Racist Symbolism in “The Mandalorian”
Tags: America, Psychoanalysis, Star Wars, The Mandalorian, Racism

Star Wars is popular in American culture. Therefore, all American cultural representations of Star Wars must contain symbols that Americans enjoy. More importantly, we need these symbols, and devote incredible resources to construct their appropriate representations. We can qualify these cultural symbols as symbols that resonate deeply with universal elements of both human psychology and American psychology. For example, the dichotomy of “good and evil,” or “light and dark,” resonates with humans and has deep psychological roots, and as such has its respective cultural representations. A more psychologically precise symbol, for example, would be the son’s imagined castration by his father, as a result of oedipal tensions. While this symbol may be less common in culture, representations of it can certainly be found.

In fact, both these symbols— of “good and evil,” and of castration— appear in Star Wars. Representations of “good and evil” are plenty: the Jedi and the Sith, the Resistance and the Empire, and the “Light Side” and the “Dark Side,” to name a few. Representations of castration as a result of oedipal tension are much more rare, but are crucial to Star Wars, as it turns out. For example, one of the main representations of castration occurs “in the severing of [Luke] Skywalker’s hand” by Darth Vader. The psychological equivalent of the symbolic castration of Luke is the son’s [imagined] castration by his father (McMahon, 284). We know the severing of Luke’s hand symbolizes oedipal castration because of the overwhelming similarity of the two situations. We can diagram this similarity:

Vader cuts off Luke’s hand

Father cuts off son’s penis Vader = Luke’s father (as stated in the movie)

Cuts off = Cuts off

Luke = Vader’s son (as stated in the movie)

Hand = Penis (Luke’s hand was the hand holding his lightsaber,

thus connecting Luke’s hand to a powerful, phallic object

— his penis)

Here I have presented a cinematic element— the severing of Luke’s hand— and connected it to its psychological equivalent— the castration of the son. In other words, the cinematic element symbolizes a deep psychological phenomenon.

This method of interpretation is clearly psychoanalytic. Since psychoanalysis is complex, tough to understand, and multifaceted, and since I myself am not an expert, I have tried to make the above interpretation very deliberate and clear. If you are unfamiliar with the basics of classical psychoanalysis, I think it will be difficult to understand the rest of this essay. If you feel this is the case, you’d still probably like to know why I included “Racism” in the title of this essay. To explain this, I will briefly summarize my interpretation of “The Mandalorian” without making extensive use psychoanalytic theory.

Popular elements of culture deeply resonate with human psychology “The Mandalorian” is a popular element of American culture, and therefore must resonate deeply with Americans “The Mandalorian” resonates because, at the most basic level, it depicts a parental figure (Din Djarin) taking care of a child (Baby Yoda/Grogu) Din and Grogu’s relationship is primarily one of father and son Din symbolizes the part of the father with which the son wishes to identify; in other words, the “good father” Moff Gideon symbolizes the part of the father which the son wishes to punish; in other words, the “bad father” In addition to symbolizing the “good father,” Din can be characterized as: powerful, independent, sexually free, white-passing, and male In addition to symbolizing the “bad father,” Gideon can be characterized as: eventually powerless, subservient, allegedly sexual, black-passing, and male Din’s listed characteristics match those of an extremely widespread symbolic representation of the white American male Gideon’s listed characteristics match those of an extremely widespread symbolic representation of the black American male These symbolic representations of white and black American males are harmful to white people, to black people, to America, and to the world. One might say these symbolic representations are “racist,” since the harm they do in relation to racial groups is of great magnitude. One could also say these representations uphold racism. The creators of “The Mandalorian” should be aware that their TV series revolves entirely around racist symbolism. Hopefully, as we all become more aware of these symbols, the “unconscious bias” that propagates these symbols throughout society will become less effective, thereby diminishing the presence of these symbols. I believe this would very effectively reduce racism in society.

As you can see, points (5) and (6), and well as (7) and (8), are grounded in psychoanalytic and psychohistorical/analytic interpretations. In fact, you may note that some of Din and Gideon’s listed characteristics, such as those related to their power or sexuality, may seem irrelevant, or incorrectly identified. These characteristics will be clarified in my interpretation.

At this point in the essay I have written about points (1) and (2) from the above outline. Point (3) identifies Din and Grogu’s relationship as one of parent/child. This should be fairly obvious to viewers of the Show. Point (4), which further specifies Din and Grogu’s relationship as one of father and son, is fairly straightforward. Din and Grogu’s father/son relationship is evidenced from the way in which Din acts towards Grogu, as well as the fact that both Din and Grogu are male. I also believe that Ashoka Tano, in S2 E6, tells Din that he is “like a father” to Grogu.

I’ll use psychoanalytic theory to prove points (5) and (6), which state that Din and Gideon respectively symbolize the “good father” and the “bad father.” To explain this symbolism, it is useful to know the basics of the Oedipus Complex, and specifically how the fantasy of castration arises.

The young boy loves his mother and wants to possess her. The boy hates his father, precisely because his father is the one who possesses his mother, which prevents the boy from doing so. The boy’s hate towards his father prompts two reactions. The first is an urge to kill, or punish, the father, in order to have the mother to oneself. The second is the boy’s realization that he is powerless before his father, and that his father is in fact the one who could punish him. The boy’s fear of being punished by the father manifests as a fear of being castrated by the father, for at a basic level, it is the boy’s penis and the father’s penis that are competing for the mother. The boy, knowing that he is not powerful enough to defeat his father, and wishing not to be castrated, does the next best thing: he makes himself similar to his father. This process can be termed, “identification.”

Throughout this oedipal dynamic, the father thus takes on two roles: 1) that of being hated, and needing to be punished; and 2) that of being loved and identified with. Now it may be easier for you to see Din and Gideon in these roles.

Grogu is the boy. Because Din and Gideon are the two men that exert the most control over his life, they are his father figures. We know Din is a father figure for other reasons as well, as described above. Since Din cares for Grogu, and since Gideon causes Grogu pain, we can begin to identify Din as the “good father” to Grogu and Gideon as the “bad father” to Grogu. Since this interpretation is only minimally grounded, we need to return to the symbol of castration to strengthen it.

In S2 E7, Din removes his helmet in front of other adult humans, thereby showing his face to them. Din has never fully removed his helmet in front of any human, and even in the rare moments when he has, we have not yet seen his face. Most importantly, Din removes his helmet because it is necessary to rescue Grogu, who has been stolen by Gideon. Since Din has never removed his helmet before, we must ask what the helmet symbolizes.

The helmet, at a practical level, is one piece of Din’s armor. Din’s armor is made of beskar, which is extremely resistant to damage. Din’s armor thus gives him his power. The helmet, at a symbolic level in the Star Wars universe, is what give the Mandalorian people their allure. Mandalorians, as I understand, are famed for being great fighters and for never taking off their helmets to show their face. Thus part of Mandalorian notoriety is directly linked to them keeping their helmets on.

Since Din is a father figure, and since his helmet has an alluring aura of power, the helmet symbolizes the father’s penis; for it is the father’s penis, to the boy, that gives the father his aura of power. Din’s removal of his helmet as a way to save Grogu thus symbolizes the “good father” giving up his penis, that is, his power, to his son. Though not stated in my oedipal outline above, the father’s relinquishing of power plays allows the son to more positively identify with his father.

Some may point out that when Din removed his helmet, he was not actually wearing the helmet I described above. This is true — Din was in fact wearing the helmet of a clone trooper as part of a disguise. The clone trooper’s helmet is not made of beskar, and does not have the same aura of power. It is a dull color, and, one might say, is fairly emasculating, as it is more curvy than Din’s usual helmet. Thus the clone trooper’s helmet does not really function as a representation of the penis. Does this weaken my interpretation of Din’s removal of his helmet? I would argue on the contrary that Din’s replacement of his powerful helmet for a less powerful helmet initiates Din’s relinquishing of his oedipal power. The clone trooper’s helmet thus functions as a sort of transition, helping Grogu identify with Din. It is crucial to note that Din’s removal of his helmet now becomes the opposite of castration. Instead of Din using his oedipal power over Grogu, Din gives it up by donning a weaker helmet and finally removing it, showing his face. Din’s removal of his helmet is a step towards a positive resolution of the oedipal dynamic between him and Grogu.

If Din’s actions are the opposite of castration, what can we say about Gideon’s actions? Particularly relevant here is Gideon’s “Dark Saber.” The Dark Saber is similar to a lightsaber, except it is black, and noticeably sharp at the end. The Dark Saber symbolizes Gideon’s penis just like Din’s helmet symbolizes Din’s penis, because the Dark Saber is phallic and powerful. Furthermore, when Grogu is finally caught by Gideon, Gideon threatens and taunts Grogu with the Dark Saber. Grogu reaches out a hand toward it, attempting perhaps to take it, but is unable to. Gideon’s threatening of Grogu with the Dark Saber symbolizes the oedipal father’s threatening of his son with castration. Gideon’s taunting of Grogu with the Dark Saber symbolizes the envy a son has for his father’s penis. Grogu’s attempt to take the Dark Saber and his subsequent failure represents the son’s powerlessness before his father.

Din does not attempt to castrate Grogu. Rather, Din gives up his oedipal power. Gideon attempts to castrate Grogu, maintaining his oedipal power. With this interpretation, I hope it clear how Din represents the “good father,” with which the son wishes to identify, and how Gideon represent the “bad father,” which the son wishes to punish.

We’ve come a long way. At this point, if you refer to my outline, I’ve covered points (1) to (6). My next points, (7) and (8), relate to additional characteristics of Din and Gideon. Importantly, it is these characteristics that complete their symbolic status as white and black American males. In point (7), I state that Din, in addition to being the “good father,” is powerful, independent, sexually free, white-passing, and male. In point (8), I state that Gideon, in addition to being the “bad father,” is eventually powerless, subservient, alledgely sexual, black-passing, and male.

Din’s “power” comes in two forms. The first is his oedipal power, which we’ve covered. The second form of his power relates to his “independence,” and becomes especially relevant in contrast to Gideon’s “eventual powerlessness” and “subservience.” Din’s power and independence are best summarized by invoking the image of a cowboy on the frontier, much like Han Solo, for example. This cowboy is a good shooter and is governed by nobody, and is what most (male?) children aspire at some point to be. Din fits into this image.

Gideon is rendered powerless in S2 E8, in which he and his Dark Troopers are defeated by a Jedi. Though Gideon is in power for most of the series, the comical defeat of his platoon of Dark Troopers by a single Jedi serves as a counterbalance. And though Gideon seems subservient to nobody, he is in reality subservient to the Empire and to the Dark Side. Moreover, he is subservient to Emperor Palpatine. Notice that Gideon, a black-passing character, is subservient to Palpatine, a white-passing character. More on this later.

We thus see the direct contrast of Din’s power and independence with Gideon’s powerlessness and subservience. Din’s sexual freedom is also in contrast to Gideon’s alleged sexuality. Din has several sexual relationships with women that have some romantic or sexual tension (none with men, that I could think of). The relationships I can immediately recall are listed, chronologically: 1) a romantic relationship with Omera (S1E4); 2) a sexually tense encounter with Cara Dune (S1E4); 3) sexual tension with the Armorer (most encounters); and 4) through Boba, another male Mandalorian (who can thus stand in for Din), a sexually tense relationship with Bo-Katan Kyrze and Katee Sackhoff (S2E8).

Gideon, however, has very few relationships— with anyone— throughout the series. While I do believe that one of the senior officers on his spaceship appears to be female, it is clear that Din has many more sexual relationships that Gideon. This does not, however, prove that Din is sexually free, or that Gideon’s sexuality is merely alleged.

To prove this we again need to consider Gideon’s Dark Saber, but this time as a cultural symbol, rather than as an oedipal symbol. We know Gideon’s Dark Saber represents the penis. Since Gideon is black-passing, and since the Dark Saber is called “Dark” and is colored black, the Dark Saber more specifically represents the black penis. The black penis is very relevant to American culture, and possibly even to global culture. In American culture, at least, the black penis is alleged to be very big. The black, American penis is thus highly sexualized (note pornography studios such as “Blacked”). The black man, however, who controls the black penis, is not allowed to have sexual relationships with white women. In fact, black people, to the extent that they are dehumanized (this extent may vary by geography, for example), become completely desexualized. It is for this reason we can state that Gideon’s sexuality is “alleged.” While Gideon has control over the large black penis, he cannot use it as a sexual tool. Gideon’s lack of sexual relationships in the series confirms his “alleged” sexuality. Din, by contrast, can form both romantic and sexual relationships, and thus has sexual freedom. This is confirmed by his various sexual relationships.

We now see, as I state in points (7), (8), (9), and (10), how Din symbolizes the powerful, independent, sexually free, white-passing, American male who needs to be identified with. We also see that Gideon symbolizes the powerless, subservient, allegedly sexual, black-passing, American male who needs to be punished. That the white and black American males’ representation in “The Mandalorian” is shockingly close to the cultural reality is crucial. For it means that “The Mandalorian” is reinforcing for its entire audience these horrible, dehumanizing, symbolic representations of white and black American males. I would argue that this symbolism, along with the racial wealth gap, are the two elements of American culture that do most to maintain racial inequality.

So how did “The Mandalorian” come to revolve entirely around racist symbolism? A good place to start is recognizing that the Show’s creators are probably not overtly racist. What has likely happened, however, in the casting of a black actors as a villian with a “Dark Saber” — come on, I mean, seriously? Casting a black guy with his “black sword”?— is that some form of so-called “implicit/unconscious bias” has been invoked.

I am not an expert in bias. I know it angers the right, and frankly, some of what I hear regarding bias angers me. Luckily, we don’t need to worry about the technicalities of bias if we understand its root, because if we understand its root, we can modify it entirely. It is evident from my analysis that some strong, unconscious pressure has created “The Mandalorian” out of racist symbolism, and that this symbolism is heavily tied to oedipal tensions. It is my belief that in teaching people about oedipal dynamics (perhaps a bit more clearly than I have done here), we can diminish the effects of the unconscious bias we discovered at the heart of “The Mandalorian.”

A quick sidebar: the unconscious pressure described above is the “implicit bias” that actually matters. Not teachers mixing up two black students’ names. Not Band-Aids being light-skin colored. Not some university dormitory named after an old alumni that— who would’ve guessed — had exhibited racist behavior during their life. None of these, but rather the fact that a global company, Disney, with all the resources in the world, somehow produced an incredibly popular, racist TV show.

So what should be done to teach people oedipal dynamics? I can think of three things, off the top of my head:

Hire knowledgeable teachers Don’t make it political Fund English Departments

Another sidebar: I am no advocate of banning or “cancelling” “The Mandalorian,” or any other elements of culture that uphold racist symbols. I also do not support social norms that require black actors to be cast as “good fathers” or white actors to be cast as “bad fathers,” because this would be tantamount to the forced equalizing of those actors’ outcomes. Rather, as I stated above, we need to use racist symbols to educate people about the unconscious cultural symbols. If people are taught this material correctly, they will be less likely to depict racist symbols, at least to their full extent, as is being done in “The Mandalorian.”

Sources

Joel Kovel. White Racism. Columbia University Press, 1984.

McMahon, D.F. (1989). The Psychological Significance of Science Fiction.

Psychoanal. Rev., 76(2):281–295