Human and Alien Rights: Permanently at Odds?

Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow is such an involving and emotional book that I was worried that I would be too taken in by the story and the characters that I would not be able to see past the plot to examine the deeper themes. However, I found that my mind was still able to pull out pertinent topics and themes because of the thoughtful way in which Russell writes. There's no shortage of religious and social themes to draw from. One topic that is extremely interesting and also impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on is that of morality and comparing the Jana'ata's ideas of right and wrong with our own. This is addressed prominently in Aaron Zisook's blog post for this week. Aaron asks a key question: is it "our place to decide their [the Jana'ata's] morals, or do different species have some right to decide their own morality?" In reading the book this certainly came into my thoughts, particularly in light of what is done to Emilio. Although the Jana'ata, particularly Supaari, recognized Emilio as a sentient being, they felt no reservation in treating him like an object and treating him in a way that is, to us, repulsive and horrifying. The reason that the moral system of the Jana'ata is so difficult to understand is that we, as humans, can hardly comprehend treating a sentient being as an animal. But this is certainly not true across society; human beings are constantly being dehumanized and rape is not a foreign concept. Still, the idea of keeping an individual as a sex toy shocks and repulses us because it seems to be completely acceptable in Jana'ata society, unlike how it would be treated in human society.

So, Aaron's question comes up again...since the action was accepted in Jana'ata culture, but completely rejected in human society, do we have a right to dictate to the Jana'ata what we deem as right and wrong? In the case of the forced prostitution of humans, I have to say that humans should have some right to dictate what the aliens do. This is because it harms humans directly. Now, this question gets a bit more fuzzy when looking at the Jana'ata practice of eating the Runa young that were not authorized to be born. In this case, the practice does not have a direct effect on humans. While we may find the act to be morally offensive, does that give us the right to interfere? What if there were an alien species that found the fact that we keep domesticated animals as pets to be morally wrong? (This is clearly a less extreme example, but it is possible that some species might feel that keeping animals "in captive" is as bad as killing the young of another species.) Would it be acceptable for this species to come to Earth and steal everyone's pets in order to set them free? Humanity would be shocked and indignant and, very possibly, enraged. So, you can see where the lines become blurred. It's like that line from the Star Trek film, The Undiscovered Country, "Human rights. The very term is racist."

I'm sure, however, that many people in class will have different opinions on this subject and no matter which way you look at it, Russell provides a huge amount of material to consider and sift through. As one reviewer puts it, "she [Russell] uses the relationship among the aliens, and between the aliens and humans, to explore what it means to be civilized and the nature of morality." Like Aaron, I find this to be a fascinating topic that is continuously occupying my thoughts, even now that I am finished with the book. The real difficulty is looking past our initial repulsion at what the Jana'ata do to the Runa and to Emilio and trying to consider their side of the morality argument. Robert Wiblin's blog addresses this argument briefly by pointing out that "If the human and alien species met to discuss their moral preferences, it is not clear to what either side could appeal to work out which one of them was right." This just illustrates the enormous problem of the idea of "universal human (if we can even use that word) rights."

The Sparrow and Loss of Faith

The title The Sparrow can be seen as a reference to the hymn “His Eye is on The Sparrow” from the New Testament, in which Jesus reassures his followers that not even a sparrow can fall without God’s notice, that God sees your suffering and helps you.

The hymn is as follows: “Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matthew Chapter 6:26)

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.” (Chapter 10:29-31).

The Jesuit linguist Emilio Sandoz, the only survivor of the mission to Rackhat, has been physically and mentally scarred. More to the point, his faith in God has been shattered. He says to a younger priest John Candotti, “Don’t hope for more than that, John…”God will break your heart” (50). Sandoz followed the beautiful song from Rackhat to discover an alien species, the Jana’ata, that values dependency and physically and mentally rapes him.

Even according to Russell in “A Reader’s Guide” at the end of the novel, the moral of the story is “ ‘Even if you do the best you can, you still get screwed…’" Russell continues, "Emilio has kept his end of a bargain that he made with God, and he feels betrayed. He believes he has been seduced and raped by God, that he’s been used against his will for God’s own purpose…God gives us rules but those are rules for us, not for God.” Perhaps this can explain the holocaust or any atrocity from a religious perspective?

Cultures so Alien we Have to Re-Evaluate the Framework of Cultural Interaction in The Sparrow

The Sparrow gives us yet another author's vision of humankind expanding to new worlds. As in The Martian Chronicles and Speaker for the Dead, human beings initiate contact with the aliens by traveling to a distant planet. Mary Doria Russell seems to think the Jesuits will have the kind of influence necessary to travel between solar systems by 2019, but she has a PhD, so I won't question her judgment.

That aside, Russell uses her training as an anthropologist to give shape to some of the inconsistencies that arise when cultures encounter each other. In fact, this book is kind of horrifying in the way that the first half comes together entirely as if "God wants this to happen," and then the entire second half is spent watching these beautiful, talented, intelligent, qualified people absolutely fail in spite of their best efforts. In spite of their best intentions and efforts, the differences in the societies tear down all their work. With no malice on either side, the humans are killed, tortured, and raped due only to societal differences.

This goes beyond Schmitt-ian friend-enemy logic. Aside from the intentions of people or states, cultures may be totally incompatible with each other. What is a violation of life or holiness or dignity to one society may be a customary greeting or a sign of praise to another. In this new framework, one society may be the enemy of one in spite of attempts to be "friendly."

A Critique on Positivism

I think this novel knocks the notion that science is supreme. The fact that positivism is such a commonly held belief and that it excludes all other interpretations of reality makes it somewhat a religion. Positivism informs us that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on our experience of the world, our senses, and positive verification. It is the epistemological backdrop to the scientific method. I just came across an advertisement for an open house to visit the church of scientology in Dupont. The ad read “Scientology, the Only New Religion of the 20th Century.” I would beg to differ - the discourse of science has become a religion in that it excludes other ways of knowing, such as mysticism, and excommunicates non-believers, sentencing them to mental asylums.

My point is that looking at science as a religion reveals its human roots and subjectivity. As Chicodelabarba wrote, “Scientists, we would hope, are free from this (Schmittian Friend-Enemy dichotomy) restraint, to work for the ‘good of humanity.’ Of course, as we read, it becomes obvious that scientists are not working to enlighten mankind. Hogarth and a few of his colleagues may be, but many of the scientists are seeking to make a name for themselves in this project. Even McHill, when he sees that the TX-bomb is impossible, shows a look of disappointment. Far from having a desire for empirical knowledge, McHill seems to desire the reward following the creation of the most powerful weapon yet known. As a scientist, he fails to look beyond to the consequences of his achievement.”

McHill is certainly not purely objective and neither are many of the scientists. Despite that the scientists rid out the possibility of using the transmission for military purposes, they ultimately cannot determine why it was sent. The scientists project onto the message what they imagine or wish it to be. I like the question - should scientists be the preferred ones to attempt to decode the message? Sometimes you need a right and a left brain - maybe that is why in Stargate a typical scientist, anthropologist and two warriors go over together, they always seem to each be able to answer a piece of the puzzle, but can never figure it out entirely by themselves.

"Pure" Science?

This week in class, our discussion focused mainly on the role scientists play in society. One of the most difficult topics involved questioning whether scientists were the ideal choice to attempt to decode the message in His Master's Voice. Disregarding the fact that the message was a lengthy pattern of neutrino emissions that could only be detected by sensitive scientific apparatus and could only be "read" by scientists (although really it made no sense to them), how would other specialists have fared in examining the signal?

Hogarth classifies mathematics as the most pure study, saying it is derived directly from nature. After that, he gives credit to natural sciences like physics and biology, followed by sciences that study human constructions like psychology and anthropology. The "elves" as they are called, are regarded as pseudo-scientists and are given very little credit for their ideas. Still more detested by Hogarth are the politicians involved in the HMV project. The liaison, Nye, is treated as a figure of scorn by most, and Hogarth holds him in open contempt. One of Baloyne's most valuable characteristics is the fact that he is able to mediate between the scientific and political communities.

Even when Senator McMahon shows up and Hogarth is able to have a productive conversation with him about the nature of the project, he reveals that the government has been running His Master's Ghost. One of the reasons for Hogarth's dislike of politicians, as we see, is the lack of transparency they offer. While Hogarth sees that science enlightens and produces, he only sees that government hides important advances, hording them to its own advantage.

What Hogarth seems to be implying, is that government is naturally impaired by the necessary Schmittian friend-enemy dichotomy. Scientists, we would hope, are free from this restraint, to work for the "good of humanity." Of course, as we read, it becomes obvious that scientists are not working to enlighten mankind. Hogarth and a few of his colleagues may be, but many of the scientists are seeking to make a name for themselves in this project. Even McHill, when he sees that the TX-bomb is impossible, shows a look of disappointment. Far from having a desire for empirical knowledge, McHill seems to desire the reward following the creation of the most powerful weapon yet known. As a scientist, he fails to look beyond to the consequences of his achievement.

Science Cannot Be Neutral

Our discussion in class yesterday covered a lot of ground. One topic that I found to be very interesting is the question of if morality has a place in science and if it can be separated from the desires and fears and human society. We can see in His Master's Voice that both the HMV project and the Manhattan project suffered from the difficulties of scientists being unable to remain completely neutral in matters that concern the whole of humanity. And how could they? They are, after all, part of humanity. Scientists are just humans who happen to work in a field that impacts the rest of human society in many cases. Expecting them to hold themselves to a higher level of morality than the rest of the population is simply unrealistic. As emily_f writes in her blog, "...science is very much a part of the social situation in which it is conducted and in order for science to be neutral or for humans to be free, we must throw off these constraints. Of course, how to throw off these constraints isn’t really addressed, nor is it even established that this is possible.... Science will always be colored by society." This means that scientists can neither be considered to be either completely moral or completely immoral...they are simply human.

Despite this fact, scientists are often expected to be "incorruptible" and "ideal," as Lem puts it. He writes that, "A politician may be a villain without ceasing to be a great politician, whereas a villainous genius--that is a contradiction in terms. Villainy cancels genius" (4). In the eyes of society, scientists are inherently good by the nature of their work; they couldn't possibly be as intelligent as they are and have some evil motive. However, history tells us this is not true. In emily_f's blog, she mentions the scientists who worked for the Nazis. Clearly, these individuals were not working with a sense of morality in mind; quite the opposite in fact.

So, in terms of the HMV project, the scientists cannot remove themselves from the human implications of the discovery and their work on it. The implications of the possibility of another intelligent species in the universe is not something that can be ignored, even if someone tries as hard as they can to be neutral. Even though it is questionable whether or not there is an alien species responsible for the transmission, even the tiniest possibility creates immense controversy that cannot be ignored by any member of humanity.

The Risks of Scientific Advancement

I enjoyed this book for its critique on the influence of the military industrial complex. Especially during the Cold War the discourse of science was corrupted by the political. Indeed Einstein’s genius could be seen as horribly destructive in light of the Manhattan Project. Of course this story is about the human experience more than anything else. Even in our “knowledge society,” those with the most knowledge are still controlled by those with the most power. Power still reigns supreme.

There is another interesting paradox in the book – those with the most expertise are often most uncertain of the world around them because of their very own intelligence, while those with a cursory understanding of things comprehend the world fully due to their simplicity. Lem encapsulates this phenomenon well. He writes, “The ‘well-informed’ think they know something about matters that the experts are reluctant even to speak of. Information at second hand always gives an impression of tidiness, in contrast with the data at the scientist’s disposal, full of gaps and uncertainties” (20). This is because those non-experts come to the information with pre-conceived notions and “what did not fit they topped off with ceremony or hesitation,” or in other words they discard anything that contradicts their theory.

Information is used by politicians and the military for their uses, while the full truth remains in the realm of the scientific community and not public discourse. This begs the question, what is the purpose of all of these discoveries if the public is unaware of the full extent/implications of it? Even more importantly, are the discoveries more dangerous than beneficial if they are not fully understood by the masses?

Humanity v. Homo sapiens

Last week’s class discussion focused mostly on the distinction between the values we attribute to the term ‘humanity’ and the biological homo sapien. As discussed, humanity as a term characterizes what we view as our best features, our ability to empathize and be compassionate, our intuition and ingenuity. I disagree with the term humanity to describe these qualities. Humanity encompasses all of our nature, not only the better parts. I think the above descriptors capture our view of what is ‘good’ in terms of morality.

During our last class a thought occurred to me. Perhaps the hippae in Grass are a symbol for apathy, they are the antithesis of our ideal of humanity. In fact, even though according to Marjorie they relish in killing others it is really no more than a trained habit, a repeated behavior. I also found the idea of humans as a virus, as perceived by Marjorie, as fascinating. It reminds me of the later film The Matrix, if for no other reason than that is precisely how machines describe us. Humans spread and conquer just like a virus. Though, from our perspective, our goal of improving ourselves and “becoming,” as Marjorie defines evolution, makes us virtuous.

Scientific Progress in the Hands of Government

One of the more prominent themes running through His Master's Voice is the cooperation (and failed cooperation) between the scientists running the project and the authorities funding the project. The main character, Peter Hogarth, openly displays disdain for politicians in the story, and other scientists coexist with the authorities in varying degrees of comfort. Rappaport compares the scientists to truffle-hunting pigs, who are rewarded for discovering what their master wants without sharing the benefits of the discovery. Other scientists like Baloyne see the project as a shrewd manipulation of those in power for the uses of science and the greater good of humanity.

At the height of the TX-scare, Hogarth comes to a realization that humanity's well-intentioned scientific progress may be in the hands of a government not mature enough to take custody of it. The Neutrino-Wave Bomb would place unprecedented power in the hands of the civilization that discovers it, but an immature civilization like ours would most likely wipe itself out with that kind of power. Hogarth compares it to "giving a child a grenade."

The dependence of the scientists on the U.S. government for support and funding further complicates this scenario. Hogarth cannot indefinitely withhold the information from a government that will most probably misuse it. At the same time, he is aware that without him, someone else would likely discover the TX effect. Hogarth becomes victim of the most sublime crisis; his thirst for scientific progress compels him to develop the technology that will destroy him. The same could be said for humanity, or human governments.

Competition and Destruction in American Culture

I have yet to finish His Master's Voice but so far...it's basically a mindfuck. Pardon the harsh language, but I'm trying desperately to make sense of the book. I'm sure that it will be further revealed to me once I reach the end, but getting there is a bit rough. The ending had better be worth it. One thing that has stood out to me while reading Stanislaw Lem's book however, is the way in which humanity handles the discovery of the recording. The actions taken by the scientists say a lot about the nature of man and the culture that has developed in America. Although the novel was written in the context of the Cold War, some of the government's actions seem like they would still take place today. In the book, the reaction of the U.S. government is to keep the discovery of the recording a secret until they can uncover its secrets for themselves. This is because of the feelings of mistrust between the U.S. and its rivals (namely, the Soviet Union) and the arms race that exists. Although this context is no longer very relevant, the idea that the U.S. would try to hide such a discovery remains plausible. The U.S. still has enemies and still maintains a high level of competitiveness, although it more often presents itself economically. For these reasons, I believe that there is still a high probability that if the U.S. were to discover a something like in His Master's Voice it would remain a secret in order to gain an advantage or even just to handle things in what the powers-that-be see as the right way.

Since I haven't read to the end of the book yet, I don't know how things are going to pan out, but the last thing I read was that the scientists discovered the possibility of a nuclear bomb that could be detonated in one place and destroy everything in a completely different location. Now, I can see the direction that this might go in. The reason that Donald Prothero hesitates to present his findings to those in power is that he knows what will be done with the information. He fears the destruction that will follow. If the possibility of a weapon exists, rest assured the government will find a way to develop it. In this light, I am wary of how the book will end. Just as I am wary of how the U.S. would react to a discovery like the recording from space. I would like to imagine that science and discovery would take precedence but this can't be assured when there are other, often stronger, political interests at hand.

Human Beings are not always Humane Beings

Our discussion of Grass this week brought up some thought-provoking considerations about the criterion for humanity, to what extent that human ideal overlapped with the reality of the human race, whether certain members of homo-sapiens might be considered "inhuman," and whether any non-human species might be considered to have "human" traits.

We tended to revolve our arguments around the idea that there is some characteristic that a species might have which we characterize as "human." The easiest alien species to characterize on Grass was the foxen, which have empathic tendencies. Someone pointed out that the hippae's sadistic enjoyment of violence also mirror human tendencies, albeit darker ones. We tend to resist calling traits like these "human" because they reflect darker aspects of human nature.

Thinking of our failure to properly define a criterion for "humanity" along with our discussion of the qualifications required for assistance from Habitat for Humanity, I started wondering about the Humane Society. The word humane derives from the word human, but it is typically associated with the empathic qualities that human beings are capable of displaying, particularly in response to something of a different species. Also, the label humane is applied to someone whose actions characterize them as such. There is less complication involving physical status as a human being or the mental capacity to reason.

Perhaps instead of trying to classify the foxen and the hippae as "human" or "inhuman," it would make more sense to create a new categorical distinction of "humane" or "inhumane." For example, creatures like the foxen are humane, in that their disposition and character allow them to coexist with human beings. They perceive as "good" what most humans perceive as "good." The hippae, who perceive as "good" what most humans think of as "evil," are inhumane, and cannot coexist peacefully with human society, in spite of the fact that they are intelligent.

Human-ness and Grass

Today's class went around in circles discussing what defines "human-ness" and how this applies to the various species we've encountered in the novels so far this semester as well as to the bons in Grass. This started with the statement that the bons seem to be inhuman because they do not seem to care about what happens to the rest of humanity or, towards the end of the book, to themselves. In my opinion, I think they only lose their humanity when they become completely and utterly controlled by the Hippae; before this they still had the characteristics which, in my mind, are representative of human beings. I guess that this is because, in my mind, human-ness presents itself as an entity that has the ability to control its decisions while also having some other motivations behind their actions other than basic needs. Of course this definition is my own thinking and some of you may disagree with me but I'm going to go along with this theory to assess what we talked about in class.

So taking this idea into the discussion of the other species in Grass (multiple species or one?), I see the Hippae and the foxen as on the same level as humans (I don't want to say that they're human because, as Ryan pointed out in class, that word is too closely associated with homo sapiens...so I suppose the best term to use is ramen). Both species (or are they the same? oh, forget it) are ramen because they have a higher level of thought than animals (varelse). The proof of this is in the fact that the Hippae show "malice" and the foxen feel guilt and have philosophical debates. These two species show the extreme opposites of the motivations that could possibly be behind human-like actions. Just as there is good and evil in human society, the Hippae and the foxen represent the worst and best of (for lack of a better phrase) human nature. There are people out there who enjoy hurting others for the sack of hurting them, just as there are people who feel guilt over things that they can't really be held responsible for.

The Religious Motif In Grass

I would like to focus on the interesting religious motif at play in Grass. Tepper constructs her book to cover human existential anxiety, and I found in Grass a fascinating interplay between Judeo-Christian biblical beliefs and interacting with the other, be it other species or people. Religion is pervasive throughout the book. I would argue that the Tree City of the Arbai is pretty much an allegory for the Garden of Eden. It is pure, untouchable, protected and free of evil. “In the Tree City of the Arbai two religious gentlemen set in the mild breezes of evening, eating fruit which had been brought from the surrounding trees by the foxen…” (492).

Yet for all its splendor and peacefulness, the Arbai were all destroyed, completely wiped out of existence. The most ideal form of living according to the bible did not make it Tepper’s tale.

In Marjorie’s revelation, when she is knocked unconscious, God reveals to her that the Arbai, perhaps the symbol of a Judeo-Christian ideal, were a complete failure; “I failed completely with that one. Tried something new, but they were too good to do any good, you know?” (429) This statement confronts the “do-good” sentiment many religions try to amplify in our experience in life. God explains, “Too good is good for nothing. A chisel has to have an edge…otherwise it simply stirs things around without ever cutting through to causes and realities…” (429).

According to this vision then, human temptation and “evil” is not sinful in the biblical sense – the casting out of the Garden of Eden is not a bad thing. Indeed, as Marjorie reflects in the end this sharpness in our nature is what pushes us in the process of “becoming,” evolving. Before leaving the metaphorical Garden of Eden at the end to enter an Arbai transporter, she writes “change must come. Risk must come. Very small beings are important, not individually but for what they become, if they become...” (537-538). The implications of this assertion are vast, and I look forward to discussing them in class – there is so much to unpack in the book it would take weeks of analysis.

Some questions I have are – what are the implications of this message for manifest destiny? For violence? What is Tepper saying about how we should treat the other? Certainly the foxen respected us when Marjorie looked after the horses, a “lower” life-form. It seems to me the point is we have to stick up for ourselves – religions and world systems such as Sanctity can keep us down individually and as a species. We have to continue to push and to grow, that is what God or whomever intended for us – not to be controlled by religions or by the Hippae, but to break free of constraints and “boldly go where no (hu)man has gone before.” (Star Trek)

Social Issues in Grass

Sheri S. Tepper's Grass examines the themes of exploration and first-contact between cultures that have pervaded the texts so far in this class. This time the new frontier is the appropriately grassy world Grass, and the aliens are the indigenous Hippae, who the local aristocracy treat like revered horse-gods. The main character, Marjorie, plays the role of a beleaguered mother, who is bounced back and forth between senseless male-dominated hierarchical societies. The one extreme, Terra, is ruled by a hegemonic church-sect. The frontier, Grass, is dominated by a hypnotized isolationist ruling class. Feminist agenda aside, Tepper shows us that the male-dominated societies in her book are closed-off, overly-bureaucratic, corrupt, socially backward, fundamentalist, and ineffective. When it comes to diplomacy and saving humankind from plague, the male-dominated ruling class needs the help of those it disenfranchises.

The most helpful people to Marjorie's mission on Grass, aside from a few dissenting aristocrats, are from the lower classes. Marjorie naturally sympathizes with these people, as she does with the outcast third children on Terra. They in turn offer their help in solving the planet's mysteries. Here another disenfranchised class proves its worth. The bons live in a closed-off, isolated society, and they disdain any foreigners or commoners. Tepper shows, through the class dynamics of the book, which incorporates people like Sebastian Mechanic from the lower classes as well as ones like Sylvan to help Marjorie in her endeavor, the benefits of a more integrated class system. A state that incorporates outsiders like women and commoners into its society will be more likely to have eased diplomatic relations with other nations. The fox-hunt is a basic model of this idea. The foxen, powerful and sentient creatures, are revealed to be victims after years of persecution. Likewise, the powerful Hippae prove to be demonic oppressors.

Heavy Stuff (Human Nature and Religion)

Our book for this week, Grass, is another interesting examination of the implications of humans encountering another sentient being. Sheri S. Tepper's novel presents a story that demonstrates weaknesses in human nature as well as its strengths and the possibilities these characteristics allow. I found the main character, Marjorie, to be particularly interesting when it comes to examining human-alien relations and what the nature of these relations imply about the characteristics of human actions and motives. Marjorie, from the beginning, is able to perceive the true nature of the Hippae and is cautious and wary as a result of this. For others, namely the bons, the Hippae are not seen for what they truly are because of the overwhelming power that the Hippae have to control them. This warns against the human tendency to go along with the majority and, it could be argued, to allow one's self to become brainwashed for the sake of tradition and honor or pride. Now, one can't really blame the bons for losing control in such a way, obviously the Hippae had certain powers that gave them control, but the fact that some individuals, such as Sylvan, were able to avoid being completely brainwashed shows that there was some hope if one could only use some mental strength, such as Marjorie demonstrates throughout the book.

Another theme within Grass that is highly prevalent is religion. We see clearly the clash between Sanctity and the Old Catholic religions as well as any other non-Sanctity belief or non-belief systems. The spread of Sanctity to most of humanity is troubling in that their "doctrine" is repeated obsessively, even by those who clearly don't believe a word of it. They basically force adolescent boys into becoming "Sanctified" and serving Sanctity in its seemingly meaningless work. The main purpose of the group is to preserve the genetic material of Sanctified who die so that they may be cloned in the future. I found the whole system to be very creepy and cult-like. How this system relates to our own world, I can't say. I'd like to think that humanity could not be sucked into this all-encompassing system that takes away individuality and personal freedoms, but I found another blog that questions this: "...you couldn’t really have a fundamentalist church taking over the world, now could you? Rereading Grass a couple of years ago, I was struck by how much closer it suddenly seemed. A President in the White House who had been elected by fundamentalists, who believed in the end times, and who had banned funding for charities in Africa promoting contraception….suddenly the world she portrayed no longer seemed so very far away." Obviously, this threat is not completely plausible, because the beliefs of said leader certainly did not represent the bulk of the U.S. population, let alone that of humanity. Still, it's a frightening prospect.

Manifest Destiny Class Response

Stephanson's Manifest Destiny provided us with plenty of discussion about the nature of manifest destiny. One of the things that I found most disconcerting about the idea of Manifest Destiny is the fact that it seems to have occurred randomly at first, and that it is now self-propagating and apparently endless.

Thinking about it from a Sci-Fi point of view, this idea of Manifest Destiny evokes strange associations. Manifest Destiny starts to seem like an alien organism that assimilates everything with which it comes in contact, like the Borg or self-replicating nanobots. When Anglo-Saxon Protestantism suits its purposes, the ideals of "improving the race" are put to use. When Communism seems to threaten America, religion and capitalism become the most important values. Anything that gets in the way can be considered "un-American," be destroyed in the name of protecting Democracy, and have its resources appropriated by American corporations.

On Thursday, Tim compared Manifest Destiny to an algorithm for which any similar inputs, such as white and red, capitalist and communist, or freedom and terrorism can obtain American expansion. Manifest Destiny now appears to be a computer program made self-aware. It has been working above our heads since before we were born, and nothing we do can stop its plan.

America as Ubiquitous

This post takes the place of one during the week we did not have class. I was intrigued in the previous class by the idea someone raised that American manifest destiny only exists when a political actor exists to oppose America. Manifest destiny can be defined as a habit of reading the world, thinking of world politics as integral to America’s mission to promote democracy. In a world fully ‘democratized’ in the American sense, in the absence of a real enemy to the American worldview, what role is there for manifest destiny? The end goal of manifest destiny will have been achieved.

As discussed in class, America is and perhaps never will fall because it is everywhere - it is ubiquitous – in the Starbucks around the world and the capitalist system prevalent in most countries around the world. We are almost there – in the absence of a formidable ideological enemy, save terrorism, the world is America’s oyster.

Yet will America always remain influential? How did Rome lose its influence? Perhaps it was due to the lack of control over its domain. Maybe in the span of time and great distances America’s ability to control the global ideological discourse will wane. That is perhaps the future which Grass lays out for humanity. Maybe Grass, which I am in the middle of reading, is the future of a universe where America is and remains dominant for a long time, yet what happens is America can no longer supervise everyone and the philosophical integrity breaks down.

Or maybe Terra is present day America with all the glaring inequities still prevalent in our country, and the other worlds are the rest of Earth, each slightly resenting the US but bending over backwards for them because of their superior military power.

Re-examining International Development in Light of Manifest Destiny

I really enjoyed this week’s discussion, especially looking at international development through the framework of America’s personal manifest destiny. It is somewhat terrifying to think of the field through this perspective. The impetus behind assisting the global south would be to expand America’s ‘exceptional’ way of life since, as PTJ defined it, we are “alone ordained to lead the universe, exceptional among the exceptional.”

I tend to think that there are a lot of rationalities behind international development. There is a desire to create a formidable trading partner for the global capitalistic system, rid out idealistic or tangible opposition to America and a belief that we are helping empower others in a truly altruistic sense. The poem, “White Man’s Burden,” by Rudyard Kipling characterizes America’s earlier ‘imperialistic’ nature, which it cloaked in a seemingly selfless aspiration to help non-western parts of the world. Or perhaps Americans truly believed that what they were doing was altruistic. The framework of manifest destiny gives the field of international development a self-serving flair- helping the third world emulate America is part of America’s destiny.

USAID defines its purpose as follows: “The United States has a long history of extending a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country. It is this caring that stands as a hallmark of the United States around the world -- and shows the world our true character as a nation. U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” Is America really interested in helping others or is it merely strategic? Can we have our cake and eat it too?

I don’t mean to be bashing international development – all this is coming from someone who potentially wants to go into the field. However, I think it is important to be critical. I really do want to help others – but this is at a certain expense. The culture of the country being developed is irrevocably changed in the process.

This was seen in the clip shown in class from “The Undiscovered Country.” The Klingons, who could no longer afford to fight a Cold War with the federation, came to the Federation asking for aid. While the Federation helped them the Klingons viewed the assistance as an existential threat to their culture and way of life and quoted Hamlet – “to be or not to be.” This directly ties in with terrorism, which can be defined as a potential response to one culture’s domination over another’s.

America's Ethical Hegemon

So I'm going to be an overachiever and write my class response super early because I'm off to spring break bright and early tomorrow morning and I don't want to worry about it. The main theme of our talk today was American superiority and exceptionalism and how this plays into our "manifest destiny." As an international development major, this discussion was very relevant to me. I particularly enjoyed where the conversation went at the end of class with our talk of human rights and the American idea of what's right and wrong. The dinner scene from The Undiscovered Country raised an interesting discussion point: are human rights really universal when we considered different cultures or, to take things to a science fiction viewpoint, different species. Are human rights, as the Klingon put it, racist? There is certainly no shortage of examples of the West imposing its ideals on developing countries "for their own good" and in the guise of human rights. I mean, come on, just look at the IMF's Structural Adjustment Programs ("Yeah we'll help you out, if you promise to do this, this, and this").

As Annika put it in class, it doesn't matter if what the U.S. does is right or wrong because by definition, whatever it does is right simply because it is the U.S. that does it. At least that's the sentiment some people have. This goes along with Professor Jackson's statement that the idea of manifest destiny is a framework that can be used in a variety of contexts to justify just about anything. The U.S. takes the idea of exceptionalism one step further by transforming it into a destiny that gives the country the right to take its unique ideals and ethics and push them on the rest of the world.

How would this approach play out if humanity (assuming this united group of humanity is led by the U.S.) came into contact with an alien species? I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see it ending well. Historically speaking, the U.S. and most of the Western world have never really seen much that is worth learning from other races and peoples. Basically, it's our way or the highway. If we were to take this approach with a new species, things would not go well. Even if the aliens acted subserviently and embraced the American way, over time, tensions would grow and relations would become strained. The imperialist mindset can only hold out for so long before things start to crumble.

Substantive Post: Manifest Destiny

Reading Manifest Destiny right after The Martian Chronicles it was not difficult to see parallels between the books, as Jackie pointed out. “The Indians have melted before the white man, and the mixed degraded race of Mexico must melt before the Anglo-Saxon,” said William Ellery Channing in his critique of destinarian justifications for westward expansion (50). The word melt stood out for me – the analogy is clear, the humans in Bradbury’s book have imposed themselves on Mars, making the Martians disappear before them and quite literally melt before them in the story “The Martian.”

Manifest Destiny made even more evident to me the distinctly American quality of the colonization of Mars. As Stephanson argued, the belief in American exceptionalism has lead Americans to seek to spread their cultural influence or be a shining example of a highly evolved society. Along these lines, homogeneity of beliefs and races under the American and Anglo-Saxon was ideal. “Races and spaces alien in every sense could not be incorporated…Republics could not have subject populations and stay healthy: they had to be homogenous. Furthermore, colonialism would infect and degrade the consciousness and culture of the colonizer (103).”

That is precisely why Benjamin Driscoll in “The Green Morning” must terraform Mars and why the settlers build their own towns away from old Martian ruins. There never really was a melting pot in America as Theodore Roosevelt liked to declare, it was really a “cookie cutter” in that immigrants were forced to assimilate and become more like the dominant culture if they wished to progress in society.

On another note, I was especially struck by the end of Manifest Destiny. Stephanson suggests that our idea of ourselves as the “Israel of our time” may be coming to an end because our commodity driven society has left us void of purpose. His last paragraph was especially poignant – “we are perhaps on the verge of some new and diffuse epoch where such projections will have limited moments in the sun because all that matters in the end is the perpetual present, a virtual reality empty of value, a postmodern world where destiny cannot be manifest and certainly not managed. When transcendence itself becomes nothing more than a commodity” (129). What is Stephanson grieving (and he does seem troubled)? Is it a feeling of a lack of purpose in our day and age? Yet we do seem continually driven. Indeed, Obama ran on a slogan of change – implying that we feel we have lost our way and must return to our purposeful and righteous path. If you have 20 minutes to spare, check out this artistic clip:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-weiner/america-at-a-crossroads-a_b_482416.html

I think it encompasses our current cynicism and exhaustion with government and postmodernism. “There is no more myth-making in America, only the tearing down of heroes. Reality television, punditry, and cynicism saw to that,” according to the video.

The Manifest Destiny/Martian Chronicles Parallel

When reading Manifest Destiny by Anders Stephanson, it is impossible to not make connections with Bradbury's Martian Chronicles. The American expansion to the West and then onward to Latin America and various Pacific islands allows an almost natural progression to the expansion into space. All too often in history, we see the use of excuses such as, "it's the natural way of things," or "it's our nation's duty." These are issues that are addressed in detail in Stephanson's historical review of the role that "destiny" has played in America's history. Expanding his ideas to match up with frequent themes in science fiction is not all that challenging when one sees how frequently parallels are made between alien species and indigenous peoples, such as the Native Americans. This comparison was painfully clear in reading Speaker for the Dead; the piggies were a "primitive," nature-driven society that had a completely opposing culture to the "civilized" humans. And while the humans did not act as violently towards the piggies as they did in real life towards the Native Americans, they had the same feelings of fear and uncertainty, as evidenced by the eventual turn to a military stance ("When it comes to war, human is human and alien is alien. All that ramen business goes up in smoke when we're talking about survival." p313). There are constant parallels in science fiction of the historical boundary between civilized and uncivilized peoples (if they are even considered people to begin with).

The Martian Chronicles also parallels quite nicely with Manifest Destiny in that both excursions, the American push westward and outward as well as the fictional American push Mars-ward, began with the desire to discover and pioneer new lands, but ended with the desire to profit and expand capitalism. There are multiple passages in Bradbury's novel that talk about the first people to come to Mars after the successful expedition. These people were described as hardened individuals who were looking for a challenge and, in most cases, a solitary place to live. This matches up with the historical view of the Western pioneers who "tamed" the wilderness and led lives of adventure (if all the classic Western films are to be believed). However, in Chronicles as well as in reality, these pioneers were soon joined by profiteers and supporters of the expansion of what they saw as "real civilization." Bradbury illustrates this exceptionally well in his description of the new invasion: "They came on parties and vacations, on little shopping trips for trinkets and photographs and the 'atmosphere'...they came with stars and badges and rules and regulations, bringing some of the red tape that had crawled across Earth like an alien weed, and letting it grow on Mars wherever it could take root" (103). In America's history the same process occurred, illustrated (literally) by the painting on the cover of Stephanson's book; it shows the movement of society (symbolically shown by the light in the east) and with it comes trains and books and telegraph poles, all signs of "real" progress (the painting is described in more depth on page 66). In all, Manifest Destiny presents the background for the Mars expansion presented in The Martian Chronicles.

Can we ever truly know another?

I think last class’ discussion was by far one of our best. It was fascinating to juxtapose Speaker For The Dead with The Martian Chronicles while looking at alien-human relations through Schmitt’s friend-enemy dichotomy. When it comes to The Martian Chronicles everyone has valid points and could be potentially correct since Bradbury makes his stories so ambiguous.

I would agree with PTJ’s analysis that Bradbury does not have too high an opinion of the political, that much is evident in his story “Usher II.” In The Martian Chronicles, humans and Martians have largely been deprived of the opportunity to communicate. The friend-enemy distinction largely did not seem to develop either – although this assertion could be argued the other way. Humans did not in the beginning see the Martians as something "in a specially intense way, existentially…different and alien,” from themselves (Schmitt, p. 27). In the expeditions in the beginning the Martians are either unperturbed by the human’s arrival or simulating a typical 1920s Iowa town.

On the other hand, the friend-enemy distinction could have been set off from the Martians’ perspective. In the first expedition, the jealous Martian husband kills the astronauts. Does he thus perceive the humans as a threat or is he merely enraged with jealousy? Why do the Martians orchestrate the killing of the full crew of astronauts on the third expedition? Is this an attack based on the friend-enemy distinction? An attempt at survival? The ambiguity in Bradbury’s chronicles lies in the intent of both species – the lack of communication allows Bradbury to leave the book open to endless interpretation.

A class member brought up one particularly fascinating understanding of the book. He said that the humans and we as readers have never seen the Martians and Martian society as it truly existed. Throughout the entire book the Martian society was affected and altered by the presence of the humans. The Martians’ telepathic receptivity allowed us to project our ideas, culture and way of life onto them and change them. If we never saw them for what they really were how could we develop the friend-enemy distinction? How could we truly communicate with them?

What is Bradbury really saying here on a psychological level – that we can never really see others as they truly exist because we project onto them our ideas of what they are and what they should be? On an existential level, can we ever really know another?

Perhaps “The Night Meeting” is an acceptance of this truth - that we cannot coexist without changing the other, and letting ourselves be changed, to be more in line with how we view one another. Does that mean we can coexist? Or are the changes so drastic that one loses his or her identity, essentially self, to the other? I think we can coexist but then again I am no Schmittian who does not believe in compromise. I mean, how do married couples get along?