The International Relations of Middle-earth: Learning from The Lord of the Rings

Introduction: Middle-earth, The Lord of the Rings, and International Relations

Introduction: Middle-earth, The Lord of the Rings, and International Relations After disputed Iranian elections in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed victory over his rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iranian government central television put a marathon showing of The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) on Channel Two to help keep the peace. The government normally treated its citizens to just a couple of Western ‹lms per week. However, widespread unrest in June 2009 followed election results that the public perceived to be illegitimate. This response instigated an extra effort by the government to quell riots through entertainment-related incentives, as well as the arrest and slaughter of protesters. According to one resident of Tehran, the government intended this three-movie marathon to convey a message “Don’t worry, be happy.” However, for many Iranians, the TV movie “bribe” encouraged resistance : the audience read political meaning into the ‹lms. Viewers detected similarities between various characters and Iranian political opponents and religious leaders, even interpreting each part of the trilogy’s ending (“In edame dare. This will be continued”) as a “hesitant slogan, our words of reassurance” (“A Time Reporter in Tehran,” Time, 2009). In doing so, they used ‹ctional LOTR characters to clarify the hero/villain story that they saw in their own world and were inspired by what they saw to persist in opposing Ahmadinejad’s regime. Although watching LOTR certainly cannot be credited with singlehandedly sustaining Iranian political opposition, it did connect effectively with citizens on issues and questions important to them in a politically charged environment. In this instance, LOTR became part of a broader struggle for the “hearts and minds” of people, not just a military battle for their bodies. Thus the tactic of using LOTR to distract the public back‹red on the government. Instead of staying home and being entertained, many disenfranchised Iranian citizens strengthened their resolve to oppose the regime, at least in part because they interpreted the ‹lms as suggesting that their battle would continue and current setbacks should be seen as only temporary. Just as LOTR helped people interpret their political environment and draw inspiration in Iran during a time of political turmoil, we hope this book will enable students of International Relations (IR) to clarify their understanding of existing interpretations of world politics and to suggest alternative meanings. This volume seeks to complement efforts to introduce the ‹eld of IR systematically through textbooks while retaining a connection with long-standing issues and current events. What makes this book unique is its use of the imaginary world from LOTR to obtain insights about the one we live in today. The journey begins with tentative answers to two sets of queries. 1. What are the lasting questions about international affairs that we as citizens of the world want to see answered? Which contemporary issues are most important to address? 2. Can we enhance learning about global politics in our world through study of an imaginary world? If that is possible, why should J. R. R. Tolkien’s “Middle-earth” be chosen? In what way is Tolkien’s story of the Ring of Power, told in LOTR, especially worthy of attention? Before considering these questions, however, it may be helpful to look over appendix A, which overviews the story of the Ring of Power as it takes place in the imaginary world of Middle-earth up to its climax. This material is essential for those who have neither read the books nor seen the ‹lm versions and can refresh the memories of those already familiar with Middle-earth. The ending of LOTR also appears in appendix B, to be introduced later in this book. 2 • the international relations of middle-earth major questions and issues Have you ever heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? In this Indian story, a group of blind men touch an elephant to ‹nd out what it is like. However, because each man touches a different part of the elephant (e.g., forehead, leg, ear), none of them can agree on what it is they are touching (a breast? a pillar? a fan?) (Sharma 2000, 52–53). In the version of this story taken from the philosophy of Jainism (time honored in India), a wise man resolves the con›ict by pointing out that all the men are right: the elephant has all of those parts but is one elephant. Like the people in this...