![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesI watched attackfish have a conversation on Tumblr about good/evil dualism in the Star Wars franchise and was amused that her interlocutor was denying such dualism existed in the series. As Fish and I discussed afterward, it is sometimes hard for people who live in a dominant thought system like the Christian duality to recognize that a) they actually subscribe to a very specific and non-universal worldview, and b) this view colors how they view everything else, because that’s what a worldview does.
Attachment as used in Buddhism isn’t love; it’s identifying yourself with external things, like approval and validation, to the extent that you no longer have a self. It’s being codependent because you have no idea who you are outside of that relationship. It’s seeing no worth in yourself unless you’ve met certain milestones or achieved certain things. It’s the insidious cycle where you’ll still see no worth in yourself even if you’ve achieved these things. It’s the inability to see a self beyond these external things that the world teaches you are the only metrics that count. None of these is the same thing as slaughtering children, because you make a choice to do evil and not because you love your mom and your wife too much.
The identification of worldly attachment with Dark Side = evil and enlightenment with Light Side = good isn’t actually a Buddhist idea, it’s the barest semblance of Buddhist thought stuffed into an overriding framework of Christian dualist thought.
The same goes for the reference to Taoist concepts of wu wei (無爲／无为) and the yin/yang dynamic. Wu wei is about living without pretense and as part of nature without trying to police social conventions of goodness and propriety. Wu wei is how you follow the Way, the Tao, which is like water following its own course and inclination instead of being dammed or reversed.
Wu wei is in fact the exact opposite of the kind of good/evil divide and dramatic fall/redemption arcs you see in Star Wars, which are distinctly Christian in nature. Wu wei doesn’t mean “stand up to evil by being spiritual and mythical woooo,” it means “chill the hell out and stop striving to fight evil and promote good, because that’s a construction in your own mind and you’ll end up doing more harm that way.” Taoist thought doesn’t exist in the same framework of absolute good and evil like Christianity and Star Wars.
The yin and yang dynamic, also an idea associated with if not originating from Taoism, is similarly an extremely poor fit for the Dark and Light sides of the Force. Yin isn’t about being evil or committing war crimes; in fact, the kind of aggression and violence the Dark Side favors is yang ascendant, while the kind of quiet waiting and watching that Yoda counsels Luke to do is more of a yin approach. It just goes to show the power of basic cultural assumptions that people living in a Christian-derived civilization hear “Yin is darkness and shadows-” and go “Ooh, dark! Evil!”
To clarify, I have zero problems with Christian moral dualism or with Star Wars using that dualism. I do have a problem with people distorting concepts from my culture to make Star Wars seem “deep” and “philosophical.” Because Asian philosophy is extra-specially profound and spiritual, right? Eye roll.
Face it, Western Star Wars fans, your franchise isn’t based on Asian philosophy. It’s a quintessentially Euro-American and Christian story of the conflict between good and evil, and it’s perfectly enjoyable as such. There’s no need to bastardize concepts from other cultures trying to make Star Wars seem profound or spiritual. You don’t have to, because Christianity is–surprise!–also a spirituality and one associated with respected philosophical traditions. And Asian ideas are no more ornaments to make yourselves seem smart and hip than Asian people are.
(Originally posted on Tumblr. Yeah, I believe they have an app for that now.)
attackfish have a conversation on Tumblr about good/evil dualism in the Star Wars franchise and was amused that her interlocutor was denying such dualism existed in the series. As Fish and I discussed afterward, it is sometimes hard for people who live in a dominant thought system like the Christian duality to recognize that a) they actually subscribe to a very specific and non-universal worldview, and b) this view colors how they view everything else, because that’s what a worldview does.Fish has a good breakdown in the linked thread on why the Jewish concept of yetzer hara does not map to the Dark Side of the Force as portrayed in the franchise. She also referenced poorly understood Buddhist and Taoist concepts, and as she pointed out, ideas from Buddhism and Taoism used in Star Wars are heavily distorted by a strict moral dualism that is alien to these traditions.
The core of Buddhist thought is that the source of all suffering is attachment to earthly things. The fact that Lucas ran with this to “attachment leads to evil!” is a testament to the franchise’s deep, deep basis in Christian dualist thought. No, actually, people don’t turn into mass murderers because they love too much and not wisely. They commit mass murder because they made the wrong choice.Attachment as used in Buddhism isn’t love; it’s identifying yourself with external things, like approval and validation, to the extent that you no longer have a self. It’s being codependent because you have no idea who you are outside of that relationship. It’s seeing no worth in yourself unless you’ve met certain milestones or achieved certain things. It’s the insidious cycle where you’ll still see no worth in yourself even if you’ve achieved these things. It’s the inability to see a self beyond these external things that the world teaches you are the only metrics that count. None of these is the same thing as slaughtering children, because you make a choice to do evil and not because you love your mom and your wife too much.
The identification of worldly attachment with Dark Side = evil and enlightenment with Light Side = good isn’t actually a Buddhist idea, it’s the barest semblance of Buddhist thought stuffed into an overriding framework of Christian dualist thought.
The same goes for the reference to Taoist concepts of wu wei (無爲／无为) and the yin/yang dynamic. Wu wei is about living without pretense and as part of nature without trying to police social conventions of goodness and propriety. Wu wei is how you follow the Way, the Tao, which is like water following its own course and inclination instead of being dammed or reversed.
Wu wei is in fact the exact opposite of the kind of good/evil divide and dramatic fall/redemption arcs you see in Star Wars, which are distinctly Christian in nature. Wu wei doesn’t mean “stand up to evil by being spiritual and mythical woooo,” it means “chill the hell out and stop striving to fight evil and promote good, because that’s a construction in your own mind and you’ll end up doing more harm that way.” Taoist thought doesn’t exist in the same framework of absolute good and evil like Christianity and Star Wars.
The yin and yang dynamic, also an idea associated with if not originating from Taoism, is similarly an extremely poor fit for the Dark and Light sides of the Force. Yin isn’t about being evil or committing war crimes; in fact, the kind of aggression and violence the Dark Side favors is yang ascendant, while the kind of quiet waiting and watching that Yoda counsels Luke to do is more of a yin approach. It just goes to show the power of basic cultural assumptions that people living in a Christian-derived civilization hear “Yin is darkness and shadows-” and go “Ooh, dark! Evil!”
To clarify, I have zero problems with Christian moral dualism or with Star Wars using that dualism. I do have a problem with people distorting concepts from my culture to make Star Wars seem “deep” and “philosophical.” Because Asian philosophy is extra-specially profound and spiritual, right? Eye roll.
Face it, Western Star Wars fans, your franchise isn’t based on Asian philosophy. It’s a quintessentially Euro-American and Christian story of the conflict between good and evil, and it’s perfectly enjoyable as such. There’s no need to bastardize concepts from other cultures trying to make Star Wars seem profound or spiritual. You don’t have to, because Christianity is–surprise!–also a spirituality and one associated with respected philosophical traditions. And Asian ideas are no more ornaments to make yourselves seem smart and hip than Asian people are.
(Originally posted on Tumblr. Yeah, I believe they have an app for that now.)
no subject
Date: 2019-02-05 02:50 am (UTC)"I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil—everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in Star Wars." -George Lucas, Times Magazine, 2002
Overall, the movies duality of morality absolutely aligns far more with Western religious traditions and moral views, and is even designed to smack the audience across the face with it; Lucas was trying to make his message clear enough for the children's audience he was primarily aiming these movies at. That there is a good side and a bad side in life, and you have the ability to choose one or the other, but life is better when you are making good choices.
Simplistic, for sure, but deliberate on his part.
Oh, and just my two cents, and people are of course free to form their own opinions about the Jedi, but I will say where narrative intention is concerned, I think folks misrepresent it in terms of what the creator was actually TRYING to convey about the Jedi Order. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall hearing Lucas condemning them for their attitudes or philosophy; I haven't run into a quote from him that particularly aligns with the popular fandom sport of Jedi-bashing. Instead you have stuff like:
“No human can let go,” Lucas says of [the Yoda-Anakin scene]. “It’s very hard. Ultimately, we do let go because it’s inevitable; you do die and you do lose your loved ones. But while you’re alive, you can’t be obsessed with holding on. As Yoda says in this one, ‘You must learn to let go of everything you’re afraid to let go of.’ Because holding on is in the same category and the precursor to greed. And that’s what a Sith is. A Sith is somebody that is absolutely obsessed with gaining more and more power - but for what? Nothing, except that it becomes an obsession to get more.”
“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth,” he continues, “They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death.” (The Making of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith)
and in the Attack of the Clones commentary track:
"The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that [Anakin] can’t hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally and the reason for that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them."
Lucas doesn't seem to share or have intended to convey the views that have been popularly picked up by a lot of the fans that the Jedi's focus on promoting compassionate love while enforcing restrictions against possessive attachment is wrong/bad, or that their practice of adopting children young into their Order and training them in seclusion is inherently evil.
I know I'm just asking for the firehose of personal opinions on that one, just wanted to throw a quick flag down where the narrative intention piece was concerned.