Changes

When the final installment of the [[Star Wars]] series, <i>[[Revenge of the Sith]]</i>, brings us the pivotal [[moment ]] of the entire saga — the [[change ]] of the “good” Anakin Skywalker into the “bad” Darth Vader — it aims to draw parallels between our personal and [[political ]] decisions.

In a 2002 <i>[[Time]]</i> magazine interview, George Lucas explained the personal level through a type of pop-[[Buddhism]]: "He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can’t let go of his mother; he can’t let go of his girlfriend. He can’t let go of things. It makes you greedy. And when you’re greedy, you are on the path to the dark side, because you [[fear ]] you’re going to lose things."

But more resonant than how Anakin turned into Darth Vader is the parallel political question: How did the [[Republic]] turn into the [[Empire]], or, more precisely, how does a [[democracy]] become a [[dictatorship]]? Lucas explained that it isn’t that the Empire conquered the Republic, but that the Republic <i>became</i> the Empire. "One day, Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, 'This isn’t the Republic anymore, it's the Empire. We are the bad guys.’" The contemporary connotations of this reference to Ancient [[Rome]] [[suggest ]] the Star Wars transformation from Republic to Empire should be read against the background of [[Hardt]] and [[Negri]]’s <i>[[Empire]]</i> (from [[Nation State]] to the [[Global]] [[Empire]]).

The political connotations of the Star Wars [[universe ]] are multiple and inconsistent. Therein resides the 'mythic' power of that universe — a universe that includes a [[Reagan]]esque [[vision ]] of the Free [[World ]] versus the [[Evil Empire]]; the retreat of the [[Nation ]] States, which can be given a rightist, [[nationalism|nationalist]] [[Buchanan]]-[[Le Pen]] twist; the [[contradiction ]] of persons of a noble status (Princesses, Jedi knights, etc.) defending the 'democratic' republic; and finally, its key insight that 'we are the bad guys,' that the Empire emerges through the very way we, the 'good guys,' fight the [[enemy ]] out there. (In today’s '[[war on terror]],' the [[real ]] [[danger ]] is what this [[war]] is turning us into.) Such inconsistencies are what make the Star Wars series a political [[myth ]] proper, which is not so much a [[narrative ]] with a determinate political meaning, but rather an empty container of multiple, inconsistent and even mutually exclusive [[meaning]]s. The question "But what does this political myth really mean?" is the wrong question, because its "[[[meaning]]" is precisely to serve as this vessel of multiple [[meanings]].

<i>[[The Phantom Menace|Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace]]</i> gave us a crucial hint as to where to orient ourselves in this melee, specifically, the "[[Christ]]ological" features of the young Anakin (his immaculate conception, his victorious "pod-car" [[race]], with its echoes of the famous chariot race in <i>Ben-Hur</i>, this "tale of Christ"). Since Star Wars’ [[ideological ]] framework is the [[New Age]] [[paganism|pagan]] universe, it is quite appropriate that its central [[figure ]] of Evil should echo Christ. Within the pagan horizon, the [[Event]] of Christ is the ultimate scandal. The figure of the Devil is specific to the Judeo-[[Christian ]] [[tradition]]. But more than that, Christ himself is the ultimate diabolic figure, insofar as <i>diabolos</i> (to [[separate]], to tear apart the One into Two) is the opposite of <i>symbolos</i> (to gather and unify). He brought the "sword, not peace," in [[order ]] to disturb the existing [[harmonious ]] [[unity]]. Or, as Christ told Luke: "If anyone comes to me and does not [[hate ]] his [[father]] and his [[mother]], his wife and [[children]], his brothers and sisters — yes even his own [[life ]] — he cannot be my disciple." In order for there to be a properly [[unified ]] "[[symbolic]]" [[community ]] of believers, [[Christ]] had to first come and perform the [[Holy Spirit]]’s separating "diabolic" founding gesture.

Thus the Christian stance is radically different from the [[teachings ]] of [[paganism]]. In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that the universe is the abyss of the primordial Ground in which all "[[false]]" opposites — [[Good]] and [[Evil]], [[appearance]] and [[reality]], folly and wisdom, etc. — coincide, [[Christianity]] proclaims as the highest [[action ]] precisely what paganism condemns as the source of all evil — the gesture of [[separation]], of drawing the line, of clinging to an element that disturbs the [[balance ]] of All.

What this means is that the Buddhist all - encompassing Compassion has to be opposed to the Christian intolerant, violent [[Love]]. The Buddhist stance is ultimately that of <i>indifference</i>, of quenching all passions that strive to establish differences, while the Christian love is a violent [[passion ]] to introduce a <i>[[difference]]</i>, a [[gap]] in the order of being, to privilege and elevate some [[object]] above [[others]]. [[Love]] is [[violence]] not (only) in the vulgar [[sense ]] of the [[Balkan ]] proverb, "If he doesn’t beat me, he doesn’t love me!" The [[choice ]] of love itself is already violent, as it tears an [[object]] out of its context and elevates it to the [[Thing]]. In Montenegrin folklore, the origin of Evil is a beautiful [[woman]]: She makes men lose their balance, she literally destabilizes the universe, coloring all things with a tone of partiality.

In March, the [[Vatican ]] strongly condemned [[Dan Brown]]’s <i>[[The Da Vinci Code]]</i> as a book that spreads false teachings (that [[Jesus]] [[married ]] Mary Magdalene and that they had descendants, that the [[true ]] [[identity ]] of the [[Grail ]] is Mary’s vagina). The Vatican especially rued that the book is so popular among the younger generation searching for spiritual guidance. The [[form ]] of the Vatican’s [[intervention]], which barely concealed a longing for the good old days when it could simply burn books, was obviously absurd. (Indeed, one almost suspects a conspiracy between the Vatican and the book’s publisher to give a fresh boost to its sales.) Nevertheless, the [[content ]] of the Vatican’s [[message ]] was basically correct. <i>The [[Da Vinci ]] [[Code]]</i> effectively re-inscribes [[Christianity]] into the [[New Age]]’s paradigm of seeking balance between [[masculine]] and [[feminine]] principles.

And — back to the <i>[[Revenge of the Sith]]</i> — the price for the film’s sticking to these same New Age motifs is not only its [[ideology|ideological]] confusion, but, simultaneously, its inferior narrative quality. These motifs are why Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader — the series’ pivotal moment — [[lacks ]] the proper [[tragic ]] grandeur. Instead of focusing on Anakin's hubris as an overwhelming desire to intervene, to do [[Good]], to go to the end for those he [[loves ]] and thus fall to the Dark Side, Anakin is simply shown as an indecisive warrior who is gradually sliding into [[Evil]] by giving way to the temptation of [[Power]], by falling under the spell of the evil Emperor. In [[other ]] [[words]], Lucas lacked the nerve to really apply his parallel between the shift of the Republic to Empire and of Anakin to Darth Vader. Anakin should have become a monster out his very excessive attachment with [[seeing ]] Evil everywhere and fighting it.

Where, then, does this leave us? The ultimate [[postmodernism|postmodern]] [[irony]] is today’s strange [[exchange ]] between the [[West]] and the [[East]]. At the very moment when, at the level of "[[economic ]] infrastructure," Western [[technology]] and [[capitalism]] are triumphing worldwide, at the level of "ideological superstructure," the [[Judeo-Christian ]] legacy is threatened in the West itself by the onslaught of New Age "Asiatic" [[thought]]. Such Eastern wisdom, from "[[Western Buddhism]]" to Taoism, is establishing itself as the hegemonic [[ideology ]] of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress of capitalism's dynamics — by allowing us to uncouple and retain some inner peace — it actually functions as the perfect ideological [[supplement]].

Consider the phenomenon of "[[future shock]]" — the popular term for how [[people ]] today can no longer psychologically cope with the dazzling rhythm of technological [[development ]] and the accompanying [[social ]] change. Before one can become accustomed to the newest invention, [[another ]] arrives to take its [[place]], so that increasingly one lacks the most elementary "[[cognitive mapping]]." Eastern thought offers a way out that is far superior to the desperate attempt to escape into old traditions. The way to cope with this dizzying change, such wisdom suggests, is to [[renounce ]] any attempts to retain [[control ]] over what goes on, rejecting such efforts as expressions of the modern [[logic ]] of domination. Instead, one should "let oneself go," drift along, while retaining an [[inner distance]] and [[indifference]] toward the mad dance of the accelerated [[process]]. Such distance is based on the insight that all of the upheaval is ultimately just a non-substantial proliferation of [[semblance]]s that do not really concern the innermost kernel of our [[being]].

Here, one is almost tempted to resuscitate the old, infamous [[Marxism|Marxist]] cliché of [[religion]] as "[[the opium of the people]]," as the [[imaginary ]] [[supplement]] of real-life misery. The "Western Buddhist" meditative stance is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in the [[capitalist ]] [[economy ]] while retaining the appearance of sanity. If [[Max Weber]] were alive today, he would definitely write a second, supplementary volume to his <i>[[Protestant Ethic]]</i>, titled <i>The Taoist [[Ethic ]] and the Spirit of Global Capitalism</i>.

Therefore, the true companion piece to <i>Star Wars III</i> is [[Alexander Oey]]’s 2003 documentary, <i>[[Sandcastles: Buddhism and Global Finance]]</i>. A wonderfully ambiguous indication of our [[present ]] ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines the commentaries of economist Arnoud Boot, [[sociologist ]] Saskia Sassen and the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Sassen and Boot discuss the gigantic scope and power, as well as social and economic effects, of global finance. [[Capital ]] markets, now valued at $83 trillion, [[exist ]] within a [[system ]] based purely on [[self]]-interest, in which herd [[behavior]], often based on rumors, can inflate or destroy the [[value ]] of companies — or [[whole ]] economies — in a matter of hours. Khyentse Rinpoche counters [[them ]] with ruminations [[about ]] the [[nature ]] of [[human ]] [[perception]], [[illusion ]] and [[enlightenment]]. He tries to throw a new light on the mad dance of billion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-[[ethical ]] [[statement]], "Release your attachment to something that is not there in reality, but is a perception." Echoing the Buddhist [[notion ]] that there is no self, only a stream of continuous perceptions, Sassen comments about global capital: "It’s not that there are $83 trillion. It is essentially a continuous set of movements. It [[disappears ]] and it reappears."

But how are we to read this parallel between the Buddhist [[ontology ]] and the [[structure ]] of [[virtual ]] capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the [[humanist ]] [[reading]]: Seen through a Buddhist lens, the exuberance of global financial wealth is [[illusory]], divorced from the [[objective ]] reality — the very human [[suffering ]] caused by deals made on trading floors and in boardrooms invisible to most of us. However, if one accepts the premise that the value of [[material ]] wealth, and one’s [[experience ]] of reality, is [[subjective]], and that desire plays a decisive [[role ]] in both daily life and neoliberal [[economics]], isn’t it also possible to draw the exact opposite conclusion? Perhaps our traditional viewpoint of the world was based on naive notions of a substantial, [[external ]] reality composed of fixed [[objects]], while the hitherto unknown [[dynamic ]] of "virtual capitalism" confronts us with the illusory nature of reality. What better proof of the non-substantial nature of reality than a gigantic fortune that can dissolve into [[nothing ]] in a couple of hours due to a sudden false rumor? Consequently, why complain that financial speculations with futures markets are "divorced from objective reality," when the basic premise of Buddhist ontology is that there is no "[[objective reality]]"?

The only "critical" lesson to be drawn from Buddhism’s perspective on virtual capitalism is that one should be aware that we are dealing with a mere theater of shadows, with no substantial [[existence]]. Thus we [[need ]] not fully engage ourselves in the capitalist [[game]], but play it with an inner distance. Virtual capitalism could thus act as a first step toward "liberation." It confronts us with the fact that the [[cause ]] of our suffering is not objective reality — there is no such thing — but rather our [[Desire]], our craving for material things. All one has to do then, after ridding oneself of the false notion of a substantial reality, is simply renounce desire itself and adopt an attitude of inner peace and distance. No wonder [[Buddhism]] can function as the perfect ideological [[supplement]] to virtual capitalism: It allows us to participate in it with an [[inner distance]], keeping our fingers crossed, and our hands clean, as it were.

* [[Revenge of Global Finance]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. May 21, 2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2122/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekfinance.htm>.