Star Wars Beyond Individualism
Apr. 4th, 2023 03:27 amI feel that a lot of Star Wars analysis is plagued by a really individualistic analysis that boils the morality of characters and institutions down to questions like 'did the Jedi treat Anakin badly' or 'Was Anakin not grateful enough to the Jedi' or 'was this one individual responsible for literally all the evil things that happened'. Like determining the morality of the Jedi or the Senate (the one with multiple people, not the Sith Lord) is all about how they behaved towards one person (or how one person behaved towards them) and not about how the political dynamic these groups were responsible for impacted civilization as a whole.
The analysis of the morality of the Jedi should also not hinge on whether or not the Sith were the good guys. The Sith were not the good guys. Even though I think the Jedi perpetuated great evil (for which the extended canon provides ample evidence) that doesn't mean I think they 'deserved' what happened to them. And even though I think the Senate was irreperably corrupt, that doesn't mean I think Palpatine improved matters by dissolving them. Palpatine didn't make the galaxy safer or more peaceful, but he also didn't have to exert much effort to obtain the result he wanted because the Senate was already corrupt, because the Jedi perpetuated an ideal of 'lawful goodness', an ideal that Palpatine was able to turn against them to have them serve his bidding, to turn them into their own executioners, as encapsulated so perfectly by his manipulation of Anakin, a manipulation that results in Anakin siding with the lawful (and thus good by the teachings of the Jedi) position of defending the Chancellor to ensure he has a fair trial. In defending a man he knows to be a Sith against illegality, just as the Jedi compromised their morality to defend the Republic and the Senate (both of them) against the illegal Outer Rim Separatist Alliance it had allowed corporate powers to exploit for untold generations--unless it is completely fine and democratic for corporations to have representatives in the Senate? Unless it is totally normal and okay to lead an army of literal slaves into battle?
Of course the main characters are central to the themes of the prequels. But I don't know how one gets anywhere useful without being able to see those characters not only as characters, but as allegories of the failings of institutions as a whole, and to see the institutions not just as a few characters whose actions one judges either positively or negatively depending on their personal conduct towards other characters, but as a larger whole made up of not just good or bad individuals, but of laws and culture and philosophy and behavior that affects society as a whole.
The analysis of the morality of the Jedi should also not hinge on whether or not the Sith were the good guys. The Sith were not the good guys. Even though I think the Jedi perpetuated great evil (for which the extended canon provides ample evidence) that doesn't mean I think they 'deserved' what happened to them. And even though I think the Senate was irreperably corrupt, that doesn't mean I think Palpatine improved matters by dissolving them. Palpatine didn't make the galaxy safer or more peaceful, but he also didn't have to exert much effort to obtain the result he wanted because the Senate was already corrupt, because the Jedi perpetuated an ideal of 'lawful goodness', an ideal that Palpatine was able to turn against them to have them serve his bidding, to turn them into their own executioners, as encapsulated so perfectly by his manipulation of Anakin, a manipulation that results in Anakin siding with the lawful (and thus good by the teachings of the Jedi) position of defending the Chancellor to ensure he has a fair trial. In defending a man he knows to be a Sith against illegality, just as the Jedi compromised their morality to defend the Republic and the Senate (both of them) against the illegal Outer Rim Separatist Alliance it had allowed corporate powers to exploit for untold generations--unless it is completely fine and democratic for corporations to have representatives in the Senate? Unless it is totally normal and okay to lead an army of literal slaves into battle?
Of course the main characters are central to the themes of the prequels. But I don't know how one gets anywhere useful without being able to see those characters not only as characters, but as allegories of the failings of institutions as a whole, and to see the institutions not just as a few characters whose actions one judges either positively or negatively depending on their personal conduct towards other characters, but as a larger whole made up of not just good or bad individuals, but of laws and culture and philosophy and behavior that affects society as a whole.