SWFA: Balance and The Force

7 Star Warsesque Essays

V. Balance and The Force

The topic of this fifth informal article is a serious subject for many Star Wars fans. Yes, I refer to the prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force. What is meant by that old Jedi prophecy alluded to by Mace Windu in The Phantom Menace, especially that business about bringing balance? A short comic published in Dark Horse’s Tales anthology called “Force Fiction,” though a parody, summarizes the two prevailing interpretations well: the intuitive take that balance indicates a removal of the darkness that is clouding the Jedis’ abilities to commune with the Force easily and clearly, and the counter-intuitive interpretation that balance represents the wiping out of the Jedi, for their complacency and dispassion, reducing them to two (Yoda and Obi-Wan) equal to the two, “no more, no less,” Sith Lords (Palpatine and Vader) who will rule the galaxy for the next two decades. The answer of course is that the prophecy is meant to entail both views. This is supported by the abundance of inherent philosophical contradictions in the latest movie Revenge of the Sith, embodied most succinctly by Obi-Wan’s emotional and complicated assertion that “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” Writer Matthew Stover in his novelization of Episode III exploits the inevitability of this self-subverting aspect to the film, and the saga, to great literary effect.

The following is one attempt to untangle the prophecy, only addressing the concept of bringing balance to the Force. (The other half of the prophecy, the idea of the “one” who brings balance, will have to wait for another time, as Matrix fans can attest to the potential complications involved with tackling that issue). This essay was written in response to the comment below, brought to my attention by Star Wars co-author Rich Handley, originally posted to the cheeky and undying RASSM newsgroup:

“GL has insisted on this point: Anakin DOES bring balance to the Force, by killing the Emperor. Some people reject this notion because they think that balance means an equivalence of power between good and evil (a stupid and baseless notion, IMO, though very popular in certain religions and philosophies). But in the SW universe, 'balance' means 'no dark siders whatsoever.' Anakin restores balance by turning back to the light side and killing the only remaining Sith Lord. Then Mace and Yoda are clearly confused, since they believe the force needs its balance restored in [The Phantom Menace] but are surprised that the Sith still exist. If balance means no more Sith they should have thought that balance had already been restored if they believed that the Sith were gone."

My response:

I'll give this a shot.

First, in the most complete description of the Force, Obi-Wan tells us that this mystical energy field binds the galaxy together by flowing through all things. Therefore, the problem of imbalance isn't specifically the existence of darksiders (though that's definitely a symptom) but the existence of corruption. That corruption was running rampant during the Old Republic timeframe represented in The Phantom Menace is obvious, even, arguably, evident in the callous behavior of the Jedi Council as contrasted with that of the film's "hero" Qui-Gon. The Senate's a mess, corporate barons are calling the shots, and slavery is all over the Outer Rim. So, there's the alluded to imbalance in the Force. Then Qui-Gon drops the bomb that the Sith are still around, and it's like, "Sh*t, it's worse than we thought." But the Sith are still only a symptom.

The funny thing is that we don't know when the prophecy of the one who will bring balance was first pronounced. Presumably, it's since the beginning of the Jedi Order, or else when corruption first entered the Jedi Order—which, in my opinion, is pretty hard to believably separate from the beginning of the order, even withholding Expanded Universe evidence for the moment. If we’re committed to the idea that the Force is in all things, then the time when "balance" existed might be considered to be from the beginning of time up through the moment sentience/consciousness evolved. Of course, this introduces the problem, then, that balance could never have been known personally by any soothsayer or prophet insofar as he or she needed to make intelligible the prophecy; in the best scenario, there is a paradox: imbalance occurred the moment/because the prophecy was thunk.

Logic and common sense aside, let's say the Republic and Jedi Knighthood existed edenically for thousands of years without a hint of corruption. Then somewhere along the road, arbitrarily say 10,000 years post-formation of the Republic using Obi-Wan's “over 1,000 generations” model (any numbers would work equally well here, even one year post, or one day or minute, the only important thing being that for some extent of time perfect harmony consciously existed), the first hints of corruption (i.e. imbalance) appeared, including the first fallen Jedi, and it is to the balance found in the time period prior to this introduction of corruption to which the prophecy refers. If one follows the prequel model of the Republic's existence (standing only 1,000 years), then this idea is probably much easier to stomach assuming you can swallow the earlier consciousness paradox.

However, since we literally never see neither before nor beyond what happens in the films (again, spin-off stories not withstanding), the fact that against all logic a period of perfection is referred to as having existed before The Phantom Menace must be arguably taken at face value, since we cannot disprove it except via circumstantial evidence—that is, using our own non-fantasy, non-fictional reality for comparison. Likewise, the Happily Ever After ending of Return of the Jedi arguably must by extension then be taken as the True Fulfillment of the Prophecy. Similar metaphysical arguments have been made against Freudian interpretations of Hamlet, arguing that because a fictional childhood of the fictional Hamlet is never depicted or alluded to by Shakespeare, it breaks the "logic" of the literature to assume that he ever actually had one, debunking any possible Oedipal readings.

A last alternative: suppose good (balance) and evil (imbalance) have always co-existed, and that they have alternated in dominance for the last 25,000 years. The prophecy then could have been uttered at any time – or at all times – during which imbalance was the dominant state of affairs. In this context, the prophecy would seem to be fulfilled each time balance was restored to the galaxy. Of course, the inevitable resurrection of imbalance in the future would render any period originally proclaimed the "True Fulfillment of the Prophecy" misguided. But insofar as one experiences the period that is believed to be the restoration of balance (for it is believed to be the final fulfillment each time it occurs), then it said fulfillment is true. Or insofar as it’s understood that that's how the game goes (…balance, imbalance, balance, imbalance…), it is true in a Nietzschesque “beyond Good and Evil” way.

Under this last interpretation the problems of the earlier two models are circumvented, I think. The only perhaps unattractive part of this last alternative is that there is never a "true" restoration of balance, that is, a permanent return to balance from a standpoint free of the crippling factor of time. Imbalance will inevitably return. But from a subjective standpoint, all those who live and die riding the wave of balance will believe they have lived the fulfillment of the prophecy, such as, presumably, the heroes at the end of Return of the Jedi. In this way, balance does truly exist for that instant, however brief (or long, as it were).

These interpretations can be labeled, respectively, the logical model, the fairy tale model, and the subjective model. The first offers no satisfying answers, taken strictly alone. The second I would apply to the Star Wars films taken independently as a literary attempt in direct and intentional defiance of the logical model. Ultimately, this model must fail too, but has it's own internal logic, as suggested by the Hamlet example; again, if you can get past the hump, you're in. The subjective model gives us reconciliation of the two previous models via probability and psychology, and is the one I would apply to the Star Wars mythos as a whole, encompassing the Expanded Universe as well.

This so-called reconciliation is unlikely to satisfy hardliners – that is, those who insist on a logical model that goes beyond paradox. But I ask for an example of such that does not resort to dogmatism to do so.

Postscript: All sexually suggestive text found herein is hereby retroactively declared intentional.

Star Wars author Abel G. Peña has been published in a number of Lucasfilm Ltd. publications, contributing most recently to the collector’s book Vader: The Ultimate Guide. You can read more of his work online at Only Sith Deal in Absolutes!, his Star Wars blog or contact him directly at abelgpena@star-wars.net and share your thoughts.

Return to the main page