Editorial: Is Attachment in Star Wars Good or Bad?

Love and attachment are complicated subjects in the Star Wars galaxy. As in our world, it is ever-present and all beings are engineered to seek it out wherever they can. It is often the most common source of genuine happiness and can spur us on to become better versions of ourselves. But in Star Wars we often view this galaxy through the distorted lens of the Jedi, who forbid attachment and consider love the death of duty.



I was a teenager when the prequel trilogy came out and believed the Jedi that attachment can start them on the slippery slope to the dark side; Force users could not be trusted with the temptation to put their love for someone above the good of the galaxy. Later in life, I came to believe that the Jedi were wrong, and if they had been a little less restrictive then Anakin Skywalker could have received more support and the events of Revenge of the Sith might never have happened.



But unlike the difference between light and dark, the truth of the matter is more gray than it seems. There are countless examples in Star Wars of a character's love for someone else helping to save them and the galaxy, just as time after time we see a character become warped and twisted by their attachments, holding on to their love so tightly that they prioritise it above the fate of innocent people.







It's important to note that in Star Wars, attachment is usually only bad if you are Force sensitive. Han and Leia's romance is always portrayed as a good thing, a heartwarming subplot in a story of rebellion. Chewbacca has his own family back on Kashyyyk. Poe Dameron can hook up with whoever he wants in his free time, it doesn't stop him fighting the First Order.



If you actively use the Force however, things usually end tragically when love is involved. Anakin became so consumed with keeping Padmé alive at all costs, keeping their love a secret from the Jedi, that he was manipulated by the Sith and turned to the dark side. Obi-Wan's unrequited love with Satine made her a target for Maul and led to her death. In Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, one character's love for their family leads that person to prioritize said family above everyone else they care about, with disastrous consequences. Indeed, in the game it is the villain's obsession with a planet he discovered that forms most of the conflict.







These examples make it tempting to think that attachment is the enemy of Force wielders, but we are often reminded that on some occasions it isn't. Darth Vader famously kills Emperor Palpatine out of love and a desire to protect his son. Ben Solo is redeemed by his love for his mother and father. In Star Wars Rebels, Kanan Jarrus' love for Hera and the rest of his found family on the Ghost inspires him to bravely sacrifice his own life to save theirs. In The Mandalorian, Din Djarin would have died in the first season if not for the strong bond he shares with the Force sensitive Grogu.



So if attachment in itself can be both good or bad, maybe the answer lies in the context. Perhaps what is most important is to retain a sense of perspective, to be able to remind yourself of the differences between right and wrong when love and attachment to something forces you to make a decision. Perhaps what George Lucas meant to tell us all along is that while love is a beautiful thing, we have to be careful not to let it be warped by outside forces or lose sight of what is important in the wider galaxy.



Interestingly, I'm not sure there are many examples in Star Wars of a character setting aside their attachments for the good of the galaxy. You could argue Leia did in continuing to serve in the Republic Senate while she and Han separated, and agreeing to send Ben away for Jedi training rather than continue to raise him herself.







The two protagonists of the Lost Stars novel, Thane and Ciena, do put their love to one side to fight on opposite sides of the Rebellion and the Empire, but as neither of them are Force sensitive there is less at stake than there is when Jedi typically fall in love. But they're the only examples that spring to mind and when it comes to active Force users, there are even fewer.



There are certainly instances where characters' attachments haven't done any harm. Kanan Jarrus clearly loves Hera romantically and is attached to the rest of his Ghost family, but that love never turns sour or compromises the state of the galaxy. He is never required to sacrifice them for the greater good. This is of course because the cast of Star Wars Rebels is aligned in their goal to defeat the Empire, which is the greater good in this context, meaning Kanan never had to worry about his attachments overriding his greater commitments.







Luke Skywalker is clearly attached to Han, Leia, Chewbacca and R2-D2 throughout the events of the original trilogy, but he is never required to put his attachments aside during those films. Then after the events of Return of the Jedi, he leans further into the Jedi beliefs and distances himself from the wider galaxy anyway.



In The High Republic era, Jedi Master Avar Kriss and Jedi Knight Elzar Mann have a strong connection with each other, and while they 'do the right thing' and distance themselves from each other over worries about their romantic tensions, it arguably does them no good anyway as they are separated and unable to stop Starlight Beacon from being destroyed (it's possible that being together for that event wouldn't have helped prevent it anyway, but it's worth noting).







Interestingly, Ben Solo/Kylo Ren places his attachment to his mother above what he believes is the greater good of the galaxy, when he can't bring himself to blow up the Resistance ship while she's aboard during The Last Jedi, in what is a fascinating inverse of the need to place the greater good above your own attachments. However, because he is on the side of evil in this instance, I don't think it can be counted.



So even though there are characters who have been able to enjoy attachments and save the world at the same time, it's not the same as placing the good of the galaxy above their own attachments and desires. So if there are precious few examples of Force sensitives successfully organizing their priorities, does that mean the Jedi were right that attachments are dangerous?



I think the answer is no, not inherently. Star Wars has shown repeatedly that attachment can be dangerous for those who wield the Force, but the context is always key. Yes, if Anakin hadn't fallen in love with Padmé then he wouldn't have fallen to the dark side, but equally if the Jedi had been a little more supportive when it comes to forming attachments, then maybe he wouldn't have felt alienated and forced to turn to the dark side for help.







It's often noted in The Clone Wars and supporting novels that Anakin's sense of attachment is way too intense and because of that, his priorities would always be compromised. But that's just the person Anakin is; it doesn't mean that his fate should automatically be applied for every single Force user.



As mentioned before, Kanan proved that it is possible to form attachments and not doom the galaxy in the process. Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with attachment if the person is willing to set it aside to do the right thing. All it requires is discipline and a sense of perspective, both of which a Jedi should possess. Unfortunately, it's very rare in Star Wars that it ever happens. The temptation to become all-consumed by one's passion is so strong that on evidence, it's no surprise the Jedi don't allow it.



Tragic love stories are Star Wars' bread and butter, but just because that sense of self-discipline is so rarely adhered to in this context, it doesn't mean that love and attachment are naturally bad. It's just a shame that the Jedi automatically shunned it, ironically out of fear of what it might lead to. If they hadn't, then perhaps the Empire would never have reigned at all.

Click HERE to check out and comment on this topic on our main site