Last Blog

I’m just going to talk about my overall impression of the class. I thought it was a great class (with the exception of blogging twice a week and that huge paper I have yet to write). Honestly, I have never been able to read such enjoyable books for class (with the exception of the other Jackson class I took because we got to read The Tipping Point and how statistics lie). But, having a class where I could read Ender’s Game…it doesn’t get any better than that! So I will admit that before I took this class I was merely a dabbler in scifi (I still cannot compare my knowledge to the majority of the people in our class…I actually went to see The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the other day in the movie theater and was one of three of a group of about fifteen people that did not bring a towel, so apparently I have not been fully converted to nerd-dom yet). The point is, now I have moved beyond a superficial understanding of science fiction to a much deeper understanding and appreciation of it (though I still don’t understand what’s so great about Dune).

In terms of the books we read, Orson Scott Card’s books still remain my favorite. I did, however, become acquainted with some other excellent scifi authors, Isaac Asimov, for one. After reading his Foundation trilogy (which I think should be part of the curriculum by the way, at least the first book) and The Gods Themselves, I can truly claim to be an Asimov fan. Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was amazing (apparently because it is pre-Heinlein’s turning every book into a giant sex triangle). The Professor’s blueprint for structuring a revolution was interesting, especially in how it involved Mike (I think I will have to keep it in mind for when I plan to start a revolution of my own to take over the world). I really liked the character of Mike (I even named a computer in our office “Mike” because it was petulant, but then it started causing serious problems…), especially as the issue of superhuman computers and artificial intelligence is prevalent in scifi, including other books we read such as He, She, and It. Speaking of He, She, and It, that was a fantastic book. I had to appreciate the fact that the protagonist was female, especially after our previous discussions on the lack of females in scifi. Finally, I have to point out my look of Todorov. I truly enjoyed his perspective on the American conquest, maybe because I like to sympathize with the oppressed and not the conquerors, or maybe because of its incredible similarity to Speaker for the Dead. I actually think we should read Pastwatch, as well, to compliment Speaker and Todorov.

One last point…the discussions. Having a class with uncensored discussions where anything goes was amazing for two reasons. One, because we could engage in unrestricted speculation and hypothesizing about different political situations without worrying about whether our thoughts were too extreme or outlandish to be considered, and even discussed. And two, because I got to engage in endless rants about Bush and other things that I disagree with or that just plain piss me off (and taking this point in light of the fact that most of my school career I have been the nerd who raises my hand to answer questions with academic references to the textbook or some reading instead of my own personal opinions, I enjoyed being dissenting and a big radical for once). All in all, I thought the class was fantastic and I really enjoyed it.

Some Random Thoughts

I wanted to respond to a comment http://www.haloscan.com/comments/qballqsp/111336203012528255/) James made on my April 12^th blog post (http://scifiblogs05.blogspot.com/2005/04/cultural-differences-and-raman.html). He asked whether I agreed with the point that “there exists such a thing as morality which has the power to be applied universally and to determine the right course of action.” I do agree with this point. I mentioned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in my blog post and I do support this document because I am of the belief that there is a universal code of morality that all people should follow. I think this code is the creation of humankind as a whole. Its values reflect those common morals and principles that all people share, such as the golden rule. As to the example of Muslim women and their right to education, preventing women from being education or granting them fewer rights than men is not a value of Muslim culture. That is a perversion of Muslim culture. If you look at any religion or belief system, including Islam, I believe that you will find the same values at their core. Notice, however, that I used the term humankind earlier. I do not know if the human universal code of universality should apply to other species. The piggies, for example, may have a universal piggie code of conduct that applies across different tribes. As to Lennea’s comments (same url) on that same post, I agree. She said that there are two sides of the argument, “allowing people to follow their own traditional cultural practices” and “an undeniable desire to impose one's own beliefs on others. I think that it is difficult to determine when one standard should be applied, and when the other.” It is indeed difficult to make that distinction though I disagree with the use of the word impose. As I said, there might be a different belief system for piggies. But the universal moral code of human codes is not imposed on anyone because it is deciding by consensus, by humankind as a whole.

As to Terminator 2, it was my first time seeing it, and despite the fact that it had the laughable Governor of California in it, it was very cool. I thought one point was interesting was when the kid asks Arnold is he can learn to behave like a human “so he doesn’t act like a dork and stuff.” Arnold replies that he has a program that allows him to go through a learning process. Yet, he still does not act like a normal human being, instead sounding like a machine. This could be Arnold’s horrible acting or it could be a result of his programming. Is it possible for machines designed only for killing to behave like normal human beings? Is it possible for machines designed only for killing to behave like normal human beings? Arnold says that he feels no emotion because he “has to stay functional to fulfill his programming? Thinking back to He, She, and It, the only cyborg that acted like a believable human being was Yod, and in that case, the dose of compassion and empathy that allows Yod to pass as human limits his effectiveness as a killing machine.

Todorov and Schmitt

In class we discussed Speaker for the Dead and The Conquest of America. I found the discussion concerning whether the Conquest was good or bad interesting. I found comparisons between that topic and Schmitt.

I think that as a whole, the Conquest was a bad thing. Jessie mentioned three points that should be considered in deciding whether it was good or bad. First, the world we live in now, the technology, the civilization, is the result of the Conquest. Second, the conquistadors did not know the magnitude of their impact on American culture. For example, they could not control the decimation of the Indians by disease. Finally, deciding whether or not it was morally reprehensible (I’ll get back to this point later). I think a fourth point should be added to this discussion, the overall impact of the Conquest on the people of the Americas, the Indians. Todorov discusses the so-called “ten plagues” that affected the Indians. Even though the conquistadors did not know the impact of their actions, they did more than just kill the Indians indirectly through contact with them. They enjoyed persecuting and torturing the Indians. Therefore, because of the conquistadors’ impact on the Indian population, I think the conquest was a bad thing.

Getting back to the point of moral reprehensibility, another question is whether the conquistadors themselves were good or bad. Though Martin said that having been in that situation, the conquistadors could not be blamed, I disagree. I believe that just because the views during that time period differed, it did not give them an excuse to ignore questions of morality. In Speaker, Ender says that you can’t judge people until you know their story, but at the same time as he explains Marcaos actions I don’t think he excuses him from all moral reprehensibility. This made me think of Schmitt and his discussion of choosing the enemy. The way the state chooses the enemy is arbitrary, it cannot be justified; it simply is. But, the individual on the other hand, has different decisions to make from that of the state.

“The individual may voluntarily die for whatever cause he may wish. That is…thoroughly private matter – decided upon freely. The economically functioning society possesses sufficient means to neutralize nonviolently, in a “peaceful” fashion, those economic competitors who are inferior, unsuccessful or mere “perturbers.” Concretely speaking, this implies that the competitor will be left to starve if he does not voluntarily accommodate himself” (Schmitt, 48).

Essentially this says that judgment of the morality of the state – or in this case we can say the Conquest as a whole – must differ from judgment of the morality of individuals. And though this statement also says that if members of the state do not conform to the state they will be forced to, because the Conquest in itself was bad, this still does not excuse the conquistadors from the fact that their actions were wrong.

Todorov and Orson Scott Card

In reading Tzvetan Todorov’s The Conquest of America, I could not help but be shocked by the similarities between it and Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead. Since I can’t come up with a brilliant thesis to tie these all together, I’m just going to go through Todorov’s book and point out its similarities with Ender’s Game and Speaker.

“Columbus’s behavior implies that he does not grant the Indians the right to have their own will, that he judges them, in short, as living objects” (Todorov, 48). Todorov also notes Columbus’s “failure to recognize the Indians, and the refusal to admit them as a subject having the same rights as oneself, but different” (Todorov, 49). In comparing these descriptions to Card, the first one corresponds to varelse and the second one is remarkably similar to the definition of otherlander. Columbus judges the Indians as living objects, grouping them with animals which Demosthenes groups under varelse. What Columbus refuses to do is recognize the Indians as otherlander, defined as “the stranger that we recognize as being a human of our world, but of another city or country” (Card, 34). Instead, he believes them to be equivalent to animals, or varelse.

Todorov, in discussing the Indians’ style of communication (communication with the world), talks of “the collectivity” in which “society as a whole…decides the fate of the individual” (Todorov, 67). He says that “death is a catastrophe only from the narrowly individual perspective, whereas, from the social point of view, the benefit derived from submission to group rule counts for more than the loss of an individual” (68). His discussions of human sacrifice and the collectivity deciding the fate of the individual strongly reminds me of the Buggers’ society. Because the Buggers have one mind, the mind of the Hive Queen, they act as one unit, or a collectivity. As Ender comes to realize, individual lives are meaningless as compared to the good of society as a whole. Furthermore, just as the Spaniards only practice interhuman communication, the humans in Ender’s Game communication solely among themselves. They too, like the Spaniards, are unable to comprehend the concept of communication with the world.

Todorov says that the Aztec warriors derogatively referred to the Spaniards as women in order to criticize their fighting abilities. He states that “the “women” would win this war, if only figuratively” (Todorov, 92) because what was needed was “the feminine side of culture: improvisation rather than ritual, words rather than weapons” (Todorov, 92). In Ender’s Game, Ender is compared to his two siblings, his sister Valentine and his brother Peter.

Card constructs his character as a combination of his siblings’ personalities. Not only does he have the ruthlessness of Peter, but he also has the compassion and empathy of his sister. The Aztecs believe that the use of weapons is relegated to men and the use of words is relegated to women. Men destroy, while women communication. Ender has both of these qualities, which makes him an ideal commander of the human invasion. Note also that Ender, unlike any of the other commanders at Battle School, recognizes the need for improvisation. He organizes his army into five toons, allowing for each commander and sub-commander, actually every soldier, to be able to respond to changing circumstances. It is the army’s proficiency at improvisation that allows them to defeat all other armies.

Another instance of a similarity with the Buggers’ style of communication is Todorov’s statement “Where the language is above all a means of designating the group speaking it and expressing the coherence proper to that group, it is not necessary to impose it on the other” (Todorov, 123). The Buggers, during the three wars, do not communicate with the humans. It is not necessary for them to do so because their communication acts simply to express their coherence. Though it has use for them and their ability to operate, there is no need to use it to communicate with the humans, until the very end where they communicate with Ender. Until that point, however (which at any rate occurs after the war is over), there is no need to impose the Buggers form of communication on the humans.

Finally, Todorov, in speaking of Cortés ability to understand the Indians, says “destruction becomes possible precisely because of this understanding” (Todorov, 127). His notion of “understanding-that-kills” (Todorov, 127) is remarkably similar to that of Card’s in Ender’s Game. Because of his understanding of the Buggers, Ender is able to destroy them. It is his empathy, his ability to understand the other, that allows him to effectively exterminate them.

Cultural Differences and Raman

“The Nordic language recognizes four orders of foreignness…The third is raman, 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” (34).

The human race has come to a point where it can recognize another species, the piggies, as humans; it designates the piggies as raman. But, what does it mean to recognize another species as human? I believe that Demosthenes uses the word “human” here in order to ascribe that intrinsic worth that human beings ascribe to themselves to other creatures. By using the word “human”, Demosthenes encapsulates all of those qualities that human beings ascribe to themselves, such as the qualities of being sentient and having a sense of ethics. In doing this, she grants the same equal status to raman as to human beings. What does equality mean? Does it mean that all creatures have the same values and therefore must obey the same laws or does it mean that all creatures should be respected regardless of the differences due to race, ethnicity, gender, or status as raman or human? Disregarding the final question of raman or human for the moment, this debate exists in society today: should there be one universal code of conduct or should laws reflect cultural differences? On one hand we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the other, certain people claim that it is alright that women do not attend school in Muslim countries because their values differ from ours. We had this debate regarding gender earlier in the year. Does gender equality mean that men and women should be treated equally, and more specifically, the same, or does it mean a recognition of inherent differences? In a conversation among Miro, Ouanda, and Ender, Miro tells Ender that the xenologers excused the piggies’ murders of Pipo and Libo because they recognize “cultural differences”. In response, Ender says, “You understand the piggies as animals, and you no more condemn them for murdering Libo and Pipo than you would condemn a cabra for chewing up capim” (227). He tells the xenologers that they will never learn from the piggies because they think of them as animals, not ramen. “You treat them as if they were not responsible for their actions…Ramen are responsible for what they do” (227). Though I support the Universal Declaration believing that there are fundamental rights which every person is entitle to, Card made me rethink my answer. As we learn later on, the piggies were innocent in their actions, killing the two men because of a mistaken assumption that they were helping them. Does this mean that in the case of a different species we should respect cultural differences, or even in the case of humankind it is important to place first and foremost, above a universal code, cultural differences?

Ender tells the xenologers they think of piggies as animals, and I want to continue with the topic of animals. In class Professor Jackson said that during the Middle Ages, people used to place animals on trial for their sins – they believed that animals had souls and therefore could differentiate right from wrong – and could even punish them by putting them to death. Now, we would think that this concept of putting animals on trial is ridiculous. They do not have the intelligence to differentiate between right and wrong, though I do believe that they do have souls. Apply this to the piggies. If Miro and Ouanda conceive of the piggies as animals, then they were indeed blameless for their actions against Libo and Pipo. But, Demostenes says that animals are varelse and we believe the piggies to be raman. Therefore, they are responsible for their actions. This brings us back to the debate of universal laws versus cultural differences. To this debate I do not know the answer, but it is a question we should ask ourselves in making laws in our own human society.

Ender

In Orson Scott Card’s Speaker for the Dead, I can’t help but admiring Ender throughout the book. Card really brings out the qualities of Ender that make him such an exceptional commander in Ender’s Game: his charisma, compassion, his ruthlessness, and his amazing perception of the human spirit.

It is impossible to not be swayed by Ender’s charisma. One can easily understand the devotion his soldiers showed Ender in his Battle School days. Everyone seems to be taken with his winning personality, including Novinha. The first time she meets him she thinks, “I could be seduced by that voice” (127) and “his eyes were seductive with understanding…I could drown in his understanding” (129). She senses his uncanny perceptive ability, the ability that has already won over her family members. Even I could not help but be taken by him and admire his ability. His charisma comes not just from his perceptive ability, but the earnestness of his character. Ender is incredibly genuine, especially in his desire to uncover the truth; and the simple way in which he speaks the truth, with no pretensions, is captivating. He does indeed have a manipulative side to his character, but I think beneath that there remains a bit of his childhood innocence. He still has that boy in him who just wanted his brother, and everyone else for that matter, to love him. In class, we spoke about Ender as a mix of Valentine and Peter, the compassionate and the ruthless. But, out of anyone in his family I believe that he has the most compassion, proved by his assumption of the role of Speaker of the Dead.

Ender made an amazing sacrifice in choosing to write The Hive Queen and the Hegemon, sacrificing his good name for the sake of the “truth”. He speaks the truth to set the friends and relatives of the dead free, but ironically, it sets everyone free other than himself. He continues to live with the guilt of his childhood actions for years to come, and even more, he experiences the pain of each of the dead he speaks for. In his role as Speaker for the Dead he makes use of his compassion, empathizing with the dead by loving them. At the same time, he is incredibly ruthless, sparing nothing in his effort to uncover the truth. That same ruthlessness that allowed him to defeat the Buggers allows him to bare the truth. Why is that ruthlessness that sets everyone else free constantly turned towards himself? I pity Ender for his inability to forgive himself for his childhood mistakes.

Daddy! Help, it’s a bug!!

Does it make a difference that Ender killed an entire species if that species happened to be bugs? I want to explore two aspects of this issue. One, in response to "Blink’s" last blog post, is that the Buggers are essentially genetic descendants of bugs, and the other is the Bugger mentality.
Blink said that "Bugs are the human’s natural enemies." I have to agree. As we said in class last week, bugs are scary-ass creatures. Most people seem to be terrified of bugs. It does not matter that they’re one-fiftieth of our size or that most of them can’t do squat to us, they’re scary. Now, I’m a liberal (in the international relations sense). I’m a "Yeah, the world is wonderful. People are essentially good. Let’s get rid of war, live in peace, and be happy (and then we can go frolic through fields while we’re at it!)." I oppose war (99%) of the time. My peace-loving, vegetarian self tells me that all life should be respected. In fact, some of my friends know me as the "bug savior". This is because when we used to be in class together and anyone saw a bug, I would say, "Stop being a wimp. It’s just a bug", pick up the bug (not with my hands, mind you), and take it outside. But, when it’s a big bug (by big bug I’m not talking about tiny spiders or lady bugs or even bees, I’m talking about big, creepy centipedes or cockroaches or flying things) I freak out. I go insane. The initial muscle spasm is followed by, "Dad!!!! (or whoever else happens to be around at the moment)…Can you get rid of this bug?? Please!!" When we’re talking big bugs, I’m not playing Mr. Nice Guy. They’re getting flushed down the toilet. The Buggers, those huge creatures that so resemble bugs, would freak me out!!! I’d be terrified! And it would be hard to convince myself not to kill creatures that looked so creepy (or get someone else to do it for me). As descendants of bugs, it was not surprising at all that the human race in Ender’s Game feared the Buggers.
Now, let’s step back and look at the Buggers mentality. These bugs had a hive-queen mentality. They all thought as one being. The Hive Queen was the mind and the different Buggers acted as parts of her body, as extensions of herself. If you were in the International Fleet’s shoes, wouldn’t it creep you out that the Buggers could act like one single organism? The Fleet would immediately see its obvious disadvantage of being composed of human beings, of individuals each possessing his own mind and feelings. But, the Buggers have one mind, and therefore, can act as a single unit. There is no fear of a soldier disobeying his commander or of troops failing to do as they are told. This is an obvious advantage over human beings. And as such, probably scared the beejesuz out of the International Fleet. If the earth was attacked again, the Fleet knew it would perish because its soldiers did not have the ability to respond instantly. Not to mention, the Buggers possession of superior technology. With its rational, strategic fear of the Buggers, and the rest of the planet’s irrational fear of them, the International Fleet was certainly justified in its actions.

Xenocide and the Conception of the Enemy

In my last blog post I defended my belief in Ender’s innocence in his actions. Despite his self-censure in “The Hive Queen and the Hegemon” for his act of xenocide, I believe that he was innocent because as a child and as a tool of the International Fleet (IF) he was not to blame. I wanted to expand upon this idea in light of Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political by examining the role of the IF. Having established Ender’s innocence in his actions, was the IF justified in 1) causing the xenocide of the buggers to occur, and 2) its manipulation of Ender?

Firstly, was the IF justified in committing xenocide? Although it did not directly take part in the act of wiping out the buggers, it did train the children that would carry out that act. The IF is an entity, and it is a political one because it fulfills Schmitt’s definition of being the decisive entity to determine the friend-enemy grouping. It classifies the buggers as the enemy and accordingly, in an extreme case, decides to wage war against them. Schmitt says, “If such physical destruction of human life is not motivated by an existential threat to one’s own life, then it cannot be justified…The justification of war…reside[s]…in its being fought against a real enemy” (49). Granted Schmitt is talking about human beings and not other creatures. But, as we find out later, the buggers are sentient beings and therefore, for my purposes, their lives have as much intrinsic value as human lives. The IF, according to Schmitt, would be justified in its actions because it faced the threat of a real enemy, an enemy that threatened its own, as well as that of the entire human race, existence. Schmitt does not condone war, he does not praise it, but he does justify its existence as an extreme case in the political sphere. Therefore, the IF is justified in its decision to wage war against and eventually eliminate (or as Schmitt would say “negate”) the enemy.

Was the IF justified in its manipulation of Ender? My previous blog post had a blatant bias against the IF, implying that the burden of xenocide should have fallen upon it and not Ender. I want to reconsider this by examining it from Schmitt’s point of view. Schmitt says,

“The individual may voluntarily die for whatever cause he may wish. That is…thoroughly private matter – decided upon freely. The economically functioning society possesses sufficient means to neutralize nonviolently, in a “peaceful” fashion, those economic competitors who are inferior, unsuccessful or mere “perturbers.” Concretely speaking, this implies that the competitor will be left to starve if he does not voluntarily accommodate himself” (48).

I believe that Schmitt uses the phrase “voluntarily accommodate himself” sarcastically, meaning that the individual must comply with the state, the decisive entity because of its political power, or it will be neutralized. This is especially true in the society in which Ender grows up in; a society in which Ender would not have even been born if not for his purpose of fulfilling the IF’s, and in therefore in this society, the state’s and the political entity’s, goals. Schmitt would most likely agree with the IF’s decision to manipulate Ender as it was necessary in the waging the war, which as we established above, was justified. I disagree, however, emotionally if not logically. By Schmitt’s logic, the manipulation of Ender makes perfect sense. But my sense of empathy forces me to pity Ender and on a moral basis, oppose the IF’s actions. The actions of the IF saved society as a whole by sacrificing one child. They were based in the political sphere, not the private sphere, a distinction that is made quite clear in Schmitt’s essay. I will conclude with a statement of Schmitt’s which I found particularly relevant and enlightening: “The enemy in the political sense need not be hated personally, and in the private sphere only does it make sense to love one’s enemy” (29).