juniper_sky

Nothing is as central to the setting of Star Wars as the Force--that enigmatic energy field against which the power to destroy a planet is insignificant. It's established early on that the Force is divided into a Light Side and a Dark Side, but over the years fans have created a surprising number of different interpretations of these concepts. The simplest definitions, of course, are that the Light Side is the morally good aspect of the Force and the Dark Side is the evil aspect, but some aren't satisfied with that. They like to dissect what they see as the underlying principles of the Light and Dark Sides, and match them to more specific philosophies. There's not really anything wrong with that, but it had lead to certain ideas and perceptions that, in my view, are fundamentally flawed. So, I'd like to explain why I disagree with some of the common ideas about the Force, and then explain my own idea of the Light Side and Dark Side could represent beyond basic morals.

First, I'd like to discuss the surprisingly common notion that the Light Side and Dark Side don't actually exist. Their position is essentially that the Force is one, singular entity, with no moral alignment of its own, and all of it is capable of being used for good or evil, depending on the user. The Jedi and the Sith, they argue, only divide the Force into a Light Side and a Dark Side because they have overly black-and-white views. It's important to note that this view isn't limited to fans chatting on internet forums; writers who have written official stories for the Star Wars Expanded Universe have taken it as well. In particular, there was a character named Vergere who appeared in the New Jedi Order books, but who served no real purpose beyond parroting this idea of a "neutral" force, which her authors presumably thought was some bold and profound bit of wisdom.

Second, there is the similar and no less pretentious idea that the light side and dark side are both dangerous extremes that must be balanced. Fans of this mindset believe that the ideal force user is neither Jedi nor Sith, but something in between; the word "gray" gets thrown around a lot in these discussions. I find this perspective even more annoying than the first, because it's essentially a golden mean fallacy--an assumption that the truth must lie in between the opposing viewpoints. "Very fine people on both sides," in other words. Typing that made my fingers feel dirty. The point is, the Light Side and the Dark Side are not Yin and Yang, they're good and evil, and I fail to see the advantage of trying to balance good and evil. One would think the fact that every Dark Side user is a murderer while every Light Side user is at worst kind of stuffy would've tipped people off, but apparently not.

Really, though, the reason attempts to make the force "neutral" or "gray" or "balanced" annoy me is that they contradict what Star Wars is supposed to be. People have complained that Star Wars is too black and white, but there's a reason for it, just like there's a reason there's a clear moral division within the force. The central theme of Stars Wars is the struggle between good and evil, which may seem bland and cliched, but it's important to remember that the conflict isn't just external. The fight between the heroic rebels and the evil empire is a parallel to the struggle between good and evil within the characters themselves. Luke's whole character works because he has to struggle to resist the temptations of the Dark Side, something which even his father failed to do. He eventually succeeds, and emerges stronger for it, but it still required immense willpower on his part to avoid giving into the worst side of himself. And it's not just Luke--other characters, including characters who can't use the Force, like Han and Lando, learn throughout the series to choose selflessness over selfishness. The point of the Light Side and the Dark Side isn't "everything is literally either good or evil," it's "we all have the potential to be either good or evil." Everyone feels, at some time or another, the temptation to give in to their worst impulses and the urge to rise above and do right by others. The Light and the Dark are metaphysical representations of that. To say that the Light Side and Dark Side are equal, or nonexistent, is to say that there is no difference between kindness and cruelty. More to the point, it's to say that Luke's decision to resist the Dark Side, and Darth Vader's decision to turn back to the Light, were meaningless. And I think invalidating the most important decisions in the series is a little too high of a price for making the author seem "deep."

But now that we've talked about other people's unnecessary reinterpretations, let's talk about my unnecessary reinterpretation. Because even though the Light Side as a concept fits well into the themes of the series, the Jedi's interpretation of it sometimes doesn't. Specifically, the idea that the Dark Side is all about emotions, while the Light Side is all about stoicism. When the story acts like emotions are evil and a lack of emotions is good, it's a lot easier to see why fans want something more nuanced, even if the conclusions they come to aren't the best. Personally, I blame the prequels for this. In the original movies, there was never any indication that Jedi couldn't fall in love or marry, and no one specifically associated the Dark Side with emotions. Anger and hatred, yes, but not emotions in general. When Luke asks if Yoda wants him to let his friends die, Yoda says, "If you honor what they fight for, yes." He does NOT say "Let go of everything you fear to lose," as he does to Anakin in the prequels. In the prequels, he seemed to be saying that Jedi aren't allowed to care about anyone, ever, while in the originals, he just said that Luke had to put the galaxy as a whole first. And because of how sloppy the storytelling in the prequels is, I honestly can't tell if we're supposed to agree with Yoda, here. Does George Lucas want us to think caring for others is bad, or does he want us to think the Jedi are wrong? To be honest, I don't think he thought about it very much.

Either way, it doesn't really match what we see of the Light Side, in practice. In the first movie, Luke is able to destroy the Death Star by having faith in the Force, not by suppressing his emotions. The logical, emotionless thing to do would have been to use the targeting computer. In The Empire Strikes Back, and to a greater extent in Return of the Jedi, Luke uses the Force fairly effectively without the need for emotional detachment, specifically. He destroys a vicious crime lord just to save his best friend, and the Light Side seems to be helping him quite a bit along the way, suggesting complete emotional detachment isn't necessary. And most importantly, what is it that inspires Darth Vader to turn back to the Light Side? Is it stoicism? Does Vader redeem himself because he suppressed his emotions and let go of everything he feared to lose? Of course not! He turns back to the Light Side because he loves his son!

To me, the Light Side is not a lack of emotions, it's emotions that have been focused and refined by wisdom and compassion. Whereas the Dark Side is raw, irrational emotions, like fear, anger, and hatred, the Light Side is emotions filtered through higher ideals. It's the difference between blind, desperate love, like the kind that drove Anakin to the Dark Side, and selfless, caring love, like the kind that returned him to the Light. Even the prequels support this at certain points, albeit accidentally. Yoda, for all his talk of stoic detachment, isn't strong enough to defeat Palpatine. But Mace Windu is. And Mace Windu never struck me as a stoic philosopher--at various times, he seems to display and act on emotions, but he always keep them under control. He feels anger, passion, boldness, pride, but he makes them work for him rather than against him. Much like Luke, for that matter. The point is, it's actually a lot easier to believe that the Light Side is a genuine force for good than some dogmatic construct. Star Wars is about heroes, plain and simple, so I think there's nothing wrong with the nature of the setting itself reflecting that.