Star Wars‘ Justification of Rebellious Murder

In popular media, violence is often glorified and excused within the over simplified ‘good vs. bad’ value system: the ‘good guys’ are allowed to do bad things to the ‘bad guys’. The ‘good guys’ in Star Wars are (almost unquestionably) the Rebel Alliance. They are seen as such because of the perspective from which the story is told and because of the uncomplicated nature of the genre.

The protagonists are aligned with the Rebellion, who say they hate the Empire, and we see the Empire as a destructive force. In actuality, there isn’t such a thing as a completely good side and a completely bad side. Both sides believe that they are pursuing the most effective course of action to bring about justice in the galaxy. The Empire just has a different value system than the Rebellion; both are violent towards one another but neither is completely unjustified.

Our sympathies depend on which point of view the story is told from. The 1977 movie directed by George Lucas, Star Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope, is no exception. Its approach to the use of violence is problematic because media does influence the way we think, and something as popular as Star Wars can influence the way an entire country perceives empires and rebellions against those empires. The ‘good vs. evil’ binary perpetuated by much of the franchise is not the most productive way to approach an anti-colonial rebellion in real life, and can be harmful because it ignores the real nuances of using violence in rebellion.

The purpose of this paper is to determine when the audience of a Star Wars movie should excuse or even support the use of violence. To do this is to determine, to an extent, when violence is permissible in a real-world rebellion. So, I will be using texts that draw their claims from real-world events: The Rebel by Albert Camus and Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. When applying these theories to Star Wars, I will analyze  instances in which the narrative’s portrayal of an event is inconsistent with its actual moral value, and when the rebels’ actions are not portrayed as ‘authentic’ in terms of Camus’ theory. According to P.G. Neiman, writing on Camus’ theory, “Authenticity is. . . important in breaking the cycle of violence wherein one oppressive government is replaced with another.” To avoid becoming like the Empire after the Empire is defeated and negating their own mission, the Rebel Alliance should be authentic in their rebellion. This means recognizing that their respect for humanity, which is why they rebel in the first place, is not congruent with their violent actions.

I will therefore investigate the justification for acts of violence carried out by Luke Skywalker in A New Hope (1977) and Cassian Andor in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016), which is more realistic in its portrayal of violent rebellion than other Star Wars movies as characters directly engage with the moral implications of murder for a rebellion. Applying the contrasting views of Fanon and Camus, I will examine the movie’s use and justification of violence and what Rogue One teaches viewers about the world that original Star Wars movies do not.

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, introduced the world to Star Wars in 1977. The main character, Luke Skywalker, finds himself on a quest to save his galaxy from the Empire’s fearsome weapon, the Death Star, a massive space station capable of destroying entire worlds. He succeeds, not only saving a Rebellion base from destruction but also killing all Imperial officials on board the space station. Though the movie is full of violence, the moral implications of the ‘good guys’ killing other human beings are never addressed or even mentioned.

(A New Hope)

On the other hand, it is made abundantly clear that any and every act of violence perpetrated by the Empire is morally wrong. A logical self-defense argument can be made for the destruction of the Death Star and the deaths of everyone on board during the heroic climax of Episode IV: A New Hope–in fact for all the violent acts by the Rebellion in Episode IV–but Camus’ ideas of contradiction are never addressed:

…if [the rebels] retreat they must accept death; if they advance they must accept murder… If a single master [of the rebelling slaves] should, in fact, be killed, the rebel, in a certain way, is no longer justified in using the term community of men from which he derived his justification. … From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood (22-23).

Camus’ ideas, when applied to Star Wars, mean that the condition of the violent Rebel against the Empire is rife with contradiction and moral dilemmas. Instead of seeing these nuances in the Star Wars movies, the audience is asked to view the Empire as unequivocally immoral and the Rebellion as morally just. Furthermore, Franz Fanon’s argument concerning violence in rebellions seems to be more applicable to Star Wars as he claims that rebels are always fully justified in their violence against their oppressors: “…colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence.” (Fanon, 23)

In other words, the lives of colonists are acceptable losses in the battle against colonialism. He asserts that the only way to defeat oppressive colonialism is with violence, and because of this any damage caused by violent rebels in not morally wrong. However, evidence that the Empire is truly oppressive is not conclusive. Episode IV does not provide the reason that the Rebels have for rebelling. [1]

In Episodes IV-VI, what specifically makes the Empire evil is never explicitly stated, but it is to an extent shown. When stormtroopers destroy Luke’s aunt and uncle’s farm and burn them alive, we are left to assume that the Empire is evil because it uses this same unnecessary level of violence whenever it cannot get what it wants. This is supported by the destruction of the inhabited planet Alderaan by the Empire to try to force Leia to reveal the location of the Death Star plans. Though these events prove that the Empire is malevolent now, we never see what the Empire has done to instigate this conflict (the audience is provided no context for this war until the prequel movies are released 20 years later) and neither of these events would have happened if there were no Rebel/Empire conflict. If we knew specifically why the Rebels fight, it would be easier to judge their violence. Regardless of the initial reason for the conflict, agents of the Empire are sentient beings whose mass murder interferes with the Rebel Alliance’s egalitarian philosophy.

Episode IV: A New Hope, does not talk about the moral implications of killing another person at any point. [2] It is, however, strongly implied that everyone associated with the Empire is expendable, that their lives have no or negligible value to the ‘good guys,’ the rebels. The most obvious example of this is the destruction of the Death Star. This is a defensive action, and takes fewer lives than the Death Star would have had the capacity to end. The Empire was poised to obliterate the Rebel base on the moon Yavin 4. If the Death Star had not been destroyed, the Rebellion would have been destroyed. So, the violence is necessary for the success of the Rebellion, and the murder of these hundreds of Empire soldiers and officials is unilaterally portrayed as a positively moral action by the movie.

Yet Albert Camus claims that the necessity of violence or its justification by moral ‘math’ (killing a smaller amount of people to save a larger amount) are not sufficient to excuse or justify violence in a rebellion: “A rebel cannot be consistent if he or she claims to respect all humanity while at the same time he or she claims the right to commit murder” (Neiman). From Camus’ theoretical standpoint, it appears that members of the Rebellion either do not believe in universal humanity (including intelligent sentient non-human beings), which would mean they are not real rebels, or they do not believe that those aboard the Death Star have humanity.

Even members of the Rebellion die en masse without other rebels sparing a second thought to consider the lives lost. In A New Hope, thirty fighters and the freighter the Millennium Falcon set out towards the Death Star at the Battle of Yavin, and only four ships return, one of which being Han Solo’s Millennium Falcon and another piloted by Luke Skywalker. If you aren’t a main character, Star Wars confers much less value on your life. Other rebels who die on screen in A New Hope’s opening scene of Vader striding through an airlock are set dressing to show us his power, and the fighter pilots are killed to communicate that Luke is in danger. There were also probably anti-Imperial prisoners on board the Death Star when it exploded, given the presence of multiple cell blocks is confirmed when Han, Chewbacca, and Luke break Leia out of a cell in “Detention Block AA-23” and Han and Luke pretend to be transferring Chewbacca from block 1138 (A New Hope). These deaths are never mentioned.  It is war, there have to be casualties, but the rebels don’t seem to believe in the humanity of their own losses. The survivors of these scenes don’t mourn the dead. Instead of a funeral after the deadly Battle of Yavin, we see only an award ceremony in honor of Luke and Han. Though the movie has undeniable entertainment value, it promotes a view of violence that is unproductive when applied to the real world: rebels who treat their oppressors and their own as though they have no humanity in action and/or thought cannot create a just world in which we are all equal. [3]

In the case of the more recent, morally nuanced  Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Camus’ philosophies are exemplified in the character Cassian Andor and his decision to be part of an extremely dangerous, possibly suicidal mission to obtain the Death Star plans. Differing from both trilogies, this stand-alone story has characters presented as good people who do bad things and feel guilt. The audience is meant to relate to or at least feel sympathy and empathy for them. [4] In Rogue One, Cassian and the rest of the rebels who come with him on the mission are the very model of Camus’ rebel. They commit violent acts because they know it is necessary, yet they also know it is wrong and hope to redeem themselves by dying to prevent the deaths of many more by the Death Star. The ‘greater good’ justification does not totally satisfy them, and matters are further complicated because many of the violent acts in this movie are not strictly in self defense.

Rogue One is unusual in the Star Wars franchise because of its tendency to focus on the moral implications of murderous rebellion. This may be because George Lucas geared the first six Star Wars movies towards children, so the narratives were simpler, and now that the fan base is older it can understand occasional forays from different directors into more nuanced material. Additionally, the field of postcolonial studies was largely nonexistent until the eighties, after Lucas had outlined his six-episode story, and has gained momentum since. Now that postcolonial theory is more widely studied, referred to, and understood, it can be accepted and understood in popular culture, especially in a stand-alone installment that does not affect the major plot points of the beloved series.

Instead of portraying everyone in the Empire’s administration and military as evil and everyone in the Rebellion as morally right, like in A New Hope, [5] Rogue One asserts that one person can do ‘evil’ things in service of a decidedly good cause. Much of the movie’s tension comes from the audience being able to relate to the moral struggles of Cassian Andor and understanding the difficulty of choosing when to use violence in service of a rebellion. In the original trilogy, this tension came from the battle between the good Rebellion and evil Empire. [6] Cassian, and the rest of the Rogue One team, engage directly with the morality of murder. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, Cassian kills a “bad guy” – a clone trooper – and a “good guy” – the informant Tivik. We see he doesn’t want to kill Tivik, but he knows it is necessary to make sure he cannot betray any information about him or the rebelling Alliance to the Empire.

(Rogue One)

Regret and internal conflict are visible in his face after the act, along with a reluctant resignation. Also, while under orders to kill Galen Erso on sight, Cassian chooses not to. His commanding officer in the Rebellion wants him to kill Galen because they believe he is essential to the completion of the Death Star, but after seeing how much he means to Jyn Erso, his daughter, he decides not to take the shot. He sees Galen’s humanity and decides that his life has value and should not be ended. This gets him in trouble with his commander and leads to an airstrike of the Empire facility where Galen is, ultimately killing more people than Cassian would have and causing Galen’s death anyway.

Jyn is angry that Cassian ever considered following the order. She tells Cassian: “Orders? When you know they’re wrong? You might as well be a stormtrooper” (Rogue One). She equates the Rebel Alliance’s soldiers with the Empire’s military, further deriving from the traditional ‘good vs. bad’ Star Wars story. The audience isn’t handed any easy answers to the question of whether or not Cassian should have killed Galen. Later on when Jyn is planning to retrieve the Death Star plans, Cassian brings several Rebellion soldiers with him as he accompanies her. Referring to this group, he says “We’ve all done terrible things on behalf of the Rebellion.” This is a statement that has never been admitted before in any of the Star Wars movies, although it is certain that murder is a terrible thing, and that the Rebellion commits murder.

Cassian Andor’s actions correlate strongly with Camus’ theory. He is a rebel, working and fighting for the Rebel Alliance, who kills for the rebellion and feels guilty for having murdered. Camus states: “When he rebels, a man identifies himself with other men and so surpasses himself, and from this point of view human solidarity is metaphysical” (The Rebel, p 11). Regarding the necessary use of violence in rebellion, he states: “From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood” (The Rebel, p23). This awareness of a moral transgression is refuted by Fanon: “This line of reasoning which envisages the surgical elimination of the colonized does not morally upset the colonized subject. He has always known that his dealings with the colonist would take place in a field of combat”(p43). Fanon’s rebel rebels in the name of the oppressed colonized, so there is no reason for the rebel to care about the lives of the colonizers.

Therefore, Cassian Andor’s actions in Rogue One are more consistent with Camus’ theory of the rebel than, say, those of Luke Skywalker in A New Hope. Cassian is a true rebel who fights against the Empire and a chain of command that seeks not to limit violence but to codify it and justify it whenever deemed necessary to its success. Cassian retains the belief that fuels the efforts of the Rebellion in the first place: the belief in respect for all humanity. He commits murder on several occasions, but does not support it and so remains authentic in his actions. In other words, I believe that because Cassian considers the consequences of his violence as it affects other people, his rebellious violence is excusable, while Luke’s is not because he never considers the consequences of his violence and thus is not shown to have a belief in respect for all humanity.  Violence is necessary in a rebellion. How we react to and frame that violence, whether or not we are authentic in our use of violence, determines whether or not our victory will lessen the amount of violence and oppression in our postcolonial world.

 

 

Endnotes:

[1] Episodes I-III tell of the Empire’s founding by a Sith Lord, a supposedly evil opposite of the Knights of the Jedi Order. Even that distinction is based on arbitrary absolutes, as Episodes I-III explore themes of moral ambiguity in telling the story of a sympathetic character, a Jedi Knight, turning into a Sith Lord.

[2] The prequel movies, Episodes I, II, and III, follow the character arc of Anakin Skywalker, a Jedi knight trainee who turns from a student of the peaceful Jedi ideology of the Light Side of the Force into Darth Vader, a member of the Jedi’s “evil” counterparts, the Dark Force-wielding Sith. He rebels against the Jedi Council and ideas that he deems unfair, fitting Camus’ model of a rebel fighting back against his oppressors because of conditions he finds untenable. However, the audience is not supposed to think that Anakin is morally correct when he acts in service of the Sith, especially in the third episode when he murders not only many Jedi but also all of the Younglings, children training to become Jedi. They look barely ten years old. Despite the real failings of the Jedi council and Anakin’s right to want to change things, this obviously crosses a line. It is an act so despicable that it is not shown on screen.

(Episode III)

[3] The prequel movies show that people have the capacity to transform from good to evil, suggesting a more subjective approach to morality than A New Hope’s black-and-white. It also avoids defining the Jedi and Sith as good and evil. It is clear that the Jedi are rather dogmatic and do not always make the correct decisions, for example when most of the Jedi Council maintains that the planet Kamino does not exist in their records, it does not exist, even though it is real. Anakin rebels against the restrictive Jedi because he believes that restricting use of the Dark Side of the Force to save his wife Padme is unacceptable. However, when Anakin is violent against the Jedi Order, he is firmly on the wrong side of the conflict. Interestingly, he initially recognizes the necessity of murdering others to rebel against and demolish the Jedi Order and help Palpatine rule to bring order to the galaxy while being aware of the moral incorrectness of murder. However, he is motivated not only by a belief in human rights (or in this case Jedi rights) but also by his fear of losing Padme, so I would say he is not purely a rebel. When Anakin is violent against the Jedi Order, he is firmly on the wrong side of the conflict. The audience knows this when they see the murders that he carries out in the name of Palpatine’s Empire.

[4] unlike Anakin (an extremely powerful Jedi who is corrupted by fear of loss and turns to the Dark Side because of it in Episodes I-III), who is presented as a good, morally justified person who turns into an evil person.

[5] or having more fluidity and nuance but still maintaining that one person is either good or evil as in the prequel trilogy with its emphasis on the pure Light Side and corrupting Dark Side.

[6] In the prequels, much tension came from Anakin’s transformation into an evil and unsympathetic character.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Abrams, J.J. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.

This movie is centered around destroying a third Death Star, this time called Starkiller Base. Because it is under construction at the time, those killed are not only part of the Imperial military but probably also construction contractors and their families

 

Camus, Albert. The Rebel.   

The theory outlined in this work specifically applies to rebellion and the use of violence in that rebellion. Camus claims that any act of violence by a rebel against their oppressor contradicts their motivation for rebelling in the first place because it contradicts the belief that all humans have the same basic rights.

 

Edwards, Gareth. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

This movie tells the story of a band of ‘rogues’ who fight the Empire, but not on the Alliance’s (the corresponding rebels) terms. Moral dilemmas involving violence for the sake of overthrowing an imperial power are shown, mentioned and addressed.

 

Leeming, M.A. Journal of Religion and Health (2002) 41: 35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015149920690

This article outlines dangers of using a ‘good vs evil’ myth to identify oneself against other groups and justify violence against others. The author uses religious extremist groups and the Star Wars movies as examples.

 

Lucas, George. Star Wars Episodes I-VI.

These are the first three Star Wars movies to be produced and released. They do not address the moral implications of violence in rebellion, rather the emotional motivations for violence as defined by the Dark Side of the Force.

 

Neiman, P. G. (2017) Camus on Authenticity in Political Violence. European Journal of Philosophy, doi: 10.1111/ejop.12241.

This article discussed Camus’ theory on authenticity in political violence while sometimes comparing it to other theories. Camus places more importance on the authenticity of violence by rebels against oppressors than on its moral correctness. Rebellious violence is authentic when the rebels recognize both the necessity of their violence and its moral incorrectness.