In his article “Race, Space and Class: The Politics of the SF Film from Metropolis to Blade Runner”, David Desser had made a perfectly good point while stating: “…the themes and techniques of such (sci-fi) films in any given era may be held as an index of the dominant political and ideological concerns of the culture” (1997, 110). This Desser’s idea correlates with Michel Foucault’s suggestion that the validity of just about any worldview cannot be discussed as representing an objective value, simply because it is namely the ability of such a worldview to fit within the context of currently dominant historical discourse, which deems it appropriate or otherwise. For example, 100 years ago world’s aboriginal people could not possibly be concerned with the idea of ‘national liberation’, due to the absence of objective preconditions that would enable them to even consider themselves being a part of some nation. By 20th century’s sixties and seventies, the ‘national liberation’ movements in Third World became an important part of local socio-political reality. However, by the end of 20th century, the idea of ‘national liberation’ had proven fallacious, simply because by liberating themselves from ‘colonial oppression’, aboriginal people were simultaneously becoming liberated from law, order and other benefits of civilized living. As of today, even the most ardent proponents of multiculturalism try not to indulge in talks about ‘national liberation’ too much.
Thus, in order for us to be able to come up with the analysis of themes, contained in 2009 movie “Avatar”, we would have to define preconditions that prompts today’s seemingly intelligent individuals to come with ridiculous suggestions that, within the context savagery vs. civilization, it is namely savagery’s agenda that should be considered ‘moral’. As it will be shown throughout the paper, these preconditions are similar to those that, during the course of 4th-5th centuries A.D., had set Roman Empire on the path of rapid decline.
Nowadays, many naïve individuals believe that the emergence of a so-called ‘post-colonial’ genre in literature and cinematography was possible because, by continuously expanding their intellectual horizons, people naturally become less euro-centrically minded and more tolerant. However, the actual explanation as to what represents metaphysical roots of this genre is much more banal – as time goes by, the number of people endowed with the ability to spread the light of civilization across the globe, continues to decline. Whereas, in 1900 Whites accounted for 30% of world’s population, today they account for only 5%. Moreover, the second half of 20th century is being associated with the emergence of new generations of Whites (baby boomers, generation X, generation Y), the representatives of which are known for their decadent attitudes. These people are nothing but contemporary equivalent of intellectually and spiritually corrupted Romans, who by the end of 4th century A.D., could not possibly care about anything else, but ‘bread and entertainment’ – It is exactly due to this fact that the descendants of Western civilization’s original creators have now been turned from colonizers to colonized.
Nowadays, not a day goes by without hordes of illegal immigrants from Third World finding their way into Western countries, in order to be able to celebrate their cultural uniqueness there, while never ceasing to complain about native-born citizens’ ‘lack of spirituality’ and about the general ‘wickedness’ of Western way of living. In a similar manner, during the time of late antiquity, intellectually corrupted citizens of Roman Empire were being rapidly turned into a minority in their own country, due to the continuous arrival of barbarians from outside of Empire’s borders.
Given the fact that Westerners’ ability to adequately assess surrounding reality continues to decline (due to reasons described earlier), it comes as no surprise that many of them are now being instilled with the complex of historical guilt on the account of their forefathers’ ‘imperialism’. It appears that the producer of “Avatar”, James Cameron fits rather well into description of an intelligent White yippee; who nevertheless is quite incapable of realizing the deceptiveness of ‘post-colonial’ genre as such that contradicts the most basic rules of logic. In the next part of this paper, we will aim to explore this thesis at length, while providing readers with an unconventional outlook on how Cameron’s movie relates to Imperial/Post-colonial discourse.
The foremost ideological premise of “Avatar” can be defined as irreconcilable gap between the notion of technological progress and the notion of primeval spirituality. However, despite the fact that such premise appears logically appropriate, movie’s creators have embarked upon the impossible task of representing the notion of technological progress as something inheritably evil. Yet, had they bothered to educate themselves on the basics of sociology, history and psychology, they would realize an utter inappropriateness of such their stance, simply because it is namely the continuous cultural and scientific progress, which elevates moral standards within a particular society and improves living standards, enjoyed by society’s members. The reason why Western societies continue to grow ever more tolerant is that, due to the rise of technology, these societies’ members can afford the luxury of being tolerant, in the first place. They simply do not have to fiercely compete with each other for natural resources, as it is the case with people in highly ‘spiritual’ but technologically primitive Third World.
However, the continuation of technological and social progress is only possible in society ruled by reason – these can be no progress without law and order. And, it is specifically an imperial format of a particular society, which instills its members with a respect towards rationale-based values. In its turn, this explains why heydays of science and culture are being strongly associated with times when world’s empires were at the peak of their power – even a brief outlook on the history of Roman, British, French, German, Russian, Chinese and now American empires, substantiates a complete validity of this suggestion. The reason for this is simple – imperial citizens are not only being instilled with a ‘pride of belonging’, but they enjoy an unrestricted liberty in how they may proceed about gaining social prominence.
Nevertheless, there is one important requirement for an individual to qualify for Imperial citizenship – his or her willingness to behave in socially responsible and rational manner. In its turn, the extent of person’s social responsibleness is being reflected in his or her ability to view its personal well-being through the lenses of society’s overall well-being. And, it is namely individual’s endowment with urban mentality, which defines his or her capacity to rationalize life’s challenges, as opposed to trying to eliminate these challenges altogether.
Why in 2004, Marvin John Heemeyer would decide in favor of embarking upon destructive rampage with his ‘killdozer’, instead of yielding ownership rights on his land to the Federal government, in exchange for being paid fifty times more than this land was actually worth? This is because Heemeyer was born and raised in Colorado’s small agricultural town, which in its turn, defined the essence of his social attitudes – apparently, Heemeyer never ceased being intellectually inflexible and greedy individual, with hypertrophied sense of personal freedom. This was exactly that had brought about his ultimate demise. Why did Na’vi people in Cameron’s movie appear being just as stubborn as Heemeyer, while refusing to even consider a possibility to find another tree as the place of their residence, despite the fact that Pandora was covered by billions of trees, just like the one they used to originally live under? This is because, just as it was the case with Heemeyer, their mentality never ceased professing rural existential values, quite irreconcilable with urban/imperial mentality of ‘sky people’: strong religiosity, highly ritualistic spirituality, and tribal intolerance. As one of movie’s ‘evil’ characters, Parker Selfridge had rightly pointed out: “You throw a stick in the air around here and it’s gonna land on some sacred fern for Christ’s sake” (01.32.01). It is important to understand that, even though people instilled with religious/spiritual fanaticism can be granted a citizenship of an empire formally, they will never be able to think of such an empire as their own.
Before Christianity had attained an official status in Roman Empire, Roman citizens were allowed to practice just about any religion they wanted. Just as it is the case in today’s America, Roman imperial society was based upon the principle of a freedom of speech and the freedom of religious expression. It was due to ever-increased influx of Middle Easterners into the Roman Empire that, as time went by, the levels of religious tolerance in Roman society continued to decline. This process culminated by the time Emperor Constantine had adopted Christianity as Empire’s only official religion in 313 A.D. – after that, ‘meek’, ‘spiritual’, ‘tolerant’ and ‘human’ Christians had revealed their true face. They began to hunt down ‘pagans’, while deriving a sadistic pleasure in seeing them executed en masse.
This brief historical excurse relates to movie “Avatar” rather directly – despite what movie’s creators wanted viewers to believe, the fact that throughout movie’s duration Na’vi people never stopped blabbering about spirituality, cannot possibly signify their open-mindedness. On the contrary – it signifies their inability to expand their intellectual horizons, and thus – their inability to advance beyond the Stone Age. Moreover, it signifies Na’vi people’s metaphysical affiliation with Rome’s early Christians, which were nothing but rather skilled hypocrites – the more they talked of non-violence, the more ruthlessly they would go about killing ‘evil’ pagans. The more they proclaimed their willingness to live in poverty, the harder they would try to enrich themselves. The more they strived distancing themselves from governmental authority, the more they were trying to win this authority’s favors, etc.
Therefore, there are no good reasons to accept Grace’s overly idealistic explanation as to Na’vi unwillingness to relocate, as representing truth-value: “The wealth of this world isn’t in the ground — it’s all around us. The Na’vi know that, and they’re fighting to defend it. If you want to share this world with them, you need to understand them” (01.33.06). The actual explanation as to why Na’vi thought of their land as having some ‘sacred’ value is much simpler. As it appears out of movie’s context, Na’vi tribesmen simply happened to learn that for some strange reason, ‘sky people’ became interested in the area directly beneath the ‘tree of life’, which was the single most important reason that boosted their unwillingness to find another tree to live upon. Aboriginal logic is simple – the more we complain about White/Sky people’s ‘evilness’, the more they will be willing to open up their wallets, in order to appease us.
Just as it has always been the case, throughout the history of European colonization, primitive savages could only learn about the actual value of their land from colonists – back in days, aborigines used to be very enthusiastic about trading hundreds of square miles of their ‘sacred’ land in exchange for glass beads and mirrors. Today, they do the same in exchange for brand new SUVs. This explains why, if for example, Canada’s Native land claims were combined together, the overall size of these claims would overextend the territory of Canada by two!
There is a memorable scene in the movie, when Selfridge expresses his misunderstanding as to why Earthlings’ continuous attempts to introduce Na’vi with benefits of technological civilization had sustained an utter fiasco: “We build them a school, we teach them English…But after so many years relations with the indigenous are only getting worse” (00.13.21). This Selfridge’s little speech was supposed to reflect his utterly ignorant imperialistic mentality. Yet, there is nothing illogical about what he was saying. As history shows, it usually takes a long while for rurally minded aboriginals to realize their own interest in establishing contacts with technological civilization. In fact, it is only after these contacts get to be severed that aboriginals grow to appreciate the benefits of being on good terms with such a civilization.
After having liberated themselves of ‘colonial oppression’, African ‘developing’ countries began to regress back into primeval savagery. Yet, it is highly doubtful whether ordinary Africans are being able to benefit much from such state of affairs. Had it been otherwise, they would not be trying to get out of their now barbaric countries as their foremost goal in life. Apparently, being able to utilize a variety of social and scientific benefits, associated with highly technological Western civilization, is so much better than being constantly preoccupied with looking for eatable plants and bugs, in time free from trying to kill and scalp the ‘enemy’ from neighboring village, in order prove its ‘adulthood’ in the eyes of a potential bride.
In Mel Brook’s 1981 comedy “History of the World, Part 1”, there is a one interesting scene, which exposes the sheer inappropriateness of now popular suggestions that the very concept of civilization/empire is inheritably evil. In 10 A.D., a few Jewish-Zealot conspirators gathered up to articulate their grievances against Roman Empire’s occupation. One of conspirators pathetically questioned: “What good these evil Romans had brought us?”. After that, he began getting replies: “Aqueduct!”, “Sewer!”, “Public baths!”, “Roads!”, “Law and order!”, “Medicine!”, “Public toilets!”, “Jurisprudence!”, “Literacy!”, “Culture!”, etc. The gathering ends up with conspirators shouting: “Damn you Romans!”. In a similar manner – the more individuals as Selfridge tried to do good to Na’vi, the more intensely Pandora’s savages would end up hating ‘sky people’.
Given the fact, that Cameron’s movie was meant to promote post-colonial discourse, it is important to understand that “Avatar’s” depiction of Na’vi tribesmen, as living in perfect and utterly moral harmony with nature and with themselves, is a gross misrepresentation of Earth’s actual post-colonial reality. As of today, even in such comparatively civilized countries as India, China and Indonesia, it continues to remain a widely spread practice among natives to go about ensuring their financial well-being by disposing their newly born children as ‘burden’ (especially if a child happened to be a girl), without any second thoughts, whatsoever. The reason for this is simple – the less a particular society is being affected by technological progress, the more its members require natural resources to sustain their primitive existence, especially if all of their talents are being limited to making babies on industrial scale. In its turn, this makes indigenous people being instilled with illusions as to the ‘sanctity of one’s life’ to a considerably lesser degree, as compared to what it is the case with ‘evil’ Westerners. And yet, as we have shown earlier, it is namely society that professes imperial values of law and order, which can ensure the continuing of technological and cultural progress.
Therefore, despite what students are now being made to believe – the notions of imperialism and colonialism are synonymous to the notions of progress and tolerance. Moreover, given imperialism’s close association with the notion of scientific progress, it comes as no surprise that it specifically formerly imperial (Britain, France, Germany) and presently imperial (USA) countries, which are being traditionally considered the most environmentally friendly. Before the beginning of Industrial Revolution, Europe’s largest cities were nothing but smelly cloakas – the absence of sewers (only formerly Roman imperial cities were equipped with sewers), had left these cities’ residents with no choice but to dump their biological waste onto streets and into rivers, which explains why, before Britain started to become industrialized country, the windows in the building of British Parliament had to be closed on permanent basis – at that time, the river of Thames itself was serving as London’s only sewer. What had triggered an Industrial Revolution and served as the single most important factor of restoring Europe’s environmental integrity? Science! Why do the citizens of Haiti live literally in their own filth? This is because they are incapable of pushing forward scientific progress – as it has been revealed in Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s book “IQ and the Wealth of Nations”, Haitian citizens’ average rate of IQ equals 50. If James Cameron remained intellectually honest with “Avatar’s” potential viewers, he would have shown Na’vi’s ‘tree of life’ being surrounded by the piles of excrements – without science, there could be no environmental friendliness.
“Avatar’s” plot is being concerned with the process of few decadent Whites cutting all the ties with their friends, embracing the philosophy of primeval tribalism and moving to live under the tree. Yet, this plot has nothing to do with actual subtleties of today’s post-colonial reality – it is namely the contemporary mind-likes of Na’vi people, which continue to move into formerly colonial Western countries, while bringing their rural mentality along and while enforcing their moral standards upon everybody else. This is exactly the reason why, after having moved to Western countries, highly ‘spiritual’ immigrants from Third World go about creating their own societies within a society, as opposed to becoming an integral part of a host-society. Once, the sheer number of natural-born-peasants in particular American or European city reaches a critical mass, this city begins to rapidly lose its status of technologically advanced megalopolis, while being eventually reduced into a one huge village, the inhabitants of which go about ‘celebrating diversity’ by dumping garbage on their houses’ front lawns, pushing drugs on the street and indulging in gangsta-shootouts. When in 2005, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had published caricature on Islamic prophet Muhammad, the representatives of country’s Muslim community started to set cars on fire and to physically assault innocent bystanders – thus, expressing their ‘moral outrage’ with native-born Westerners’ ‘lack of spiritual sensitivity’.
Thus, despite the sheer intensity of “Avatar’s” cinematographic appeal (3D technology, a lot of action), we have no choice but to refer to as what it really is – yet another intellectually poisonous byproduct of neo-Liberalism, which can serve as an additional proof as to the fact that the era of barbarianism is about to descend upon Western civilization – just as it had happened to spiritually and intellectually corrupted Roman Empire in 5th century A.D.
Bibliography
Avatar. Dir. James Cameron. Perfs. Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver. 20th Century Fox, 2009.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978.
History of the World, Part I. Dir. Mel Brooks. Perfs. Sid Caesar, Shecky Greene, Gregory Hines. 20th Century Fox, 1981.
Lynn, Richard & Vanhanen, Tatu. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002.
Reid, Tony “Man behind Rampage Found Dead”. 2004. The Washington Post. 2010. Web.