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.{{BSZ}}
In a 2002 When the final installment of the [[Star Wars]] series, <i>Time[[Revenge of the Sith]]</i> magazine interview, George Lucas explained brings us the personal level through a type pivotal [[moment]] of the entire saga — the [[change]] of pop-Buddhism: “He turns the “good” Anakin Skywalker into the “bad” Darth Vader because he gets attached — it aims 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 thingsdraw parallels between our personal and [[political]] decisions.”
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 In a democracy become a dictatorship? Lucas explained that it isn’t that the Empire conquered the Republic, but that the Republic 2002 <i>became[[Time]]</i> the Empire. “One daymagazine interview, Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, ‘This isn’t George Lucas explained the Republic anymore, it’s the Empirepersonal level through a type of pop-[[Buddhism]]: "He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. We are the bad guys He can’t let go of his mother; he can’t let go of his girlfriend.’ ” The contemporary connotations He can’t let go of this reference to Ancient Rome suggest things. It makes you greedy. And when you’re greedy, you are on the Star Wars transformation from Republic path to Empire should be read against the background of Hardt and Negri’s <i>Empire</i> (from Nation State dark side, because you [[fear]] you’re going to the Global Empire)lose things."
The But more resonant than how Anakin turned into Darth Vader is the parallel political connotations of question: How did the Star Wars universe are multiple and inconsistent. Therein resides [[Republic]] turn into the “mythic” power of [[Empire]], or, more precisely, how does a [[democracy]] become a [[dictatorship]]? Lucas explained that universe—a universe it isn’t that includes a Reaganesque vision of the Free World versus the Evil Empire; conquered the retreat of the Nation StatesRepublic, which can be given a rightist, 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 but that “we are the bad guys,” that Republic <i>became</i> the Empire emerges through the very way we. "One day, the “good guysPrincess Leia and her friends woke up and said,” fight 'This isn’t the enemy out there. (In today’s “war on terrorRepublic anymore,” it's the real danger is what this war is turning us intoEmpire.) Such inconsistencies We 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 meaningsbad guys. ’" The question “But what does contemporary connotations of this political myth really mean?” is reference to Ancient [[Rome]] [[suggest]] the wrong question, because its “meaning” is precisely Star Wars transformation from Republic to serve as this vessel Empire should be read against the background of multiple meanings[[Hardt]] and [[Negri]]’s <i>[[Empire]]</i> (from [[Nation State]] to the [[Global]] [[Empire]]).
<i>The political connotations of the Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace</i> gave us [[universe]] are multiple and inconsistent. Therein resides the 'mythic' power of that universe — a universe that includes a crucial hint as to where to orient ourselves in this melee[[Reagan]]esque [[vision]] of the Free [[World]] versus the [[Evil Empire]]; the retreat of the [[Nation]] States, specificallywhich can be given a rightist, [[nationalism|nationalist]] [[Buchanan]]-[[Le Pen]] twist; the “Christological” features [[contradiction]] of persons of the young Anakin a noble status (his immaculate conceptionPrincesses, his victorious “pod-car” raceJedi knights, with its echoes of the famous chariot race in <i>Ben-Hur</i>, this “tale of Christ”etc.). Since Star Wars’ ideological framework is defending the New Age pagan universe'democratic' republic; and finally, it is quite appropriate its key insight that its central figure of Evil should echo Christ. Within 'we are the pagan horizonbad guys, ' that the Event of Christ is Empire emerges through the ultimate scandal. The figure of very way we, the Devil is specific to 'good guys,' fight the Judeo-Christian tradition[[enemy]] out there. But more than that, Christ himself is the ultimate diabolic figure, insofar as <i>diabolos</i> (to separateIn today’s '[[war on terror]], to tear apart ' the One [[real]] [[danger]] is what this [[war]] is turning us into Two.) is Such inconsistencies are what make the opposite of <i>symbolos</i> (to gather and unify). He brought the “swordStar Wars series a political [[myth]] proper, which is not peaceso much a [[narrative]] with a determinate political meaning,” in order to disturb the existing harmonious unity. Orbut rather an empty container of multiple, as Christ told Luke: “If anyone comes to me inconsistent and even mutually exclusive [[meaning]]s. The question "But what does not hate his father and his motherthis political myth really mean?" is the wrong question, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” In order for there because its "[[[meaning]]" is precisely to be a properly unified “symbolic” community serve as this vessel of believers, Christ had to first come and perform the Holy Spirit’s separating “diabolic” founding gesturemultiple [[meanings]].
Thus <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 Christian stance "[[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 radically different from quite appropriate that its central [[figure]] of Evil should echo Christ. Within the teachings pagan horizon, the [[Event]] of paganismChrist is the ultimate scandal. In clear contrast The figure of the Devil is specific to the pagan wisdom 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 universe One into Two) is the abyss opposite of <i>symbolos</i> (to gather and unify). He brought the primordial Ground "sword, not peace," in which all “false” opposites—Good [[order]] to disturb the existing [[harmonious]] [[unity]]. Or, as Christ told Luke: "If anyone comes to me and does not [[hate]] his [[father]] and Evilhis [[mother]], appearance his wife and reality[[children]], folly his brothers and wisdom, etcsisters — yes even his own [[life]] — he cannot be my disciple.—coincide, Christianity proclaims as the highest action precisely what paganism condemns as the source of all evil—the gesture " In order for there to be a properly [[unified]] "[[symbolic]]" [[community]] of separation, of drawing the linebelievers, of clinging [[Christ]] had to an element that disturbs first come and perform the balance of All[[Holy Spirit]]’s separating "diabolic" founding gesture.
What this means is that the Buddhist all-encompassing Compassion has to be opposed to Thus the Christian intolerant, violent Love. The Buddhist stance is ultimately that radically different from the [[teachings]] of <i>indifference</i>, of quenching all passions [[paganism]]. In clear contrast to the pagan wisdom that strive to establish differences, while the Christian love universe is a violent passion to introduce a <i>difference</i>, a gap in the order abyss of beingthe primordial Ground in which all "[[false]]" opposites — [[Good]] and [[Evil]], to privilege [[appearance]] and [[reality]], folly and elevate some object above otherswisdom, etc. Love is violence not (only) in — coincide, [[Christianity]] proclaims as the highest [[action]] precisely what paganism condemns as the vulgar sense source of all evil — the Balkan proverb, “If he doesn’t beat megesture of [[separation]], he doesn’t love me!” The choice of love itself is already violentdrawing the line, as it tears an object out of its context and elevates it clinging to an element that disturbs 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 partialityAll.
In MarchWhat 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 Vatican strongly condemned Dan Brown’s Christian love is a violent [[passion]] to introduce a <i>The Da Vinci Code[[difference]]</i> as , a book that spreads false teachings (that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that they had descendants, that [[gap]] in the true identity order of the Grail is Mary’s vagina)being, to privilege and elevate some [[object]] above [[others]]. The Vatican especially rued that the book [[Love]] is so popular among [[violence]] not (only) in the younger generation searching for spiritual guidance. The form vulgar [[sense]] of the Vatican’s intervention[[Balkan]] proverb, which barely concealed a longing for the good old days when it could simply burn books"If he doesn’t beat me, was obviously absurd. (Indeedhe doesn’t love me!" The [[choice]] of love itself is already violent, one almost suspects a conspiracy between the Vatican as it tears an [[object]] out of its context and elevates it to the book’s publisher to give a fresh boost to its sales[[Thing]].) Nevertheless In Montenegrin folklore, the content origin of Evil is a beautiful [[woman]]: She makes men lose their balance, she literally destabilizes the Vatican’s message was basically correct. <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> effectively re-inscribes Christianity into the New Age’s paradigm universe, coloring all things with a tone of seeking balance between masculine and feminine principlespartiality.
And—back to In March, the [[Vatican]] strongly condemned [[Dan Brown]]’s <i>Revenge of the Sith[[The Da Vinci Code]]</i>—the price for as a book that spreads false teachings (that [[Jesus]] [[married]] Mary Magdalene and that they had descendants, that the [[true]] [[identity]] of the film’s sticking to these same New Age motifs [[Grail]] is not only its ideological confusion, but, simultaneously, its inferior narrative qualityMary’s vagina). These motifs are why Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader—the series’ pivotal moment—lacks The Vatican especially rued that the book is so popular among the proper tragic grandeuryounger generation searching for spiritual guidance. Instead The [[form]] of focusing on Anakin’s hubris as an overwhelming desire to intervenethe Vatican’s [[intervention]], which barely concealed a longing for the good old days when it could simply burn books, to do Goodwas obviously absurd. (Indeed, to go to one almost suspects a conspiracy between the end for those he loves Vatican and thus fall the book’s publisher to the Dark Side, Anakin is simply shown as an indecisive warrior who is gradually sliding into Evil by giving way give a fresh boost to the temptation of Powerits sales.) Nevertheless, by falling under the spell [[content]] of the evil EmperorVatican’s [[message]] was basically correct. In other words, Lucas lacked <i>The [[Da Vinci]] [[Code]]</i> effectively re-inscribes [[Christianity]] into the nerve to really apply his parallel [[New Age]]’s paradigm of seeking balance between the shift of the Republic to Empire [[masculine]] and of Anakin to Darth Vader. Anakin should have become a monster out his very excessive attachment with seeing Evil everywhere and fighting it[[feminine]] principles.
WhereAnd — 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, thenbut, does this leave us? The ultimate postmodern irony is today’s strange exchange between the West and the Eastsimultaneously, its inferior narrative quality. At These motifs are why Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader — the very series’ pivotal moment when, at — [[lacks]] the level proper [[tragic]] grandeur. Instead of “economic infrastructurefocusing on Anakin's hubris as an overwhelming desire to intervene, to do [[Good]],” Western technology to go to the end for those he [[loves]] and capitalism are triumphing worldwidethus fall to the Dark Side, at Anakin is simply shown as an indecisive warrior who is gradually sliding into [[Evil]] by giving way to the level temptation of “ideological superstructure[[Power]],” the Judeo-Christian legacy is threatened in the West itself by falling under the onslaught spell of New Age “Asiatic” thoughtthe evil Emperor. Such Eastern wisdom In [[other]] [[words]], from “Western Buddhism” Lucas lacked the nerve to Taoism, is establishing itself as really apply his parallel between the hegemonic ideology shift of global capitalism. But while Western Buddhism presents itself as the remedy against the stress Republic to Empire and of capitalism’s dynamics—by allowing us Anakin to uncouple Darth Vader. Anakin should have become a monster out his very excessive attachment with [[seeing]] Evil everywhere and retain some inner peace—it actually functions as the perfect ideological supplementfighting it.
Consider the phenomenon of “future shock”—the popular term for how people today can no longer psychologically cope with Where, then, does this leave us? The ultimate [[postmodernism|postmodern]] [[irony]] is today’s strange [[exchange]] between the dazzling rhythm of technological development [[West]] and the accompanying social change[[East]]. Before one can become accustomed to At the very moment when, at the newest inventionlevel of "[[economic]] infrastructure, another arrives to take its place" Western [[technology]] and [[capitalism]] are triumphing worldwide, at the level of "ideological superstructure, so that increasingly one lacks " the most elementary “cognitive mapping.” Eastern thought offers a way out that [[Judeo-Christian]] legacy is far superior to threatened in the West itself by the desperate attempt to escape into old traditionsonslaught of New Age "Asiatic" [[thought]]. The way to cope with this dizzying change, such Such Eastern wisdom suggests, is to renounce any attempts from "[[Western Buddhism]]" to retain control over what goes onTaoism, rejecting such efforts is establishing itself as expressions of the modern logic hegemonic [[ideology]] of dominationglobal capitalism. Instead, one should “let oneself go,” drift along, But while retaining an inner distance and indifference toward Western Buddhism presents itself as the mad dance of remedy against the accelerated process. Such distance is based on the insight that all stress of capitalism's dynamics — by allowing us to uncouple and retain some inner peace — it actually functions as the upheaval is ultimately just a non-substantial proliferation of semblances that do not really concern the innermost kernel of our beingperfect ideological [[supplement]].
Here, one is almost tempted to resuscitate Consider the old, infamous Marxist cliché of religion as “the opium phenomenon of "[[future shock]]" — the popular term for how [[people,” as ]] today can no longer psychologically cope with the imaginary supplement dazzling rhythm of real-life miserytechnological [[development]] and the accompanying [[social]] change. The “Western Buddhist” meditative stance is arguably Before one can become accustomed to the newest invention, [[another]] arrives to take its [[place]], so that increasingly one lacks the most efficient elementary "[[cognitive mapping]]." Eastern thought offers a way for us out that is far superior to fully participate in the capitalist economy while retaining 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 appearance modern [[logic]] of sanitydomination. If Max Weber were alive today Instead, he would definitely write a secondone should "let oneself go, supplementary volume to his <i>Protestant Ethic</i>" drift along, titled <i>The Taoist Ethic 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 Spirit innermost kernel of Global Capitalism</i>our [[being]].
hereforeHere, one is almost tempted to resuscitate the true companion piece to <i>Star Wars III</i> is Alexander Oey’s 2003 documentaryold, <i>Sandcastles: Buddhism and Global Finance</i>. A wonderfully ambiguous indication infamous [[Marxism|Marxist]] cliché of our present ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines [[religion]] as "[[the commentaries opium of economist Arnoud Boot, sociologist Saskia Sassen and the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Sassen and Boot discuss the gigantic scope and powerpeople]], " as well as social and economic effects, the [[imaginary]] [[supplement]] of global financereal-life misery. Capital markets, now valued at $83 trillion, exist within a system based purely on self-interest, The "Western Buddhist" meditative stance is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in which herd behavior, often based on rumors, can inflate or destroy the value of companies—or whole economies—in a matter [[capitalist]] [[economy]] while retaining the appearance of hourssanity. Khyentse Rinpoche counters them with ruminations about the nature of human perception If [[Max Weber]] were alive today, illusion and enlightenment. He tries to throw he would definitely write a new light on the mad dance of billion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-ethical statementsecond, “Release your attachment supplementary volume to something that is not there in realityhis <i>[[Protestant Ethic]]</i>, but is a perception.” Echoing titled <i>The Taoist [[Ethic]] and the Buddhist notion that there is no self, only a stream Spirit 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 reappearsGlobal Capitalism</i>.”
But how are we Therefore, the true companion piece to read this parallel between the Buddhist ontology <i>Star Wars III</i> is [[Alexander Oey]]’s 2003 documentary, <i>[[Sandcastles: Buddhism and the structure Global Finance]]</i>. A wonderfully ambiguous indication of virtual capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the humanist reading: Seen through a Buddhist lensour [[present]] ideological predicament, Sandcastles combines the exuberance commentaries of global financial wealth is illusoryeconomist Arnoud Boot, divorced from [[sociologist]] Saskia Sassen and the objective reality—the very human suffering caused by deals made on trading floors Tibetan Buddhist teacher Dzongzar Khyentse Rinpoche. Sassen and in boardrooms invisible to most of us. However, if one accepts Boot discuss the premise that the value of material wealthgigantic scope and power, as well as social and one’s experience economic effects, of realityglobal finance. [[Capital]] markets, is subjectivenow valued at $83 trillion, and that desire plays [[exist]] within a decisive role [[system]] based purely on [[self]]-interest, in both daily life and neoliberal economicswhich herd [[behavior]], isn’t it also possible to draw the exact opposite conclusion? Perhaps our traditional viewpoint of the world was often based on naive notions rumors, can inflate or destroy the [[value]] of companies — or [[whole]] economies — in a substantial, external reality composed matter of fixed objects, while the hitherto unknown dynamic of “virtual capitalism” confronts us hours. Khyentse Rinpoche counters [[them]] with ruminations [[about]] the illusory [[nature ]] of reality[[human]] [[perception]], [[illusion]] and [[enlightenment]]. What better proof He tries to throw a new light on the mad dance of the nonbillion-dollar speculations with his philosophico-substantial nature of reality than a gigantic fortune [[ethical]] [[statement]], "Release your attachment to something that can dissolve into nothing is not there 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 but is a perception." Echoing the basic premise of Buddhist ontology [[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 no “objective reality”?essentially a continuous set of movements. It [[disappears]] and it reappears."
The only “critical” lesson But how are we to be drawn from Buddhism’s perspective on read this parallel between the Buddhist [[ontology]] and the [[structure]] of [[virtual capitalism is that one should be aware that we are dealing with ]] capitalism’s universe? The documentary tends toward the [[humanist]] [[reading]]: Seen through a mere theater Buddhist lens, the exuberance of shadowsglobal financial wealth is [[illusory]], with no substantial existencedivorced from the [[objective]] reality — the very human [[suffering]] caused by deals made on trading floors and in boardrooms invisible to most of us. Thus we need not fully engage ourselves in the capitalist game However, but play it with an inner distance. Virtual capitalism could thus act as a first step toward “liberation.” It confronts us with if one accepts the fact premise that the cause value of our suffering [[material]] wealth, and one’s [[experience]] of reality, is not objective reality—there is no such thing—but rather our Desire[[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 craving for material things. All one has to do then, after ridding oneself traditional viewpoint of the false notion world was based on naive notions of a substantial , [[external]] realitycomposed of fixed [[objects]], is simply renounce desire itself and adopt an attitude while the hitherto unknown [[dynamic]] of inner peace and distance. No wonder Buddhism can function as the perfect ideological supplement to "virtual capitalism: It allows " 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 participate in it a sudden false rumor? Consequently, why complain that financial speculations with an inner distancefutures markets are "divorced from objective reality, keeping our fingers crossed, and our hands clean, as it were." 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 against no such a temptation that we should remain faithful thing — but rather our [[Desire]], our craving for material things. All one has to do then, after ridding oneself of the Christian legacy false notion of separationa substantial reality, is simply renounce desire itself and adopt an attitude of elevating some principles above othersinner 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.
It is against such a temptation that we should remain faithful to the Christian legacy of [[separation]], of elevating some principles above others.
==See Also==
* [[Buddhism]]
* [[Western Buddhism]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Empire]]
==Source==
* [[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>.
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Film]]
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:Religion]]
