It is probably a basic human need: the need for association. Throughout the history we imagined being part of something bigger than ourselves, from our families. We visualized things bigger than our villages, bigger than our towns. We imagined bigger communities and called them nations, we did not stay there...we created states. It was this collective imagination that made states possible. We are still trying to find life elsewhere in the universe...and God knows maybe we found what we were looking for. Or perhaps we never will. To conclude my totally unrelated brainstorming session from the scope of this post, I'd like to point out that I absolutely loved Martian Chronicles.
I did not enjoy the SfD, as I made it clear on my previous blog post on the Speaker. I faced a totally different Ender, with an "I am the Chosen One"Syndrome. A syndrome which showed its symptoms by the initial voyagers to Mars in Bradburry's book. "Hey, look at us! We came to Mars! Yeah, we call your planet Mars! etc." A feeling people get when they start to consider themselves as the last Coca-cola can in a desert. Luckily, Bradburry didn't spend 300 pages on showing how we had to think differently of ourselves and of others.
The Chronicles for me did not end when the book concluded. It finished for me at the end of the Night Meeting story of August 2002. I still do not think that the Aliens are wiped out of chickenpox. There is always the possibility that the aliens solved the problem of coexistence with humans between the period of 3rd and the 4th human voyages to Mars. There is a possible explanation that humans are made to believe that the aliens are dead. Perhaps it might be so that we, as humans, just had to take part in that solution without being aware of coexisting with the aliens on the same planet. Of course, by saying this I am totally eliminating the possibility of this book representing the conquest of America...but may be it. There are many conquest stories that fall parallel to that of conquest of America.
On another note, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind was a good movie-- to an extent that I interpreted it as a cultural exchange programs with the Mars. It was an odd feeling I got out of the film, given that I'm studying here on one of the cultural exchange programs here. Yet it fell into what Ender was emphasizing in the Speaker for the Dead: learning from the other. And to an extent, acceptance that we are part of something bigger that we cannot comprehend. Hopefully with this acceptence we can start to understand what we truly are part to/ of.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Reflection 6: Hug your inner Spender.
With the snowapocalypse, I lost track of what I posted and what I didn't- but I think it will all become clearer this week. Do bear with me as I post my reflection and substantive posts in wrong order for this week. On another note, I am 21 now. You remember those college essay prompts we had to write about "having dinner with 3 important figures in history?" Having access to all DC Bars now, I think Bradburry and I could be good drinking buddies.
I already shared in class what I took out of Martian Chronicles and the Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. However, I think it is a good time to fill in those who were absent in class on Thursday. To me Martian Chronicles represented a process of self-alienation, self realization and how we cope with "loss of familiar cues." This process is one I'm familiar with by virtue of living in the US for 3 years now...but it probably happened to those of you who are not even aware of it. By leaving our homes, and coming to AU we, in one way or the other, had to readjust our lifestyles. Some probably had to modify their lives more than others for their own reasons. One of my favorite philosophers of all time Aristotle emphasizes the self-actualization to maximize one's potential...and I cannot think of a better way ofmaximizing our potential by leaving our comfort zones. I left home, only to understand "home" being merely a state of mind. A theme that was implied in some of the short stories found in Bradburry's book.
As Michael and I were creating the Wiki page for this week, we could not get a hold of the book. We thought about summarizing stories, but it was very difficult. As a short book, Chronicles was packed with themes throughout the book, so we decided to wrestle with some of the themes we found interesting. I was particularly interested in the role of culture in interactions, as I mentioned earlier. However, I found 2 more important themes in the book. Namely:
1. Proofs for God's Existence
Throughout the voyages, humans are seeing all these signs and interpreting them in the scales of their values and beliefs. One of their core beliefs is the assumption on the existence of a higher moral authority called God. In their eyes, life on Mars is part of God's grand plan. However, humans in these stories neglect the fact that life on Earth could have been God's master plan. I have ideas scattered all over the place, so let me move on to my second point before I forget what to say...
2. Art vs. Art-ificial & Communication
On page 66 Spender rants about the role of art in life. Spender compliments the Martians for including art as part of their life. He compares Martians to people in Earth to point out how materialistic they have become. When we look back in history, art has always been part of human life-- it was the ultimate human experience. Specially when we look at the drawings that have been foun din the caves, we understand that humans felt the need of passing/reflecting their inner experiences, emotions, feelings to the outside world. Thank lord we now have many means of sharing our feelings/ thoughts with others. Since we are incapable of telephaty there is no perfect information among ourselves but we created tools to communicate our minds to one another: we not only draw, we compose music, we write poetry and stories. It could be true that we have access to many tools to say what we would like to say. Yet, we are reluctant. We oppress our feelings. We see human expression of emotions a sign of weakness. We shut a side of ourselves somewhere we have no access to and we do not talk about it. In fact, when someone is brave enough to talk about it we pay him/her. Think about it: We pay people to make art for us.
On that note, I embrace my inner Spender and peace out. I think you should give your inner Spender a hug too; if he leaves, you may never find him again.
I already shared in class what I took out of Martian Chronicles and the Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. However, I think it is a good time to fill in those who were absent in class on Thursday. To me Martian Chronicles represented a process of self-alienation, self realization and how we cope with "loss of familiar cues." This process is one I'm familiar with by virtue of living in the US for 3 years now...but it probably happened to those of you who are not even aware of it. By leaving our homes, and coming to AU we, in one way or the other, had to readjust our lifestyles. Some probably had to modify their lives more than others for their own reasons. One of my favorite philosophers of all time Aristotle emphasizes the self-actualization to maximize one's potential...and I cannot think of a better way ofmaximizing our potential by leaving our comfort zones. I left home, only to understand "home" being merely a state of mind. A theme that was implied in some of the short stories found in Bradburry's book.
As Michael and I were creating the Wiki page for this week, we could not get a hold of the book. We thought about summarizing stories, but it was very difficult. As a short book, Chronicles was packed with themes throughout the book, so we decided to wrestle with some of the themes we found interesting. I was particularly interested in the role of culture in interactions, as I mentioned earlier. However, I found 2 more important themes in the book. Namely:
1. Proofs for God's Existence
Throughout the voyages, humans are seeing all these signs and interpreting them in the scales of their values and beliefs. One of their core beliefs is the assumption on the existence of a higher moral authority called God. In their eyes, life on Mars is part of God's grand plan. However, humans in these stories neglect the fact that life on Earth could have been God's master plan. I have ideas scattered all over the place, so let me move on to my second point before I forget what to say...
2. Art vs. Art-ificial & Communication
On page 66 Spender rants about the role of art in life. Spender compliments the Martians for including art as part of their life. He compares Martians to people in Earth to point out how materialistic they have become. When we look back in history, art has always been part of human life-- it was the ultimate human experience. Specially when we look at the drawings that have been foun din the caves, we understand that humans felt the need of passing/reflecting their inner experiences, emotions, feelings to the outside world. Thank lord we now have many means of sharing our feelings/ thoughts with others. Since we are incapable of telephaty there is no perfect information among ourselves but we created tools to communicate our minds to one another: we not only draw, we compose music, we write poetry and stories. It could be true that we have access to many tools to say what we would like to say. Yet, we are reluctant. We oppress our feelings. We see human expression of emotions a sign of weakness. We shut a side of ourselves somewhere we have no access to and we do not talk about it. In fact, when someone is brave enough to talk about it we pay him/her. Think about it: We pay people to make art for us.
On that note, I embrace my inner Spender and peace out. I think you should give your inner Spender a hug too; if he leaves, you may never find him again.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Expectations and Alien Life
All of the early stories about the encounters between the martians and the first humans to come to mars have the common thread of expectations not being met, and this leading to disaster. Ylla expects to meet the humans and fall in love, but her predictions lead to her husband killing both members of the first expedition. The second expedition is ruined when the humans expect to be welcomed as heroes, but martians expect anyone out of the ordinary to be insane. And the third expedition comes to ruin when they throw all of their reason out the window when their expectations are not met. Since what they find is not what they expect, they decide to accept anything, however unlikely.
The warning here from Bradbury is that we cannot allow either our expectations or lack-thereof to make us blind to reason when dealing with an alien life for, or the unexplained in general. The first two expeditions fail because the humans expect to be welcomed with open arms by the martians. The martians, on the other hand, choose to see the humans as a single madman of unbelievable brilliance instead of accept the possibility that he might be telling the truth. These problems could have been avoided had both races set aside what they predicted would happen, and accepted what did happen.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the third expedition. The astronauts, upon finding something that they cannot explain, accept the first explanation given to them, despite its extreme improbability. They could have saved their live if they had kept their skepticism, and tried to think rationally. The lesson is that when dealing with the unknown we cannot allow what we think we know, or what we are told, overpower what we can observe and reason for ourselves.
The warning here from Bradbury is that we cannot allow either our expectations or lack-thereof to make us blind to reason when dealing with an alien life for, or the unexplained in general. The first two expeditions fail because the humans expect to be welcomed with open arms by the martians. The martians, on the other hand, choose to see the humans as a single madman of unbelievable brilliance instead of accept the possibility that he might be telling the truth. These problems could have been avoided had both races set aside what they predicted would happen, and accepted what did happen.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the third expedition. The astronauts, upon finding something that they cannot explain, accept the first explanation given to them, despite its extreme improbability. They could have saved their live if they had kept their skepticism, and tried to think rationally. The lesson is that when dealing with the unknown we cannot allow what we think we know, or what we are told, overpower what we can observe and reason for ourselves.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Reflection 5: Neumann
Letting others live, and coexistence are dilemmas of modern time, just like nationalism. With limited resources and land at hand, how do we escape the perpetual state of war with one and other? Look at us, we no longer carry swords or pistols around with us- though the risk of getting robbed, mugged and etc. remains. Yet we rely on institutions to protect us from the dangers. We even rely on institutions to protect us from ourselves at some instances. So are we, in a way, progressing? Are we becoming better humans? For Iver Neumann, we are simply making sense of ourselves differently because the times have changed, as well as the who we see as the other(s).
Iver B. Neumann's Uses of the Other was the recommended reading for this week, and was a very good follow-up to Carl Schmitt. By using Europe as a case study, he presents the self/other nexus with respect to West's East, against the Russian and the Turkish others. I originally ordered the book amon my nationalism readings, but it was a nice coincidence to have it for this course as well.Neumann refers to Nietzsche's position on knowledge: "Nietzsche stressed that the world does not simply present itself to human beings; rather the activity of knowing is a formulation of the world. it is the knowing that makes the self not the other way round. [...] 'i' am a number of different ways of knowing and that there is no such entity as a permanent or privileged self" (12). However, it is commonly agreed that foreign policy is about making an other from a perspective of 'i.' Neumann then presents Michael J. Shapiro's time and space dimension in self/other nexus: "Self/other relations have to be understood in their historicity; they are aspects of historically contingent ideas of self, which again are rooted in historically contingent ideas about time and space" (23). I could not have agreed more with the impact of time and space on the self/other creation and maintenance. However, even this is only one way of looking at this nexus.Feminists (or Gender theorists) would add the gender dimension to conclude that "Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings."* We embrace the slash between "self" and the "other" as means of distancing ourselves. As we hide beyond our differences, we neglect our similarities. "I hope there will be no more unnatural barriers between us and them" says Ender, which could definitely help with facing the other for whoever they are (307). Rather than giving religion, God or technology or attempting to change Piggies reproductive system we just need to let others be- unless they would like to change.
I think that the human mind is still not able to comprehend all of the multi-dimensional nature of the self/other nexus. Yet, we understand more than we ever have. The trouble is, what do we do with such a knowledge and understanding. For too much understanding can do just as much harm as too little understanding of the other.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Carl Schmitt, meet the piggies
On page 23 of my book, Rooter is quoted as asking Pipo, "If you have no other city of humans, how can you go to war?" To Novinha and Libo, this question reveals either that piggies want wars, or whether they see them as unavoidable. What's really going on here, is that Rooter has demonstrated an understanding of the works of Carl Schmitt and is getting at a much bigger question. According to Schmitt, "Were a world state to embrace the entire globe and humanity, then it would be no political entity and could only be loosely called a state" (57). A single state cannot exist in isolation, without an enemy. Rooter knows that "There's no honor for you in killing Little Ones," that the pequeninos cannot be the enemy. The existence of only one human city is, in Rooter's eyes, a contradiction. He isn't concerned with war, but with alliances. He knows that there must be more than one human city, and if there aren't any more on Lusitania, then there must be other worlds with humans. By the end of Speaker for the Dead, the reader finds out that the piggies are extremely curious about spaceflight, and most of their questions came out of that curiosity.
I wonder what Schmitt would have made of Valentine's (Demosthenes') four orders of foreignness (p34). The important distinction in this work is that of ramen and varelse:
I also feel that Val's apparent oxymoron, "human, but of another species," needs to be addressed, but first I would like to know what you guys think thus far. How would Schmitt change his conception of the political in the second millenium after the adoption of the Starways Code. Would he?
I wonder what Schmitt would have made of Valentine's (Demosthenes') four orders of foreignness (p34). The important distinction in this work is that of ramen and varelse:
"The third is the ramen, the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another species. The fourth is the true alien, the varelse, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible."Is there any room for these classifications in The Concept of the Political? They do increase the resolution of our analysis, but does it matter? Gobawa Ekimbo doesn't think so: "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" (313). It's easy to imagine Schmitt agreeing, but he does admit in his writing that he doesn't know how things will change in the future, and acknowledges that his conception is meant for a specific time and place. Regarding a future all-encompassing world order, Schmitt says, "If and when this condition will appear, I do not know. At the moment, this is not the case" (54). This statement leaves the door open for different circumstances and therefor a different interpretation.
I also feel that Val's apparent oxymoron, "human, but of another species," needs to be addressed, but first I would like to know what you guys think thus far. How would Schmitt change his conception of the political in the second millenium after the adoption of the Starways Code. Would he?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Fear Thou Not; For I Am With Thee
Wow. What a cheesy piece on Alien encounter. After Ender's Game, I expected something more compelling than this. As story went on, plot became more and more predictable. Card clearly wanted to make text more scientifique, but I really did not enjoy his means on going about doing that. Here are my observations on the Speaker for the Dead:
1. Too much Discovery Channel: Who knew reproduction/ mating patterns / skills could tell us so much...and yet nothing? I don't know why Card had to pull all Discovery Channel on his readers. Perhaps he was trying to show how we live in a pluriverse and there are different meanings attached to extra-marital sex, or sex without marriage in Piggies and in humans realms. I still don't think having almost 200 pages dedicated to implicit/explicit understandings/observations of sex and pleasure-giving among piggies. I agree with Jane "Twisted and perverse are the ways of the human mind" (141).
2. Too Little Spiritual Conversation: I didn't expect Ender to give in to church this easily. He did not engage in any philosophical conversations- it never happened. Though Jane figures out that he is playing double, I wished there were more religious conversation. I really hoped Ender questioned the Children of Mind Ministers, at least to help the readers understand why they are doing what they are doing and why they live in that particular way. I felt the conversation they had about celibracy was too short, given the overall emphasis on sex throughout the book.
3. Infusion of Social / Natural Science: This aspect of the book looked promising. Xenobiologists sounded more like anthropologists, who are considered social scientists rather than actual scientists. In real life, social and natural scientists are part of two different realms. Scientists dismiss social science when it uses qualitative method with less emphasis on empirical evidence. Levels of accuracy in a social scientists work always comes into question, for scientists rely on duplicability of experiment results to make them more reliable. In Lusitania the participant observation of Xenobiologists is leading science. Another good observation was made by a fellow blogger, Morgan, who mentions in her post how the "xenologers were so absorbed in their own culture that even venturing into other ideas (like realizing that the trees were actually alive, and not totemic) was almost beyond their comprehension."
4. What is love? Despite his brilliance, I feel that Ender really needs to read some Aristotle. Where is Moderation?! Ender limits his feelings to love and hatred -there is no mention of liking someone- moderte love! Truth is, Ender's attitude sounds rather like love conqeers 'em all. Talk about cheese. Besides, Card goes as far as to quote Sheakespeare at some point...doesn't he know that Sheakespeare believes that uncontrolled love leads to madness? Is Ender really sane?
5. Emphaty and Lack of Fear: One big assumption near the end of the book is the assumption of perfect information; the assumption that we know all we need to know about the Piggies. Ender comes off as a know-it-all, because he communicates! He takes emphaty to such an extreme whch eliminates the fear of the other. Even though Card grasps the importance of language and actual communication, he does not grasp the importance of Culture of communication, and how much information is being utilized outside of the verbal communication. Though in the story this aspect is totally discarded, in real life we have high-context cultures and low-context cultures and the amount of information exchange is not necessarily limited to verbal exchange.
6. Domestic Violence: This is the first piece of sci-fi that I came across, which was this open about domestic violence. Regardless of education level, level of wealth of their husbands, women are subject to violence in their homes. It was interesting to find Ender justifying domestic violence comitted by Cao during his speech. Cao just wanted to be loved -Yeah, so does everybody else. Let's beat each other to death until we get some love. Ender's speech reminded me of Machiavelli's depiction of Fortuna. Going off with same approach in justification we can say that Machiavelli secretly wanted to be conquered by fortuna -not the other way round.
I didn't mean to be this critical but it happened. Yet I know Ender would have understood, and would have loved me regardless.
1. Too much Discovery Channel: Who knew reproduction/ mating patterns / skills could tell us so much...and yet nothing? I don't know why Card had to pull all Discovery Channel on his readers. Perhaps he was trying to show how we live in a pluriverse and there are different meanings attached to extra-marital sex, or sex without marriage in Piggies and in humans realms. I still don't think having almost 200 pages dedicated to implicit/explicit understandings/observations of sex and pleasure-giving among piggies. I agree with Jane "Twisted and perverse are the ways of the human mind" (141).
2. Too Little Spiritual Conversation: I didn't expect Ender to give in to church this easily. He did not engage in any philosophical conversations- it never happened. Though Jane figures out that he is playing double, I wished there were more religious conversation. I really hoped Ender questioned the Children of Mind Ministers, at least to help the readers understand why they are doing what they are doing and why they live in that particular way. I felt the conversation they had about celibracy was too short, given the overall emphasis on sex throughout the book.
3. Infusion of Social / Natural Science: This aspect of the book looked promising. Xenobiologists sounded more like anthropologists, who are considered social scientists rather than actual scientists. In real life, social and natural scientists are part of two different realms. Scientists dismiss social science when it uses qualitative method with less emphasis on empirical evidence. Levels of accuracy in a social scientists work always comes into question, for scientists rely on duplicability of experiment results to make them more reliable. In Lusitania the participant observation of Xenobiologists is leading science. Another good observation was made by a fellow blogger, Morgan, who mentions in her post how the "xenologers were so absorbed in their own culture that even venturing into other ideas (like realizing that the trees were actually alive, and not totemic) was almost beyond their comprehension."
4. What is love? Despite his brilliance, I feel that Ender really needs to read some Aristotle. Where is Moderation?! Ender limits his feelings to love and hatred -there is no mention of liking someone- moderte love! Truth is, Ender's attitude sounds rather like love conqeers 'em all. Talk about cheese. Besides, Card goes as far as to quote Sheakespeare at some point...doesn't he know that Sheakespeare believes that uncontrolled love leads to madness? Is Ender really sane?
5. Emphaty and Lack of Fear: One big assumption near the end of the book is the assumption of perfect information; the assumption that we know all we need to know about the Piggies. Ender comes off as a know-it-all, because he communicates! He takes emphaty to such an extreme whch eliminates the fear of the other. Even though Card grasps the importance of language and actual communication, he does not grasp the importance of Culture of communication, and how much information is being utilized outside of the verbal communication. Though in the story this aspect is totally discarded, in real life we have high-context cultures and low-context cultures and the amount of information exchange is not necessarily limited to verbal exchange.
6. Domestic Violence: This is the first piece of sci-fi that I came across, which was this open about domestic violence. Regardless of education level, level of wealth of their husbands, women are subject to violence in their homes. It was interesting to find Ender justifying domestic violence comitted by Cao during his speech. Cao just wanted to be loved -Yeah, so does everybody else. Let's beat each other to death until we get some love. Ender's speech reminded me of Machiavelli's depiction of Fortuna. Going off with same approach in justification we can say that Machiavelli secretly wanted to be conquered by fortuna -not the other way round.
I didn't mean to be this critical but it happened. Yet I know Ender would have understood, and would have loved me regardless.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Misunderstandings
One of the major themes in Speaker for the Dead was misunderstandings. The book puts forward the idea that if you can understand someone, and they understand you, then all of the problems between you can be solved. The entire point of the section where Ender speaks for Marcao was that once the people of Lusitania understood why Marcao had acted the way he had for all those years, while they couldn't condone him for it, they couldn't really condemn him for it either. This is the function of a Speaker for the Dead. But the misunderstandings don't end with the humans. In Ender's Game the reason for the xenocide was a misunderstanding, and all of the problems between species in Speaker also stem from them. The piggies kill humans without knowing that they will not get a third life. The humans in turn treat the piggies with fear and distrust since they have killed two respected members of the community. The problems between Jane and Ender are also started by one race not understanding the other, because Ender did not grasp the significance of turning off Jane's implant.
Even though all the problems begin with a lack of understanding, Speaker seems to be suggesting that humans as a whole will try to block communication that might be painful, even if it will bring healing understanding. This is true on a personal scale with Novinha, preventing her children from knowing the truth about their father, and on the political scale with the Starways Congress preventing any real communication with the piggies. Card is telling us that two-way communication will always be important for any relationship, and that it will be especially important when and if we meet another sentient race. This stance is made clear since all of the problems between the Lusos and the Piggies are solved within a day of real communication beginning. Of course the Starways Congress, the stand-in for the human desire to not communicate reacts by planning to blow up the planet. The message is clear: if we cannot speak with those we have differences with, the more violent parts of our brain will win out and one side will be destroyed.
Even though all the problems begin with a lack of understanding, Speaker seems to be suggesting that humans as a whole will try to block communication that might be painful, even if it will bring healing understanding. This is true on a personal scale with Novinha, preventing her children from knowing the truth about their father, and on the political scale with the Starways Congress preventing any real communication with the piggies. Card is telling us that two-way communication will always be important for any relationship, and that it will be especially important when and if we meet another sentient race. This stance is made clear since all of the problems between the Lusos and the Piggies are solved within a day of real communication beginning. Of course the Starways Congress, the stand-in for the human desire to not communicate reacts by planning to blow up the planet. The message is clear: if we cannot speak with those we have differences with, the more violent parts of our brain will win out and one side will be destroyed.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
First Contact: What Will We Do?
After class on Thursday, I was left wondering which of those boxes on our Schmitt chart we would actually fall under if we were to contact an alien species in real life. It's something that I don't think we settled in our discussion and I am still not sure what we would, or should, do in the event of first contact.
The first question is "what would we do"? While it is still a hard question, I think that we can answer it with a little more certainty. Looking back at human history (and even current events) we can see that the general reaction of humanity to something new and different is fear. We can also see that the usual reaction to fear is violence. Now, I cannot say for sure that we will attempt to destroy, or even harm, the first aliens we meet, and it would probably differ depending on what the lifeforms are like, but I can say that it seems to be the most probable outcome.
But now we need to discuss whether or not this reaction should occur. It might seem obvious that a reaction out of fear would be a bad thing, and it might call up memories of mistakes that mankind has made in the past, but an encounter with extraterrestrial life is not the same thing as an encounter with another human civilization. There would be no way of knowing anything about them or what they want. All people are essentially similar, but there is no guarantee that the same will hold for an alien life form. Furthermore we can't be sure that we will be the imperialists in this case. For all we know the other race will want to enslave us. It might seem cold, but it could be a species ending decision to act without caution.
On the other hand, we certainly don't want to become Ender. It would be a massive crime to destroy an entire intelligent species, especially if they meant us no harm. And even if we don't destroy them, we could end up in a pointless war when we could be learning from each-other. We might even provoke an otherwise peaceful race into destroying us. In the end it's a decision that could only be decided on a case by case basis using the best judgment available, and could only be judged in hindsight.
The first question is "what would we do"? While it is still a hard question, I think that we can answer it with a little more certainty. Looking back at human history (and even current events) we can see that the general reaction of humanity to something new and different is fear. We can also see that the usual reaction to fear is violence. Now, I cannot say for sure that we will attempt to destroy, or even harm, the first aliens we meet, and it would probably differ depending on what the lifeforms are like, but I can say that it seems to be the most probable outcome.
But now we need to discuss whether or not this reaction should occur. It might seem obvious that a reaction out of fear would be a bad thing, and it might call up memories of mistakes that mankind has made in the past, but an encounter with extraterrestrial life is not the same thing as an encounter with another human civilization. There would be no way of knowing anything about them or what they want. All people are essentially similar, but there is no guarantee that the same will hold for an alien life form. Furthermore we can't be sure that we will be the imperialists in this case. For all we know the other race will want to enslave us. It might seem cold, but it could be a species ending decision to act without caution.
On the other hand, we certainly don't want to become Ender. It would be a massive crime to destroy an entire intelligent species, especially if they meant us no harm. And even if we don't destroy them, we could end up in a pointless war when we could be learning from each-other. We might even provoke an otherwise peaceful race into destroying us. In the end it's a decision that could only be decided on a case by case basis using the best judgment available, and could only be judged in hindsight.
The Schmittian Response
I had a difficult time with the exercise we did in class on Thursday. My group, four, had to argue that earthlings would not and should not react according to Schmitt's model in the event of an alien invasion. Schmitt's model, as far as I understand it, is general enough to be difficult to escape. Acting outside of the framework would mean classifying an "other" as neither friend or enemy. That other would have to be something akin to a plague or natural disaster, a truly nonpolitical other. The way I see it, humanity would have no choice other than to make the judgment of friend or foe, and I wouldn't be surprised if we leaned more towards designating them as the enemy.
According to Schmitt, the distinction of enemy comes out of a difference between the parties:
So what would it mean to act against Schmitt's logic? I see an inconsistency. In one paragraph, Schmitt claims that an enemy is someone different with whom conflict could arise, and in another, "An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity." He is saying two different things here. As brought up in class (thanks Phil!), we probably have plans for invading Britain, or Canada. There's a potential that we might fight them, therefore they are our enemies. If not even Canada counts as a friend, than I think it is safe to say that we only have enemies, and Schmitt's model stops meaning much of anything. Schmitt's framework is really only useful when you take into account the "existential differences" between groups.
The question becomes, would we, should we, treat extraterrestrials as enemies based on their differences, regardless of other factors. I still come to the conclusion that we would do so. Should we? I don't think so. We can discuss that further when we get to Speaker for the Dead which introduces another classification system into the mix.
According to Schmitt, the distinction of enemy comes out of a difference between the parties:
"... it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible..." (27)A group does not become an enemy simply by being envious of another's territory, but because of the perceived differences in the groups that would enable them to fight and kill for it. By Schmitt's definition, an alien would almost certainly fall under the category of "existentially something different and alien," and would therefore become the enemy. Following Schmitt's method, it would then be nearly impossible for an extraterrestrial to be treated as anything but an enemy.
So what would it mean to act against Schmitt's logic? I see an inconsistency. In one paragraph, Schmitt claims that an enemy is someone different with whom conflict could arise, and in another, "An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity." He is saying two different things here. As brought up in class (thanks Phil!), we probably have plans for invading Britain, or Canada. There's a potential that we might fight them, therefore they are our enemies. If not even Canada counts as a friend, than I think it is safe to say that we only have enemies, and Schmitt's model stops meaning much of anything. Schmitt's framework is really only useful when you take into account the "existential differences" between groups.
The question becomes, would we, should we, treat extraterrestrials as enemies based on their differences, regardless of other factors. I still come to the conclusion that we would do so. Should we? I don't think so. We can discuss that further when we get to Speaker for the Dead which introduces another classification system into the mix.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Reflection 4: Neutralizing/ Depoliticizing an Enemy
Thursday's class kept me thinking for long hours. Specially that one question PTJ asked near the end of the class...what is the optimistic reading of Schmitt? (I don't remember what he said verbatim, but this sounds about right).
Schmitt talks about neutral domains becoming political by set of processes which constructs the notion of enemy. Political trumps it all and we are left with an enemy of some sort. Though at first instance there is no positive reading of Schmitt, I think when you think throughly about what he is talking about you can find a small loophole- just by thinking backwards. How do we not have an enemy, or strip the label "enemy" from an other? Perhaps through depoliticizing the enemy?
If we know how an enemy becomes a political enemy, we can perhaps trace the brginnings of the politicization proces and neutralize the political domains, we can perhaps eliminate the label on an enemy, and possibly have them as a friend. I'm not sure whether this process eventually brings about the pacifist world Schmitt disapproves.
Food for thought.
Schmitt talks about neutral domains becoming political by set of processes which constructs the notion of enemy. Political trumps it all and we are left with an enemy of some sort. Though at first instance there is no positive reading of Schmitt, I think when you think throughly about what he is talking about you can find a small loophole- just by thinking backwards. How do we not have an enemy, or strip the label "enemy" from an other? Perhaps through depoliticizing the enemy?
If we know how an enemy becomes a political enemy, we can perhaps trace the brginnings of the politicization proces and neutralize the political domains, we can perhaps eliminate the label on an enemy, and possibly have them as a friend. I'm not sure whether this process eventually brings about the pacifist world Schmitt disapproves.
Food for thought.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Political Science Fiction
Kevin brought up Ender's limited list of "people he considered human," and I think this is essential in analyzing Ender through the lens of Carl Schmitt. According to Ender's paradigm, in each fight against a Stilson, he fought on the side of humanity, consciously or not. According to Schmitt:
Schmitt's theories work well within the world of Starship Troopers. While Schmitt refutes the notion that the military should be in charge, or that war is an ideal state, the civilian citizen dynamic could be backed up by Schmitt's own words. In Starship Troopers, in order to become involved with the political, one must first serve in the military. If, according to Schmitt, "the friend, enemy, and combat [i.e. political] concepts receive their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing," then it makes sense for anyone to influence that classification of friend or enemy to have had a first-hand experience with killing and the effects of that classification (33).
I think that some of Schmitt's ideas come out of the Western individualist culture. Schmitt states that "to demand seriously of human beings that they kill others and be prepared to die themselves so... that the purchasing power of grandchildren may grow is sinister and crazy" (48). I wonder what he would say about a culture in which people choose to end their own lives to salvage their family name. I would really like to know what Schmitt would have to say about a communitarian culture such as those in Asia. to demand seriously of human beings that they kill others and be prepared to die themselves so that trade or industry may flourish for the survivors... is sinister and crazy.
Such a war [for humanity] is necessarily unusually intense and inhuman because, by transcending the limits of the political framework, it simultaneously degrades the enemy into moral and other categories and is forced to make of him a monster that must not only be defeated but also utterly destroyed. In other words, he is an enemy who no longer must be compelled to retreat into his borders only (36).This jives with Ender's own strategies during his own battles. What I had interpreted as a rare comedic thought on Ender's part, "his private list of people who also qualified as human beings," becomes something scary, almost dangerous in light of his own actions.
Schmitt's theories work well within the world of Starship Troopers. While Schmitt refutes the notion that the military should be in charge, or that war is an ideal state, the civilian citizen dynamic could be backed up by Schmitt's own words. In Starship Troopers, in order to become involved with the political, one must first serve in the military. If, according to Schmitt, "the friend, enemy, and combat [i.e. political] concepts receive their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing," then it makes sense for anyone to influence that classification of friend or enemy to have had a first-hand experience with killing and the effects of that classification (33).
I think that some of Schmitt's ideas come out of the Western individualist culture. Schmitt states that "to demand seriously of human beings that they kill others and be prepared to die themselves so... that the purchasing power of grandchildren may grow is sinister and crazy" (48). I wonder what he would say about a culture in which people choose to end their own lives to salvage their family name. I would really like to know what Schmitt would have to say about a communitarian culture such as those in Asia. to demand seriously of human beings that they kill others and be prepared to die themselves so that trade or industry may flourish for the survivors... is sinister and crazy.
It's all in the Name
Ender's Game. Ender. Oh Card, you master of subtlety, you. I think it's funny that nobody brought up Ender's name in class. It's almost too obvious to point out, but I think it's worth mentioning. So let's see, the main character is named Ender. What does he do? He ends things. He ends Stilson. He ends Bonzo. He ends the buggers. He doesn't try to win. Here's an exchange with Valentine that sums it all up:
Towards the end of the book, Ender becomes aware of his tendency to annihilate. He seems fed up with the way it always ends up, especially when human lives are at stake. Graff and the IF recognize this, and therefore they trick him into playing one more game, one more simulation. This turns out to be the game he's been training for all his life, and once again, he ends it, destroying the bugger homeworld.
The trouble is, one game always leads to another, or is revealed to be part of a bigger plot. The Giant's Drink led to the tower at the end of the world. Battle school became command school, became the destruction of the buggers. The end of the bugger wars will lead to a political game back on Earth, but Ender finally gets the chance to abstain. With Val's help, Ender takes a break from playing games, from ending games, and helps start things instead.
"You beat them."Amanda brought up The Wire in class, the idea of "the game." In one episode, a character is told, "You can't lose if you don't play the game." In Ender's case, the game is thrust upon him. The key is that Ender doesn't give in. Once he realizes that the game can't be won, he does the next best thing, he ends it. He acts out of the existing parameters, inventing his own, and pulls the plug.
"No, you don't understand. I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist." (238)
Towards the end of the book, Ender becomes aware of his tendency to annihilate. He seems fed up with the way it always ends up, especially when human lives are at stake. Graff and the IF recognize this, and therefore they trick him into playing one more game, one more simulation. This turns out to be the game he's been training for all his life, and once again, he ends it, destroying the bugger homeworld.
The trouble is, one game always leads to another, or is revealed to be part of a bigger plot. The Giant's Drink led to the tower at the end of the world. Battle school became command school, became the destruction of the buggers. The end of the bugger wars will lead to a political game back on Earth, but Ender finally gets the chance to abstain. With Val's help, Ender takes a break from playing games, from ending games, and helps start things instead.
Ender's Game: Who's the Victim?
One of the recommended readings for this week was Heinlein's Starship Troopers, which throws reader into serious moral questions as to who're the good guys and who are the bad guys...who is committing genocide towards whom? Who is the victim?
From the moment Graff appeared at the door of Ender's home, Ender was presented with choices. His anger, and emotional swings got in the way of his decisions and his actions...he could not control his passions or desires. By becoming the Xenocide he wanted to end all wars...a strategy he followed from the beginning with all his fights and all his encounters. However, he constantly found himself in controlled environments...like a test-rat in a laboratory. The setting (or the environment) of his interactions were controlled by his teachers to prevent Ender from learning the truth, if you will. I think this is how we can claim Ender's innocence. Ender, just like the Buggers, is a victim.
Realist Constructivism, Social Nothingness, Ender, Aliens and Lady Gaga
Schmitt is right. How can we define politics without defining what makes politics what it is? Processes through which neutral domains slowly collide into each other, creating anitheses of political -which in return establishes and ensures legitimacy of state & politics. Politics, though it can derive its antithesis from other "neutral" domains also creates (or shall I say "constructs") its own antithesis: friend vs. foe. Realist constructivism anyone?
This is not my first encounter with Carl Schmitt, but I am awestruck by his use of language, aliens and human nature all the same. I read his notes on Leviathan last year, and I kind of expected a similar level of performance with his book- I am not disappointed. He relies on similar assumptions about human nature as Hobbes ("...entire life of a human being is a struggle and every human being symbolically a combatant. (33)") however, he develops Hobbes' state of nature analogy and considers conflict as undesirable, but an indestructible constant. According to Schmitt, political neither "favors war or militarism" because "neither war nor revolution is something social nor something ideal. (33)" However, the undesirable allows political human narratives which as a result gives meaning to the friend and enemy. As long as the potential for conflict remains, state cannot become a neutral domain. And when the state is not neutral political continues. The cycle continuously legitimize state as a social entity and social as a contingent factor of the political. Result? Solution to human fear of cultural and social nothingness (94).
Some of my favorite Schmitt moments in the book are on page 53:
Speaking of enemies; Schmitt submits "A political enemy needs not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly, [s]he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it might even be advantageous to engage with [her/]him in business transactions" (27). Ruling out Bono, I say we might be facing a political enemy disguised/a.k.a. as Lady Gaga.
Therefore, the friend and foe distinction shall remain the only antithesis of political realm. Concept of political yields pluralistic consequences simply because many factors contribute to cause of the consequence. This can explain Ender's motive in saving the Queen bugger despite the efforts that were put in by his teachers to envision the enemy as a monster "which must not only be defeated but also utterly destroyed. (36)"
I'm so excited about our upcoming class discussion on Schmitt!
* Please see Orwell's Politics and English Language essay's Meaningless Words section. I believe he would have approached the word Pluriverse with same level of disgrunt as he has with fascism, democracy and socialism.
This is not my first encounter with Carl Schmitt, but I am awestruck by his use of language, aliens and human nature all the same. I read his notes on Leviathan last year, and I kind of expected a similar level of performance with his book- I am not disappointed. He relies on similar assumptions about human nature as Hobbes ("...entire life of a human being is a struggle and every human being symbolically a combatant. (33)") however, he develops Hobbes' state of nature analogy and considers conflict as undesirable, but an indestructible constant. According to Schmitt, political neither "favors war or militarism" because "neither war nor revolution is something social nor something ideal. (33)" However, the undesirable allows political human narratives which as a result gives meaning to the friend and enemy. As long as the potential for conflict remains, state cannot become a neutral domain. And when the state is not neutral political continues. The cycle continuously legitimize state as a social entity and social as a contingent factor of the political. Result? Solution to human fear of cultural and social nothingness (94).
Some of my favorite Schmitt moments in the book are on page 53:
"If the people no longer maintain the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not vanish from the world. Only the weak people will disappear."Through political that is. This does not necessarily mean that the weak people will be eliminated, but their visibility in political could be affected. This in return gives rise to a specific political behaviour by people to remain part of the political realm which they belong with. However, I would like to hear Schmitt's input on what the low voter turnout of the European Parliament elections mean.
"Political entity presupposes the real existence of an enemy and therefore coexistence with another political entity."...or semi-political entities (given it's 21st century) i.e. terrorist organizations and even Multi-national Corporations! ( International organizations and states fall into political category for Schmitt, but I'm unclear on whether we should consider MNCs and terrorist organizations as political entities). Schmitt never eliminates the possibility of conflict: League of nations does not eliminate the possibility of wars just creates new possibilities for them.
Speaking of enemies; Schmitt submits "A political enemy needs not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly, [s]he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it might even be advantageous to engage with [her/]him in business transactions" (27). Ruling out Bono, I say we might be facing a political enemy disguised/a.k.a. as Lady Gaga.
(Pluriverse? Orwell must be turning in his grave*.)"The political world is a pluriverse not a universe."
Therefore, the friend and foe distinction shall remain the only antithesis of political realm. Concept of political yields pluralistic consequences simply because many factors contribute to cause of the consequence. This can explain Ender's motive in saving the Queen bugger despite the efforts that were put in by his teachers to envision the enemy as a monster "which must not only be defeated but also utterly destroyed. (36)"
I'm so excited about our upcoming class discussion on Schmitt!
* Please see Orwell's Politics and English Language essay's Meaningless Words section. I believe he would have approached the word Pluriverse with same level of disgrunt as he has with fascism, democracy and socialism.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Schmitt vs The Bugs
The Buggers in Ender's Game and the Bugs in Starship Troopers seem to be, at least on the surface, the most extreme possible interpretation of what Carl Schmitt refers to in "The Concept of the Political" when he talks about "something different and alien." While he didn't mean this to necessarily refer an actual extra-terrestrial, both species are so different from us, so incomprehensible in both culture and form, that they could serve as the textbook definition of "alien" in the sense of otherness.
The military in both works, and along with them the civilian population, follow in Schmitt's line of thinking that the Bugs are so different from us, that their existence is a threat to our way of life. It is perceived that there can be no similarity between us and the Bugs. In Starship Troopers an analyst even goes so far as to call the idea of an intelligent Bug "offensive." And since the Bugs in both works commit aggressive acts against planet Earth, the humans, using Schmitt's logic, are justified in beleiving that the aliens pose a threat and must be "repulsed or fought in order to preserve [their] own form of existence."
The thing is, both works seem to reject this logic in the end, at least to some degree. In Ender's Game it becomes apparent that the Bugger's had never meant us harm, and had not even realized they were killing us. This entire race is wiped out needlessly because of the reasoning in "The Concept of the Political." The rejection is more subtle in Starship Troopers. While on the surface it seems to come out in favor of the destruction of the Bugs, it is important to remember that the movie is a satire of propaganda films. It is implied that a fair telling of the films events might be much more sympathetic to the Bugs. The attack on Earth was actually provoked by humans violating the Bugs territory, so it was really the humans who started the war. And at the end the brain bug is clearly terrified, and the humans rejoice in its plight. Both works show what can happen when you decide that anyone sufficiently different from yourself poses a threat to you way of life.
The military in both works, and along with them the civilian population, follow in Schmitt's line of thinking that the Bugs are so different from us, that their existence is a threat to our way of life. It is perceived that there can be no similarity between us and the Bugs. In Starship Troopers an analyst even goes so far as to call the idea of an intelligent Bug "offensive." And since the Bugs in both works commit aggressive acts against planet Earth, the humans, using Schmitt's logic, are justified in beleiving that the aliens pose a threat and must be "repulsed or fought in order to preserve [their] own form of existence."
The thing is, both works seem to reject this logic in the end, at least to some degree. In Ender's Game it becomes apparent that the Bugger's had never meant us harm, and had not even realized they were killing us. This entire race is wiped out needlessly because of the reasoning in "The Concept of the Political." The rejection is more subtle in Starship Troopers. While on the surface it seems to come out in favor of the destruction of the Bugs, it is important to remember that the movie is a satire of propaganda films. It is implied that a fair telling of the films events might be much more sympathetic to the Bugs. The attack on Earth was actually provoked by humans violating the Bugs territory, so it was really the humans who started the war. And at the end the brain bug is clearly terrified, and the humans rejoice in its plight. Both works show what can happen when you decide that anyone sufficiently different from yourself poses a threat to you way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
