General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientific American opinion piece: Star Wars & the Jedi are problematic, racist, sexist, and ableist
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi-is-problematic-for-describing-programs-that-promote-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/The article starts out by discussing the use of the acronym JEDI (justice, equity, diversity and inclusion) as it pertains to programs promoting social justice, but the bulk of it is an attack on Star Wars, Disney and fandom.. Some quotes:
The Jedi are inappropriate mascots for social justice. Although theyre ostensibly heroes within the Star Wars universe, the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for justice work. They are a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of Jedi mind tricks, etc.). The Jedi are also an exclusionary cult, membership to which is partly predicated on the possession of heightened psychic and physical abilities (or Force-sensitivity). Strikingly, Force-wielding talents are narratively explained in Star Wars not merely in spiritual terms but also in ableist and eugenic ones: These supernatural powers are naturalized as biological, hereditary attributes. So it is that Force potential is framed as a dynastic property of noble bloodlines (for example, the Skywalker dynasty), and Force disparities are rendered innate physical properties, measurable via midi-chlorian counts (not unlike a Force genetics test) and augmentable via human(oid) engineering. The heroic Jedi are thus emblems for a host of dangerously reactionary values and assumptions. Sending the message that justice work is akin to cosplay is bad enough; dressing up our initiatives in the symbolic garb of the Jedi is worse.
........
Star Wars has a problematic cultural legacy. The space opera franchise has been critiqued for trafficking in injustices such as sexism, racism and ableism. Think, for example, of the so-called Slave Leia costume, infamous for stripping down and chaining up the movie series first leading woman as part of an Orientalist subplot. Star Wars arguably conflates alienness with nonwhiteness, often seeming to rely on racist stereotypes when depicting nonhuman species. The series regularly defaults onto ableist tropes, memorably in its portrayal of Darth Vader, which links the villains physical disability with machinic inhumanity and moral deviance, presenting his technology-assisted breathing as a sinister auditory marker of danger and doom. Whats more, the bodies and voices centered in Star Wars have, with few exceptions, historically been those of white men. And while recent films have increased gender and racial diversity, important questions remain regarding how meaningfully such changes represent a departure from the series problematic past. Indeed, a notable segment of the Star Wars fandom has aggressively advocated the (re)centering of white men in the franchise, with some equating recent casting decisions with white genocide. Additionally, the franchises cultural footprint can be tracked in the saga of United States military-industrial investment and expansion, from debates around Reagans Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative to the planned Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (another JEDI program), sometimes winkingly framed with Star Wars allusions. Taken together, the controversies surrounding Star Wars make JEDI at best an inappropriate way to brand justice worka kind of double-edged sword (or better yet, double-bladed lightsaber). At worst, this way of branding our initiatives is freighted with the very violence that our justice work seeks to counter.
.....
JEDI connects justice initiatives to corporate capital. JEDI/Jedi is more than just a name: Its a product. Circulating that products name can promote and benefit the corporation that owns it, even if we do not mean to do so. We are, in effect, providing that corporationDisneywith a form of free advertising, commodifying and cheapening our justice work in the process. Such informal co-branding entangles our initiatives in Disneys morally messy past and present. It may also serve to rebrand and whitewash Disney by linking one of its signature product lines to social justice. After all, Disney has a long and troubling history of circulating racist, sexist, heterosexist and Orientalist narratives and imagery, which the corporation and its subsidiaries (like Pixar) are publicly reckoning with. Furthermore, Disney is an overtly political entity, critiqued not only for its labor practices but also for its political donations and lobbying. Joining forces with Disneys multimedia empire is thus a dangerous co-branding strategy for justice advocates and activists. This form of inadvertent woke-washing extracts ethical currency from so-called JEDI work, robbing from its moral reserves to further enrich corporate capital.
.....
Aligning justice work with Star Wars risks threatening inclusion and sense of belonging. While an overarching goal of JEDI initiatives is to promote inclusion, the term JEDI might make people feel excluded. Star Wars is popular but divisive. Identifying our initiatives with it may nudge them closer to the realm of fandom, manufacturing in-groups and out-groups. Those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Star Warsincluding those hurt by the messages it sendsmay feel alienated by the parade of jokes, puns and references surrounding the term JEDI. Consider, as one example, its gender exclusionary potential. Studies suggest that the presence of Star Wars and Star Trek memorabilia (such as posters) in computer science classrooms can reinforce masculinist stereotypes about computer sciencecontributing to womens sense that they dont belong in that field. Relatedly, research indicates that even for self-identified female fans of Star Wars, a sense of belonging within that fandom can be experienced as highly conditional, contingent on performances proving their conformity to the preexisting gendered norms of dominant fan culture. At a moment when many professional sectors, including higher education, are seeking to eliminate barriers to inclusionand to change the narrative about who counts as a scientist, political scientist, STEMM professional or historianadopting the term JEDI seems like an ironic move backward.
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Silent3
(15,140 posts)LymphocyteLover
(5,636 posts)Celerity
(43,069 posts)and 300 House members.
The article reads like an Onion caricature of uber faux wokeness.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)LymphocyteLover
(5,636 posts)Elessar Zappa
(13,896 posts)It does almost seem like satire.
Response to Dial H For Hero (Original post)
NYC Liberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)This article reads like the person who wrote it never actually checked the lore of the Jedi or Star Wars as a whole. It's a damn tragedy that Scientific American has fallen so far away from journalistic integrity.
PatSeg
(47,239 posts)Creating an issue where none exists. I started to read it and it gave me a headache.
AnyFunctioningAdult
(192 posts)All this stuff does is help Republicans get elected.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)whathehell
(29,026 posts)Hilarious!
PatSeg
(47,239 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,288 posts)CRINGEWORTHY.
sakabatou
(42,134 posts)andym
(5,443 posts)The article is ridiculous ammunition for the Right's culture wars. Whats worries me is how the well-educated authors of this piece could have possibly written it and how the editors of Scientific American thought it worthy of publication.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)for the April issue, but got lost on the way
nolabear
(41,930 posts)I wont bother to go into it but those arguments could be used against everything from Bugs Bunny to the Kama Sutra.
vercetti2021
(10,155 posts)The Jedi and rebellion were the heroes trying to overthrown tyrannical government. Shit that might be happening here soon, we are the fucking rebels and Jedi.
jg10003
(974 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Ive read a lot of crazy bullshit on DU. This may take the case.
And it ends with a subtle attack on science majors.
Perhaps a group frustrated humanities major writing this dribble?
That a person could write this and keep a paying job is not encouraging.
Hav
(5,969 posts)This is a typical case of believing to have recognized one fact in a movie/book and then you bend reality to make everything else fit to what you want to be true.
What a waste of resources but I'm sure the authors feel good about themselves and they must believe they figured out something really important.
it is like d&d making people worship devils again.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)why this is published in SciAm? I'm a subscriber but this is so far out from their usual that it seems like the editor in chief is paying a ransom.
fishwax
(29,148 posts)It's not cancel culture coming for our space operas or woke culture trying to ruin some fun fantasy, it's just: "hey, diversity and inclusion initiaves are important in our fields,, but maybe we shouldn't use JEDI to brand them."
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,479 posts)anti-woke brigade.
Takket
(21,526 posts)Because it sure reads like one.
One persons silly opinion. As of told my wife many times, if you look hard enough you can find a group of people in this country that want to ban chocolate and puppy dogs. Doesnt mean they deserve any attention.
Cant believe scientific American would publish something that absurd. The rethugs are ripping our country to pieces and their idea of journalism and science is to go after a fantasy movie series. Not helpful.
d_r
(6,907 posts)But this is just wrong, like innacurate.
Patton French
(742 posts)..this cant be serious.
cinematicdiversions
(1,969 posts)I know this technically isn't a parody. A lot of things like this are technically not a parody. But it's effin hilarious.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,148 posts)Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)when he used Force Suggestion on them.
edbermac
(15,933 posts)ProfessorGAC
(64,827 posts)How did this overreaching, and over thought nonsense end up in Scientific American?
Was it a slow month for science?
The thing is full of "bad thing, even though there are good things". And, bringing up the Leia costume while neglected that she kills Jabba without a weapon & becomes a leading general in the rebellion is cherry-picking. She's a strong character from the very beginning. Geez, she's involved in a rebellion in the first movie!
I feel sorry for the author who seems incapable of suspending disbelief & just enjoying a story, rather than go through torturous stretches to find faults existing only in their mind.
Too clever by 3/4ths.
Marcuse
(7,442 posts)Coventina
(27,052 posts)Johnny2X2X
(18,968 posts)It's a fantasy, it's not required to be inoffensive to all people all the time.
Jedi Guy
(3,175 posts)fishwax
(29,148 posts)The argument of the article is not that star wars or Disney are bad, but that the JEDI allusion is not a productive label for justice/diversity committees or initiatives within STEMM, and the movement for advancing such values as justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion might be better served by using a different acronym.
Big fucking deal. Nobody's saying you(/we) can't enjoy your(/our) star wars.
Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)The argument of the article is not that star wars or Disney are bad
They describe the Jedi as prone to (white) saviorism, toxically masculine, using "phallic" lisghtsabers, ablest, practicing eugenics, and dangerously reactionary,.
Star Wars itself is said to be problematic, sexist, racist, ablest, and at least in small part responsible for US military-industrial expansion.
Disney is described as racist, sexist, heterosexist, Orientalist, and then mentioned as having troubling labor practices, political donations, and lobbying.
Regardless of the validity (or not) of any of the above, describing this as an attack is certainly fair.
I agree, no such assertion was made. And....?
fishwax
(29,148 posts)It's a critique, sure, but specifically within that context. Within that context, I don't really see the observation that Disney "has a long and troubling history of circulating racist, sexist, heterosexist and Orientalist narratives and imagery" as an attack. (Nor is it the same simply describing Disney as racist, etc.)
I agree, no such assertion was made. And....?
If that was the point of the article, then I'd buy it as an attack.
Dial H For Hero
(2,971 posts)faults of the Star Wars universe, its characters, its fans, and Disney than they do the JEDI diversity program itself. The article begins and ends discussing the program, granted...but after reading the entire article, I now know more a obout why these people don't like Star Wars, Disney, and fandom (Star Trek is mentioned negatively in passing as well) than I do the JEDI program.
fishwax
(29,148 posts)specifically with respect to whether JEDI is an apt label for initiatives and committees promoting diversity. They don't talk about "the JEDI diversity program itself" because it isn't a specific program in question ... rather, JEDI has become an increasingly common label at various schools, companies, and organizations for such diversity initiatives.
The whole point of the article is that the authors don't think this is a good label for such programs, and everything that they say about star wars and disney is specifically with respect to that question/claim. (They say at the end that at least some of the authors are fans. And of course there isn't anything inherently inconsistent with (a) suggesting that Disney has produced some pretty problematic stuff over the years and (b) still finding interest/enjoyment/quality in disney/pixar movies.
The point is not "star wars sucks because of these things and we don't enjoy it and people shouldn't enjoy it," but rather "because of these things a star wars reference may not be the most appropriate frame for this specific purpose."
For the purpose of analogy, one might, for instance, really like the music of Led Zeppelin, and yet still argue that, because of Jimmy Page's history with underage girls and recurring potentially misogynistic themes (viewing women consistently/exclusively as sex objects) in their lyrics, a Led Zeppelin song wouldn't be a good choice as a theme song for a women's empowerment seminar.
Silent3
(15,140 posts)...but on other occasions, when someone has tried to make the point that someone can be too woke, they were largely met with fierce opposition claiming that even saying "too woke" was to be guilty of repeating right-wing talking points, and/or met with claims that "woke" was unalloyed goodness, so that it was impossible to be too woke.
For those who may have resisted any such criticism in the past, from the likes of James Carville and even Barack Obama, I offer you Exhibit A in how it's possible to be way, way too woke, and end up hurting the cause of the kind of righteous wokeness we really need.
ismnotwasm
(41,956 posts)This isnt the first time this observation has made.
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Its a franchise that has spanned 5 decades. Of course you are bound to find some things wrong in there (think Phantom Menace). But holy hell does this piece make some amazing stretches and gets a lot of things flat out wrong.
Jedi Guy
(3,175 posts)Were I forced to make a choice, the accusation that Vader is ableist would be it, though. The whole point wasn't that he was evil because he was more machine than man. He was more machine than man because he turned evil. He wasn't born that way, he ended up in the armor because he went rogue and was wildly overconfident in his power. Had he remained a Jedi, he'd have kept his original equipment (excepting the forearm he lost in Episode 2, of course).
It's like the writer(s) had only the vaguest idea about a lot of things in Star Wars. It calls to mind a writer from some conservative rag who wrote an article about Mass Effect when it first came out. He accused it of essentially being a sex simulator because of the romantic subplot... despite the fact that only bare ass was shown, and that for maybe two seconds during a single scene. The article made it very plain that he'd never even seen the game, let alone played it.
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)That was the part that really threw me. Like it was just lazy writing a d they had no idea what the story was about at all.
cinematicdiversions
(1,969 posts)This article deserves an eye roll and a loud not helping.
Bucky
(53,932 posts)CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,915 posts)The actor that played Mace Windu? He's in multiple videos throwing around the n-word. As in, the hard-r version.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I get it... sometimes it's fun to pretend one opinion is worth looking at in our desire to force a narrative. As long as you realize it does no one any real credit.
Zeitghost
(3,844 posts)It's that this article passed editorial review at a major, well established science magazine. The lengths the author had to go to in order to twist, misrepresent and outright lie about the Star Wars franchise in order to form their opinion is embarrassing, especially in a publication that has featured the writings of some of the most brilliant minds of the last 150 years.
The Revolution
(764 posts)Why would you publish this nonsense? Started off thinking it was satire, then gave up on it part way through.
This won't accomplish anything but piss people off. Then we on the Democratic/Progressive side get saddled with this shit and it drives voters away. Fuck, just reading that I can feel my own "chance of voting for a Republican" needle moving from 0% to 1%.
OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)Shellback Squid
(8,914 posts)Mad_Machine76
(24,391 posts)I cant even read much of this without my eyes rolling out of their sockets.
Ace Rothstein
(3,140 posts)Being outraged about everything has to be exhausting.