"To Boldly Go With The Force", Mindy Clegg's essay on the politics of popular sci-fi

boing
24

That’s true, and repeating what Mindy Clegg’s essay also successfully argued.

Where does Dr. Clegg argue that? There is a quick mention of Flash Gordon, but her main argument seems to be that Star Wars is informed by the unrest of the 60s, which is the opposite of what I’m saying:

The ongoing counterculture, the war in Vietnam, and the revelations about the Nixon administration and how the federal government regularly lied to the American people on a variety of issues, found their way into the DNA of Star Wars
…
Skywalker represents not only the heroes journey, but also a libertarian worldview common among the 1960s countercultural revolutionaries

In general, I find the exercise of reducing the comparison down to “Institution-Loving Roddenberry” and “Institution-Fearing Lucas” to be kinda reductive (it’s also weird to me to label the 60s movements as libertarian and not socialist, as many of them were). But it also overlooks the important point that Roddenberry and Lucas were not undergoing the same exercise when they approached their respective works, as one was actively imagining a better world and the other was making a nostalgic adventure story. Are Lucas or Star Wars fans really “deeply anti-institutional”, or is a story about individual freedom fighters swashbuckling through space just a real fun setting for an adventure? (Besides, even in Lucas’ Star Wars, there is a contrast between good institutions like the Old Republic and the Senate and bad ones like the Empire).

My argument, in contrast, was that Star Wars was such a big hit because it hearkened back to a simpler era before the civil and social unrest of the 60s, just like many other late 70s/early 80s nostalgia properties (Happy Days, Animal House, Wonder Years, Grease and of course Lucas’ own American Graffiti) at a time when people were eager to turn the corner on this chapter of history and lose themselves in escapist entertainment.

Whoa whoa whoa. That may be your experience, but it’s not everyone’s.

[Star Wars: The Last Jedi | Issue 125 | Philosophy Now

My point is for the most part, Star Wars is just supposed to be a fun time, which is why the comparison is troubled to begin with. It never invites you to question, for instance, the situation of droids, who are apparently sentient and can experience pain, but are basically enslaved lifeforms. They, like spaceships and stuff, are just part of the milieu.

The authors of this piece sorta underscore my point on the matter. Particularly the newer movies are a mish-mash of half-baked concepts, corporate virtue signaling and Millenial pandering. None of those are evils, I guess, but I’m even less inclined to spend time thinking deeply about Star Wars now than when they actually represented some individual’s ideas.

25

“the two franchises represented diverging generational views”

You were talking about the impact of different generations on the franchises. If you weren’t talking about that, it was my mistake to compare it to how well it was done in the essay.

It was meant to be entertaining, as was Star Trek, but I think you’re profoundly short-changing Star Wars if you think that’s all it was trying to do.

Except that it includes scenes of droids being bought as possessions when they are framed for the audience as active main characters, it shows their tenuous existence in a way that made you sympathetic to them, it centers that injustice in scenes that wouldn’t need to be there if it was just trying to be “entertaining”. In short, it artfully raises the questions you accuse it of ignoring.

Star Wars wasn’t just a PewPew popcorn movie (although it succeeds at that, too). It’s also a samurai political drama, mixed with some zen koans, and some The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Of course it has American Graffiti in it, too, but it’s more than a nostalgia vehicle for a single time.

But don’t worry about it, if you don’t like Star Wars anymore, or even if you just can’t find anything that inspires you about it, well, that just means you aren’t the kind of person who still likes Star Wars.

7 Likes
26

There was never any “simpler era…” ever. That’s a sugar-coated, white-washed myth perpetuated by historical revisionists who prefer to ignore the less savory parts of US history.

15 Likes
27

Lucas’ Wars is non-lyrical Shakespearean family drama set in Spaaaaaaace science-fantasy.

5 Likes
28

And it’s the Hero’s Journey as well; as Dr Clegg mentions in her essay.

11 Likes
29

Your argument may be valid for some viewers, but it fails catastropically for many. I was born in the early '70’s, not in the US. ‘The civil and social unrest of the 60’s’, let alone the supposed utopia that preceeded it, meant absolutely nothing to my young self, but that didn’t prevent me enjoying the film.

6 Likes
30

Nice elevator pitch, but Flash Gordon could also be described roughly the same way.

It strips out what made them different, though.

2 Likes
31

Well, to be more holistic, I think Star Wars was / is a big hit, first and foremost, because they’re amazing, pioneering films (at least the original trilogy).

But in terms of important socio-political trends and why the movies might have resonated politically with certain groups with certain political beliefs (which was the topic of the essay), both the essayist and I agree the turmoil of the 60s plays a role (I just disagree on the role). It’s not an attempt to explain why every individual person likes Star Wars – but one of the reasons Star Wars was so exceptionally popular is because of the socio-political moment in which it arrives (at least in the US).

32

Flash is family drama? (Unfamiliar with the franchise.)

3 Likes
33

Not to debate “droids as slaves in Star Wars,” which google tells me is a popular topic, but is Star Trek that much better at inviting you to question, for example, the situation of a ship’s computer? Remember “Ship in a Bottle,” in which she (the computer) creates a sentient, autonomous super genius
image
from nothing but the instruction, “Create an adversary capable of defeating Data”? There’s a small power surge detected on the bridge, immediately forgotten. No big deal. Just creating complex life.

But if she can do that, then doesn’t it follow that she at least has the capability of sentience herself? What’s holding her back? Did Starfleet hobble every computer after M-5 in TOS, but leave them capable of creating sentient life? And, for that matter, capable of solving complex real-world problems given only a simple, plain-language command (“Computer, win this battle…repair this station…cure this disease…solve this refugee crisis…tea, earl grey, hot.”) :upside_down_face:

I agree that Star Wars is space fantasy, but I think both universes ask viewers to ignore some things to enjoy the story.

3 Likes
34

Not in the slightest.

Heroes journey for sure but the kind of feel that Lucas wanted with Star Wars. The serials on archive.org if you are interested and they are a lot of fun but pretty generic sci-fi two-fisted swashbuckling fun from the 1930s. Space Opera is probably the best term. I am a fan of the 1980s animated version even if the animation wasn’t all that great.

Buck Rogers (which I belive is what Lucas originally wanted to do) comes from the same era and is also a fun space opera.

3 Likes
36

You were talking about the impact of different generations on the franchises. If you weren’t talking about that, it was my mistake to compare it to how well it was done in the essay.

Well, for some reason you snipped my very specific original comment and responded to it in part so perhaps this got confusing. Let me restore the original comment, with the eliminated part bolded:

With Star Wars, Lucas was trying to recreate the space operas he loved as a kid (truly a different genre from science-fiction altogether) and part of its relevance and huge success was that it tapped into that nostalgia for his generation, who was reeling from the cultural and social upheaval of the 60s/70s.

So that’s a meaningfully different take from Lucas’ hero representing “…a libertarian worldview common among the 1960s countercultural revolutionaries”. (Although, as I stated before, I’m not sure what that phrase means or whom it refers to. Are we talking about hippies?). At the end of the 70s, the US was eager to turn the page on this tumultuous chapter of its history, so I’m not sold that Star Wars would’ve been the phenomenon it was if it reminded people of the iconoclasm of the 60s. I’m interested ni exploring that idea, but unfortunately, Clegg doesn’t support this assertion with much besides the idea that the Empire is a “big, evil institution” so it must represent all of them (even though in the same story Lucas devises “good” institutions, like the peaceful Alderaan and Naboo).

Except that it includes scenes of droids being bought as possessions when they are framed for the audience as active main characters, it shows their tenuous existence in a way that made you sympathetic to them, it centers that injustice in scenes that wouldn’t need to be there if it was just trying to be “entertaining”. In short, it artfully raises the questions you accuse it of ignoring.

Not really sympathetic enough to care that the campaign to win freedom for all lifeforms in the galaxy didn’t really include them, though. Or to not laugh when they’re blown up or tortured. But I take your general point.

Star Wars wasn’t just a PewPew popcorn movie (although it succeeds at that, too). It’s also a samurai political drama, mixed with some zen koans, and some The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire . Of course it has American Graffiti in it, too, but it’s more than a nostalgia vehicle for a single time.

But don’t worry about it, if you don’t like Star Wars anymore, or even if you just can’t find anything that inspires you about it, well, that just means you aren’t the kind of person who still likes Star Wars .

I actually love both Star Trek and Star Wars, which is why the topic interests me. My point wasn’t to diminish one or aggrandize the other. My point was – with respect to the topic of the essay – I think nostalgia and the various ways the films were pioneering were bigger factors in SW catching on when it did, rather than tapping into a cultural shift toward…libertarianism? (the revival of the Trek films and The Next Generation were happening roughly the same time as Star Wars, it’s worth mentioning).

37

You are of course, correct – but there was point in US history when, in reaction to collective social trauma of the 60s/70s, the US would culturally double-down on a “sugar-coated” myth, yearning for a time some Americans perceived as “simpler”. In addition to the number of movies and TV shows yearning back to yesteryear, the US even elected a 50s actor as president.

38

I think you might be forgetting just how many of the plots revolved around Princess Aura scheming against her father, amongst other Lear-lite and MacBeth-lite palace intrigues. It wasn’t sophisticated drama, but it still had plenty family drama.

4 Likes
39

All the nostalgic trappings (WWII dogfights, Western outlaws, Fast-talking '30s patter) are in service to characters rebelling against things. It wasn’t meant to remind people of the '60s, it was produced by people who were sympathetic to the cultural changes of the '60s and who were often promoting a different political framework under cover of nostalgia.

That’s not my reading. Every main character is shown needing to reject an institution that they each support or are beholden to in some way, in order to find some progress in the greater cause. Obi-Wan is presented as what the past does to adherents to institutions, a failed company man unsure of success, finding “New Hope” that’s based on believing in independent methods. Leia is committed to the hierarchy of proper rebellion leadership, but has to grudgingly shift her support to a defrocked priest, a farm-boy, and a crooked smuggler. Luke is an archetypical “rebellious teen” who wants to reject farm-life, and then ultimately has to reject the institutional demands of the Rebels, in order to achieve the aims of the Rebels. The only way for Han to achieve his first happy non-ironic smile, is to shelve his commitment to a social order of gangsters and Me-First-ism.

But you are talking about how it was received, and what made it popular.

Many conservatives latched on to Star Wars, but it wasn’t world-wide, culture-wide popular because it was popular with conservative nostalgia-seekers. They were along for the ride, but the film was equally popular with any class of people who watched it.

There were people who were nostalgic for a time before the Vietnam draft, and there were other people who were nostalgic for a time before the Civil Rights Movement. They both loved Star Wars, but that’s not the same sense of nostalgia.

5 Likes
40

And I think you neglect just how Shakespearean family drama in Spaaaaaacce the Wars film franchise is. :slight_smile:

That said, there’s enough room in this world for geeks of all stripes.

PS: Are you savvy to Science Fiction & Fantasy stack exchange? I get the sense you might enjoy. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
42

Brian Blessed as a Force Ghost in *Flash Hamlet: Something's Amiss in Dantooine*

Thanks for the link!

6 Likes
43

All the nostalgic trappings (WWII dogfights, Western outlaws, Fast-talking '30s patter) are in service to characters rebelling against things. It wasn’t meant to remind people of the '60s, it was produced by people who were sympathetic to the cultural changes of the '60s and who were often promoting a different political framework under cover of nostalgia.

Vietnam and Nixon were certainly on Lucas’ mind when he was thinking of the Galactic Empire, but I don’t think that means Star Wars is necessarily prescribing any kind of political framework / ideology. It’s foremost an adventure epic and like, say, Lord of the Rings, you can pretty much layer any political allegory over that you want in a way that wouldn’t work with Star Trek (by comparison).

As I mentioned before, those “nostalgic trappings” sometimes undermine any progressive political message there might be (as I mentioned, racism against droids, aliens [Chewie would get a medal in Star Trek]; the sexualized violence of the few female characters there are in the original series). Obviously Lucas isn’t promoting those things politically.

That’s not my reading. Every main character is shown needing to reject an institution that they each support or are beholden to in some way, in order to find some progress in the greater cause. Obi-Wan is presented as what the past does to adherents to institutions, a failed company man unsure of success, finding “New Hope” that’s based on believing in independent methods. Leia is committed to the hierarchy of proper rebellion leadership, but has to grudgingly shift her support to a defrocked priest, a farm-boy, and a crooked smuggler. Luke is an archetypical “rebellious teen” who wants to reject farm-life, and then ultimately has to reject the institutional demands of the Rebels, in order to achieve the aims of the Rebels. The only way for Han to achieve his first happy non-ironic smile, is to shelve his commitment to a social order of gangsters and Me-First-ism.

But isn’t that all typical Hero’s Journey, self-actualization stuff? The Little Mermaid “rejects” the ocean; Bilbo “rejects” the provincialism of the Shire and so on. These are all tropes of the genre, not necessarily Lucas making bold political statements (in my opinion).

That’s why my original point is that Star Wars and Star Trek are not the best comparisons on this political angle. THX-1138 would be a better comparison to Star Trek, as it’s actually speculative fiction and reveals a lot more of Lucas philosophies and feelings about the state of politics and the future. I mean, it’s not a mistake THX is relatively unheard-of and Star Wars in a ginormous franchise – THX is rife with the politics of the time and is very angry and bleak. It captures the feelings of the period which, by the 80s, everyone wanted to forget.

But you are talking about how it was received, and what made it popular.

Many conservatives latched on to Star Wars, but it wasn’t world-wide, culture-wide popular because it was popular with conservative nostalgia-seekers. They were along for the ride, but the film was equally popular with any class of people who watched it.

There were people who were nostalgic for a time before the Vietnam draft, and there were other people who were nostalgic for a time before the Civil Rights Movement. They both loved Star Wars , but that’s not the same sense of nostalgia.

I agree. Star Wars is enjoyed by a broad cross-section of people across the political spectrum, which was my point all along. I don’t believe there are strong political ideas in the series that cause it resonate with fans – on the contrary, the story can kind of be an allegory for any politics you want, regardless of what Lucas intended (the Empire could easily be the Revolutionary Era British, the Germans or in Ronald Reagan’s case, the Russians). I think that’s why it’s so successful.

When I say “nostalgia”, I don’t mean that as a pejorative. I think SW was one of the first movies that connected people across generations: adults were reminded of the serials they watched as kids and kids at the time had simply never seen anything that cool. By contrast, I think the values and ideas presented in Star Trek are much more important to the fandom of that series.

44

You’re free to think that Star Wars doesn’t suggest itself to certain specific philosophic schools of thought or tactics, but there’s probably a reason that the examples you give are all framed as independence movements by whatever people who use Star Wars as a metaphor.

They are far less often framed as “building a new idealised institution” as “beating back an encroaching and stifling institution”, and I think that’s what the essay identifies and where the general contrast is found.

People (very often the same people) tend to think of Star Trek when they want to creatively model a better society where larger co-operative systems nurture and protect people, and think of Star Wars when they want to inspire hope that “freedom-loving” individuals don’t need to be lost to the demands of a structured monolithic emotionless society that threatens them.

And if you’re arguing against the essay’s thesis, it’s also pointless to start micro-comparing where both Star Wars and Star Trek fail at various times in fighting sexist, racist classist tropes. They both failed to meet their highest points at times, in various ways, or failed to live up to their best selves. That doesn’t change how they contrast generally.

If you still want to pick nits, I’ll repeat: Showing racism against droids isn’t always the same as being racist to droids. The movie series starts with sympathetic droids with agency and what happens to them is not framed as natural, but as part of a broken oppressive system. It’s deliberately coded as racism. Showing racism as wrong isn’t racist.

2 Likes
45

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.