Jungian Archetypes in the Star Wars Universe By Geoffrey W. Jackson

I recently found a book online about the similarities between Jungian psychology and JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. When not working in a corporate cubicle somewhere, this is the sort of thing one does to pass time. I ultimately bought THE INDIVIDUATED HOBBIT to get Jungian perspectives on the Star Wars universe, not Middle Earth. Having read it, I crafted something similar that I, myself, would enjoy reading about George Lucas’ settings … so here goes; hope you dig it … rah, rah Star Wars!

Jungian Psychology in a Nutshell ( … probably grossly misstated, but still my best attempt at understanding it …):

Over a hundred years ago, Carl Jung set out to “map the soul” — creating a framework for understanding the human psyche that endures today. His views no longer popular in either psychology or therapy, they still influence movie-making and storytelling and are typified in Star Wars.

Jung believed universal things present in our collective unconscious show up again and again — symbols and patterns that endlessly repeat. According to him, we’re born understanding “archetypes” and pass them along biologically, influencing how we all behave and react. Jung believed we can better understand ourselves, the people around us, and the world we live in by intentionally studying these metaphors and dynamics.

Here’s a few bigger concepts:

The Persona (the person we present to others in social situations), the Shadow (literally our “dark side” — bad things we’d rather not know about ourselves), the Anima/Animus (female and male realities dormant in the opposite sex), the Self (our true essence, unencumbered), and the Hero (our struggle to self-actualize and transcend life’s adversities). Jung’s interest in the unconscious lead him to analyze dreams and influenced early attempts at one-on-one therapy.

Could Star Wars be interpreted as a tale knowingly exploiting Jungian perspectives?

Does Yoda shit in the woods?

Star Wars and the Psyche

Examples of Jungian thought abound:

First, the heroes Luke and Leia — and later Rey and Ren — clearly represent Anima and Animus. They’re each representations of male and female duality that interplay to entertain and intrigue, and everyone relates to them. Rey and Ren are called a “dyad in the Force” — where each literally infiltrates the other’s mind and influences behavior.

Also, take “the Dark side”. Could there be a more overtly Jungian reference to grappling with one’s Shadow? The heroes literally wage war against it and ultimately, as Luke Skywalker does at the end of Return of the Jedi, learn to accept and reconcile themselves to it. Darth Vader fails to transcend it and becomes engulfed by it. Kylo Ren does a bit of a reverse job where he re-aligns himself with his good side, going from villain to hero — an unusual twist — but part of him still dies, both literally and figuratively. Like Vader.

Want more? Take symbols themselves. Jung believed symbols could be viewed as a catalog of man’s unconscious, a primal way of making sense of the world by interpreting imagery and decoding associations. Adolf Hitler believed in the power of myth and made vast psychological use of propaganda symbolism, most notably the swastica — a formerly-benign symbol found all over the world and throughout recorded time. Evil stormtroopers in Star Wars march under banners with imagery shown to have uniting appeal. My mother, a World War Two survivor, always maintained that stormtroopers and the Empire were cinematic stand-ins for Hitler and the nazis.

And what’s up with hand imagery? For Jung, the hand itself was part of the symbolic language of the unconscious. An entry about it occupies the Jungian textbook THE BOOK OF SYMBOLS: REFLECTIONS ON ARCHETYPAL IMAGES (even gracing the cover) and some believe Jung himself advocated palm-reading. Plenty of characters in Star Wars lose hands and limbs - most symbolically Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, the latter realizing he’d partially become the former when lopping-off his Dad’s paw.

Heres another Jungian archetype: the Wise Old Man. Wikipedia has an entry on it calling him “a profound philosopher, distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment” and “seen as an indication of the Self.” Uh … Obi-Wan Kenobi? Qui-Gon Jinn? Count Dooku? (Gandalf in Lord of the Rings?) It’s such a well-worn trope in all these stories.

Then there’s the Force. Jung contemplated Synchronicity (not the Police album), where spontaneous events are more than coincidence and amount to a spiritual purposefulness. Is the Force not a literal manifestation of this idea, a cinematic depiction of a supernatural power calling the shots and pulling the strings? Jedis and Sith expend effort to wield transcendence for their own personal ends. Formalized or not, we all have a basic sense of spirituality I believe Star Wars exploits, and Jung’s Synchronicity comes closest to a universal sense of existential destiny.

Lastly, the hero’s journey itself represents a tired and cliched metaphor for Jungian Individuation, where the protagonist finally becomes more fully himself after facing challenging ordeals. This metaphor for self-transformation is so well-known, nothing really more needs to be said about it; this plot device now belongs not only to our collective unconscious but also to the very fabric of our workaday lives.

Stay on Target

Ultimately George Lucas knowingly borrowed from Tolkien who, intentionally or unintentionally, stumbled across Jungian insights. Tolkien had an Everyman Nobody on a hero’s journey under the watchful eye of warring forrest wizards; Lucas had an Everyman Nobody on a hero’s journey under the watchful eye of warring space wizards. In the backdrop of both there awaits a grand evil on the brink of totalitarian victory. Lessons of love, sacrifice, and family-bonding abound as entertainment and side-stories. I’ll note Lucas named the third part of his trilogy “Return of the Jedi” — suspiciously similar to Tolkien’s third act from the Lord of the Rings, “Return of the King.” Coincidence?

“Much to learn you still have.”

Thanks for reading.