It's impossible to omit the gendered nature of this entire discussion. This is about masculinity -- all this valorizing of power and strength and virtue (lit., manliness). Values of meekness, of submissiveness, of inclusion -- these are "feminine." The "masculine" wants to take over, divide, organize, rationalize, and conquer. The "feminine" seeks to include, co-exist, nurture. No wonder the Talmudic rabbis valued "cunning" over virtue.

And to return to Star Wars: notice how effeminized the celibate Jedi are, with their dress-like robes and talk of democracy. Yes, they may have light sabers, but Sidious has a Death Star, the biggest gun of all. One friend of mine suggested that the reason Padme was attracted to the rather annoying (though certainly hot) Anakin in the first place was his deep connection to the Dark Side. In other words, he had mojo.

This is familiar turf -- the sexuality of fascism -- but it's still fresh. When Ann Coulter writes adoring Op-Ed pieces about how President Bush fills out his flight suit, there's clearly a lot of truth to the great leader-big penis conjugation. Likewise, and in a complementary way, many contemporary spiritual teachers see the work they are doing as restoring the exiled Divine Feminine, the aspect of God which is yin instead of yang, cyclical instead of linear, holistic and inclusive, instead of single-minded and imperial.

To be honest, I'm uneasy with this use of the term "feminine." True, as I try to reassure my Kabbalah students, masculine and feminine is not at all same as men and women. Men may usually be more masculine, and women may usually be more feminine, but not all the time, and what is chiefly important is for all of us to be balanced. We seek the a union of already-integrated wholes, not that of two halves. Still, though, I think "feminine" is just too close to female for comfort, and thus too close to essentialism and reductivism. I'll use the Taoist 'yin' and 'yang' instead, which carries the same meanings but without the easy mistake.

Viewed in the context of gender, the political discourse of Star Wars takes on new and surprising aspects. First, it's notable that for a series that preaches Yin values, a lot of people go see it for Yang reasons: the shoot-em-ups, the violence, etc. Lucas, of course, provides plenty of fodder for the Yang crowd, and probably does a better job in Sith than in any previous film of integrating the action with the plot. (The worst outing on this front was surely Return of the Jedi, with the Luke/Vader drama unfolding in parallel to, yet completely separately from, Han Solo's pointless campaign to destroy the second Death Star.)

Second, it's so interesting that the forces preaching "integration of the dark side" are the masculinist, evil Sith. Usually, in contemporary spirituality, it's the feminist, holistic ones who say that what's called dark is really just the shadow side of the whole, and that we have to own our shadow in order to be complete. In the movies, it's the masculinists.

Then again, and this is a critical point, the statement that "the Jedi/John Kerry are pussies" is itself a myth of the Right, just as "the Sith/George Bush are evil" is a myth of the Left. Each side wants to say "Oh no, it's not that we're for X and they're for Y -- we're for balance and they're for imbalance." Since George Lucas is essentially a Jedi and a Leftist, his creation, Darth Sideous, seems more about the Dark Side than about balance -- it's not clear what Good elements he espouses. The Jedi, in contrast, really are about balancing their Yin and Yang sides (after all, there are those light sabers!). One could just as easily imagine a counter-Star-Wars, written by a Right-winger, in which healthy, well balanced Sith Lords are undermined by anti-patriotic, corrosive Jedi subversives. It might even have cooler fight scenes.

3. The Balance of the Force

So where does this leave us, in terms of the fundamental dispute between toughness/construction/authority/phallus/yang on the one hand, and suppleness/ naturalness/autonomy/womb/yin on the other?

I've tried to suggest that "balance" is the ideal, but also something of a copout, since everyone preaches a rhetoric of balance. Thus, as before, I find it very difficult to arbitrate this dispute -- not least because of my own identity. As a queer-identifying man, I'm vulnerable to those who would say that I have my Yin-gendered political views because of my own unusually-Yin soul. This is why wimps are called "pussies," after all, isn't it? And doesn't it fit that a mostly-gay man is preaching a doctrine of Yin?

On the other hand, what about John Kerry, George Lucas, and the millions of other confidently heterosexual liberal men? And what about Rick Santorum, Gary Bauer, and the legions of pasty, "effeminate" conservative men? Anne Coulter may like to fantasize that conservative men are more manly than liberals, but the evidence doesn't support her. Clearly, plenty of manly men are liberal, and plenty of unmanly-men are conservative. Likewise, and again in contrast to Coulter's rhetoric of real women wanting real men, I think we'd be hard pressed to call "iron ladies" like Margaret Thatcher and Nancy Reagan embodiments of effeminate cliche.

What's more, both sides have their demeaning rhetoric. On the Right, the line is obvious: liberal men are pussies. On the Left, the line is a little more subtle: "I'm comfortable with my masculinity, therefore I'm not threatened by gay people."

So it's not just a matter of personal taste.

If we return to the question of balance, I do think we can at least tease out different theories of balance as between the wimps and the jocks. For the wimps, balance means balance within the self. If you're a man, but you've only developed your yang qualities (strength, confidence, toughness), you're incomplete. You may have big muscles, but your yin side (suppleness, sensitivity) is a spiritual 98-pound weakling. This is why "Eastern" sages like the wise Orientals in karate movies always talk about inner strength: because outer strength is only part of it, and it can easily become delusion.

For male jocks, on the other hand, balance is external. Men are supposed to be macho, strong, and powerful, balanced externally by sensitive, emotional women. This is why feminism, not to mention queer theory, really does undermine a certain kind of patriarchal discourse: because, by offering different models for a fully-actualized woman, it questions the legitimacy of traditional models of a fully-actualized man.

With this in mind, I can offer a few arguments for my Jedi values.

First, personally, I prefer a mode of being in which I can be macho and tough sometimes (I love steak, love mountain climbing, love getting my body into good physical shape) and sensitive other times (sad songs, loving conversations). I don't think that is because of my sexual identity, because I know plenty of straight men -- maybe queer, but surely straight -- who have the same preferences. And, personally, I do find men who have never developed their yin sides to be somewhat incomplete. There is such a wide variety of options for how to live -- why be limited in this way? Why hold back from experiencing life in as rich and diverse and flavorful a way as possible? Why not really suck the marrow out of life, feeling its energies fully, radiating yang and yin, exploring toughness and sensitivity? I want to taste Baal energy, Kali energy, Yahweh-energy, Shechinah-energy; I don't want to limit myself to those flavors deemed to be gender-appropriate.

Second, and relatedly, what a tragedy to diminish the range of our sensitivity, in the name of some supposed value of manliness! I remember how I used to regard "campy" gay people -- you know, the chatty types who know all the lyrics to Sondheim songs and shriek when they see a mouse. I used to see them as incomplete men -- as compromised by their effeminacy. Nowadays, I see them as more complete than most of us, because they are so able to express their "feminine" sides and more likely to be emotionally affected by their lives. It's that openness that allows for tears, laughter, celebration, and dancing -- real dancing, the kind where you abandon your ego and just let go into rhythm and melody. I used to be contemptuous of those men who seemed too effeminate; now, I admire them.

Third, the model of external balance -- men are men, women are women -- is more likely to be oppressive than one of internal balance. There are just fewer choices, and, taking a reality check, it is exactly this model which has oppressed women and gay people for generations. Contemporary "feminists" who complain that women's "femininity" has been compromised by contemporary culture seem to miss this point: that models of external balance will inevitably lead to oppression of those who don't fit into the right boxes.

Fourth, the external-balance model is less truthful to experience. Anger, for example, really isn't primary; if you look closely at it, under conditions conducive to doing so, you'll see that it's really made up of fear, desire, aversion, and ignorance. We really want things to be different from how they are -- that, not the epiphenomenon of anger, is fundamental. Of course, one could easily reply that a little untruth is probably good for a well-adjusted life. But for me, whatever God is, it must be closely related to truth.

[1]       [2]       3       [4]       [next->]