Thinking Critically About Jar-Jar Binks' Ethnicity; presented to Western Social Science Association national conference, 2000

Thinking critically about Jar-Jar Binks’ ethnicity


by Chris Rodgers



autonomous cultural productions




History is an infinite number of events, an infinite number of facts. Inevitably, you must select from that number of facts those things which you are going to present, if you’re going to write, if you’re going to teach. What is going to go into this book, or what is going to go into your lecture, into your classroom; there’s no way of avoiding the process of selection. And once you make that selection, that selection is based on your point of view, whether you acknowledge it or not, whether you even know it or not. There’s a way you can reproduce the point of view that has been dominant in your culture without even knowing you are reproducing the dominant point of view.

Howard Zinn

Not everyone hates Jar Jar Binks, the controversial comic relief sidekick of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Some viewers were amused, some are still disgusted. Many viewers were extremely irritated; few had the words to explain why. I identified with Jar Jar’s social inappropriateness, marginalization, and general ambiguity. Maybe that is why I feel qualified to identify Jar Jar’s ethnicity: socially emasculated by my feminisms, academic docility, and consumption of cultural goods from groups of which I am not an authentic member, an ascendant oriented member of a dominated region of social space, I am marked by my class background and trained in symbolic sensitivity.

My aim is to give the listener a feel for the cultural affiliations of a character most find hard to take seriously, unless one feels insulted. I am indebted to everyone who gave me input on their reactions to the film; my ownership of these ideas is tenuous. Though much fieldwork helped shape this presentation, I want to specifically thank Daniel Buffington, Mollie Johnson, and Mike Friis without whom I would not have come to this. Now let me tell you a story.

I will follow a pragmatic course: from the more straightforward, to the more abstract, and back again. Race is the most publicly disputed of Jar Jar’s issues. Gender will follow. Class will be still more ambiguous. I generally start with an official representation, from the movie, The Illustrated Screenplay, and The Illustrated Dictionary. When appropriate, I will follow this with input from people I’ll call informants. Then I will articulate more possible perceptions of Binks’ group affiliations. Influential will be my perspective as cultural native, likely target audience, biased critic, and scientist, among others.1

Given the biases involved in analyses of narrative and popular culture, the tone taken here may seem peculiar. In order to remove implications from their filmic context to then reconstruct them in an historical manner, a relatively polemic style was adopted. For example, putting the meanings together in this way destroys the time frame of the cinematic presentation; which is problematic as The Phantom Menace retemporalizes the type of history we might find in primary and secondary history textbooks in the United States. Thus, representations of the past, generally unpopular with their juridically enforced audiences (i.e. students), are made entertaining through the reconfiguration of time, space, auditory and visual perception, and association: that is, historical and cultural references are transfigured into a homological discourse. I cannot substitute for the movie with its sights and sounds, but I will interpret it. References will be more fully cited in footnotes, though I will re-articulate many of the symbolic associations offered to the international cinema audience. The literary tone of present tense is used for the above reasons, and because the future of the movie is only a VCR or DVD away.

RACE

The term race is only used once in the film, but the word is given many connotations. The junk trader Watto (a heavily ethnicized character identified as stereotypical of Italians, Jews and Arabs, and New Yorkers) says to Jedi Knight Qui Gon Jinn that Anikin Skywalker is “a credit to your race.”2. Jinn calls Watto “my blue friend.” Qui Gon and Anikin both seem to be homo sapiens sapiens (though, supposedly, we are viewing long ago, far away). Jar Jar (JJ) comes from a group (or race) called Gungan. The Gungan live on a planet called Naboo, which is also the name of the apparently homo sapiens group that also lives on that planet, as well as the name of the star system. Qui Gon calls Binks “a local.” Trade Federation viceroy Nute Gunray calls the Gungans “primitive life forms.” Jar Jar says that the Gungan are “warriors.” Qui Gon uses the term “indigenous tribes” in describing some inhabitants of the planet Tattoine. The proud and primitive locals of what is now Naboo, that might also be called an indigenous tribe, consider themselves warriors. It is interesting to note who reveals what euphemism, how, and when. Even this cursory sample of positions taken implies positions occupied.

The Gungan body seems racialized. They have very large lips and mouths that seem to dominate their heads. Jar Jar seems to walk with an exageratedly loose loping stride. An excerpt from The Visual Dictionary3 reads: “Like all Gungans, Jar Jar’s skeleton is made of cartilage, making him flexible and rubbery. Even his skull and jaws are elastic, giving the simple Gungan a wide range of facial expressions.”

In context, certain portrayals are literal denials of racialization, though signs remain. The Gungan live in Otoh Gunga, a city hidden underwater. Jar Jar is amphibious, so the Gungan seem similarly implicated. In fact, Binks “worries about exposing his amphibian skin to the heat and suns” of Tattoine.4 But the “sacred place” to which the Gungan retreat from the intrusions of the invading droid army is above water, described in the Screenplay as the “NABOO SACRED TEMPLE RUINS” in the “NABOO SWAMP.”5 The Naboo occupy the opposite end of the planet, in a city on land called Theed, connected to Otoh Gunga by underwater passages that lead through the planet’s core.

The Visual Dictionary offers this about Binks’ language: “Jar Jar speaks a pidgin Gungan dialect of Galactic Basic. Few Gungans speak the pure Gungan language.” Galactic Basic sounds like English, though there are a variety of recognizable accents among the movie’s various characters. What exactly is meant by a pidgin here is ambiguous; but Jar Jar does not speak pure Galactic Basic, nor the pure Gungan language.6 This is a prudent place to introduce a break with the relatively internal representation of Jar Jar’s ethnicity. The official positions taken reify artistic (or at least entertainment market) consecration: license that severs cultural production from its socio-political implications.7

There is another official social fact relevant here. In The Illustrated Screenplay, the only characters who’s lines are spelled out phonetically are Gungan. Thus, the Gungan are made to seem linguistically different; an ‘alien’ race distinguished as no other was (at least in pre-production). One reason to spell out in dialect is to differentiate from the standard, or better, legitimate pronunciation and implied spelling.

Though this is by no means a study of reactions to Binks’, some presentation is in order. For example, from newspaper articles available on-line (many comments of which were also heard from survey participants and other informants): “a computer-generated idiot who talks like a Caribbean galley-slave.”8 Binks “speaks in Caribbean-accented pidgin English and wears dreadlocks,” and is labeled “Rastafarian.”9 Jar Jar’s “big lips, dreadlocks, bulging eyes and wide nose” make him an obvious racist black parody.10 “In addition, the Gungan, the primitive tribe of which Jar Jar is a member, is ruled by a fat, buffoonish character, seemingly a caricature of a stereotypical African chieftain.”11 One very concise and articulated set of comments from the publication The Nation reads: “Lets’ just take the movie’s chief comic relief, the popeyed, brainless Jar Jar Binks, who is, apparently, a black man in frog face. Nothing wrong with that, say Lucasfilm; this is science fiction. Except he’s a froggy alien who talks, yet says nothing. And who “lopes” (as per George Lucas’s specifications, according to Ahmed Best, who plays Jar Jar) in a prancing, high-stepping cakewalk. He is a ‘Gungan Chuba Thief,’ as a Star Wars card in my son’s little trading collection proclaims. Whether intentionally or not, Jar Jar’s pratfalls and high jinx borrow heavily from the genre of minstrelsy. Despite the amphibian get-up, his relentless, panicky, manchild-like idiocy is imported directly from the days of Amos ‘N’ Andy. And whether it were a white man, a black woman or Al Jolsin himself beneath the mask, what would make all the clowning so particularly insulting is the fact that Jar Jar’s speech is a weird pidgin mush of West African, Caribbean and African-American linguistic styles.”12

As for more traditionally ethnographic evidence, three particularly strong phrases used in response to my query seem to have racial connotations: “black ghetto idiot,” “black ghetto punk,” and “noble savage.” One informant said he thought Binks spoke like a plantation slave constantly expecting to be hit. From informants, I’ve read and heard the phrases “blackface comedy” and “black stereotype” many times. Many people identified JJ specifically as Jamaican, and more generally as Caribbean.

One colleague, taking a class in Anthropology of Caribbean colonial relations immediately identified Jar Jar as Caribbean and Jamaican and insisted I see the movie. Both my roommate in Albuquerque and my sister in western New York claimed they were immediately sure that Binks walked like Bob Marley.

The analysis this evidence has provoked is premised on a number of (relatively) similar ideas. We might describe Gungan ethnicity in terms of metaphor, resonance, recognition, or association. The term I prefer is homological resemblance of discourse, the transfiguration of meaning that manages social misrecognition.13 This sort of misrecognition requires enough association to make sense, yet has been symbolically manipulated so as to dis-resemble or dis-associate from the sub-textualized signifiers such discursive homology requires. The whole of the presentation is thus equal to more than the sum of the parts.

There are a number of specific strategies that seem utilized in the science fictionalization of the Star Wars universe. In working to define science fiction Darko Suvin describes the appropriation of an authors empirical world, to which is added the “novuum”, or strange newness.14 Thus, Suvin calls sci-fi the “literature of cognitive estrangement.” Philip Dick, in another definitional essay, describes a “conceptual dislocation” that leads to a convulsive “shock of dysrecognition.”15 The most telling strategy, for our purposes, documented by a science fiction academic, concerns the blatant (and subtle) ways that ‘aliens’ have been racialized, especially in films. Though Charles Ramirez Berg most specifically shows how Hispanics and Latinos (‘aliens’) have been represented as ‘Aliens’ (in anxiety about immigration pressures),16 its not too difficult to see how ‘ethnic’ Star Wars ‘aliens’ are in relation to all the white humans (and black humans that sound rather white). Perhaps instead of immigration anxiety, in T.P.M. we are to resolve tension over slavery, colonization, and imperialism (all of which involve the movement of bodies).

The Phantom Menace also evidences the social division of differentiated groups into two antagonistic, complimentary opposites. In addition, other strategies include the union of these divided contraries, public and subjective denials of the objective reality of the situation, and the many inversions, reversals, and transfigurations required to sufficiently deny the relationships involved.

Let’s take, for example, the ambiguous symbiance between the Gungan and Naboo. If we let the ambiguity cloud the relational implications, we cut ourselves off from the benefits of further analysis. In talking with Boss Nass, the Gungan leader, Obi-Wan says: “You and the Naboo form a symbiont circle. What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this.” Later, Qui-Gon explains to Anikin about midi-chlorians: “Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells and communicates with the Force.” Anikin replies “They live inside of me?” “In your cells. We are symbionts with the midi-chlorians,” Qui-Gon explains. “Symbionts?” “Life forms living together for mutual advantage. Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to you, telling you the will of the Force.” These are all relevant comments, but here, we should take note that symbionts are defined as life forms living together for mutual advantage. Unsurprisingly, the symbiosis between the Gungan and Naboo is not fully explained within the cinematic presentation, nor within the screenplay.

The symbiotic relationship ambiguously alluded to between the Naboo and Gungan reminds me of Hegel’s famous analysis of the Master-Slave antagonism. This is likely due to my exposure to Paul Gilroy’s notion of a black Atlantic experience, using the colonization of the African continent as an historical example of this social and cultural vision and division of the world.17 If the colonizer can believe in the correctness and justness of enslavement, he will likely invest more effort than if he believes slavery to be wrong or immoral. If the colonized can be convinced of their profit from their exploitation, which is normal, natural, and mutually advantageous, they may collude in their own domination more and struggle against it less. More importantly, it seems, if we can unite the two toward a common cause, that relieves the pressure imminent in any sublimated relation of exploitation, we might focus the powers of both outward instead of inward at each other.

I cannot here stress enough the importance of spatial orientation in the construction of Gungan ethnicity. The Gungan live below water, in hidden cities. The Naboo live above, on land, in a futuristic renaissance metropolis. Yet, when in trouble, Gungans return to a sacred place on land, creating the impression of displacement. This impression is furthered by the name of the area: “NABOO SACRED TEMPLE RUINS.” Fortunately, Gungans are amphibious. Otoh Gunga and Theed are located at opposite ends of the planet. Yet they maintain an unexplained mutual advantage. This is the symbiance between the dominant and dominated, represented as mutually advantageous in the manner of a truly hegemonic discourse: the benefits accrued to those willing to participate in their exploitation as one of the lower, by those of the higher.

Why would the Gungan speak a pidgin language? A pidgin can be defined by its usage as a manner of mediation between two or more groups; or alternatively through its illegitimacy, incorrectness, and inappropriateness in either/any of the ‘natural language’ situations from which it would have been born. Perhaps their cultural situation had been immersed within that of a now temporally dominant force. Maybe their linguistic situation had been changed by colonial and cultural imperialism. Maybe the ambiguity is supposed to cloud conclusions. ‘Race’ here takes on in filmic life that which it really is: metaphor and justification for a specific time and place in the rationalization of domination, exploitation, and colonization. Pidgin implies an official illegitimacy; while race becomes a discursive meta-narrative that justifies the violence of history, and thus the present. If pidgin here refers to Sierra Leone (one name for the west African trading language used before, and utilized during, the colonization of west Africa), which may also be one of the earliest forms of “pidgin-English,” from which the word possibly originates, the picture would become more clear.

There is, perhaps, no more concise manifestation of Gungan racial implications than the final battle scene. The Gungan emerge from the swamp to the sound of an instrument associated with Australian natives referred to as a digderydoo. Some Gungan are mounted on kaadu, bipedal horse-like creatures. Their weapons include energy rods that look like spears, as well as ‘boomers,’ balls of energy that short out battle droids on impact. These last are propelled by both catapult and sling. As well, the Gungan are shielded by a canopy of energy, in addition to a front line of individual shield holders inside the larger barrier. Not only do the warriors assembled seem technologically disadvantaged, especially compared to the droid invasion army they face. The Gungan are specifically referred to as ‘primitives.’ At best they look to be canon fodder. At worst, this could be a futuristic recreation of African continental colonization by industrialized imperial nation-state armies.

But where is Jar Jar in all of this? The Visual Dictionary says most of it. “Boss Nass misinterprets Jar Jar’s connections with the newly-favored Naboo royalty as maturity and makes him a general in the Gungan Grand Army-much to the dismay of the troops he is to ‘command.’ Jar Jar lives up to their expectations when he panics during combat, falls off his mount, and instantly surrenders when surrounded. Fortunately, few soldiers pay the new general any attention and since the Gungans win the battle anyway Boss Nass is none the wiser.” But the Screenplay tells us even more. Before the fighting, “Jar Jar is nervous” (118). Once the Gungan distraction is raging, “Jar Jar’s clumsiness works for him in the battle. He gets caught up in the wiring of a blasted DROID, dragging the torso around with him, the DROID’s gun firing randomly, accidentally blasting SEVERAL DROIDS in the process” (125). There is simply not space for all of Binks’ battle bungling here, much less time to recall all of his high jinx. But let me quickly list the implications of the last two selections: Jar Jar is immature, nervous and panic-prone under stress, inept, cowardly, and clumsy, though clumsiness can work for him.

The Visual Dictionary seemingly misattributes victory to the Gungan. In fact, Queen Amidala persuaded Boss Nass to offer the Gungan Grand Army as diversion; the battle was to draw the invasion forces away from the city, so that a raiding party could capture the Trade Federation viceroy. This, however, would have led to the complete decimation of the Gungan, according to the orders of Darth Sidious, had not Anikin Skywalker blown up the droid army control ship, seemingly without meaning to do so. This is not the first time Jar Jar has narrowly escaped catastrophe. Additionally, there is also by now a growing list of the times Jar Jar has been assisted from harm’s path.

Instead of listing off the ten or more each of Binks’ accidental incidents or saviors, let me reproduce a scene from the screenplay that was changed for the film. As they journey toward the planet core, en route to the Naboo, they do so in a bongo, a Gungan sub-marine transporter not incidentally of organic design. Obi-Wan asks,

OBI-WAN: Why were you banished, Jar Jar?

JAR JAR: Tis a longo tale [pronounced tell-oh in cinema], buta small part wowdabe messa...ooooh...aaa...clumsy.

OBI-WAN: They banished you because you’re clumsy?

As the little sub glides ever deeper into the planet core, a large dark shape begins to follow.

JAR JAR: Mesa cause-ed mabee one or duey lettal bitty axadentes...yud-say boom da gasser, un crash Der Bosses heyblibber...den banished.

Suddenly there is a loud CRASH, and the little craft lurches to one side. QUI-GON looks around and sees a huge, luminous OPEE SEA KILLER has hooked them with its long gooey tongue.

QUI-GON: Full speed ahead.

Instead of full ahead, JAR JAR jams the controls into reverse. The sub flies into the mouth of the creature.

JAR JAR: Ooooops.

OBI-WAN: Give me the controls.

They get away, leaving the impression that the Force has helped them get through. The film does not show Jar Jar holding the controls (Obi-Wan pilots the bongo, of which he knows nothing), nor does it explain (as does The Visual Dictionary) that “panicky Jar Jar is possibly the worst navigator the Jedi could have...He has paid no attention to submarine piloting or to finding his way beyond his swamp home.” The racial implications of clumsiness, constant close calls, and the need for assistance are associative.

In a Pepsi television commercial, we might learn about Jar Jar’s cinematic role from an advertising alien (in case we didn’t know) when the ad proclaims “Meesa Jar Jar Binks come for comic relief.” But in light of the commentary above, we might call him a blackface, slapstick entertainer. His comedic value seems based around his clumsiness and inappropriateness, which seems to play off his background of noble savagery. When we meet JJ he has already been banished from Otoh Gunga. He is immediately saved (from his own panic-stricken immobility) by Qui-Gon, and continues to seemingly require help throughout the film - generally assisted by white humans.

Binks’ entertainment value took on expanded meaning after re-examining the first cinematic representations (several times). After being knocked to the ground and shielded by Qui-Gon Jinn, Jar Jar flips to his feet. Then, when he leads the Jedi to Otoh Gunga, Binks jumps high into a twisting, flipping dive. According to The Visual Dictionary he has “powerful calf muscles for swimming.” All of which gives me the impression of athleticism. It should be clear that no single aspect of Jar Jar’s character reveals his ethnic affiliations. It should also be clear that the affiliations are not made solely by the cultural producer, nor solely by the cultural consumer. This athletic talent seems out of character with Binks’ clumsiness. Physical clumsiness could be metaphorical for social clumsiness and cultural inappropriateness. If Jar Jar was a post-colonial black male of African diasporic descent, these attributes would seem to fall in line, from the perspective of an United States of American, of north/west European descent, in denial about the history behind her or his class positions.

But Jar Jar’s race is clouded by his other group affiliations, and by denials of group affiliations. Race is what we might call an impure concept, stigmatized as it is by the conditions of its existence. Perhaps this actually clarifies Gungan identity. Jar Jar uses the phrase “mooie-mooie” at least four times during the film. It seems an unlikely coincidence that the pronunciation sounds like muy, the Spanish word for very. The context seems to have made it virtually incomprehensible to most viewers, as I have heard and seen nothing regarding Binks’ Hispanic background. But the usage of the phrase makes it clear enough: “mooie” means “very (something).” Boss Nass says a couple of things with long rolling ‘r’ sounds, giving a southern European, possibly Italian flavor to Otoh Gunga. It would be amusing to suggest a racial line, or even a color line, being followed; but I am not informed enough about the issue to do so.

Denials of racial identification are subtle and blatant. The most intricate denial is the market consecration of artistic consecration: summed up in the phrase “it’s only entertainment.” I have witnessed quite a bit of animosity and derision at the mention of ethnic portrayals in The Phantom Menace. Then there is the artistic license. In a behind-the-scenes mini-documentary at the beginning of the video release of the film, George Lucas says: “We all know, Jar Jar is not real.”18

But the most interesting denial, for our purposes, involves Gungan amphibiguity. In the film, Binks makes clear, as they walk in the Tattoine desert: “dis sun doen murder to meesa skin.” He can’t be black, or even dark skinned. The Visual Dictionary reiterates the point, as mentioned above. But they seem to prefer air; not only do they live in water-resistant “bubbles” filled with air, not only is their sacred place on land, but Jar Jar was banished for “serious flooding accidents”19 among other axidentes (another seemingly transfigured Spanish word).

Even more ambiguous is the seeming coincidental assonance between Gunga and ganga, the Rastafarian holy word for cannabis flowers. Unsurprisingly, I noticed no clear analogue for ganga smoking. But Ahmad Best, the actor used to articulate the bodily movement of Binks digital facade, as well as the voice, is of Caribbean descent. He has also been ambiguously assigned creative autonomy in developing Jar Jar’s “character.” Though, Lucas, in the behind-the-scenes video segment, says he hired Best because he can act with his body.

More convincing is the distinctly inverted signifier for Caribbean history. Instead of fleeing into the hills (or up the mountain), as revolting slaves did in Jamaica and Puerto Rico during colonial plantation days, the Gungan seem to have been forced down, under the water. Were it not for the dreadlock ears, Bob Marley strut, and pidgin-English dialect with an Afro-Jamaican sound, I might be less inclined to suggest such an association.

I have certainly not exhausted the realm of possible racial portrayals. But, as we explore the ambiguously gendered possibilities, it will become clear that I do not use the term ethnicity as a politically corrected substitute for race, or as a peculiar reference for non-whiteness. Rather, I assume ethnic relations to be issues of group affiliation and identity; with the correlate assumption that identity and affiliation is not the sole ground of insiders or outsiders, the dominant or the dominated, but is to be found in the relation between the various poles of the various fields of social relations.

GENDER

Jar Jar Binks is clearly the mediator between the Gungan and Naboo (and between Boss Nass’ masculinity and Queen Amidala’s femininity), as well as between the Gungan and Jedi Knights. In fact, both times Binks leads outsiders to Boss Nass, JJ is threatened with death: an issue only made clear in The Illustrated Screenplay or Visual Dictionary. Mediation is marked by a positionality between two (or more) antagonists. This stigmatization, which makes possible his social ascension, is evidenced from the first introduction to Jar Jar in the film.

Binks was banished to the swamp. In this metaphor, the swamp lies between the underwater and the above ground, or in other words, a place of ambiguity (not quite wet, but not quite dry). This is denied because the literal mediation, as it were, between Otoh Gunga and Theed is the planet’s hollow core (a place of nothingness). Fortunately, this allows him to meet with Qui-Gon. Indeed, the scene where Boss Nass and Queen Amidala meet is in the swamp. This scene makes it seem like the swamp is relatively close to both Otoh Gunga and Theed.

But it is Binks’ gender that is much more ambiguous. Were it not that Jar Jar is an official he, I would have had a hard time referring to him without a sex. By all appearances, the Gungan are a male species. Frankly, Jar Jar seems different. His high-pitched voice is produced by his “tight vocal cords.”20 One informant said Binks’ seemed to be wearing a 1970’s pants-suit combo with a vest. The Visual Dictionary refers to his vest as a “fashion statement.” If we take the phrase “ghetto punk” as a gendered reference to position within a power relationship, the phrase “frumpy bitch body,” used by another informant, clarifies the gender polarization, androcentrism, and symbolic devaluation of females involved.

If we let the ambiguity stand, we may miss the emasculation that probably irritated so many. In the first visit to Watto the junk dealer’s shop, Binks is kicked in the crotch by a troublesome droid. This action produces no visible reaction from JJ, and is so fast an occurrence few would probably mention it upon query. The contribution this scene makes is invaluable. It makes visual confirmation of the many clues to Binks’ gender with which we are presented.

If we were to lump together the many gendered associations, we would lose their contextual embeddedness, but gain from the re-immersion into the big picture. Jar Jar is highly excitable and overly emotive. Though many reported that they could not understand Binks, he is very talkative when given the opportunity. Not only a communicator, Binks is also a mediator; though he does not listen well to directions from male authority. He panics under stress, throwing fits of temper. He is bad with directions. He is publicly inappropriate and socially inconvenient. He is not fit for combat, his attempts are comical, he openly admits to fright and instantly surrenders when surrounded, showing cowardice. He is surprisingly sensitive to aesthetic quality, and mentions the coziness of Anikin’s home. “Jar Jar’s character, like his body, is resilient and able to bend to changes of fortune without letting his spirit break.”21 In a field of meaning where masculinity and femininity are the poles of attraction working on positions taken within the field, gendered associations will be evaluated accordingly. If heterosexual masculinity is the dominant principle of heirarchization, gendered ambiguity is less than masculine (stigmatized by its betrayal of strict polarization, thus devalued in the ‘middle ground’). The hetero-sexist association of homosexual male behavior with femininity is not coincidental, though not fully rational. We might even want to refer to Binks as a female man or a male woman (though the derivatives all ‘point’ back to evaluative hierarchy).

For our purposes, however, it is the amalgamation of dimensions of meaning that is most illustrative. Jar Jar is likely emasculated as a consequence of his position as mediator. Maybe he is also whitened by his association with the film’s powerful white folks; this would line up with the association of non-white cultures, especially those of African and Latino-Hispanic descent, as overly masculine, or male-dominated. Regardless of the causal relationships portrayed, Binks’ gender is homologous to the docility required for corporate or academic ascendancy.

CLASS

The class that I am talking about is neither a class in itself, nor for itself, but rather a set of shared classifications, a scheme of encryption to which audience members will likely have differential access. This is only one aspect of the economic implications of Binks’ ethnicity. As categories of perception, appreciation, and action, they are used to classify Jar Jar, both by the symbolic producers and the symbolic consumers.

One sample that well evidences the official version of how Binks’ is ‘intended’ to be received, is a list of the descriptive terms used to tell us what JJ is. “AN AMPHIBIOUS GUNGAN native to Naboo, Jar Jar is a luckless exile...simple...reticent (about the reason for his exile from Otoh Gunga)...well known to the city patrol... infamous...the worst navigator the Jedi could have...petrified...inconvenient... useful...flexible and rubbery...simple...resilient and able to bend to changes of fortune... odd...”22

Binks’ usefulness and docility outweighs his cultural inappropriateness. When we meet JJ in the screenplay he is sucking clams out of their shells in the swamp. At film’s end, he has been made ‘bombad general,’ hobnobbing with royalty and Jedi Knights, friend to Anikin Skywalker (the chosen one who will bring balance to the force, to become Darth Vader). Jar Jar has clearly come up in the world.

But Binks’ class character is to be found in clues throughout The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar displays table manners inappropriate for the situation. After licking his plate, instead of eating with utensils then slurping his drink, “JAR JAR snatches some food from a bowl at the other end of the table with his tongue.”23 Qui-Gon gives him a dirty look, and Binks apologizes. As JJ tries it again Qui-Gon catches his tongue and chastises the impertinent Gungan. If he is a primitive local, we may assume him to be unrefined. He is physically uncoordinated and culturally inappropriate, though athletic and sensitive (especially to aesthetic appearance). “Simple” is an appropriate euphemism for the many reasons Binks’ decision making capabilities seem limited. Those of the middle regions of social space in this country and present time are particularly sensitive to their continual devaluation by both the economically dominant and dominated.

Binks is also associated with children. He has been rationalized as a kids character, perhaps explaining why he may have been fashioned as such. The Visual Dictionary supplies this “DATA FILE” fact: “Jar Jar’s insatiable curiosity frequently lands him in trouble. He comes close to learning a permanent lesson when he catches his tongue in Anakin’s Pod engine binders.” If this were Binks’ primary form of identification, most of his characteristics would fall into place. He doesn’t quite get what is going on, but is forced to blunder clumsily through. He may not listen too well, or be too smart, but he is submissive when it counts.

But this is simply not coincidental with his other associations. Were it not for early Anthropologists’ portrayals (not to mention those of non-academics) of primitivity as child-like, I would not be so inclined to recognize this association for what it is. The lack of sophistication, insatiable curiosity, and ambiguous social position (at first meeting) seem ordered to convey a certain manner of being. Maybe Binks’ child-like behavior will appeal to children. Is the same likely for his ethnic, gendered or sexed, or social class constituencies? Children are an exploited and dominated group, a relationship homologous to that between all of the other aspects of Binks representation, when distinguished against the legitimate, correct, and ultimately dominant.

JJ has every appearance of the invocation of class contempt (including racism, heterosexism, and misogyny) for ascendant members of dominated groups. It is likely not coincidence this seeming contempt is phrased in jokes, buffoonery, and mockery. Binks is able to capitalize on his ambiguities and stigmatization through his docility and willingness to accept his lot in life.

CONCLUSION

The Phantom Menace seems to be a myth of class ascendancy, specifically focused around the invocation of class racism. All the indications seem to construct an amalgamated sense of group affiliations, homologous to a picture of a member of several dominated groups, as portrayed by an elite corps of specialists. Though luckless and hapless, he bounces back; and we may assume he bounces up as well. As race was popularly mythologized during an established empire building era, as a practical rationalization and justification for colonialism, it is fitting that it should be re-invoked to implicate a variety of biological pre-determinisms.

I love JJ as a symbol for the difficulties and ambiguities of avant-garde scientific analysis of contemporary cultural phenomenon. The consumers (and producers) of such culture are generally not too excited to know about “critical” interpretations of their enjoyments. But if white American kids grow up loving Jar Jar’s submissiveness and associate ‘his’ character with any of the other stereotypes portrayed, they may develop expectations concerning the behaviors of associated groups. Binks is an almost too real, almost too literal celebration of domination.

Some folks are simply not comfortable with the openness of such contempt. Witness www.jarjarmustdie.com. Maybe viewers were even uncomfortable with the representations of blackness, primitivity and savagery, much less the transfiguration of these elements. But I can definitely say that Jar Jar Binks invokes contempt (though on occasion someone will say they thought he was cute). I have a cat named Jar Jar, and had a 7’ cardboard Binks behind my door for months. I don’t think I can put into words, however, the reactions to my dancing Jar Jar toy (that seemingly positions JJ as an entertainer).

In the neighborhood in Albuquerque where I live I sometimes shop at the “ghetto Smith’s” (as I live in the “student ghetto”). One day during this project, I could have bought a case of Binks’ ethnicity (but I was broke). Farley’s brand Lightsaber fruit roll-ups had Binks face on the box, but not his name. More strange was the flavor: “Galactic Watermelon.” I looked at two other stores out of my neighborhood and found no galactic watermelon lightsaber fruit roll-ups, though I found two other varieties of fine Farley’s fruit treats that had not been at the ghetto Smith’s. Anyone that doesn’t know that watermelon has an historically negative association to diasporic blacks of African descent in America may not see the connections between lips half the size of one’s head, social inappropriateness, and metaphors of class ascendancy. I could not help but wonder.

The new Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and/or The American Dream; presented to Western Social Science Association national conference, 2000

The new Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

and/or The American Dream?



by Chris Rodgers



autonomous cultural productions







Is Star Wars: The Phantom Menace meant to rationalize and propagate the myth of the American Dream?

Intention is one of the thorniest concepts in the human, behavioral, and social sciences. This is evident in the (neo)classical economic assumptions of rational self-interest on the part of economic actors. Another example is the psychological distinction between the conscious and unconscious areas of the mind. Both of these analytical assumptions have come to positions of popularity in U.S. discourse and culture. Both notions are premised on a distinction between what is intended and what is not (be it accidental, incidental, or otherwise). However, the false antinomy, or forced choice between intentionality and its opposite makes difficult analysis that takes both possibilities into account.

In the final analysis, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (T.P.M.) has every indication of a valorized trope of national, white, male supremacy in the face of threats thereof. Forcing the discussion through the question of whether this was intentional or not, or whether George Lucas meant it, elides the more appropriate analysis of production and reception. The perception of nationalistic narrative is an empirical issue, not to be settled by the authoritative philosophy of artistic creation, the loss management strategies of lawyers and corporate executives, nor by the prophetic pronouncements of intellectuals or scientists.

Thus, we are immediately confronted with at least three distinct illusions of consciousness. First, it would be fallacious to attribute to Lucas, or Lucasfilms, sole creative talent, and thus sole responsibility for the portrayal and propagation of various stereotypes. Second, it is fanciful to dismiss the reification and reaffirmation of socially approved forms of domination as “only entertainment.” Third, as audience members have differential access to the generative competence necessary to decode such symbolism as is contained in T.P.M., it would be as illusory to assume conscious perception of Americanism, as it would be to assume a total lack of perception thereof.

AN AMERICAN DREAM

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that two major aspects of U.S. nationalism are prosperity and freedom. That is, these two ideal-types are well used in official governmental discourses and less consecrated discourse alike. Of course, both are abstract vagaries that tend to encourage denial of the historical violence of colonial empire building within which the Enlightenment, as well as the U.S.A., are founded. This would be an appropriate environment for the propagation of the myth of class ascension: if you work hard enough at capitalism, you can move up the economic hierarchy, no matter the disadvantage. Correlate to this is the perception of the liberating force of education. This is not idle speculation. Rather, it is the impression of a native informant and scientist. More importantly, this discussion contains heuristic value. If we remember that T.P.M. was released into an extant social and cultural situation, we might be more inclined to ask how that situation may have influenced the film’s construction.

In a country as large as this one, with the (relative) cultural diversity, is there one coherent ‘American Dream?’ Let me start by clarifying that I am using this phrase in a specific, restricted sense (of narrative ambiguity). A respondent to a survey conducted by autonomous cultural productions concerning The Phantom Menace suggested the idea, not on the survey but speaking with me afterwards. At that moment, I was not fully aware of how influential Nathan’s comment would be, nor of how incredibly he was showing the value of empirical fieldwork when making pronouncements on the social and cultural universes of humanity.

Nathan told me how he had the uncanny feeling that T.P.M. sounded and looked suspiciously like ‘The American Dream.’ He did not fully explain how he came to this decision. This paper is as much about the process of making sense of that clue, as it is about the reification of national identity. That is, stories of nationalism can be told in absolute denial of their telling. The implications and effectiveness of such a denial can be seen in the usage of the term “America” or “American” to refer exclusively to the U.S.A., when the whole continent shares the name of Amerigo Vespucci, the cartographer associated with the earliest continental maps of the ‘new world.’

Telling stories seems likely the oldest form of cultural transmission. Though, truth be told, that is probably the discursive bias of storytellers, including contemporary intellectuals, considering that children will wave before they will say good-bye. That is, bodily imitation, or mimesis, especially when guided by the movements of prior generations, is possible for organisms and species without speech. Perhaps the evolution of speech, however, is one of the critical factors in our so called rise to predominance. Though this may seem a matter for evolutionary biologists, out of place in a discussion of film, the issue of speech has intense implications. The capacities to produce a relatively wide range of distinct and discrete vocal sounds, and the discriminations between them, combined with the capacities to associate and discriminate meanings or information with and among these sounds, are interrelated with the larger processes of cognition, regardless of their temporal position in our evolutionary heritage. However, we are not simply the summation of our genetic histories. Similarly, T.P.M. is not the summation of the history of The American Dream. And though both appear as epiphenomenon, ‘obvious’ signifiers waiting to be interpreted, in both cases this is more a function of ethnocentrism, and less truth about the situation.

But this is no idle venture from the subject. Thinking about language in an evolutionary context, generally though by no means universally avoided by non-biologists, helps to make an important point that seems difficult for most academics. Because our relation to the world is one of discourse, interpretation, and more discourse, we tend to mistake our position in the analysis for analysis itself. But communication is primarily a means of action, not primarily a form of information transmission. Or more accurately, information transmission is a form of action oriented toward the practical activity of survival, adaptation, and the reproduction of circumstances in an ever changing world. To treat T.P.M. as an intent to communicate stereotypical representations of historically exploited peoples in the construction of nationalistic culture is to misconstrue the intellectual construction of arguments for the practical relation to the activity of film making. This is no slight against Lucas; in fact, some may think that I’m letting him off the hook. However, I’m the one presenting the horns of T.P.M. dilemma.

Lucasfilms has gone on news record saying that T.P.M. in no way represents the world today.1 This comment was made in response to query about the ethnicity portrayed by Jar Jar Binks, the movie’s bumbling buffoon. A few scholars have commented on Jar Jar’s blackness and Watto’s anti-Semitism. Though I seem to have missed the initial newsmedia outcry, some folks told me during the survey that they saw something on the t.v. or read something in the paper. Of course, they didn’t write it down, but would mention it aloud. So, horn number one is that the movie’s producers (in the sociological sense of having ‘put it together’) claim it has no racial overtones in response to criticism that it does. As a quick aside, I myself was intensely offended in the first three minutes of my first viewing, well before I was introduced to Jar Jar. Not because I am a politically correct academic (which I am not), but because I have been trained to tend toward hypersensitivity to sublimated, transfigured representations of the social world, especially when they involve the further exploitation of historically overexploited groups. I was also primed by friends with burgeoning interests in post-colonial criticism.

Horn number two involves the history leading up to the film. Not just the ‘author’s’ articulation, but the appropriation of cultural memory in that pursuit. For a time there was on display an exhibit that materially displays these appropriations at the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. The book written by the curator of the exhibition provides evidence of an interesting formal logical contradiction that can only be resolved in practical logic. In this book Star Wars: The Magic of Myth, Lucas is quoted explaining how he had tried to incorporate a number of mythological principles of a Jungian scholar named Joseph Campbell into the writing of Star Wars: A New Hope. He said that he had difficulty and tried to write the script without these archetypal mythological representations. He then went back through the script and found he had written them in, though he had not known at the time how. He is presented in the book as an historically interested storyteller with an aim toward constructing ‘modern myth.’ Thus, the second horn of Lucas’ dilemma is his prior position on his scriptwriting. According to the least interested interpretation, that is, the most disinterested in material profit, Lucas wants to be received as the teller of modern mythological tales, perhaps an historical poet.

But what, if anything, does an historical poem, or a mythological narrative have to offer me if it does not have anything to do with my experiences, does not offer me solace and affirmation in return for my contribution of belief. On the one horn, in order to avoid legal difficulties or marketplace backlash, it apparently seemed expedient to distance the film from any negative attribution or reception, especially concerning the ethnic representations involved. A colleague in collusion with this study says that the Star Wars web site no longer offers many articles concerning the historical bases for aspects of the films construction, conspicuously absent following what newsmedia outburst there was concerning ethnic slurring. The movie is claimed to be a pure fiction, having no basis in reality. On the other horn, the film is part of a tradition of storytelling: the (re)making of myth. If myth has a primary function, it is the construction of social coherence, based on a consensual violence that no one specifically gives their consent to. If your story contains nothing that I can attach value to, why would it retain my attention? At least that is, if I am coming to you for entertainment. And therein lies the crux.

The two claims are logically incompatible. If the film has no contemporary political import, it likely offers us little of value with which (or against which) to identify. If we can and may appropriate from the film to help make sense of our lives, it likely has some political import. But this certainly does nothing to inhibit such rhetorical strategies. The contradiction is based on the theoretical reconstruction of the practical logic involved.

The best way to explain this is by foregrounding a major assumption of my claim. Star Wars movies are not avante-guard. That is, they were put together for the recognition of the expanded paying market, the consecration of the dollar. This orientation is in the opposition Pierre Bourdieu refers to in The Field of Cultural Production: heteronomy on the one pole of attraction, or production for an expanded capital market, as opposed to autonomy on the other pole, or production for a restricted market of similar producers, both colleagues and competition (a relationship that should sound familiar to scholarly readers). One does not make much money forging the advance ground necessary to construct an autonomous market. In other words, autonomous oriented artists are skeptical of those that accept immediate monetary gratification, while heteronomous artists seem to be aimed toward the most, and quickest possible profits. This is simply the restatement, in ‘economic’ terms, of the principle of expanded accessibility necessary for a successful myth, given contemporary economic organization.

I will describe why the story of T.P.M. could work as rationalization and justification of (mis)recognized American supremacy in the post-WW II era. The following sections illustrate a sample of specific symbolic structures of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (by no means meant as exhaustive). This paper is then summarized in a discussion of the relationship between markets and cultural productions.

GOOD VERSUS EVIL (OR GOD VS. DEVIL)

“At the heart of these stories there often lies a central conflict between some pair of opposites: good versus evil, light versus dark, even male versus female. As we watch this conflict unfold, we find the germ of meaning that can help us make sense of our own lives.”2

The social world tends to be organized through the oppositions between complimentary antagonistic agencies representing poles of attraction in fields of social relations. This is a social fact confirmed in every major area of critical studies: feminism, racial/ethnic criticism, and class analysis. The most coherent theoretical account I have found of the vision and division of the world into complimentary antagonists, painstakingly evidenced through decades of consistent, rigorous research are the works of Pierre Bourdieu, and affiliated researchers.

T.P.M. is a well articulated piece of cultural discourse, thoroughly nuanced with the application of this perspective to American society. The oppositions are clear and concise. It would be convenient to start with the officially propagated contradiction between good and evil. This is implied in The Magic of Myth, following George Lucas and Joseph Campbell as a universal characteristic of myth. What, then, defines good and evil? I argue that the opposition manifests the more general opposition between the sacred and the profane; what is appropriate and encouraged, according to the magic of social consecration is opposed to that which is to be stigmatized, devalued, and denied. In a logic shorthand maintained throughout to make clear oppositions involved: (good : evil :: sacred : profane :: appropriate : inappropriate)

No matter how I put this together, those presently concerned with avoiding binary or dichotomized thinking will resist the interpretation this evidence provokes. I mention this because it seems so popular now to deny social organization along such seemingly simplistic lines. In this case, Lucas’ work with the magic of myth has every indication of a metaphorical reification and reaffirmation of socially misrecognized power relationships, structured through sets of oppositions, forced choices with only a stigmatized mediating ground. All that is required is to put the associations together, removed from their ‘fictional’ context and re-immersed into the surrounding cultural situation. As the alignments made along self-declared political lines, symbolic oppositions are organized according to the pragmatic dimensions of power; though symbolic representations often deny their import in a number of ways.

The opening scrolling text orients the viewer to the coming situation. The planet of Naboo has been blockaded by the greedy Trade Federation, for a relatively ambiguous issue concerning the taxation of trade routes. Ambiguity, as we will see, is a major theme that is utilized throughout the movie. Nonetheless, this is the positioning of an opposition. A negative association seems implied by the Trade Federation’s greed.

The scrolling text continues: two Jedi Knights have been dispatched to negotiate the trade dispute. If someone is in the wrong, these guardians of peace and justice will fix their wagons. Keep in mind the western orientation of the movie, in terms of its similarity to the genre of American Western films, a correspondence concealed by seemingly obvious differences. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of the first wave of excited viewers at the box office knew that Jedi Knights were the enforcers of The Force, a mystical euphemism for righteousness. Only research would prove or disprove it. But in this movie we find out how The Force relates to the Jedi. The Force manifests itself through microscopic organisms, called midi-chlorians, that live inside the cells of all living creatures. Jedi have the highest midi-chlorian concentrations of all beings. I will come back to this interesting essentialization, but let’s return to the first set of oppositions the audience encounters.

The Trade Federation is opposed to the Naboo through the imposition of a possibly unjust trade blockade. The Jedi are flying in to negotiate with the Trade Federation representatives in charge of the action: Nemoidian trade viceroy Nute Gunray. When the pilot demands immediate boarding, the reply comes in a choppy sounding English. “Of course. As you know, our blockade is perfectly legal.” I cannot fully reproduce the sounds, just like I can’t fully reproduce the narrative and its implications. But I am attempting to convey a Southern California native’s perception of an Asian sounding accent. Having spent a fair amount of time in English-language discussion with various Asian-born folks, I insist, and am not alone in the opinion, that the Nemoidians sound like a transfigured Japanese accented English. It was only writing this presentation that I remembered why the Trade Federation characters at the helm, and thus subordinated to the elites sound specifically Thai, that is, English spoken in America by a person born and primarily enculturated in Thailand. A childhood friend’s mom was Thai, and I now stand firm that the helm-figure (named TEY HOW) speaks a digitized Thai English. The more important issue here is the Japanese association constructed by the way most of the dialogue is enunciated.

The first exchange of dialogue between the two Jedi Knights that occupy the primary representatives of that group establishes a rather British sound for both Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn and his Padawan Learner Obi-Wan Kenobi. Immediately after, we learn that the Trade Federation has an alliance with Darth Sidious (who is a Sith Lord that uses the Dark Side of The Force). Darth Sidious orders them killed, which clearly places the two groups in opposition.

When we hear from the Naboo, they are represented by Senator Palpatine, Queen Amidala, Bibble, and Captain Panaka. Panaka sounds American, Bibble sounds British, and Queen Amidala speaks English with the intonation of one not quite completely native sounding, but with a mild British manner. One colleague thought she sounds like she was educated at a colonial boarding school. As it becomes clear the Trade Federation means to invade Naboo, the relationship seems oppositional.

Though it might be more entertaining to re-tell the story, during and as a story of the story, it would be confusing and inefficient. Simply keeping the characters straight with what nationality their language usage might imply is jumbling enough. I used this manner to recall the temporal experience of the filmic presentation, and the displacement caused both in the film and in this re-presentation.

I started off with the importance of linguistic exchange as premised on the language capacities of oral articulation and aural differentiation, both physiological-cognitive functions expressed in behavior. It is much more meaningful to bounce back to this argument when thinking about how dialogue is enunciated. In as carefully constructed a cultural production such as this ‘major motion picture’, many thousands of person hours and likely many millions of dollars were invested in the material articulation. The distributors in the theater seemed to be 20th Century Fox, a subsidiary of News Corporation. The accents are likely as accidental and incidental to the story’s ‘meaning’ as the size of the production is accidental or incidental to the resources available to the film’s financial associates.

Speaking of associations, lets take stock of the oppositions I have presented. Either T.P.M. has political import or it does not. Either the film offers us associations we can make sense of or it doesn’t. “Either choice represents grave danger,” as Queen Amidala says, in as much as the forced choice between these mutually competitive options, in this case false antinomies, disables an analysis that utilizes both perspectives. The Phantom Menace, however, presents a number of antagonistic, contradictory relationships. As the good are opposed to the evil, so the sacred are to the profane, the appropriate to the inappropriate.

But these characteristics are associated with characters in the movie. The Jedi, as guardians of peace and justice, using the Force only for defense, are good guys. The Sith, using the Dark Side of the Force for aggression, are bad guys. The Naboo are the victims of trade dispute invasion from the nefarious Nemoidians and Trade Federation droid army. Presented in shorthand, these oppositions would appear: (good : bad :: Jedi : Sith :: Naboo :: Trade Federation). But we may (or may not) associate these groups with nationalities. The Jedi and Naboo seem rather Anglo-American and British. The Trade Federation could be Japanese. The three pages devoted to the influence of WW II on the first three Star Wars releases in The Magic of Myth could certainly be appended to include T.P.M.

In this treasure of background information, one could view the visual similarities between the Emperor (and Empire) and Hitler (and the SS). The first three movies also had plenty of WW II imagery. But the moral associations (right : wrong :: appropriate : inappropriate), perhaps assumed to be shared, are not articulated in either forum. Instead, the portrayal of good vs. evil (light : dark :: white : black) seems meant to be taken as a substitute. Once the moral division has been established, the players all seem to fall into place.

In T.P.M. we are presented the younger Darth Sidious, who will presumably become the Emperor. Lord Sidious is the mastermind behind the invasion of Naboo. Regardless of the exact historical relation between Germany and Japan during WW II, there seems to be a homologous portrayal between Darth Sidious and the Trade Federation. Sidious may not have a German accent, and he is played by the same actor as Senator Palpatine, the Naboo Senator to the Republic. These transfigurations aside, the associations seem less than coincidental. Once again, the United Kingdom and United States of America have shown up to save the day from Germany and Japan. A myth that neatly glosses over the question of U.S. or U.K. imperialism, colonial or otherwise.

But we have not even established all the major players.

SYMBIONT CIRCLES (OF REASONING)

Interestingly enough, the people Naboo share the planet Naboo with another “great civilization.” Naboo, located in the system of Naboo, is polarized by Theed (where the Naboo live) and Otoh Gunga (where the Gungan live). They live at opposite ends of the planet, connected by the planets hollow core. Though the scene at the “NABOO SACRED TEMPLE RUINS” (where the Gungan go when in trouble) which is located in the “NABOO SWAMP,” makes this meeting place for the Gungan and Naboo seem close to both cities and in between.

The Gungan are intricately and bluntly ethnicized, in the sense of made to appear non-white/American. They are referred to as “locals,” “primitives,” and “warriors.” This alone could set off an association with the “noble savage,” the authentic traditionalist to be valorized and patronized, if not assimilated. We first meet Jar Jar, the film’s most controversial character. Jar Jar has been variously identified as a stereotype of African-Americans, Jamaicans, blackface comedy, homosexuals, and more generally class ascendant oriented members of dominated social groups. Boss Nass (of the Gungan) wears a robe identified as similar to an African chieftain garment and clicks suspiciously. However, Boss Nass also rolls a Spanish or Italian sounding ‘r’ sound (in the word “smarte”), and Jar Jar says “mooie mooie” (or spelled muy muy in Spanish) several times, seemingly meaning very, very something.

Gungan language is stigmatized by its incorrectness and inappropriateness. “Jar Jar speaks a pidgin Gungan dialect of Galactic Basic. Few Gungans speak the pure Gungan language.”3 Galactic Basic sounds like English, though there are a variety of recognizable accents (lingotypes seemingly premised on national stereotype) among the movie’s various characters. What exactly is meant by a pidgin here is ambiguous; but Jar Jar does not speak pure Galactic Basic, nor the pure Gungan language.4

The Gungan seem displaced. They are amphibious, yet live in hidden cities of air-filled bubbles underwater. The sacred place they flee to is in the swamp, at least above ground, though the ground may sink. The Naboo live on the other side of the planet on land, in other words they are landed. Whereas the Gungan are immersed in an environment not of their choosing, though they are from it.

Yet the Jedi claim that the Gungan and Naboo form a symbiont circle. What happens to one will affect the other. Padme’s persuasive speech to Boss Nass is even more ambiguous. “...Although we do not always agree, Your Honor, our two great societies have always lived in peace...until now. The Trade Federation has destroyed all that we have worked so hard to build. You are in hiding, my people are in camps. If we do not act quickly, all will be lost forever...I ask you to help us...no, I beg you to help us.” She then prostrates herself, or at least falls to her knees before the big Boss. He accepts the tribute and pledges the Gungan to battle, as distraction for a covert action to capture the viceroy. The formerly divided and opposed groups are suddenly united toward a common cause.

But the Gungan lived in hidden cities before. That kind of peace is where the colonized don’t take arms in rebellion. What exactly did they work so hard to build? More importantly, what of value did the Gungan ever receive from the Naboo? We might infer the local primitives, who might also be referred to as an “indigenous tribe” (Qui-Gon uses the phrase regarding Tuscan raiders on Tattoine) were forcibly introduced to the new language of power and money, Galactic Basic (which I hear as English). This sounds like the symbiance between a slave and an owner, or alternatively a colonized and colonizer, whereby both are allowed to flourish in the relationship, one by the hyper-exploitation of the other.

So, though the Gungan are opposed to the Naboo, the Naboo (including the Gungan) are opposed to the Trade Federation and Sith. In shorthand: (Gungan : Naboo :: black : white :: below : above :: primitive : refined/civilized :: pidgin : pure :: local : invader :: wet : dry). These oppositions are then reversed (or omitted) when the Gungan are lumped into the Naboo: (Naboo : Trade Federation :: below : above :: local : invader).

There is another oppositional symbiont relationship. Queen Amidala and Padme are played by the same actress. They are maintained as separate roles, but to persuade Boss Nass to unite against invasion, Padme reveals herself as the authentic Queen. There must have been times earlier in the film when the Queen was really the Queen. But the viewer must then re-evaluate the earlier presentations if they care to decode this clue.

Queen Amidala is opposed to Padme as the rational to the emotional, the calm to the expressive. They are opposed as the elected monarch to the handservant, the formal to the friendly, the state nobility5 to decoy/ protection/ bodyguard. However, after they are united, by way of reversal, we all know who is the real Queen, even if she looks like Padme. Padme also speaks a plainly American English until they are united, after which she literally slips back and forth between American and the formerly mentioned colonial British accent of Queen Amidala.

Perhaps the important message to be gleaned from this evidence, for my presentation, is that the low should work with the high, the dominated with the dominant, to fight off the economic and imperial advances of foreigners.

This is especially clear in the case of Jar Jar Binks. In the final analysis, Binks most seems to represent the invocation of class contempt for the ascendant (oriented) members of groups from dominated areas of social space. Jar Jar’s salvation seems to rely on his acceptance of his lot, his ability to bend without breaking. Most specifically, though he is resistant in symbolic ways, he can be persuaded to mediate. This role always presents danger to Binks, but he blunders through with the difficulties of the inappropriate and disadvantaged. In fact, both times he leads outsiders to Boss Nass, his Honor pronounces his upcoming death.6 Fortunately, both times a white person saved him. Of course, after Binks unites the Gungan and Naboo, Boss Nass promotes him to general. At the end of the film, Binks is depicted among the royalty and Jedi assembled in celebration of “peace!” Jar Jar has come up in the world. When we me him, he was sucking clams out of their shells in the swamp. Another shorthand representation: (ascendant : stationary :: submissive : resistant :: bent : straight :: middle : poles)

MIDI-CHLORIANS AND THE WHITE CHRIST CHILD

According to the screenplay, the explanation of the significance of midi-chlorians is:

ANAKIN: Master, sir...I’ve been wondering...what are midi-chlorians?

QUI-GON: Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells and communicates with the Force.

ANAKIN: They live inside of me?

QUI-GON: In your cells. We are symbionts with the midi-chlorians.

ANAKIN: Symbionts?

QUI-GON: Life forms living together for mutual advantage. Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to you, telling you the will of the Force.

ANAKIN: They do??

QUI-GON: When you learn to quiet your mind, you will hear them speaking to you.

ANAKIN: I don’t understand.

QUI-GON: With time and training, Annie...you will.

Midi-chlorians, when replaced in the historical context of early biological thought, sound like a mystical essence of positively valued humanity. This is especially so if the Force is the living will of the universe. But it is likely not coincidence that this discussion takes place between two white males, both rather Anglo-Aryan seeming.

More specifically, midi-chlorian concentration is structurally homologous to the eugenic-oriented version of racial purity. In both cases, the group with a legitimate (or at least legitimated) monopoly on physical violence also has something superior inside their cells. Like racial purity, understanding how the Force in known through the midi-chlorians requires time and training. Neither is well evidenced by biological science.

This selection from The Magic of Myth evidences the connection between midi-chlorian concentration and national supremacy, especially of the post-war period.

From the beginning, Star Wars reveals that good and evil are at war. This first film divides good and evil clearly; the dark side uses the power of the Force for aggression, and the light side for defense. The heroes make the right power choices: they seek independence rather than dominance, and they fight because they must, not because they are consumed by bloodlust.

The Sith, the Emperor, and thus Darth Sidious have all been associated with Hitler and Nazi Germany. Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn are both U.K. affiliated. Anikin Skywalker, however, speaks a rather American English. Though all of these characters has white skin, (save Darth Maul with black and red skin with horns) the Jedi are also clothed in white while the Sith are clothed in black. Therefor, Nazi aggression was bad, British and American imperialism was defensive. At least, America seems to have been assigned credit for winning WW II (with help from Allied forces).

In my own secondary schooling, Hitler was clearly attributed the negative contribution of ‘racial purity’ to the cultural discourse of history. I use a purposefully vague phrase as my historical education was vague. As well, ‘popular culture’ representations in the years since would have also led me to believe that as Hitler is bad, as Hitler represented racial hygiene, racial hygiene is bad. Interestingly enough, however, racial purity has survived at the level of popular discourse as the color “white” (or “black”), though the tendency seems toward clarifying nation of origin prior to immigration. This is not digression.

Anakin Skywalker has a midi-chlorian count that far exceeds that of all other Jedi. This accounts for Qui-Gon identifying him as the prophesied Chosen One who will bring balance to the Force. Anakin is the only human who can pod race, and thus manages to rescue the Queen’s stranded party and defenders on Tattoine. Anakin also saves the planet of Naboo from the droid invasion army of the Trade Federation with the help of his natural ability (or his midi-chlorian concentration, manifesting the living will of the universe through its Force).

Skywalker also seems to represent the white Christ-child. Not only is his performance excellent for the Naboo (who have a rather colonial American feel). But he comes from a desert environment, born from no father, possibly conceived by the midi-chlorians. The immaculately conceived Chosen One, Anikin is the savior to the Naboo twice in T.P.M., as well as to the universe in Episode VI when Darth Vader kills the Emperor. He truly brought balance to the force.

What is very telling is a comparison between the ascendant trajectories of Anakin and Jar Jar. Anakin comes up by his exceptional performance, premised on his high midi-chlorian concentration. This privies him to the will of the Force, the living will of the universe. But he starts the film as a slave, though of immaculate conception. He rises to the level of Padawan Learner in T.P.M. But Star Wars fans know Annie will become Darth Vader, helping rule over the galaxy from the Dark Side, then saving it from the Emperor (perhaps realizing his allegiance to his progeny, Luke Skywalker). Annie is also white and American, precocious and observant. So were (are) his children, Luke and Leigha Skywalker.

Binks is ascendant because of his (stigmatized) role as mediator, and his submissiveness to social necessity, or willingness to bend (and not break) at changes of fortune. He happens to be present when needed, useful and persuadable, and willing to accept his lot (though he doesn’t quite get it). Nearly his whole being (or existence) is a hindrance or disadvantage, but he fumbles though with noble effort. He may symbolically resist his superiors occasionally, but he will do what is necessary to fend off invaders (of an Asian kind).

The important thing is that everyone comes together to repel the outsiders, for the common good.

STRATEGIES, PROFITS, SCHEMES: ANTICIPATING EXPANDED MARKET CONSECRATION

T.P.M. contains the rationalization of its own consumption. The narrative presents the viewer with a worldview that legitimizes domination through its presentation of legitimate domination, especially, though not limited to, the domination of a cultural market by a cadre of experts. But in this case, the production of disbelief is just as important to the relationship between the dominant and dominated. The movie encourages a denial of the domination by consumption (which simply lines up with the dominant perspective on consumption: the specific encouragement of that denial through sublimation and suggestion), in the same way that the majority of academic work on ‘popular culture’ denies through valorization.

The description of the myth of national unity toward class ascendancy suffers drastically from a quasi-diagrammatic organization. Unfortunately, this is one of the major constraints of social/cultural scientific thinking. I am not trying to substitute for experience: if the reader is interested, they should see the film. The inability to see the connections between the ways ‘popular culture’ (and all culture for that matter) is put together and the relation with the rest of society and culture around it serves the interests of the dominant. It is necessary to tear the articulation out of context to order it in a way that makes the most possible sense. But this context cannot be permanently bracketed. In other words, the full truth of cultural productions can only be illuminated by the recognition of their position within a system of positions and productions: “Retaining what has been gained through the notion of intertextuality, that is, the fact that at each moment the space of works appears as a field of position-takings which can only be understood relationally, as in a system of phonemes, that is, as a system of differential discrepancies, one can form the hypothesis - a heuristic tool confirmed through analysis - of a homology between the space of creative works, the field of position-takings and the space of positions in the field of cultural production.”7 These social positions are accompanied by representations that bear the stigma of their history.

I would suggest that it is the unconscious, yet objective tailoring for expanded market consumption, that best accounts for the films seemingly dominant meta-narrative. It is the film’s appropriation by assimilation, propagation, and distribution of appropriate cultural coding to sell to an American audience, and by extension to the world that is explicated by the triplet of habitus, capital, and field. As a ‘self-interested’ producer, Lucas may want to sell his product, but not necessarily wish to be sexist, racist, and/or classist. But that does not mean that those schemes of thought that assist the work of those types of domination are not represented in T.P.M. The self-interested are behooved by anticipating or ignoring (depending on how their capital structure relates to the field in question) their most likely market. But this anticipation is rarely fully articulated, rational, or conscious. Again, this does not disallow (and in fact would be encouraged by) the prior internalization of schemes of meaning that, appropriated, transfigured, and ‘marketed’ might be sold for cash. This meaning, or informational scheme, is only likely to be effective (box office sales & tie-ins, primary and secondary material profit) given a shared cipher or general code between producer and audience. That is, informational capital is only useful given the appropriate conditions of usage (or field of social relation). The common schemes of meaning, an interrelated set of complementary, oppositional pairs of agencies (and their related references) that both sublimate through denial and implicate through suggestion, should be recognized as forms of capital (the appropriation and utilization of work) that are only ever fully meaningful in relation to their opposites and contexts.

The idea of articulation (meaning putting together) is useful. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was put together to do more than just tell a story, though it certainly does that. George Lucas, the Star Wars ‘creator,’ has conveyed the impression that he wishes to be respected as a storyteller. This appeal seems an indication of pretensions toward that most autonomous of artforms: poetry. Lucas himself put it this way:

I was trying to take certain mythological principles and apply them to a story. Ultimately, I had to abandon that and just write the story. I found that when I went back and read it, then started applying it against the sort of principles that I was trying to work with originally, they were all there. It’s just that I didn’t put them in there consciously. I’d sort of immersed myself in the principles that I was trying to put into the script…[And] these things were just indelibly infused into the script. Then I went back and honed that a little bit. I would find something where I’d sort of gotten slightly off track, and I would then make it more, let’s say, universal, in its mythological application…
I’m very much of the painting school of fimmaking, which is you put a layer on, and you put another layer on, and you put another layer on. You look at it, see how it is, redo it. It doesn’t evolve linearly8

The movies have all done well in the capital marketplace. This is immediately evidenced by the most cursory glance at the dollar figures. According to data found at the IMDb website, in the U.S., Star Wars: A New Hope (the first one released in 1977, #4 in the storyline) ranked 2nd Top Grossing All-Time Box office at $415,645,312. The Empire Strikes Back (#5, the second released of the series in 1980) ranked 10th at $290,158,751. Return of the Jedi (#6 in 1983) ranked #8 at $309,064,373. The Phantom Menace ranks just behind the ‘original’ in #3 (#1 in the storyline, released in 1999) at $415,645,312.9 At the World Wide Box Office, A New Hope is #4 at $780,000,000, The Phantom Menace is #8 at $649,300,000, and The Empire Strikes Back is #12 at $533,800,000. [Titanic is #1 at over $1,800,000,000.]10

The fields of social relations that Bourdieu has referred us to are the spaces in place and time in which socio-historical struggles are carried out. It is important to remember several things when seeing the world through these analytical goggles. First, fields of social relations tend to be organized through oppositions between contrary agencies. This is the factual basis for the observation that the world, and thus cognition, tend to be structured in sets of complimentary binary oppositions. Though it is only proven by systematic reconstruction of the processes of the social world, it is possible to observe their effects in the cultural byproducts. Second, the actions of current struggles to impose the ultimate definition of what is most important (and thus to secure monopolization of the rarest and most valued resources) are always the partial outcomes of the past oriented toward the future.

The perceivable field of position-takings and positions taken is the symbolic manifestation of the struggle over actual social, cultural positioning. As in the whole field of popular culture, in T.P.M. there is a coherence found in the appearance of multiple positions taken. That stance is in favor of the recognition (and thus the misrecognition) of the legitimacy of domination by the dominant. This is not to be confused with a simplistic imposition of domination. “The field of cultural production produces its most important effects through the play of the homologies between the fundamental opposition which gives the field its structure and the oppositions structuring the field of power and the field of class relations. These homologies may give rise to ideological effects which are produced automatically whenever oppositions at different levels are superimposed or merged.”11 I would wager that very few cultural producers would be willing to admit that their work also does the work of domination encouraged by the owners of privileged position. This is nonetheless the case.

In the field of cultural production the opposition is between autonomous producers (those that do what they do primarily for the recognition of others that also practice that activity) and heteronomous producers (those that engage in activities similar to autonomous producers, but do so for more immediate profits of money and/or power). Although The Phantom Menace clearly positions George Lucas among the later group, it is not the amount of money actually made by the film that provides the proof. It is the manner of articulation for the widest possible American audience that indicates the organizing principle behind the movie’s structure.

The idea that this imagistic, superficial manipulation of symbolism blurs, muddies, or implodes the meaning that is imparted is naïve. The social basis for the cognitive classification of society and culture into sets of binary oppositions starts with the basic fact of individual organismic existence (the self vs. the other or not-self). This basic misunderstanding landslides into us vs. them, as well as into notions of individuality and uniqueness only with generations of compounded interest. As all agents inside a system with finite resources (the only ones we know) are partially in competition with each other for those resources, this makes some sense. The catch is that culture is the social mediation that allows and encourages human cooperation, or in this case collusion. “The instruments of knowledge of the social world are [...] (objectively) political instruments which contribute to the reproduction of the social world by producing immediate adherence to the world, seen as self-evident and undisputed, of which they are the product and of which they reproduce the structures in a transformed form."12

The opposition structuring the field of cultural production, that between autonomy and heteronomy, is homologous in form to the structures of the fields of power and class relations. In the field of class relations, the relationship of economic domination overdetermines the agencies subject to its influence. The opposition between the economically dominant and dominated tends to exert itself, so to speak, in the practices of everyday life.

One informant told me Star Wars defined his generation. He said it was the only movie to come out in a long time that he was really excited about, because he had a strong identification with it. To treat this identification as superficial or inconsequential would be to misrepresent the relationship between the producers of commodified culture, and the consumers of culture produced for consumption by an expanded capitalized market.

This article does not lack in examples of productions of disbelief. But the surveys carried out and continued concerning this subject were developed with one main goal: to show that most people who had seen this movie and were willing to fill out a survey were not likely to think that they or someone they know is likely to be affected, as well as that these same folks are not likely to have ‘noticed’ representations of stereotypicality. As a work in progress, I will only suggest that from a total of 80 surveys carried out in Seattle, Washington and Albuquerque, New Mexico, sixty percent responded with a flat “no” or “none” when asked the open-ended question “Can you see The Phantom Menace having an impact/influence on yourself or someone you know?” Of course, asking for instant expertise on such touchy questions as are ‘probed’ in the questions preceding, knowing the questioner is looking for answers they do not posses, they are ‘tricked.’ Another ten percent try and rationalize before saying ‘no.’ And ten percent were influenced by the collective research project (having filled out the surveys at our house).

The popular culture business, a trade in things that have no influence, belongs to the class of practices in which the logic of the postcapitalized economy thrives (as it does, in another sphere, in the economy of exchanges between the sexes/genders). These practices, functioning as practical negations, can only work by pretending not to be doing what they are doing. Defying ordinary logic, they lend themselves to two opposed reading, both equally false, which each undo their essential duality and duplicity by reducing them either to the disavowal or to what is disavowed - to disinterestedness (the refusal of politics) or self-interest (the engagement in politics). The challenge which economies based on disavowal of the ‘political’ present to all forms of economism lies precisely in the fact that they function, and can function, in practice - and not merely in the agents’ representations - only by virtue of a constant, collective repression of narrowly ‘political’ interests and of the real nature of the practices revealed by sociological analysis.13

The classification that was undertaken in the construction of the film’s narrative structure, and thus that the audience experiences, was developed with a market intention. The biases that are revealed make clear who’s work is done for them. This is not to implicate Lucas as a tool of the bourgeoisie, but rather to implicate his complicity in the larger scheme of capital relations. This willingness to go along with one’s domination is then manifested in the audiences’ reaction, whether or not they claim they liked the movie.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace will not by itself make anyone think anything they didn’t already have access to. But it will be influential in the process of constantly re-cementing the symbolic relations between the classes, so as to work toward continued monopoly by some of the means of material, cultural, and social production at the expense of everyone else. The manner in which George Lucas and the supporting cast have done this is primarily by appropriating pieces of the larger narrative of human history, and transfiguring them out of contextual recognition (an example of dual misrecognition). Which is not the same as underplaying their meaning. We are left with a view of the world, presented as a fictional story, which makes efficient use of the dominant perspective on history.

This presentation is as much about the propagation of a scientific perspective on cultural phenomenon as it is about the reconstruction of nationalistic rhetoric. The strongest implication is the most subtle: The myth of the American Dream is the moral superiority, lack of aggression in the U.S. rise to supremacy, and denial of the foundations of exploitation, upon which stands the freedom and prosperity so valued and portrayed. In hindsight, if I was to anticipate as large an audience as possible, I would try to utilize the structured resources already available. If the educational experience is made entertaining it can be fulfilled and denied at the same time, utilizing the audiences prior educational experiences.

Lecture Notes: Critical Thinking, Otis, Feb 2008

INTRO:

Who am I? researcher, academic, educater/support staffer, dj, contract expert

Why should you care? Rational/critical thought leads to decision making in your best interests

“Art for Art’s sake”, anybody ever heard this phrase? What does it mean? What is the
opposite?

“The work of art is an object which exists as such only by virtue of the (collective) belief which knows and acknowledges it as a work of art” (p. 317)

* ‘Universalize access to the universal’; reflexivity


THE CRITIC:

“Money for money’s sake” – ‘business is business’, ‘business as usual’

Fields: "A field is a structured social space, a field of forces, a force field. It contains people who dominate and others who are dominated. Constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which the various actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field. All the individuals in this universe bring to the competition all the (relative) power at their disposal. It is this power that defines their position in the field and, as a result, their strategies." (p. 40, On Television); place, poles, game. “There is no other criterion of membership of a field than the objective fact of producing effects within it.” (p. 323)

Diagram: money, legitimate physical violence, cultural production

The field of class relations, or economic production: dominant vs. dominated (owners vs. slaves)

The field of power: (temporal vs. symbolic)

The field of cultural production: (autonomous vs. heteronymous)

Dual hierarchies; as one approaches the dominant end of the field of cultural production one approaches the dominated end of the field of power. Thus one is immersed in dual hierarchies with opposing structures. “The struggle in the field of cultural production over the imposition of the legitimate mode of cultural production is inseparable from the struggle within the dominant class (with the opposition between ‘artists’ and ‘bourgeois’) to impose the dominant principle of domination (i.e., ultimately, the definition of human accomplishment).” (p. 322)

THE POINT: REFLEXIVITY

Tool in science – how the observer (researcher) changes/affects observation (research), research strategies, bias

Can make cultural production complicated/diverse

Rationality can lead to confidence, self-esteem, decisions in one’s own best interest (self interestedness)

This can lead to complications (disinterestedness vs. self-interest)

Regardless, the most information/evidence leads to decisions based in reality; i.e., making decision out of ignorance, partially determined (over-determined) vs. making informed, rational, critical decisions in one’s own self-interest (and one’s class interests – solidarity vs. cronyism or “In order words [sic], by obeying the logic of the objective competition between mutually exclusive positions within the field, the various categories of producers tend to supply products adjusted to the expectations of the various positions in the field of power, but without any conscious striving for such adjustment.” p. 326)

* The field of science is at the dominated end of field of power (Chris Rodgers), just like the field of cultural production. Who and what is where is a matter for further research, but they are not without relation.

MINI-BIB

The Field of Cultural Production

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste

Outline of A Theory of Practice

The Logic of Practice

On Television

'Field' explanation from On Television

"A field is a structured social space, a field of forces, a force field. It contains people who dominate and others who are dominated. Constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which the various actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field. All the individuals in this universe bring to the competition all the (relative) power at their disposal. It is this power that defines their position in the field and, as a result, their strategies." p. 40

On Television
Pierre Bourdieu
1998, The New Press, New York
(Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson, tr.)

Sur la télévision, 1996, Liber-Raisons d'agir