Subject: AUT: Re: Star Wars and Archetypes
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:59:59 -0500


> That said, I am going to go off on a tangent here and
> bring up an aspect of the movie that might very well
> go unnoticed.  Lucas has admitted his debt to the
> jungian mythologist, Joseph Campbell, in particular
> Campbell's "Hero With a Thousdand Faces",which he
> claims inspired "Star Wars".  In fact we can identify
> several jungian archetypes in the movie, Darth Vader
> (shadow), Princess Lea (the anima), etc.

on the other hand... what has always been interesting to me about this, is
his failure in pulling it off. he may very well have started with these
archtypes, but ended up (over the course of the 3 movies) with very human
characters that don't easily fit into any archtypes. so, what does this
failure say?

> This view of the world diminishes to some extent the
> realm of human freedom.  As part and partial of
> that,it also can lead to a sort of passive acceptance
> towards what is wrong in the world: since evil in the
> world is a result of humanity's failure to integrate
> its dark side, the best thing we could do to make the
> world a better place would be to put ourselves in
> jungian therapy.

this seems kinda strange, at least as far as the movies goes (tho it is a
good crit of jung). insted, the whole intergalactic civil war, etc. etc.
does not seem a result of humanities failure to integrate the dark side, or
whatever... but more a result of to adequately deal with the rise of a
fascist system.

lucas made no attempts to disguise the empire, and stated on a number of
occasions that it was an attempt on his part to understand the rise of folks
like hitler to power.

to put this in a historical context... you have darth vader: as anikin
skywalker, he was a generally good guy, who was misled by his own desires,
and became trapped in the mess... much like the german social democrats with
the rise of the nazis. etc. etc.

as far as the concept of the "force", the jedi, etc. themselves. you're
fogrgetting lucas' other primary influence here: taoism, zen buddhism,
japanese warrior traditions, and particularly the concept of chi / ki. now,
before the new agers got ahold of this concept (chi / ki) and twisted it
into unrecognizable forms, all they refered to was the sum total of
*physical energy* in a person's body, which a martial arts practicioner
could learn to focus and use (and as a martial arts practicioner, i have
learned how to do this to some extent). the assumption in taoism and zen
buddhism is that this physical energy is inherent in all living things, and
sense (as even elementary physics tells us) this energy can not only not be
created or destroyed but only transformed and can move in and out of people,
you get an "energy field" which "surounds us, penetrats us, binds the galaxy
together". but its no more mystical or magical than lighting a candle.

and while i realize that many on this list are predisposed to rejecting
things like taoism, zen buddhism, etc. outright due to the gross
misinterpretations these philosophies have gotten in the west, keep in mind
that philosophical taoism and zen buddhism form the backbone of materialist
and dialectical thought in asia. and in fact their stated aim is "against
alienation, for community", interestingly enough.

i say all of this not to defend lucas or star wars from any kind of
reproach, nor any i trying to argue that star wars is revolutionary in any
sense. (in fact, i think speculating on the authors intensions is a useless
exercise 9 times out of 10... all that matters is what we get out of it...)
insted, i'm just trying to point out possibilities.

 > Anyway, I think it is important to bring up this
> aspect of Star Wars which appeared on the scene about
> the time the "New Age" scene was starting to spawn.
> The New Age crowd is very aware of this aspect of the
> movie.  Anyway, this touting of transcendentalism is
> what I find most reactionary in the movie.

perhaps, but i think its also important to recognize that not everything is
going to be perfect, or above reproach. in fact, i firmly agree that
everything in existance needs to be subject to ruthless criticism... but we
must keep in mind that criticism (in the kantian, hegalian and therefore
marxist, to some extent, sense) mean to test the limits of. which means not
only finding what is wrong and useless, but also what is right and useful.

one of my problems with the moorecock article (which has been a problem thru
most of this articles on this subject) his is puritanism. there is no doubt
in my mind that there are aspects of every author he listed (as well as many
he did not, including himself) which are indefenseable from a revolutionary
standpoint. however, there are aspects which are defensible from a
revolutionary and *human* standpoint.

not the least of which, in my mind, is this: class societies prior to
capitalism have become romanticized because people feel, on some level, the
people who lived in them led less-alienated lives, at least to some
extinent. thus, we get fantasy worlds that, on many levels, resemble actual
past class societies. tolkien, in particular, comes to mind. so the desire
for fantasy is, in a sense, an aspect of our desires for a less alienated
existance. because of this, within all the problematic aspects, are going to
be aspects which are useful and helpful.

gotta go read my new usagi yojimbo comic...



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---