Avatar: On gods, guilt and wolves

I went to see "Avatar" this past weekend. It was the first time I have seen a movie in 3D and despite some minor eye strain; I was quite impressed with the technology. I’m a sucker for eye candy and am already giddy at the idea of seeing Tim Burton’s "Alice" in 3D on IMAX. But before then I believe I will see "Avatar" one more time and it is rare for me to see a movie twice in the theaters, unlike when I was ten and saw "Star Wars" nine times the summer it was released.

While the reviews of "Avatar" have been overwhelming good, there have been some criticisms. One is that it is simply a rehash of previous films, in particular Kevin Costner’s "Dances With Wolves." The other is that it is yet another postcolonial fantasy designed to alleviate the white man’s guilt with the Costner film being guilty of the same sin. However, while there may be some truth to this, I think dismissing the film as yet another racial stereotype is wrong.

Although the term 'avatar' is commonly understood as a computer simulated representation of a person, the term originally comes from Indian religion where an avatar is a manifestation of god, particularly the god Visnu. Rama from the epic "Ramayana" is an avatar as is Krishna from the "Bhagavad Gita." Most Hindus also consider the Buddha to be an avatar, though Buddhists themselves do not. The idea is that when there is great suffering god will incarnate into the world to save beings from their earthly torments. It is an act of divine compassion which should be familiar to anyone in the Western world as Christ would count as an avatar as well. The difference is that Hindus believe that god has appeared many times in different forms – any manifestation of the divine is legitimate, while Christians are exclusive in that they believe theirs is the only true manifestation of the divine. When we create a computer simulation of ourselves we are acting like god descending from spirit into matter, though for us, the experience seems to be reversed as our material bodies manipulate immaterial representations of our selves.

In terms of colonialism, it can be argued that the whole concept of 'Hinduism' is a colonial construction. But then, most of what counts as religion, even the concept of religion itself can be argued to be nothing but a manufactured fantasy informed by Christian assumptions. When I teach world religion, the first thing I have students do, on the very first day, is to ask them to imagine that they are part of a team handpicked to be the first earthlings to visit an alien planet. They are not allowed to interact with the aliens, they must observe them from a distance and their job is to report on the alien’s religion. This is a useful exercise because it gets students to think about religion in terms other than belief and also because it demonstrates that they always use their own assumptions about religion in determining what is and is not religious. Throughout history missionaries have done something similar, with the noted exception that they began from the point of view that any religion other than Christianity did not really count as religion and their task was not to simply report, but to convert.

There is no question that the European agenda was not only to convert the natives but to claim their lands. In order to do achieve this, to commit a long history of genocide and slavery, indigenous cultures were viewed as “primitive” and their people were seen as less than what most would consider a “person.” We still do this today, though less often for land but more frequently for material resources, which is the plight of the Na’vi in "Avatar."

I do see how the plots of both "Avatar" and "Dances With Wolves" can lead to post colonial criticism. The murderous white man gets accepted into the indigenous tribe, learns their ways and in the process discovers that genocide is bad and then leads the fight against the colonial invaders, because obviously, the tribes cannot do it themselves. Yet, I think dismissing either film as nothing short of guilt ridden fantasy misses something vitally important. As works of art, all films can be seen as projections from the unconscious. To interpret the films as simply projection guilt ridden fantasies is to underestimate the balancing nature of the psyche. Instead of alleviating guilt I posit that the films are intended to help us develop our compassion.

To complain that both films have the same plot is to miss the fact that plots are recycled again and again. If you reject "Avatar" for having the same plot as "Dances With Wolves", you may as well reject the "Wizard of Oz" as having the same basic plot as "The Odyssey" and "Star Wars" replacing space for Oz and Harry Potter being nothing more than a magical version of Luke Skywalker. Sometimes stories are archetypal and as such represent a psychological fact. "The Odyssey", "The Wizard of Oz", "Star Wars" and the Harry Potter series are all versions of the hero’s journey. I think "Avatar" and "Wolves" are also both archetypal and could also fit into the hero’s journey, though with a modern lesson.

In the original Indian understanding of avatar, the god descends to the earth out of compassion. It is compassion that the heroes of both "Avatar" and "Wolves" must learn. They need to experience the suffering of the natives through their eyes, which is something we do not do in the modern world. It is clear that James Cameron is making some pretty specific points in his film, with references to “shock and awe” and others taken directly from America’s military actions over the past nine years. As journalist Amy Goodman noted, American journalism tends to focus on the military. We are given tours of the latest technology, our troops are embedded with the soldiers, rarely, if ever, are we taken into the homes of families who are crouched and hiding and uncertain of what the next moment will bring. As Goodman states “I really do think that if for one week in the U.S. we saw the true face of war, we saw people’s limbs sheared off, we saw kids blown apart, for one week, war would be eradicated. Instead, what we see in the U.S. media is the video game war.” The point is, where postcolonial theorists would prefer to get rid of the white male hero in these films and show the indigenous culture directly, I think, psychologically, we need the hero. We need to experience the indigenous culture through our eyes in order to fully develop our compassion.

I suspect it would be difficult to find anyone viewing "Avatar" who sides with those representing corporate greed and military strength and only wants to see the Na’vi annihilated, yet, in the “real world” that is exactly what we do. Our compassion is deadened through nationalistic rhetoric and propaganda. Yet, as the Sigourney Weaver character in the film makes very clear, the Na'vi are people too. No matter how different they look to us, they are also moral beings. As were the 12 million indigenous people who were exterminated in America's expansion west. As are the Iraqis and Tibetans and Palistineans and every other being on this planet who has suffered and continues to suffer under colonial expansion and material greed. It is our inherent compassion that is brought to life in "Avatar" and something we would do well to hold on to in the real world.