Social Justice Versus JEDI

Five authors in the Scientific American deem the term JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) problematic.

Sep 24, 2021

Look at this picture of the Jedi. All white dudes with their phallic laser swords. Being racist and sexist and shit. God it boils my blood. I think the one on the far left is a TERF. The one in the middle? Well he uses the N word a bunch.

Problematic much?

Anyways, there’s a new article in the Scientific American written by, let’s see here, J. W. Hammond, Sara E. Brownell, Nita A. Kedharnath, Susan J. Cheng and W. Carson Byrd (five authors!) that argues the science and technology community should stop using the term JEDI for its social justice initiatives.

Whether intentionally or not, the labels we choose for our justice-oriented initiatives open them up to a broader universe of associations, branding them with meaning—and, in the case of JEDI, binding them to consumer brands. Through its connections to Star Wars, the name JEDI can inadvertently associate our justice work with stories and stereotypes that are a galaxy far, far away from the values of justice, equity, diversity and inclusion. The question we must ask is whether the conversations started by these connections are the ones that we want to have.
As we will argue, our justice-oriented projects should approach connections to the Jedi and Star Wars with great caution, and perhaps even avoid the acronym JEDI entirely. Below, we outline five reasons why.

The five reasons are:

1. The Jedi are inappropriate mascots for social justice.

Because:

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.

I actually think this is a solid critique of the Jedi Order which, in my opinion, is a pretty radical and troubling bunch of zealots who remind me of Kilgrave from Jessica Jones and whose powers could theoretically be used to do the same awful crap he does in that show. The “gaslighting” bit seems weird, though. But yeah, Jedi have some real issues and their hubris leads to their downfall at the hands of Palpatine.

But—and I’m going to keep saying this—this is a fantasy story for children about magic ninja knights with laser swords who fight against a fascistic Empire that’s basically Nazi Germany in space. Don’t overthink it!

2. Star Wars has a problematic cultural legacy.

Because:

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 villain’s physical disability with machinic inhumanity and moral deviance, presenting his technology-assisted breathing as a sinister auditory marker of danger and doom. What’s more, the bodies and voices centered in Star Wars have, with few exceptions, historically been those of white men.

Slave Leia definitely wouldn’t fly today, but this was a film that came out in another era. Get over it. Also Slave Leia was not only undeniably hot, she was able to kill Jabba the Hut with her chain which has to be some kind of symbol of female empowerment right?

Here we start to swerve into pretty absurd territory that just makes me exhausted to read. I mean, it must be deeply exhausting to be this caught up in all this crap all the time. I think the word “ableist” (which my PC’s spellcheck still insists isn’t an actual word) is used like eight times.

And saying that Darth Vader’s “physical disability” defines his villainy is kind of like saying that Voldemort is an example of JK Rowling being a horrible transphobe because he “transitioned” into being a monster (yes that is a serious, not parodical, take).

3. JEDI connects justice initiatives to corporate capital.

Because:

JEDI/Jedi is more than just a name: It’s a product. Circulating that product’s 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 corporation—Disney—with a form of free advertising, commodifying and cheapening our justice work in the process. Such informal co-branding entangles our initiatives in Disney’s 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 Disney’s 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.

100% agree with all of this actually. This is maybe the best argument of the bunch. Disney and other massive corporations are riding high on all this woke shit and it just gives them cover to continue exploiting labor here and abroad and cloaking their true goal—making all that sweet sweet cash—in a thin veneer of social justice. It’s not only BS, it leads to them making poor story choices in their films. I can absolutely see why these institutions and organizations and people of science would not want to associate their cause with Disney. Then again, the JEDI moniker also probably brings attention to these efforts so it’s definitely symbiotic.

4.Aligning justice work with Star Wars risks threatening inclusion and sense of belonging.

This one is just silly. I won’t even quote it. They’re basically saying that the word Jedi is itself exclusionary because non-fans (and women) can be turned off by the presence of Star Wars and Star Trek posters and so forth. I think we’re well into a world where women and non-fans feel comfortable around Star Wars stuff.

5. The abbreviation JEDI can distract from justice, equity, diversity and inclusion.

As in, people quit thinking about the social justice aspects of the work and just decide to cosplay instead. It’s distracting more than anything. “Now is not the time to confuse social justice with science fiction.”

I agree, actually, but mostly because if this is how serious y’all take yourselves you probably don’t deserve to use JEDI for your social justice causes. This is a children’s story about space ninjas! It’s supposed to be fun. Everyone who has dragged Star Wars into the Culture Wars for clicks or social status can piss right off as far as I’m concerned. Let’s just enjoy Star Wars for what it is—namely three very good movies and six mediocre ones, and plenty of pretty good TV, toys and video games. As the Joker would say, “Why so serious?”

Well, because these are the types of Serious People with Serious Jobs doing Serious Work who love nothing more than to worry about how fun, entertaining pop culture stuff is bad and problematic. It’s the in thing to do these days!

They conclude by anticipating responses like mine:

If you are, like some of the authors of this piece, a longtime fan of Star Wars (or Disney) and have found yourself defensively bristling while reading the paragraphs above, take a moment to consider that response. We suggest that such a reaction reveals how easily Star Wars and JEDI can introduce distractions and confuse conversations. How ready are we to prioritize the cultural dreamscape of the Jedi over the real-world project of social justice?

This is kind of a cheap shot—to suggest that “defensively bristling” is in some way an improper or inappropriate response to reading this kind of thing. But they’re also not wrong—it does reveal how easily Star Wars and JEDI can introduce distractions and confuse conversations, and I fully support the thesis of this article, however silly and self-serious it all is, that JEDI should be retired and replaced with something better. Maybe . . .

Social Justice

Inclusion

Tolerance and

Health

(Hat-tip Freddie DeBoer on Facebook)

diabolical

Discussion about this post