So, since we didn't have a class last week due to the professor's presence at a conference where he presented a paper on Battlestar Galactica (which makes me incredibly happy, by the way), I have to do another reflective post for the one I missed last week. I was trying to come up with something related to BSG but I haven't watched the show for about a year and I'm drawing a blank. I'm sure that there are a ton of theories on how it relates to social science, but for the moment it's over my head. So, instead I will look at a theory that Professor Jackson brought up in yesterday's class that I found to be very interesting.
In our discussion of Speaker for the Dead and The Martian Chronicles, we got into a discussion of whether humans can ever truly understand the other, something I touched upon in my last post. However, one thing I didn't bring up is Jackson's suggestion that only outsiders in human society can relate to and understand the true outsiders, aliens. This got me thinking about occurrences of this trend in other pieces of science fiction. Obviously, this is a big part of Ender's Game and Speaker as Ender is the ultimate outsider. He is purposely separated from his peers from the beginning in order to cultivate his unique talents and abilities.
To less extreme extents, most heroes in science fiction films and tv shows are outsiders in some fashion. For the most part, the typical hero figure is relatively anti-social, somewhat of a loner, and usually exists on the fringes of society. Off the top of my head I can think of Han Solo, Mal Reynolds from Firefly, and Korben Dallas from The Fifth Element. While these characters are not outsiders in the same vein as Ender, they are outside the normal realm of society in various ways. Both Han and Mal are smugglers, criminals who don't have a place in the developed planets. Mal has a sense of honor from his time in the military, something which also separates him from the criminal world of which he is a member. Unfortunately there is no example of Mal's interactions with the "other." Han, however, originally has one friend only and it's Chewbacca, a completely different species. I mean, come on, they have a total bromance. Like Mal, Han is a criminal and (at least in A New Hope) is extremely anti-social and thinks only of himself. (My friend who's a psychology major even went so far as to write a paper on how Han is a typical example of someone with an anti-social personality disorder.)
The final character I can think of off the top of my head is Bruce Willis's character in The Fifth Element. Korben is an ex-military officer who is now working as a taxi driver. He lives alone, except for his cat, and doesn't like complications (we all know where this story is going). Korben frequently shows his dislike for the political system, something that is assumed to be from his time in the military; he basically wants to left alone, but, of course, he is the only one who can save the world. And he is also the only one who can really relate to and understand Leeloo, who is not human. It's hard to know exactly what she is, but she certainly represents an "other."
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Political-ness of the Other
In this week's class (the first in three weeks) we launched into a very ambitious discussion comparing the alien species in Speaker for the Dead and The Martian Chronicles. To make the conversation even more complicated, we attempted to think of the aliens in terms of Schmittian logic. The question we tried to answer at the beginning of class was whether or not the various aliens were political beings or not. Clearly, we felt that each of the species in Speaker, humans, piggies, and buggers, were political in that they made up distinct groups that interact in a political manner with each other. The simple fact of their interactions, with a special emphasis on the creation of the treaty between humans and piggies, shows that they have political interests and are therefore political entities. These political boundaries are so strong that even though Human announces that the humans and piggies and buggers will now be one tribe, this is not really possible because their cultures and beliefs are far too different.
In our discussion we then turned to the Martians in Bradbury's novel. We saw them in a completely different light from Card's aliens. Unlike in Speaker, there are no real political interactions between the humans and the aliens in The Martian Chronicles. The only interactions are between individuals and small groups. Also, in my opinion, Bradbury seems to make the Martians completely non-political on purpose; they appear to be simply a way of seeing human nature. Because of this, I believe that the Martians' lack of political-ness is an important piece of Bradbury's story. It provides something off of which to base the image of the humans, who are the real focus of the story. Because, as Professor Jackson pointed out in class, when humans are confronted with the other, they are actually confronted with themselves and the need to preserve their humanness.
Another interesting question that was raised in class was whether there can ever be true understanding between two different species of intelligent being. We see what seems to be true understanding between Ender and the piggies and buggers, but some in the class question this. They seem to think that his "understanding" is not complete and is based more on self-preservation and species that are so different can never truly comprehend the other's way of life and beliefs. I don't really adhere to the thinking that Ender doesn't really understand the other species in the book; I think the whole story revolves around Ender's ability to understand the "other" in a way that no one else can. His skill in bridging political and cultural gaps between species is vital to Speaker.
In our discussion we then turned to the Martians in Bradbury's novel. We saw them in a completely different light from Card's aliens. Unlike in Speaker, there are no real political interactions between the humans and the aliens in The Martian Chronicles. The only interactions are between individuals and small groups. Also, in my opinion, Bradbury seems to make the Martians completely non-political on purpose; they appear to be simply a way of seeing human nature. Because of this, I believe that the Martians' lack of political-ness is an important piece of Bradbury's story. It provides something off of which to base the image of the humans, who are the real focus of the story. Because, as Professor Jackson pointed out in class, when humans are confronted with the other, they are actually confronted with themselves and the need to preserve their humanness.
Another interesting question that was raised in class was whether there can ever be true understanding between two different species of intelligent being. We see what seems to be true understanding between Ender and the piggies and buggers, but some in the class question this. They seem to think that his "understanding" is not complete and is based more on self-preservation and species that are so different can never truly comprehend the other's way of life and beliefs. I don't really adhere to the thinking that Ender doesn't really understand the other species in the book; I think the whole story revolves around Ender's ability to understand the "other" in a way that no one else can. His skill in bridging political and cultural gaps between species is vital to Speaker.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Man's Destructive Nature
One main theme that I found throughout The Martian Chronicles was the destructive nature of humanity. Although the expeditions to Mars begin out of a desire for exploration and discovery, once the planet is deemed safe and free of those pesky alien lifeforms, the settlers move in. Even the way in which the Martians are wiped out by chicken pox is actually caused by man, albeit by accident. It's almost as if Bradbury is trying to show that our destructive nature is something we can't escape from. Even Spender, the one human who tries to preserve Mars and keep the humans out, does so by killing other humans. It's like the characters in the book can't help but turn to destructive actions. Fear is often the driving factor in these decisions. One key example is Sam Parkhill and his rash reaction to the appearance of Martians. He kills two of them despite the fact that they are speaking calmly to him and clearly mean him no harm. He then adds insult to injury by shooting at and destroying a number of their ancient cities when he's running away from them (p138).
Eventually we see this destruction annihilate Earth through a great war. So, the need for destruction does not contain itself to actions against the "other." The father in the last chapter of the book sums up the tragedy very well: "Life on Earth never settled down to doing anything very good. Science ran too far ahead of us too quickly, and the people got lost in a mechanical wilderness...emphasizing the wrong items, emphasizing machines instead of how to run the machines. Wars got bigger and bigger and finally killed Earth" (p180). This passage reminds me of a theory of peace and conflict resolution by Konrad Lorenz. He wrote that although humans are instinctively aggressive, this aggression has been given more leeway by the invention of artificial weapons because they hinder the social inhibitions of killing another human. In other words, guns and bombs and other weapons separate humans from the actual act of killing. This is what I think Bradbury means when he says humans "emphasize machines instead of how to run the machines." When a whole nation can be annihilated by the push of a button, it becomes easier; you don't have to see the people die and the heinous result becomes separate from your actions.
This view of humans as rash, violent individuals is contrasted with the view of the Martians. They are peaceful (aside from their attacks on the humans during the first and third expeditions) and appreciate things like art, science, and religion. On page 67 Spender is talking about his admiration for the Martians and it's hard not to feel the same respect for them as he does. He talks about how they appreciate life for life's sake and they don't question it. The author's intention to make the Martians the fairer species is clear. And why shouldn't we admire the Martians? They didn't destroy each other with a world war. They just wanted to live on their planet peacefully.
Eventually we see this destruction annihilate Earth through a great war. So, the need for destruction does not contain itself to actions against the "other." The father in the last chapter of the book sums up the tragedy very well: "Life on Earth never settled down to doing anything very good. Science ran too far ahead of us too quickly, and the people got lost in a mechanical wilderness...emphasizing the wrong items, emphasizing machines instead of how to run the machines. Wars got bigger and bigger and finally killed Earth" (p180). This passage reminds me of a theory of peace and conflict resolution by Konrad Lorenz. He wrote that although humans are instinctively aggressive, this aggression has been given more leeway by the invention of artificial weapons because they hinder the social inhibitions of killing another human. In other words, guns and bombs and other weapons separate humans from the actual act of killing. This is what I think Bradbury means when he says humans "emphasize machines instead of how to run the machines." When a whole nation can be annihilated by the push of a button, it becomes easier; you don't have to see the people die and the heinous result becomes separate from your actions.
This view of humans as rash, violent individuals is contrasted with the view of the Martians. They are peaceful (aside from their attacks on the humans during the first and third expeditions) and appreciate things like art, science, and religion. On page 67 Spender is talking about his admiration for the Martians and it's hard not to feel the same respect for them as he does. He talks about how they appreciate life for life's sake and they don't question it. The author's intention to make the Martians the fairer species is clear. And why shouldn't we admire the Martians? They didn't destroy each other with a world war. They just wanted to live on their planet peacefully.
Interludes
Bradbury interjects small vignettes in between his short stories to summarize the patterns of human expansion on Mars. What struck me about these short segments is the compressed time-frame of Bradbury's settlement of Mars. Within thirty years, the humans have virtually obliterated the societies of both Mars and Earth.
The first stages of travel are documented: in The Taxpayer, a man demands permission to travel to Mars, while the advent of interplanetary travel is seen in Rocket Summer. After initial exploration, Bradbury describes the descent of settlers on Mars like a swarm of locusts. The short Interim gives the harrowing image of a "twister of Oz-like proportions (that) had carried the entire town off to Mars and set it down without a bump," that hearkens back to the third expedition, where the entire crew is slaughtered by Martians who imitate a middle-American small town.
Again, the idea seems to be that the alien image is contained in our own, and our image in it. Humanity's diseases destroy the martians, and human weapons destroy human civilizations on Mars and on Earth. The martians' madness causes them to emulate us, and Bradbury seems to make the point that we would be mad to continue acting the way we do.
The first stages of travel are documented: in The Taxpayer, a man demands permission to travel to Mars, while the advent of interplanetary travel is seen in Rocket Summer. After initial exploration, Bradbury describes the descent of settlers on Mars like a swarm of locusts. The short Interim gives the harrowing image of a "twister of Oz-like proportions (that) had carried the entire town off to Mars and set it down without a bump," that hearkens back to the third expedition, where the entire crew is slaughtered by Martians who imitate a middle-American small town.
Again, the idea seems to be that the alien image is contained in our own, and our image in it. Humanity's diseases destroy the martians, and human weapons destroy human civilizations on Mars and on Earth. The martians' madness causes them to emulate us, and Bradbury seems to make the point that we would be mad to continue acting the way we do.
The Martian Chronicles: A Critique on American Society
I enjoy how Bradbury consistently uses the genre of science fiction for his own ends. It is clear that Bradbury crafts many of the vignettes about the future and the colonization of Mars as critiques of American society in the 1940s and 50s. Perhaps this is why Bradbury always said that he is not a ‘science fiction writer’ – because he makes the genre serve as a contemporary social critique so well.
In “And the Moon Be Still As Bright,” the archaeologist Spender, who is on the fourth expedition, criticizes American culture by contrasting it with the ‘ideal’ Martian civilization. On pp. 64-66, he says “'They know how to live with nature and get along with nature...They knew how to blend art into their living. It's always been a thing apart for Americans. Art was something you kept in the crazy son's room upstairs...They'll be flopping their filthy atom bombs up here, fighting for bases to have wars. Isn't it enough they've ruined one planet, without ruining another…Anything that’s strange is no good to the average American." Doubtlessly Bradbury is reacting to the McCarthy conformism and Cold War trends prevalent during the time he wrote The Martian Chronicles. Spender is so fed up with American culture that he is willing to betray his own species and embrace Martian culture as his own. He has forsaken his own and made himself the other.
Aside from the obvious critique on segregation and slavery in “Way In The Middle Of The Air,” another compelling social commentary is the story “Usher II.” This one reminds me a lot of Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Apparently Bradbury takes conformism, censorship and McCarthyism to its logical evolution and envisions “moral climate people” whose job it is to ban fantasy in literature and all forms of media. I see the main character as Bradbury himself in this story – perhaps this is what he would do in a similar situation and what he would like to do to all those people that try to censor his work. It is obvious that he, or at least Mr. Stendahl, holds art and the imagination as highly as human life
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Did I used to be in a class like Social/Fiction... or Social Science... or something?
We didn't have class this week, but reading Jackie's post on race in Star Wars forced me to wonder: in what sense are there actually race relations in The Martian Chronicles? The humans and the martians rarely actually come into contact with each other, and by the time widespread human colonization is happening on Mars, most of the martians have already been wiped out by disease. The first three expeditions failed, resulting in no actual cultural interaction other than either hostility or disbelief. The fourth expedition succeeded, but only because the martian civilization was absent.
The Martian Chronicles shows us little in the way of race relations. Unlike all of our previous texts, Bradbury shows alien races that are only shadows to each other. In the story Night Meeting, the martian and the human traveler pass each other in time, each unable to perceive that his own civilization is either in ruins or non-existent. One of the stories deals (none too subtly) with relations between black and white Americans. But there are no lengthy dealings between the two races.
Here the analogy with the conquest of the American Indians falls flat. Bradbury ignores the possibility of the two races attempting to coexist, forced to face each other in everyday life. He fails to address the crime of systematically driving out and destroying another people and culture. Instead we miss all of the ugly parts of cultural collision, observing two races that brush past each other in the night.
The Martian Chronicles shows us little in the way of race relations. Unlike all of our previous texts, Bradbury shows alien races that are only shadows to each other. In the story Night Meeting, the martian and the human traveler pass each other in time, each unable to perceive that his own civilization is either in ruins or non-existent. One of the stories deals (none too subtly) with relations between black and white Americans. But there are no lengthy dealings between the two races.
Here the analogy with the conquest of the American Indians falls flat. Bradbury ignores the possibility of the two races attempting to coexist, forced to face each other in everyday life. He fails to address the crime of systematically driving out and destroying another people and culture. Instead we miss all of the ugly parts of cultural collision, observing two races that brush past each other in the night.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Racism in Star Wars?
So since we have nothing specific to write about for our substantive post this week, I thought I would comment on something that my friends and I were talking about recently. As I mentioned in my last post, last week during the snowpocalypse I watched Episode I of Star Wars. During the movie, my friend pointed out something that I'd never considered in great deal. She noticed that a lot of the characters and races seem to be fairly racist stereotypes of certain ethnicities. One obvious example is the Trade Federation.
All over the web, there are debates on this topic and it is surely a controversial one. But it got me thinking about our class and our discussion of the "other." In general, we discuss how the "other" is situated within the story and how humans' interact with the alien characters. In this way, we look at what these character interactions say about human nature. What I realized while watching Star Wars is that the relationship between the creator of the aliens (the writer, director, etc.) and his or her creation can also tell us a lot about human nature. Whether or not you think that The Phantom Menace shows clear signs of racism, you can infer a lot about humanity's feelings towards an unknown "other" by George Lucas's presentation of various alien species.
This debate is a complicated one. One could argue that by seeing certain races within the stereotypical characteristics and actions, we are ourselves being racist. In other words, we are projecting our own stereotypical ideas onto Lucas's characters. I don't know that I would go along with this because of the fact that the mannerisms and characteristics of the various races in Star Wars had to come from somewhere. And honestly, it's pretty much impossible for me to look at the race making up the Trade Federation and not see a crude representation of Asian stereotypes. It seemed pretty offensive to me, but if you disagree let me know why. Like I said, there are tons of debates on this topic and I'm sure many of them are very heated.
If you want to see some of the arguments online, check here, here, and here.
All over the web, there are debates on this topic and it is surely a controversial one. But it got me thinking about our class and our discussion of the "other." In general, we discuss how the "other" is situated within the story and how humans' interact with the alien characters. In this way, we look at what these character interactions say about human nature. What I realized while watching Star Wars is that the relationship between the creator of the aliens (the writer, director, etc.) and his or her creation can also tell us a lot about human nature. Whether or not you think that The Phantom Menace shows clear signs of racism, you can infer a lot about humanity's feelings towards an unknown "other" by George Lucas's presentation of various alien species.
This debate is a complicated one. One could argue that by seeing certain races within the stereotypical characteristics and actions, we are ourselves being racist. In other words, we are projecting our own stereotypical ideas onto Lucas's characters. I don't know that I would go along with this because of the fact that the mannerisms and characteristics of the various races in Star Wars had to come from somewhere. And honestly, it's pretty much impossible for me to look at the race making up the Trade Federation and not see a crude representation of Asian stereotypes. It seemed pretty offensive to me, but if you disagree let me know why. Like I said, there are tons of debates on this topic and I'm sure many of them are very heated.
If you want to see some of the arguments online, check here, here, and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)