Politics in Fantasy & Science Fiction

[Vraith]

That's a very good post, Z.
And the interesting politics in sf/f approaches it from a similar stance [at least insofar as the kinds of questions you posed, and the turnabouts you used].
But, just as I'm a certain kind of liberal that has serious disagreements with other liberals, you are a certain kind of conservative that has serious disagreements with other conservatives.
There ARE a lot of liberals who think the gov't should cocoon us all in cozy perpetual safety...I'm not one of them.
There ARE a lot of conservatives who are afraid of change in any tradition...I'm pretty confident you aren't one of them.

[ninjaboy]

I have a question that is related to this topic..
Have any of you ever read a piece of fiction that got you to question your political views?

[Orlion]

I know I have, but I can't remember...but I'm almost certain A.E. VanVogt's The World of Null-A was one...

All the other ones I read at the time were... pretty conservative (like Rand's Anthem, Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers...)

[taraswizard]

Lots of SF has politics in it, even if you're not hit over the head with the politics as in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I offer as an example of the more subtle approach Ender's Game, and read Creating the Innocent Killer by John Kessel and one will see. Another example, Terry Goodkind has told all who will listen his fiction is propaganda for Objectivism.

From personal experience, by in 2002 while attending LosCon in Los Angeles, there was a panel, Is Science Fiction inherently conservative or liberal?[/u], panel persons were Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle and others. The conclusion was reached by the audience that Science Fiction is inherently conservative because Science Fiction accepts and believes in technology and all Liberals hate technology. On the other hand, Walter MOsley has said that all genre texts are inherently conservative because they support the political/social/economic status quos; except, science fiction because it challenges the status quos.

[wayfriend]

The conclusion was reached by the audience that Science Fiction is inherently conservative because Science Fiction accepts and believes in technology and all Liberals hate technology.

Really, it depends on the use to which the technology is put, doesn't it. There are progressive uses of technology and there are conservative ones.

[stonemaybe]

I thought I'd posted this before but can't find it now.

I don't know enough about politics or sci-fi to give an opinion, but it might be something for you more knowledgeable people to get your teeth into.

This theory was put forward in a talk I attended last year with China Mieville, Iain Banks, Gwyneth Jones and Michael Moorcock:-

That the tradition of British sci-fi leans towards the left/socialism and US sci-fi towards the right/libertarianism.

This is shown by British sci-fi tending to show a culture or society under threat/emerging victorious, versus US sci-fi where it's normally an individual that wins the day (possibly on behalf of a society, but they would've ended up cinders without him).

As I said, I don't know nearly enough about sci-fi to back up (or to dispute) this - but do you think that it's a valid point - that the individual winning reflects a right-wing philosophy, and arsey-versey?

[wayfriend]

I suppose to really have a good answer we'd have to have some good examples to look at.

I can see ways that an indivdual's accomplishments can support leftist ideals, and other ways that can support rightist ones. And the same for a collective's accomplishments. After all, it's not like progressive ideas deemphasize the importance of the individual, nor conservative ideas the importance of the collective.

(And I don't even agree that libertarianism is about individual empowerment, although I think many sincerely do. It's about considering laws and rules as obstacles to socio-economic natural selection.)

However, the notion that US sci-fi tends to emphasize individual accomplishments, and British the collective, sounds plausible. There's that "cowboy" thing we here in the US have.

So... I don't know ... pick some specific examples to ponder.

[Vraith]

I thought I'd posted this before but can't find it now.

I don't know enough about politics or sci-fi to give an opinion, but it might be something for you more knowledgeable people to get your teeth into.

This theory was put forward in a talk I attended last year with China Mieville, Iain Banks, Gwyneth Jones and Michael Moorcock:-

That the tradition of British sci-fi leans towards the left/socialism and US sci-fi towards the right/libertarianism.

This is shown by British sci-fi tending to show a culture or society under threat/emerging victorious, versus US sci-fi where it's normally an individual that wins the day (possibly on behalf of a society, but they would've ended up cinders without him).

As I said, I don't know nearly enough about sci-fi to back up (or to dispute) this - but do you think that it's a valid point - that the individual winning reflects a right-wing philosophy, and arsey-versey?

I'd say there's a lot of works that break the general, but the general is like that. But I think [at least since mid-late 60's] the "right" or "conservative" basis comes from the nature of science and pragmatic concerns, not so much political ideology. And I think "Libertarian" is more on point than "right," for many reasons, the primary being that you'll find precious little in sf that fundamentally agrees with/encourages/supports the religious/social conservative "right," as a whole [even if you will find particular pieces of that, for instance a pro-life position without all the other positions], nor will you find much that does the same for the more extreme leftward platforms.
But there's a lot of overlap, mixing, straddling, and the best of it both takes parts of AND takes issue with particulars from both sides.

[Orlion]

Depends on when you are at, I believe. Isaac Asimov, an American writer, wrote the Foundation series which is very much a group-work to preserve group series. There are individual 'important people', (i.e. Hari Sheldon) but it isn't just Hari that decides the fate of galactic humanity, no matter how revolutionary his mathematics are. It fails and other people have to step up to the plate.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote very groupie stories also (I'm thinking specifically the Odyssey series and Childhood's End). In the later example, it could be argued that group sacrifices were made for the furtherance of the group's progressive evolution.

Heinlein wrote on both ends (Compare Starship Troopers with Stranger in a Strange Land with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress with Farnham's Freehold. In those examples we got conservative, liberal, libertarian, and super-survivalist with one author).

Frederic Pohl seemed more interested at some points with how the individual would survive in various sci-fi scenarios.

Cyril M. Kornbluth was interested in how those same scenarios would mess up humanity.

A. E. VanVogt wrote things like War Against the Rull (a 'preserve humanity from aliens'), Slan ('why can't we accept people with differences which will eventually improve the human race anyway') and Weaponshops of Isher ('Weapons are needed to keep the government under control... the government should 'fear' its citizens!')

John W. Campbell wrote 'Twilight' which kicks ass

In other words, it seems at least with Golden Age American/Canadian sci-fi writers, there is not a distinction of prefered political leaning... sometimes even with the same author!

[Vraith]

Heh...nice O...you effectively said what I meant to mean.
Another in line with all that: Frank Herbert's work, taken as a whole, has a thread that goes something like...
It takes exceptional individuals to pressure/create a society that can continue/evolve, it takes a society to pressure/create exceptional individuals.
The raw facts and forces of existence are the "third man" in it all.
[Foundation has some of that, Herbert is better though].

[Orlion]

Foundation is a tough example since

Spoiler

it was all fabricated by an ancient android

. That's a Foundation and Earth spoiler there, folks!
Sure, what I mention is still existent as a theme, but...

[Zarathustra]

Orlion, despite your spoilered qualification seeming to tilt toward the question toward individualism in Foundation series, the overall debate in that book was precisely the question at hand: individual vs society. And in the end, Asimov clearly went with collectivism with his Gaia-like example being the model.

As for Libertarianism viewing regulation as an obstacle to socio-economic natural selection ... this is true in a sense, even though the implication is that this is *bad,* because (I assume) it presupposes that natural selection sucks when you're not one of the "fittest" and you're "selected" for socio-economic "extinction." [I guess that would mean poverty.]

But doesn't that mean that liberalism views regulations and laws in exactly the same terms? As obstacles to socio-economic natural selection, but viewed in a positive way? A way to keep those "unfit" members of society from being selected for exclusion [via government assistance in one form or another]?

If so, one can rephrase the question of which ideology is better in terms of which reaction to natural selection is better: one that acknowledges natural selection as a force which tends to produce things of wonder (as in all life on the planet, everything we value about the world), or one that views natural selection as a force to oppose, one which produces things that are unfair (class distinctions, gap between rich/poor, etc.).

Whichever way you answer that question, you can't get away from the fact that nature will still "select" that society which thrives the best. You can't turn off natural selection. [Not even with genetic engineering; natural will still "select" which engineered genes will stick around and get passed into the future.] Your efforts to do so only transfers the selective force from the individual to the entire society. And given the history of societies, it's clear that nature selects those which try to resist natural selection the least ... i.e. the ones that give the maximum freedom and empowerment to the indivual, with as little top-down management as possible. Collectivist societies, in comparison, don't compete as well. Economic systems which are organized bottom-up (capitalism, free market) out perform.

And to bring this back around to on-topic territory ... the question phrased in this manner would make a kickass science fiction story!

[Vraith]

That's a good post Z. Two brief comments:
1) You should write that story.
2) I think natural selection in fact selects those societies that balance the collective and the individual, as well as the top-down with the bottom up. Too much of either is a path to destruction. In a healthy society, their should be conflict between them, the fall comes when one or the other becomes so powerful the only outcomes are either the dominant side cannibalizes itself, or civil war.

[wayfriend]

Well I for one won't forget that social Darwinism means that the strong take from the weak whatever they can, because they can. (Nietzsche, for example, inspired by Darwin, advocated exactly that, a notion that Hitler's regime took to heart, among others.) And I don't think it's "unfair" to protect the weak from the depredations of the strong. That's what most systems of justice, and the laws that attend them, are usually about.

Many sci-fi mileaus that I have read propose a "more utopic" society, where most of our problems have been solved. Usually, this involves scientific progress obviating the need to steal, enslave, and abuse others, by providing for peoples needs in other ways. (Robots and computers for labor, for example.) This is the gateway to freedom for everyone.

Is this progressive or conservative? I can't say.

[Zarathustra]

Well, there is a lot of potential here for a good debate. I'll resist the temptation, in recognition of the forum where we find ourselves. But it's a fruitful way of looking at things, for sure. Very interesting.