Religion and Ideology in the Star Wars Universe

In the Star Wars universe there seem to be two main political bodies: The Republic/Rebellion and the Empire.  There are also two main religious groups: The Jedi and the Sith.  Throughout the movie series and the extended universe, there is some sort of official connection between the Jedi and the Republic and between the Sith and the Empire.  The Jedi are recognized as serving some kind of advisory, diplomatic, and military role in the Republic.  The Sith play various authoritative roles in the Empire, with the chain of command going up to the top Sith, i.e. the Emperor.  I thought it might be interesting to explore the connections between these political and religious groups, and examine whether there were any necessary connections between the ideological and “theological” views held by the various groups.

First, let’s start with the religions.  Both the Jedi and Sith believe in the existence of the Force.  It’s not clear what exactly the Force is.  We can try to come to some general account be look at particular cases of the Force in action.  We see throughout the franchise people being able to telekinetically manipulate objects via the Force.  So, the Force is some part of reality that allows individual to act on physical objects at a distance.  This action usually amounts to moving stuff around, but can also include applying a certain amount of force to an object, as when Darth Vader strangles an Empire officer from some distance away.  So the Force allows individuals to act on physical objects at a distance.  How complex that action can be isn’t clear.  We see lots of scenes of people throwing rocks around.  Can people do more?  Can Yoda play the piano at a distance?

We also note that the Force is somehow able to sustain life after death.  We see in the movies the ghost of Obi Wan Kenobi conversing with Luke Skywalker.  As is conventional of most ghosts, ghosts like Obi Wan are incorporeal, but still physical entities.  While they don’t possess a physical body, and are thus probably intangible, they are still visible and audible.  If they were truly non-physical entities, then they wouldn’t be detectable by any sense. 

So far, what we seem to have is an entity of some sort that adds another layer to the physical universe.  It’s similar to the idea of Chi in ancient Chinese medicine.  Chi is supposed to be a kind of energy that flows through the body over and above the operation of other physiological systems, like the circulatory or the nervous system.  In the same way, the Force is a kind of energy that exists in the universe over and above the physical forces that I’m assuming are already in place, i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc. 

What’s particularly relevant is that there is a distinction between the “light side” and the “dark side” of the Force.  Again, it isn’t exactly clear what this distinction is supposed to amount to.  In the franchise, light and dark side seem to be value laden terms.  However, the Force itself seems to be a value-neutral entity.  Calling the Force itself “light” or “dark” seems similar to calling gravity “good” or “evil.”  So it seems that it’s not the Force itself that is light or dark, but rather the ends to which it is employed that is either light or dark. (Some think that the Force isn’t value neutral in that has the power to benefit or to corrupt, but I think that these effects are the result of amplification.  The Force further corrupts those who are corrupt to begin with.)  Roughly put, the light side of the Force is the Force that is used to further ends like creation, order, and harmony.  The dark side of the Force is the Force that is used to promote ends like self-aggrandizement, destruction, and subjugation. 

If the light and dark side of the Force are understood as the sorts of values that the Force is used to promote, then the Jedi and Sith Orders can be understood as a groups that have more or less the same metaphysical beliefs, but differ with respect to their moral outlooks.  The Jedi Order is probably most similar to Buddhism.  Here is the Jedi Code:

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

Compare this with the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism:

1.       The Truth of Dukkha is that all conditional phenomena and experiences are not ultimately satisfying;

2.       The Truth of the Origin of Dukkha is that craving for and clinging to what is pleasurable and aversion to what is not pleasurable result in becoming, rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath;

3.       The Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha is that putting an end to this craving and clinging also means that rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath can no longer arise;

4.       The Truth of the Path Of Liberation from Dukkha is that by following the Noble Eightfold Path—namely, behaving decently, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation—an end can be put to craving, to clinging, to becoming, to rebirth, to dissatisfaction, and to redeath.

We can see in both cases an emphasis against personal desires and emotions.  The idea in general seems to be that the Jedi Order adopts a moral view that de-emphasizes the self and instead promotes a sense of harmony and interconnectedness with all things.  In this case, what is moral is what promotes this harmony.

Let’s move on to the Sith Order.  While the Jedi Order might resemble Buddhism, the Sith Order seems to resemble most a sort of Social Darwinism.  Social Darwinism is a moral theory that makes normative claims out of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.  The theory of natural selection observes that the sorts of physical traits and behavior that persist from generation to generation among biological species are those that most increase the likelihood of a species’ survival and reproduction.  This is merely a descriptive claim.  It describes what we observe when we look out at the natural world.  Social Darwinism transforms this description into something normative.  What a species should do is cultivate those traits and behavior that increase the likelihood of its survival and reproduction.  The slogan “Might makes right” is often associated with Social Darwinism.  The strongest (or fittest) survive, and according to Social Darwinism, they should survive.

The theory of Social Darwinism fits in nicely with what we observe in the Sith Order.  Consider the Sith Code below:

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

A code like this comes as no surprise if we assume that the Sith adhere to a “Might makes right” principle.  

So, let me sum up what I’ve said about the Jedi and the Sith.  The Jedi, similar to Buddhists, preach a loss of the individual self and subsuming one’s self into the Force, i.e. being one with the Force.  The Sith, like Social Darwinists, preach an exaltation of the self and of individual survival.  They preach the use of the Force as a tool to gain power and control.

Okay, now that we've covered the religious groups, let's move on to the political ideologies found in the Star Wars universe.  The two main political bodies found in Star Wars are the Republic/Rebellion and the Empire.  These are more familiar and thus easier to describe.

The term "empire" describes a type of political body, whereas "republic" describes a form of governance.  An empire is a political body that results when one state assumes control of other states, usually either by war or by colonization (Think Roman, Mongol, or British empires).  This is opposed to a federation.  A federation is a political body where each member state has voluntary agreed to join the larger political body (Think United States, United Nations, or European Union).  I'm assuming that the Republic in Star Wars is a federation.

A republic is a form of governance.  In a republic, political decision are made collaboratively by individuals who serve as representatives of their constituencies.  This is how the U.S. government works, with congresspersons making decisions on behalf of the rest of the citizenry.  This contrasts with autocratic forms of government, where one person has absolute political power and thus makes all political decisions.  Examples include Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Kim Jung Un in North Korea, etc.   

So, the Empire is an autocratic empire, whereas the Republic is a republic federation.  That's fairly straightforward.  Now let's examine the relationship between the religion and politics of Star Wars.  We find that the Jedi are associated with the Republic, whereas the Sith are connected to the Empire.  As far as I know, the Jedi serve primarily in military, diplomatic, and advisory roles.   Within the Empire, it seems that Sith take on roles of political and military leadership.  Here's the main question.  Is there any necessary connection between the political ideology of one group and the theology of the other?  Do Jedi have to be Republic?  Do Sith have to be Empire? 

It might seem natural for the groups to align this way.  The Sith celebrate the will to power, and this seems to fit in nicely with a form of government in which an individual rises to the top of the political ladder by virtue of his or her expression of power.  Similarly, Jedi theology and Republic ideology seem suited for each other.  The Jedi preach the denial of individuality in favor of subsuming into a greater metaphysical whole.  This is very compatible with a political ideology where consensus trumps individual wishes. 

Even though it seems natural for the groups to be aligned in the way, it need not necessarily be the case.  We can imagine a world in which a Republic-like nation is aligned with a Sith-like group, and where something like an Empire is allied with Jedis.   For the latter, we can look at the history of Asia.  Asia is an area where the predominant religions are Buddhism and Hinduism.  I argued before that Jedi though is very similar to Buddhist thought (I would also argue that it is similar to Hindu thought in that Hinduism emphasizes the subsuming of the individual (atman) to a greater whole (brahman).)  However, the history of Asia shows that empires and autocratic forms of government were more or less the norm until the 20th century.

Finding real life examples of Republic style government aligned with Sith-like groups is more controversial.  However, it's not hard to imagine.  All we have to do is think of a hyper-capitalist nation, i.e. one where the market determines just about everything and there is little to no government intervention.  The government in this scenario still plays some political role.  Typically such minimal states are still in control of military and foreign policy decisions.  However, the de facto leaders of such a society would be those that wield economic power, and these individuals will likely be highly influential in political deliberations.  Some might argue that the United States is moving in this direction.

So, hopefully this little exercise helps us to understand the social and cultural backdrop of the Star Wars universe.  This helps to add a layer of moral complexity.  Since Sith and Empire are not necessarily connected, one group can be villified while the other not.  Likewise, one can morally approve of the Republic ideology while disapproving of Jedi theology.  This allows for a more complex weave of relationships within the Star Wars universe.

Freedom, Democracy, and Bad Faith

Most people in Western liberal societies think that democracy is a good thing, especially when compared to the alternatives.  People generally like to be self-determining, and democracy seems to be the governmental structure that is most conducive to these aims, as opposed to various forms of totalitarianism.

This is all well and good.  I'm a fan of democracy myself.  However, there seems to be a sense in which people take democracy for granted.  They just assume that it's a form of government that will run by itself and steer us toward the most optimal state of affairs.  It's similar to a laissez-faire perspective on the free market.

This attitude is mistaken.  Democracy is designed to execute the will of the people.  How well it achieves the best ends for society will depend on the moral and intellectual quality of the citizens participating in the system.

This is the part that many people take for granted.  They, either explicitly or implicitly, shirk their responsibilities as citizens.  Such responsibilities include more than just going out to vote and paying your taxes.  The responsibility of a good citizen also includes being the type of individual that is capable of making well informed and well reasoned judgments, and thus also includes the responsibility of training to become that type of individual.

Without this ability to think independently and to participate in rational discourse, democracy fails and becomes a more subtle form of totalitarianism.

In totalitarian forms of government, either one or a some group of individuals coerce the citizens to behave in some way.  Usually the level of coercion, and the extent of activities to which it is applied, is seen as way beyond acceptable.  People like to think that they have control over their own lives, and not being explicitly coerced into behaving a certain seems sufficient for having that control.

However, there are at least two ways for someone to not be in control of their lives.  There's the explicit, gun to your head type of coercion.  However, there is a sneakier to get someone to do what you want, and that's through various forms of psychological manipulation.

Someone who shirks their responsibility as a citizen and fails to think critically about political issues becomes more susceptible to various forms of psychological manipulation.  In being psychologically manipulated, they lose control over their lives and are no longer expressing their own will, but rather expressing the will of those doing the manipulating.

The sad thing is that those who being manipulated don't know that they are being manipulated.  They still believe that they are in complete control over their lives.  There's a term for this kind of phenomena from Jean Paul Sartre called "bad faith" (also translated as self deception).  Bad faith occurs when individuals fail to see what is actually true about themselves and instead act on false beliefs about themselves.

Members of democratic societies who fail to participate in rational discourse or deliberation act in bad faith.  The believe themselves to be free citizens, when they are likely to be subject to manipulation.  In a significant sense, they are no longer really free.

What is Feminism?

The word "feminism" is a lot like the word "ironic."  It's a word that a lot of people use, but don't quite fully understand.  The two words are similar in that there is some kind of gist or core idea that each word refers to that people typically grasp.  Something is ironic because it is unusual in some way.  Someone is a feminist because they advocate the rights of women in some way.  In both cases, it's the details that bring about confusion.

Being a feminist is not simply about being "pro-women."  This is too simplistic a notion of feminism.  Being a feminist also typically implies views beyond just positive attitudes towards women.  These views will often dictate what sorts of moral and political beliefs.

One important question related to feminism has to do with sex and gender.  Is there an objective difference between male and female?  Is there an objective difference between masculinity and femininity?

Does this question matter?  It seems like a similar question isn't really that relevant when we talk about racism and race relations.  Even if there are no objective differences between race, we can still talk about the rights of minority racial groups.  

The case with sex and gender seems to differ because there is a debate as to whether or not there is a perspective that is uniquely gendered.  Is there a feminine perspective on ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics?  Some would argue so.  This perspective can come into play when we discuss sexism.  Some people hold that the denial or belittling of this perspective can be considered a form of sexism.

So, it is true that feminism is a political movement advocating the rights of women, but it not entirely clear to what extent these rights encompass.  Some hold a more minimal view, advocating that women be given the same rights of opportunity that men have.  Others, hold a wider view, advocating furthermore that women's rights include the legitimization of their perspective.

I'm just writing this because it really bothers me how an ambiguous term like "feminism" is thrown around in debates everywhere you go.  This creates confusion and irrational dialogue.  That kind of stuff makes me sad.

Punishment and Proportionality

So I've been thinking a little bit about punishment.  It's weird how society pairs crimes with punishment.  This is something that I read about a while back when I read Foucault's Discipline and Punish.  I thought I'd revisit those themes and reflect on them a bit.

What exactly is punishment?  As a first pass, it's a type of action performed by a certain individual to a certain individual for a particular reason.  This much is obvious.  Let's break down these parts.

A particular reason:  Punishment occurs as a consequence of some broken rule.  

The punisher:  The person administering the punishment can be an individual or it can be an organization.  One necessary condition is that either the individual or organization plays some kind of recognized role of authority.

The punished:  It is assumed that the individual who is justly punished is the one who broke the rule.

The action:  The action itself is supposed to be harmful in some way to the punished individual.

What I wonder about is how the action lines up with the infraction.  Sometimes we notice a symmetry.  Some states still enforce a death penalty.  So, if an individual breaks the right kind of rules, usually involving one or more murders, then he is punished by being killed.  Kill someone, be killed.  Seems pretty symmetric.

However, most punishments administered by a society like the United States come in two forms: forfeiture of property or imprisonment.  These sorts of punishments don't seem related at all to the corresponding crimes.  For instance, the punishment for distributing a high enough volume of illegal narcotics is some amount of imprisonment.  You sell something you're not supposed to, you get locked up in a building for a while.  Why does one follow the other?

Foucault has his own theory, which I don't fully understand.  It has to do with the connection between the criminal class and social uprising.  The idea is that the criminal class can potentially cite revolution and social upheaval, so social authorities (inadvertently?) keep them contained so as to maintain the status quo.

There might be something to that theory.  I want to explore other possibilities.  One question that we can draw from Foucault's theory is this:  What exactly is punishment for?  What is it supposed to accomplish?

When you take an intro to political philosophy class.  You learn that there are three different views on what punishment is for.

1.  Deterrence
This view states that punishment exists to provide a negative incentive against individuals committing crimes in the future.  So, punishment is a preventative act, focusing on future cases.

2. Retribution
This view rests on the intuition that there is something like justice in society.  The justice understood here is the kind that has to do with a balance between crime and punishment.  The basic idea is that if you do something bad to someone, something bad should happen to you, as a way to balance the scales of justice.  Notice that this view doesn't take into consideration what happens in the future.  It's just about satisfying a certain demand that many think is intuitive about the way that society should work.  "An eye for an eye," so to speak.

3.  Rehabilitation
This is similar to deterrence in that it is future oriented.  However instead of focusing on how others will act in response to the punishment, this view focuses on the individual being punished, and how they will behave in the future.  It's pretty self-explanatory.  The purpose of punishment on this view is to change the individual in some way such that they won't commit the same crimes in the future/

These views aren't mutually exclusive.  An act of punishment can satisfy the objectives of all three views.  However, they do come apart.  For instance, capital punishment might satisfy the goals of deterrence and retribution, but it obviously does not satisfy the objectives of rehabilitation.

Given these views, we might understand a little better the rationale behind the matching of crime and punishment.  Take parenting for example.  It seems clear that the objectives behind punishment in the context of parenting either fall under deterrence or rehabilitation.  It's weird to think of parents punishing their children simply because "they deserved it."

When we look at the aims of society, however, all three views are under consideration.  Deterrence and rehabilitation views are, in a sense, empirically verifiable or falsifiable.  We can measure the effectiveness of a punishment in deterring future crime and rehabilitating criminals.  Do punishments, as they are currently administered in the United States, meet the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation?  That's probably a very complex question, and I don't have the answer.

Many think that even if punishment failed the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation, it would still be required to meet the demands of retribution.  This view implies that at bottom, punishment is really about balancing the scales of justice.  Deterrence and rehabilitation are extras.  I'd like to reflect on this for a moment.

What is retribution about?  When do we satisfy the demands of retribution?  Suppose that someone commits a crime.  Let's say that we have someone who stole a car.  What kind of punishment would be fittingly retributive and why?

How would a retributive punishment fit the crime?  In general, a crime is considered to be type of harm that is done either to an individual or to society in general.  Some crimes are obviously harmful, like theft or murder.  Other crimes are not so obviously harmful, like speeding or jaywalking.  The latter category might be considered a form of harm in that it increases the probability of some harm being done.  Speeding might be considered harmful because it increases the likelihood of a car accident, which is clearly harmful.  So, it might be plausible to think of all crimes as harms of some sort.

In order to satisfy a general sense of retribution, the punishment must also be a form of harm.  Harm must be exchanged for harm in order to balance the scales, so to speak.  Is it enough for society to respond to an act of crime by inflicting harm upon the criminal?  Or, does the harm inflicted require further specification?

Punishment can be specified along two dimensions, quantitative and qualitative.  Quantitative aspects of punishment can include the magnitude of the harm inflicted, or the duration of the harm.   For instance, life imprisonment and a year long prison sentence differ in terms of the magnitude of the punishment.  Qualitative aspects of punishment can differ across the varieties of conceivable harm.  These include physical harm, psychological harm, economic harm, social harm, etc.  For instance, execution qualitatively differs as a form of harm from a fine for however much money.

It seems pretty clear that our sense of retribution places constraints on the magnitude of the punishment.  The common intuition is that the magnitude of the punishment should at least be approximately proportional to the magnitude of the crime.  We would think it unjust if a crime of murder was punished with a ten dollar fine.  Likewise, we would find it unjust if a crime of speeding were met with the death penalty.  The challenge here is trying to come up with some sense of quantification for all crimes and punishments.  Some crimes, like theft, might be relatively easy to quantify, but what about crimes like perjury?  How do you attach a number to something like lying under oath?  Punishments might be similarly difficult to quantify.  Punishments like fines are easy to quantify, but what about punishments like caning, or solitary confinement?

Things get more difficult when we try to match up crime and punishment qualitatively.  You'd think that this would be easy to do.  If a criminal steals something, then punish him by taking away some of his property or time.  But here's where things take an interesting turn.  In modern liberal societies like the United States, certain types of punishment are considered unjust, even if they qualitatively fit the crime.  Such crimes include the various forms of physical punishment, like caning or whipping, as well as forms of public shame like using those stocks that you see in colonial villages.  So even if a crime is something like rape, many think it unjust if the rapist gets raped in return.  Why is this?  Why do we have a sense of retribution regarding crimes, but at the same time think that the punishment shouldn't fit the crime in some respects?  Note that people would probably still disapprove of these types of punishments even if they were effect in rehabilitating the criminal or deterring future crimes.

The sorts of punishments that people disapprove of are usually sorted into the category of "cruel and unusual" punishment.  What makes a punishment cruel and unusual.  Let's assume that there is no disproportionate magnitude between crime and punishment.  Why are we not okay with the punishment qualitatively fitting the crime in certain respects?  It seems clear that this sensibility partly explains why most forms of social punishment pretty much come down to either imprisonment or fine of some sort.

Conflict, conciliation, and how group disputes are resolved in politics

Suppose that there is a minority group that is being persecuted in some way by the majority group.  What can the minority group do to eliminate the persecution?

There are basically two categories of approaches.  The first is conciliatory.  The minority can end the oppressive treatment by convincing the majority to stop the oppression.  Notable examples of this approach include the non-violent movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

The second approach is antagonistic.  The minority can end persecution by engaging in some form of conflict and winning.  There are plenty of examples of this approach.  Any war that is labeled a "revolution" is an example of the antagonistic approach.

The distinction here isn't binary though.  Instead, the two approaches lie at polar ends of a spectrum with hybrid or alternative approaches occupying points along this spectrum.

This is a helpful distinction when we talk and think about politics.  Here are two points that I want to make here regarding this distinction.

First, there's a lot of confusion regarding this distinction.  Oftentimes people claim to be taking one approach, when their actions indicate otherwise.  Here are two examples going in both directions.  First, there's this band called Rage Against The Machine.  They're a 90s rock band that I was (and still am) a big fan of.  They are unabashedly political, leaning heavily towards left-wing politics.  Much of the band's songs contain lyrics that prescribe an antagonistic approach to social change; you hear a lot of songs where Zack de la Rocha is telling us to burn shit and to start riots.  However, the band's approach to social change in real life has been decidedly conciliatory (as far as I know).  Their involvement has been almost exclusively through non-violent protests and grass roots democratic organization.

The second type of example seems much more prevalent to me, especially in identity politics.  Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community have been working hard for their rights as participants in a democracy, possessing equal standing with straight white men.  Much of this work has been done via the conciliatory approach, but with the advent of the internet, we've witnessed a movement towards antagonistic approaches.  This sort of antagonism isn't physically violent, but by means of shaming, insults, and other forms of verbal abuse, it threatens the possibility of cooperation between oppressor and oppressed.  This cooperation is essential to the conciliatory approach.

That last example leads me to my next observation.  What counts as conciliation, and what counts as antagonism.  As I stated above, most approaches may be a hybrid of the two.  It is important to think this through, because I think that the second example is basically a type of hypocrisy.  The idea is that the conciliatory approach is considered the moral high road, and so everyone of course will claim to be conciliatory.  However, they end up being antagonistic in all sorts of sneaky and backhanded ways.  This is troublesome, to say the least.  Therefore it is important to have a clear understanding of what conciliation is all about in order to protect that standard from hypocrisy and conceptual erosion.