Arda Inhabited: Environmental Relationships in The Lord of the Rings

chapter threeOppression, or “Power Over”

chapter three Oppression, or “Power Over” Ents, Hobbits, and Elves all have power with their environment and work toward building communities. Dwarves and Men each gain power from their world and build relationships with their ecospheres that are mediated through other things, or are somehow one step removed from true understanding or community. The relationship that Orcs, Saruman, and Sauron have with Middle-earth is one of domination and perversion, or “power over.” Their actions are corruptions of the healthy ways in which other groups relate to their surroundings. These three act similarly to have power over their environment, differing only in degree of influence relative to the power of each. Sauron is more destructive than Orcs because he is stronger, but their actions are similar in principle. Ultimately, this destruction rejects the connection between themselves and their places. In many ways, “power over” is the direct opposite of “power with.” It is also a perversion of “power from” that narrows the scope of the people involved or otherwise increases the distance between the Self and the World. A “power over” position is one that intends oppression in order to glorify the Self. Everything exists to serve the Self because nothing beyond the Self has value. As Norman Wirzba explains, speaking of Western culture, “Elimination natural teleology, the idea that natural things have an end or purpose internal to themselves, made possible the belief that human minds are the sole carriers of value, the origin and the end of all purpose, and thus are mandated to do with bodies of all kinds whatever they deem useful or pleasing.”1 This is exactly what happens in a “power over” situation. Nothing but the Self has value or purpose, and the entire world exists only to suit the whims of the Self. As “power over” situations are allowed to proceed to their inevitable end, all but the 75 76 arda inhabited Self ceases to exist, as context is transformed into an extension of the Self and its desires. Curry points out that a connection with the environment is a relief from solipsism, but from a “power over” perspective, solipsism is exactly what is desired.2 The One Ring, representative of Sauron himself, is a symbol not only of his pride and power, but also of ultimate solipsism. Caldecott argues that “its circular shape suggests that of the will closed upon itself.”3 From a “power over” position, the only possible dialectical positions are the Self and the not-Self, as the position of oppression looks always toward consumption and assimilation. Instead of the Self both defining the Other and being defined by the Other, a “power over” position scarcely looks beyond the Self to begin with. The “power over” dynamic is one present in the attitudes of the villains of Middle-earth. It is therefore worth noting briefly how evil is presented in The Lord of the Rings. Tom Shippey claims that evil in this text has two apparently contradictory elements. The first side of evil is one he labels “Boethian.” In this view, “there is no such thing as evil. What people identify as evil is only the absence of good. Furthermore people in their ignorance often identify as evil things . . . which are in fact and in the long run, or in the divine place, to their advantage.”4 Kathleen Dubs further claims that the Boethian view of evil is demonstrated by the combination of “providence, fate, chance, and often free will” present in The Lord of the Rings.5 She points out that Sam’s continual optimism, or the fact that “he holds out hope that all will be right in the end,” is evidence of this type of evil. As far as the villains of Middle-earth are concerned, in a strictly Boethian paradigm, their evil then is reduced to a mere absence of good and all their destructive designs in the end become their undoing. Saruman is a perfect example of how one’s own designs for domination prove to be one’s own undoing. However, The Lord of the Rings is not only Boethian in its approach to evil. Evil is not merely the absence of good, though one can argue that the absence of action does lead to evil. In this text, evil is also a very palpable presence. Shippey explains that “evil does exist, and is not merely an absence; and what is more, it has to be resisted and fought . . . and what is even...