer mystique’ and found ‘the Joker’s psyche disturbing. His dementia alarming. – And his charm irresistible!’ (Dini et al. 2015a, 10) No matter how varied the beginning, sooner or later she slips into a dubious relationship with the Joker. In The Clown at Midnight, Harley is aptly described as ‘damaged enough to love the Joker with a love so pure and unconditional, it has its own severe medical disorder classification in the psychiatric journals’ – but also as ‘cute like a Chihuahua pup with rabies, or a baby swinging an open razor’ (Morrison et al. 2014).

While Dr. Quinzel’s professional therapy sessions with the Joker are frequently mentioned in passing (see e.g. in the 2016 film Suicide Squad by David Ayer), her identity as a scientist is rarely the actual focus of Harley Quinn stories, and seldom explored in depth, which also applies to the scientist-clown relationship. Exceptions include the Batman: White Knight series (2017–2018, written and illustrated by Sean Murphy et al.), the series Batman: White Knight presents Harley Quinn (2020–2021, created by Sean Murphy et al.) and Joker/Harley: Criminal Sanity (by Garcia et al. 2022). The latter presents the Joker as a serial killer and Harley as a ‘Forensic Psychiatrist & Behaviour Analyst’ who ‘spent the last five years studying every case file, autopsy report, crime scene photo, and scrap of paper related to the Joker murders’. While the story features some of Harley’s thoughts on psychopaths and her professional notes, their mutual science-based influence remains vague. In contrast, the White Knight universe offers great insights into the science-clown dynamic, expressed in split personalities, double-meaning and duplicity. Here, psychologist Harley studies her boyfriend (as a case study) and publishes her work, which transforms them both: as a result of her scientific attention, magnifying his ‘condition’, he turns into the Joker, and she into a psycho-expert and crime analyst working with the police.

In many of these and other stories, Harley/Harleen is associated with or represented by doubles, twinning and duality. For example, in ‘Dr. Quinn’s Diagnosis’, Harley – in clown outfit, holding a clipboard – makes Batman take her ‘Psych Test’ (Dini et al. 2015c, 166), for a ‘psychiatric diagnosis, Dr. Quinn-style!’ (165). In other words, she, the Quinn-clown, doubles as Quinzel-psychiatrist, telling Batman: ‘It’s kind of hard to get into “character” here if you won’t play along … ’ – ‘I’m here as Dr. Quinn, medicine woman!’ (167) and 'vigilante therapist!' (166). In Harley Lives, this twinning is directly addressed, when Harley talks to Harleen – ‘Stop trying to psychoanalyze me and get back in your box’ (Dini et al. 2015b, 195) – and reflects on the benefits of having a rational double: ‘I don’t cut Harleen out altogether. She’s got her uses. Master plans and all that. Fund-raising, electronic money-laundering, etc., etc.’ (196) Yet in no other story, it seems, is the identity of the scientist Dr. Harleen Quinzel turning into Harley Quinn explored in such depth as in Harleen by Stjepan Šejić (2020).

In Harleen, the narrative’s primary focus is tracing the transformation of the eponymous heroine from an early career scientist struggling to secure traction to investigate her theories about trauma, empathy and sociopathy, to ultimately becoming a sociopath herself and joining the Joker. As such, it provides a detailed account of her transformation, one containing rich insights into her background and motivations and how these changed through her complex, burgeoning relationship with the Joker. In this article, we closely analyse this transformation, and demonstrate the significance of science – its assumptions, logics and practices – to Dr. Harleen Quinzel’s identity.

In Harleen, as with some of the stories mentioned above, the Harleen-Harley transformation is conveyed through duality as a recurring thematic and visual trope to symbolise alter egos and split subjectivity. And yet, as with analyses of her character more generally, this trope of duality has been overlooked with respect to the scientific dimensions of her identity. This article addresses this gap by building on existing approaches foregrounding duality as an analytical lens and extending these to science. Drawing upon analytical frameworks that highlight the symmetrical characteristics of science (Rosen 2008) to understand her transformation, we aim to demonstrate that they are inextricably linked. In the following close reading of Harleen, we weave together these perspectives, along with visual interpretations, to demonstrate how the science that she practiced, her relationship with the Joker, and her dramatic identity change can be analysed by considering various forms of symmetry. Our aim is to not only demonstrate that science, as practiced by Dr. Quinzel, can be understood as symmetrical, but also that the subversion of this scientific symmetry plays a critical role in instigating her transformation to Harley Quinn. Ultimately, these insights into the narrative(s) and meanings of science in the 'Harley universe' can help us better appreciate and understand the intangible cultural aspects of science, if not its cultural power, in our collective imagination.

Harleen: setting the scene

The 2020 comic book story Harleen is narrated in the past tense, recounting the events that led Dr. Harleen Quinzel to become Harley Quinn. It opens with Dr. Quinzel giving a scientific presentation. She is explaining her theory that ‘with a thorough comparative study of inmates of Arkham Asylum and Blackgate Prison, in partnership with the Gotham Police Department, we could develop a method for detecting stages of deteriorating empathy … This would enable us to … uh … ’ – ‘identify a sociopath in the making … ’ (Harleen, Book One). Her audience – fellow scientists, potential funders – remains sceptical, even dismissive. Dejected at their discouraging response, afterwards her friend (also a scientist) suggests that she should instead focus on more financially lucrative research, especially with respect to drug development. However, whilst despondent, she is not deterred. Instead, she remains committed to a purer form of science, one focussed on making fundamental discoveries about (human) nature.

To open Harleen with this scene is not a coincidence. In fact, it draws our attention to a critical, but under-examined, part of her identity: being a scientist (in her case, a psychiatrist). Walking home through the dark streets of Gotham after the scientific presentation, she has her first encounter with the Joker, right as he is in the middle of a fight with Batman. This initial meeting is traumatic, and long afterwards memories of this night pervade her waking hours, and invade her dreaming ones too. But when the Wayne Foundation offers Dr. Quinzel the funding to investigate her theory with the inmates of Arkham Asylum, including the Joker, these traumatic experiences ultimately do not discourage her from undertaking this research. It is because she is a scientist, motivated by a desire to legitimise this identity through making scientific discoveries, that she decides to have ongoing interactions with the Joker and thereby make her transformation to Harley Quinn possible.

Conceptualising science and symmetry

Science has been defined as the drive to explore new frontiers, to rebel against the status quo through seeing things in a different light, as stated in Jack Oliver’s Incomplete Guide to the Art of Discovery (Oliver 1991, 35, 37, 43), to name just a few definitional directions. In the larger-than-life fictional worlds of superheroes, supervillains – and vaude-villains like Harley Quinn – the ritualised interaction of familiar characters over time (see Klock 2013) functions as a testing ground for the understandings their creators and audiences have of (scientific) culture – ‘and what’s useful and interesting about [them] is that they provide bold metaphors for discussing ideas or reifying abstractions into narrative fiction’ (Wolk 2007, 92). Comics whose metaphorical representations of the world ‘can be mapped onto ours’ – and thus be more ‘meaningful in some ways than an accurate depiction of our image world’ (Wolk 2007, 134) – promise an escape into a more intense and exciting version of the world of science. In other words, and from a science communication perspective, representations of processes and procedures of science in pop culture – including comics – produce and present an image of science that does not always have much in common with everyday science (Kirby 2011, 117). Cultural meanings and images of science can emerge outside the framework of science altogether – and they can ‘explore and exploit the mirror images of science or scientists in the collective imagination’ (Hüppauf and Weingart 2007, 6). Comics are not a platform for scientific accuracy. Rather, they are a means of conveying a sense of scientific authenticity and serve as the content and setting of visually interesting and dramatic scenes that have a logical explanation or contain ‘scientific sincerity’ that may be related, but not reducible, to science as it is actually practiced (Kirby 2011, 68, 12, 17). In the medium of comics, science narratives have their own persuasive truths.

So how does the scientific narrative make sense within the framework of Harley Quinn folklore (to use a term coined by Geoff Klock (2013, 121))? Our analysis of Dr. Harleen Quinzel’s identity as a scientist, and how it contributes to her transformation to Harley Quinn, is informed by a conceptualisation of science as founded on logics of symmetry (Rosen 2008). There are, of course, many ways to conceptualise science; this is merely one. We choose this one in order to make a broader argument: if the representation and portrayal of Harley Quinn is often made through tropes around doubling, twins, splitting, and reflections, then science, as a core component of her identity, can also be understood and analysed through a similar trope (in this case, symmetry). In choosing this particular conceptualisation of science, we seek to build on and forge synergies with existing interpretative frames informed by duality and its associated manifestations, whilst also expanding these to understand under-examined dimensions of her identity.

One particularly interesting conceptualisation of symmetry was developed by theoretical physicist Joseph Rosen, who published the book Symmetry Rules: How Science and Nature Are Founded on Symmetry in 2008. He posits a fundamental argument about the nature of science – that science is ‘our attempt to understand rationally and objectively the reproducible and predictable aspects of nature’, and that relatedly, ‘we see nature through symmetry spectacles’ (Rosen 2008, 37). That is, our ability to comprehend nature through scientific inquiry – to discern patterns, to discover order – is inextricably bound to logics of symmetry. This argument contains certain ontological assumptions not only about nature, but also in how we – our human nature – have come to understand it.

Importantly, Rosen adopts a particular definition of symmetry. In his conceptualisation, ‘symmetry’ is understood as ‘immunity to a possible change’ (Rosen 2008, 4). To apply this definition to a well-known example, a butterfly is generally accepted as symmetrical along its vertical centre. Using Rosen’s definition, a butterfly can be understood as symmetrical because a mirror can be introduced around its centre (this is a possible change to how we see the butterfly) but its appearance to us will remain the same (this is the immunity to a possible change). Rosen argues that core tenets of scientific thinking are also founded on similar logics, three of which will be used to inform our analysis in the following sections: ‘Observer/Observed’, ‘System and Surroundings’, and ‘Initial state and Evolution’. However, in the next section, ‘Fight or Flight’, we focus on visual examples of symmetry to preface the subsequent conceptual analysis that follows. Throughout Harleen there are many striking examples of visual symmetry that could be examined and unpacked, but as our analysis revolves around science our selected examples reflect this particular interest.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is worth noting some caveats to Rosen’s theory, and the intent and sensibility in which we understand and apply it. Firstly, Rosen, as a theoretical physicist, is perhaps more invested in particular fields that lend themselves more readily to ‘objective’ study: physics, chemistry, mathematics. For example, with respect to the observer/observed dichotomy, he notes that scientists ‘must take extra care to ensure that their data are in fact objective and observer-independent. If that is not achievable, then they are not doing scientific research’ (Rosen 2008, 25). Fields like psychiatry may complicate these requirements. Psychiatry has been described as having a ‘family resemblance’ to more ‘prototypical sciences’ (Cooper 2014, 9) and as comprising a hybrid of approaches and logics drawing on both the natural and social sciences (de Leon 2013). However, we are not interested in forwarding an argument that psychiatry may or does subscribe to particular requirements about what science is and therefore can be analysed using Rosen’s conceptual framing in some objective sense. Instead, we are specifically interested in how Dr. Quinzel practices her scientific work in a subjective sense, in that she understands and performs science in a way that is amenable to the application of Rosen’s conceptualisation. What is important is that it is, to refer back to our earlier arguments about science protagonists in literary and cultural narratives (see above), ‘scientifically plausible’ that she understands and practices psychiatry in arguably similar ways to the ‘hard’ sciences (e.g. science as involving the gathering of evidence to support or refute a theory, that scientists can be objective observers etc.). This is what justifies our use of Rosen’s approach to thinking about science and symmetry in the context of the Harleen-Harley transformation.

Fight or flight

Harleen foreshadows the later transformation into Harley Quinn soon after Dr. Quinzel secures funding support from the Wayne Foundation to pursue her research. On her first day conducting research to test her theory, she is shown walking through the Arkham Asylum gates, buoyed with a sense of hope about the future. She is depicted looking up at the sky with a look of contentment on her face, as she optimistically notes that she now felt that she was on the path towards a ‘bright future’, one enabled by ‘walking towards the light’ (Harleen, Book One). Here, the ‘light’ can be interpreted as a reference to the Enlightenment and scientific reason. However, in the same image the shadow that is being cast by this light is the outline of Harley Quinn, a menacing double, wielding a mallet and a gun, that gestures ominously towards her future. And so it is ironic that by walking towards this light – that is, by being a scientist – she begins her descent into darkness and her shadow-y alter ego. After all, investigating her theory by conducting research at Arkham, especially with respect to repeated encounters with the Joker, is neither necessary nor inevitable. Instead, it was a choice.

A later scene provides another example of visual symmetry, where both Dr. Quinzel and the Joker are being photographed for their first day at Arkham. Here, there is a humorous symmetry, in that both are being provided instructions about smiling that seem to highlight their contrasting attitudes towards their respective ‘fresh start[s]’ (Harleen, Book One). Each is shown in close-up, with the Joker standing against a mugshot height chart with a cunningly calculating look on his face, whilst Dr. Quinzel is shown in the panel below standing against a blank wall with an enthusiastic, beaming expression. And yet, despite Dr. Quinzel’s sense that their meeting felt somehow ‘cosmic’, she could have chosen not to undertake scientific research at Arkham, and left her only encounter with the Joker at the start of Harleen. Or she could have chosen to abandon investigating her theory altogether. But she chooses neither of these possibilities. She instead becomes all-consumed with the theory, and in doing so begins to perform, and embody, it. When, during her scientific presentation at the start of the comic, Dr. Quinzel explains her theory about sociopaths in the making, she invokes the fight or flight response and asks her audience ‘But what if this mechanism is overused? And for extended periods of time?’ In a sense, by choosing to carry out her research at Arkham and with the Joker, she chooses to ‘fight’ for her scientific career instead of take ‘flight’ away from the fears and nightmares induced by her initial encounter with him. Over an extended period of time she eventually comes to answer and embody the questions she poses, ultimately transforming into Harley Quinn.

Observer/Observed

In the early stages of conducting her research at Arkham, Dr. Quinzel speaks to her patients one-on-one: Mr. Zsasz, Poison Ivy, Mad Hatter, amongst others. She needs to meet, speak to, and watch her patients in-person in order to begin gathering potential evidence to support her theory. These conversations and interviews demonstrate the first example of science and symmetry: the observer/observed dichotomy. This dichotomy is foundational in science – the ability to make objective, factual claims about the world rests on the ability of an ‘observer’ (i.e. scientist) to collect data about an ‘observed’ phenomenon and thereby obtain evidence to support or undermine existing theories and gesture towards the development of new ones. Importantly, this separation must remain intact in order to ensure that insights about the ‘observed’ can be derived without the biased influences and interventions of ‘observers’. In the language of Rosen’s symmetry, observers can be changed (i.e. possibility of a change) but nevertheless the phenomenon under consideration remains largely independent of these different observers (i.e. immunity to a possible change).

As mentioned above, in psychiatry the observer/observed perhaps cannot be realised in some definitive sense because there is always the possibility of two-way interaction between observer and observed. But participants in this dynamic can nevertheless still uphold and perform this dichotomy as if it were tenable. In psychiatry, this observer/observed relationship manifests as the doctor/patient relationship, and in Harleen, it is assumed that the doctors (the observers) can ask questions, take notes, record videos – in short, observe – their patients (the observed) in order to reveal core, fundamental insights about their histories, personalities and conditions. Before Dr. Quinzel became the Joker’s psychiatrist six others had come and gone. Given these failed efforts, it is assumed by Hugo Strange, Chief of Psychiatry at Arkham, that the Joker is simply immune to medical help. He, too, upholds the observer/observed dichotomy when he caustically remarks to Dr. Quinzel ‘What makes you think you’re so special that he would open up to you when far more seasoned psychiatrists have failed over and over again?’ (Harleen, Book Three) Nevertheless, Dr. Quinzel assumes that the observations obtained by her predecessors can still provide reliable insights; that is, the Joker has been stable over time and thus this past information is potentially useful. Therefore, she is confident that she can undertake research at Arkham in a relatively privileged position as scientific ‘observer’, collecting evidence that will hopefully lend support to her scientific theory.

However, as Dr Quinzel’s research progresses, the distinction between observer and observed begins to blur. Even their first meeting at Arkham begins to signal towards this later ambiguity. This first meeting involves a clear separation between Dr. Quinzel and the Joker, who is confined to a cell behind a glass wall. Such arrangements appear to establish a power imbalance embedded in the physical arrangements of their interactions, with Dr. Quinzel seemingly in control. And yet the visual framing of their conversation seems to suggest otherwise. In a series of panels depicting this initial meeting as doctor and patient (Harleen, Book One), there is a visual symmetry that gestures towards a balance that sets up the ambiguity of their relationship going forward. In one panel, the left side of Dr. Quinzel’s cautiously curious face is framed in a panel next to the right side of the Joker’s menacing and mischievous face. This symmetry indicates that it is not entirely clear who is in power, and there is a sense that the dynamic could readily be inverted. Furthermore, the expressions of each of their faces in these symmetrical panels gesture towards the power inversion that is to come: Dr. Quinzel’s earnest inquisitive expression when revealing her interest in ‘monster stories’ is ominously (im)balanced by the Joker’s knowing and sinister response ‘You’re in the right place.’ In order to collect evidence for her theory Dr. Quinzel is at the mercy and whims of the Joker’s testimonies and confessionals, and the Joker is seemingly aware of the power that comes with being the ‘observed’.

This awareness is further affirmed in a later scene, in which Dr. Quinzel is able to observe the Joker seemingly without his knowledge, although this is later revealed to not be the case. In a series of purple-tinged panels (Harleen, Book Two), Dr. Quinzel is shown thinking to herself as she watches the Joker seemingly asleep on his side with his back – scars clearly visible – turned toward her so that he is facing the wall. These observations are, as she admits, less about her research and more about trying to overcome, or perhaps just to ameliorate, her own fear of the Joker through observing him at his most unassuming; the Joker may terrorise her when she sleeps, but she is able to find moments of calming reassurance when he sleeps. She notes that ‘Nobody would find these visits in any of the paperwork’ – ‘These visits aren’t for the patient’s sake, after all.’ – ‘They’re for mine.’ What is revealing about this scene is that the observer/observed dichotomy, and its psychiatric doctor/patient parallel, becomes more blurred, transgressed and transposed. Here, Harleen positions herself as the ‘patient’, and it is only by playing the role of ‘observer’ that she can seek relief; this is a further ironic twist on an earlier comment by Hugo Strange that ‘Arkham is a place of healing’ (Harleen, Book One).

It is later revealed that the Joker was aware of being observed outside hours all along. Furthermore, at the end of Harleen, Batman is having a discussion with Alfred about a file that was found in the Joker’s cell, and he realises that the Joker was able to manipulate Harleen by reflecting – in a distorted, calculating way – the language of her own theory and research in their conversations. This means that he is able to fundamentally undermine the observer/observed dynamic and become an ‘observer’ on his own terms. In effect, he is able to run his own parallel experiment, testing his ability to control and manipulate Dr. Quinzel by leading her to believe that her observational abilities are special, that she can elicit and discover unique insights about his psychology and therefore her theory. Ironically, this instigates her own transformation – from the objective rationality of Harleen Quinzel, to the sociopathic irrationality of Harley Quinn.

Systems and surroundings

The blurring of the observer/observed dynamic is complemented by the second example of science and symmetry: changes to a quasi-isolated system and its surroundings. The ability to make changes to a specific system (a laboratory experiment, a computer model) is critical for scientific knowledge production – it allows the variables of interest with respect to a phenomenon under study to be isolated, identified and intervened in. Of course, this is not always strictly possible, and often only an approximation is possible for practical purposes (e.g. in field experiments). But what is important is the attempt to exert control over a particular context and the relevant variables, and to thereby comprehensively understand a system and how it works. In the language of Rosen’s symmetry, whilst changes can be made to the environment of a contained system in order to study them (i.e. the possibility of a change in order to observe the impact of a variable or factor) there are nevertheless other properties and aspects that need to remain the same (i.e. immunity to a possible change).

As mentioned previously, Harleen’s initial interactions with the Joker are founded on separation – the Joker is incarcerated in a cell, and a glass wall between them allows only verbal interaction. The arrangement is an attempt to set up a quasi-isolated system (i.e. an enclosed room complete with cameras) to control the environment and monitor the Joker’s behaviour. But in the case of psychiatry, exerting control is not necessarily, or even primarily, about physical space; more importantly, it revolves around control over mental or psychological space (that is, the mind). This dynamic is visually represented in another scene where Dr. Quinzel’s interactions with the Joker are mediated by glass (Harleen, Book One), pointing towards the fragility of this set-up and the difficulty of establishing controlled environments that prevent undesirable influences over (the observer’s) mind. In this panel, we return to Dr Quinzel’s initial meeting with the Joker at Arkham, speaking through the glass wall. However, even though Joker is not visible, we can see his shadow on the wall behind Dr. Quinzel. He is visibly larger, and his pose is confident, even domineering. Even if there is physical containment by glass, the Joker’s shadowy influence is always behind her, haunting her and her dreams despite being physically safe and separated behind glass. Dr. Quinzel herself reflects ‘I remember thinking, “This is fine, I can control this situation.”’ – ‘It was neither the first nor the last time I was wrong about that.’ Her initial confidence in being able to control the situation is eventually revealed to be illusory.

Quasi-isolated systems are not only fragile – they can be outright modified. As the relationship between Dr. Quinzel and the Joker transitions from scientific to sexual, the quasi-isolated system that structured their initial interactions is gradually dismantled. She soon requests to be in an interrogation room with the Joker and that the security cameras be turned off, on the grounds that it would promote trust and progress her research. With these new environmental conditions secured, she is then able to release the Joker from his restraints. But what started out as research becomes romance. In one scene (Harleen, Book Three), we can see Dr. Quinzel and the Joker in the interrogation room, relaxed with the knowledge that the cameras are off. The Joker is sitting on a chair in a straitjacket, with Dr. Quinzel on his lap; over several panels, they begin kissing, undressing, and exchanging science-related quips. Ironically, it is only when she is in the same room and unbinds the Joker’s shackles – ‘expanding my methodology’ – does she think she can obtain new insights. She feels she needs to cede control and increase risk in order to make significant progress, with respect to both understanding the Joker and his psychology but also relenting to her increasing hopes of emotional closeness to him. But this ultimately proves not only mistaken but also dangerous. In seeking to take risks and sacrifice control in order to learn more about the Joker and become closer to him, Dr. Quinzel also compromises her own identity. Repeated encounters in this interrogation room soon become more sexual than scientific, even if the veneer of science is retained through phrases like ‘expanding my methodology’ and ‘Doctor’s orders’. As such, Dr. Quinzel partially succeeds in lowering the Joker’s inhibitions, but only by lowering her own – first and foremost, through shedding her scientific identity. At this stage, her transformation from Harleen Quinzel to Harley Quinzel is well and truly underway.

Initial state and evolution (or, fight and flight)

Dr. Quinzel’s relationship with the Joker becomes increasingly intense, and the story builds to its climax with Harvey Dent’s break-in at Arkham asylum; his own transformation from Harvey Dent to Two Face leads him to snap and decide that the only way to force Gotham’s politicians to take a harsher stance against its super-criminals is to release them onto the city. In the chaos that ensues, there is a final fight and flight, one which ironically affirms Dr. Quinzel’s embodiment of the ‘fight or flight’ dimension of her scientific theory previously discussed that ultimately leads to her transformation into Harley Quinn. Here, the third tenet of science and symmetry becomes relevant: establishing an initial state and following its evolution. As mentioned earlier, Rosen upholds a view of nature founded on pattern, order and predictability. In the language of Rosen’s symmetry, whilst multiple changes to the state of a system under study are possible (i.e. possibility of a change) there are nevertheless laws that mean that the system change is the same regardless of this initial state (i.e. immunity to a possible change). In other words, it is possible to choose when to study a phenomenon, but often this leads to the discovery of a pattern or trajectory (‘law’) that leads to the same ultimate outcome.

Here, we can return to Dr. Quinzel’s theory. It revolves around an initial state (ability to feel empathy) and then a ‘snap’ after ongoing and sustained trauma, eventually leading to sociopathy. This ‘initial state’ may not be the same for all individuals, as there will be differences in the extent to which, and how, empathy is felt and expressed. Nor will the ‘trauma’ be the same for all individuals. But there is a clearly defined ending: sociopathy. Her theory is assumed to apply to anyone who experiences sustained trauma and eventually loses empathy, and as such there is a law-like quality to its logic.

The sequences of panels showing the climactic showdown at the end of Harleen depict, in Dr. Quinzel’s case, this defined ending – her transformation into Harley Quinn. Her initial meeting with the Joker after her scientific presentation was the initial trauma, and instead of trying to grapple with this trauma she exposed her increasingly fragile psyche to the Joker and his mind games again and again, only exacerbating it. This climax begins with Dr. Quinzel arriving at Arkham to see the chaos and madness unleashed by Harvey Dent’s attack; once inside, she frantically tries to find the Joker. There, she meets an Arkham security guard who is convinced that the attack was Joker’s doing, not Harvey Dent’s, and threatens to shoot him. She comes to the Joker’s defence by murdering the security guard. But instead of shock or horror, she sees ‘something absurd, something funny’ and she laughs, slumped against a wall with the now slain security guard lying in front of her. And it is in this moment of diabolical laughter that it becomes clear that she has completely lost her ability to feel empathy. Her transformation at Arkham – from the enthusiastic smile while being photographed on her first day Arkham to maniacal laughter on her last – is complete. She writes the name of her new identity – Harley – in blood on the wall, and then takes flight with the Joker for another ‘fresh start’.

In tracing the Harleen-Harley transformation through an emphasis on her identity as a scientist, we have offered a new layer through which to appreciate this seminal character in the DC Universe – a character who is much more than a 'demented therapist who thinks she’s in love with the Joker' (Batman in Dini et al. 2015c, 24) and who, although ‘kinda’ looking like a marionette, is more than Joker’s puppet (Dini et al. 2015a, 169).

“>gasp!< – scientific reasoning!” – Conclusion

In this article, we have developed and applied a novel analytical lens through which to account for the specific role of science in Harleen Quinzel’s transformation into Harley Quinn: symmetry. By considering core scientific components like the observer/observed dynamic, control over systems and environments, and predictable change, we can begin to appreciate that Harleen Quinzel’s identity as a scientist was not merely incidental to her becoming Harley Quinn, but in fact fundamental. It is because she is a scientist, motivated by the prospect of scientific discovery, that she continues to engage with the Joker, even if not in the interests of her mental health. Of course, her identity as a scientist cannot explain all of the decisions and dimensions in her burgeoning relationship with the Joker. But it is one critical component, one that has been so far overlooked and under-analysed. Here, our analysis of images of science is less about discerning accurate representations of reality, and more about ‘their functionality for resolving a problem, filling gaps in our knowledge, or facilitating knowledge building or transfer’ (Pauwels 2006, viii). In his explanation of science and symmetry, Rosen notes that ‘We see nature through symmetry spectacles’ (Rosen 2008, 37). In Harleen, ‘symmetry spectacles’, brought about by Harleen Quinzel’s psychiatric encounters with the Joker at Arkham, end up revealing a side to her nature that she ultimately embraces and indulges in.

On the other side of the coin, our symmetry-informed analysis of Dr. Quinzel’s transformation also sheds light on science more generally. Rosen’s theory looks inward on science, in that it describes the symmetries of internal logic that govern scientific epistemology. This symmetrical approach depends on, and entrenches, dichotomies and boundaries. However, our application of it to Harleen unsettles these boundaries, and indicates that practices and representations of science are more complicated than the scientific ideals of Rosen’s theory. Science is personal, emotional, social. As such, our analysis looks outward to the factors that influence science in significant, often constitutive, ways, and in particular to how science is co-produced with the social and the emotional. A co-productionist lens emphasises that ‘the ways in which we know and represent the world (both nature and society) are inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it’ (Jasanoff 2004, 2). This is evident in Dr. Quinzel’s unabiding idealism about her work. In a meeting with Hugo Strange he pejoratively dismisses her theory as idealistic, and she reflects ‘I wanted to help’, but concedes that ultimately ‘It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are.’ For Dr. Quinzel, science was never merely about being an objective observer of the world, as Rosen’s vision emphasises. Instead, her science was a deliberate choice about, to paraphrase Jasanoff, how to live and intervene in the world – to make Gotham a better place. We would argue that hers is not a unique case, either – within Harleen, science is closely intertwined with personal ambitions, drug companies, and concerns about widespread legal ramifications, to name a few. Science is intimately woven with the personal, the ideological and the social, within the DC Universe and beyond it.

Beyond Harleen, we hope to encourage others to use a science (and symmetry)-based approach to understanding Harleen Quinzel/Harley Quinn in the many other versions of her story, and in so doing contribute to building a richer and more nuanced account of her character. Harley’s humour and circus symbolism complicate her science facets and deserve more attention, for example when she, in the role of the ‘vigilante therapist’ (see our introduction), tells Batman: ‘Clowns are the only folks who see the world for what it really is – a joke’ and adds, ‘It’s not my fault if people can’t handle some comedy’ (‘Dr. Quinn’s Diagnosis’ in Dini et al. 2015c, 170). Future research can explore how her clown identity contributes to the concept of symmetry in other ways.

Furthermore, the approach outlined here can also illuminate other doubled and troubled science characters, such as Victor Fries/Mr Freeze. In addition it can be useful to better understand Harvey Dent/Two Face, especially in stories explicitly revolving around his duality-induced self-dissolution (see e.g. ‘Prelude to the Joker War: Fearful Symmetry’ in Batman: Detective Comics 5: The Joker War Tomasi et al. 2021). To elaborate on a potential example, reflections on symmetry can also help understand Poison Ivy, for example in the 2021 story Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy. At the end of this comic book, Poison Ivy is confronted with a second version of herself: ‘a fragment of the larger whole. A cutting, if you will’ (Houser et al. 2021). Like the Harley/Harleen split character, the doubling of Poison Ivy goes back to the machinations of one man, a scientist (Lex Luthor). Interestingly, it is Harley who is unable to detect the doubling as Ivy (a scientist herself) points out: ‘You were supposed to know that something was wrong! That she wasn’t really me! – But you were too busy telling yourself you were a hero. Dragging my shadow into your make-believe’ (Houser, Melo et al. Houser et al. 2021). If comics, as Scott McCloud famously wrote, ‘offer an invaluable window through which we can view our world’ (McCloud 2000, 19), if they reflect (on) political realities, as we know from Geoff Klock (2013), and if audiences relate comic book texts to their everyday lived experiences, as Tyler Welsh (2023) has most recently shown, how exactly do mirroring, symmetry and make-believe come together to create identities and meanings of science?

Finally, Arkham is just one place, Harleen Quinzel is just one character, and symmetry is just one trope. To refer back to, and expand upon, the opening line of our article, scientists populate the DC Universe, Gotham is teeming with scientific activity, and science can be understood in myriad ways. As such, we see this article as part of a broader interpretative project (c.f. Jürgens, Tscharke, and Brocks 2022) that would draw more explicit attention to the role of science in shaping the characters and narratives in the DC Universe. To only briefly gesture towards how potentially productive this line of inquiry could be, we need only mention that Batman himself relies heavily on technoscientific skill and prowess, and has variously been represented as demonstrating knowledge in engineering, forensic science, biochemistry, and virology, to name a few. Furthermore, there is a whole untapped rhizome of scientific undergrowth throughout the DC Universe – references to scientific theories, mentions of technical devices – that is not merely isolated or incidental but instead comprises a neglected network of ideas and imagery that warrants more considered scrutiny.

Our article showed that Arkham is not only a place of make-believe and, indeed, madness, but also science and science-induced transformation. This is not the type of transformation, we hasten to add, that is explored in the 2016 story Superman: Emperor Joker, in which Arkham appears in the form of a science spaceship – ‘The U.F.O. of irrationality!’ – where Joker’s scientific team diagnoses others with ‘>Gasp!< – scientific reasoning!’ (Loeb et al. 2016). Instead, it is an analytical one. We conceptually re-framed Arkham as a site in which science plays a key role in power dynamics and personal transformations, focussing on Harleen Quinzel as one character whose fortunes and fate are intimately intertwined with scientific ambitions. We used symmetry as a lens in which to make sense of the scientific dimensions of her character, in part to counterbalance an ongoing emphasis on the gendered dimensions of her character as the primary, if not only, significant part of her identity. And ultimately, we hope that this article has demonstrated not only the critical role of examining science for understanding Harley Quinn, but also the potential for expanding this analytical gaze to understanding a broader range of characters, places and themes in the DC Universe.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two very engaged anonymous reviewers for their insightful and incisive feedback. We would also like to thank the reviewer who provided cleaner images of the scenes analyzed in the article. Although we were not able to include them, we appreciate the effort nonetheless.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. All emphasis in this and the following quotes is taken from the original texts which often do not have page numbers. The authors are fully aware that it is insufficient to reference the authorship of comics with only one or two names as is common in academic writing, as each comic is the result of the talent and hard work of many people. Space does not allow us to include all writers and artists – colourists, letterers, cover-artists, co-authors and many more. Further information about the comic book artists referred to in this paper can be found at www.comics.org.