Real World Application of Philosophical Concepts from Stanger in a Strange Land

Robert A. Heinlein’s novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, is one of science fiction's most heralded stories. Printed in the early 1960’s, Heinlein's novel deals with new concepts on our culture's views of sexuality, government and religion. These new philosophical and religious ideas resonated with the decade’s counterculture and are cited as a major influence in the free love movement. Its impact was so large that groups of people attempted to practice new ways of living and even created a new religion. My first experience with this novel came over 40 years after it was printed. It also had a large impact on me but not in the same way as it did with 1960’s counterculture.  Many in the 60’s believed the ideology of Stranger in a Strange Land gives us new concepts on how to live. I believe its main purpose is that it serves as a polar opposite to current ideological systems so that we may have a source on which to measure how inefficient and ridiculous current systems can become. In the rest of this essay I will show how this ideology acts as a mirror to our society and how the novel exaggerates current social systems to further resonate this paradox. Before we analyze Smith's ideologies, we will look at how the novel portrays the subjects of government and religion in our current culture. For anyone not familiar with the story, a summery can be found here:

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/strangeland/summary.html

In the novel, the world is ran by a worldwide democratic government called the Federation with capitalism as its economic engine. Although different in some ways it is very similar to the United States and the United Nations government design. Instead of the novel focusing on the positive aspects of the Democratic and capitalist systems, it focuses on the negative aspects of these systems. The main examples are the greed driven nature of capitalism and the inefficiency of too many bureaucratic channels in a democracy. This is further emphasized by the fact that most of the respectable characters in the story are anti government. Jubal even says, “that government is three fourths parasitic and the rest is stupid fumbling.” We also see how Secretary Douglas is manipulated by greed to go from wanting to murder Michael Smith to working for him.  Also, telling is how Secretary Douglas is controlled by his wife, Agnes Douglas, in making the most important political decisions. In turn, Agnes Douglas is influenced by the astrologer, Alexandria Vesant, who is heavily influenced by stock market decisions. We can see how a cycle of inefficiency continues to influence policies. Also, the explanation of the flapper system shows the inefficiency of having too many layers of bureaucracy. “The flapper system and no person of importance listened or spoke without help of a flapper, without the consent of a flapper it was impossible to converse with anyone in the government. Flappers were known as executive assistance, private secretaries, secretaries to private secretaries, press secretaries, appointment clerks etc. but all were flappers. Each flapper held veto over communication from the outside.” Besides the official flappers, there was also a web of unofficial flappers. It became as hard to talk to an official flapper as it did to get in touch with the original person of importance. 

Next, we will discuss religion in the novel. The religion most focused on is the Fosterite Church which is led by Reverend Doctor Daniel Digby who happens to be a murderer. The church was a combination of Protestant meets Las Vegas. The church combined the gambling in show business aspect of Vegas with spiritual worship. This combination of sin and holiness is put together to paint a ridiculous picture of religion. Service is being led by former football stars and hymns with corporate sponsors. They also have slot machines that give you prayers. In true Vegas tradition they even have strippers. We can see this makes a complete mockery of current religious institutions.

Now let's look at the ideologies that Valentine Michael Smith comes to practice. I believe that Smith's ideas on religion and social structures exist to serve as the antithesis to our own. I believe this because his ideology is unquestionable and protected by scapegoats. The first scapegoat, which we will call the religious scapegoat, is that he has cosmic knowledge given to him by a language that is made up and involves concepts unknowable by real humanity. It is great to have an impregnable concept to use as a plot device with a story involving a battle of ideologies but it is useless to create a real religion based on a language that doesn't exist. All the novel truly did is take Christianity in its purest and simplest form and compare it to Christianity in its most bloated and excessive form. 

The second scapegoat, which we will call the infinite money scapegoat, is because of Smith's unique birth situation; he's one of the richest people on the planet. Smith having a tribalistic society within a capitalist society is possible, but it requires great control of all resources and finances of its members. The financial responsibility of each member along with the systems in how these finances are distributed is a big part of governing tribalistic society. The novel bypasses these issues and responsibilities by giving the participants in Smith's tribe infinite resources. Again, we can see that this is a great fix to keep the story moving along but not a realistic way to govern a group in the real world.

The third and final scapegoat we will call the superpower scapegoat. Besides having access to infinite funds and superior philosophical concepts, when Smith or the people in his group are confronted with something that finances and wisdom can’t fix they can always rely on their superpowers. Having these distinct advantages makes it easy to want to be a part of these ideologies as opposed to our current ones.

In conclusion, the concepts in Stranger in a Strange Land lead me to believe that the true message of the novel is to focus on our own structures of religion in government and to look at how dysfunctional they could become without intervention. While I understand the excitement generated by this novel when it first came out and peoples need to emulate it, I do not believe it is the novel's purpose. The truth is that it is extremely difficult to create positive social change. While it is nice to imagine having the tools of unlimited funds, telekinesis and cosmic wisdom, it takes away the true struggle of social change and is better left to fiction. 

Heinlein, Robert A.. Stranger in a Strange Land. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1968.

Rick Deckard in Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

I will begin by saying that I am mostly new to the science fiction genre. I’ve watched some movies before but never read any type of stories. I have to say that the movie “Blade Runner” was really good, and I really enjoyed it. “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” was the first science fiction novel I have ever read, and I really enjoyed it a lot. “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” is a great novel, and it influenced the making of “Blade Runner.” According to IGNMovies.com, “Blade Runner” is the number one science fiction movie of all time. Being that I haven’t watched much science fiction movies, I can’t agree with that. I will say that it the best science fiction movie I have ever seen. I will be talking about the differences of the main character, Rick Deckard, from the book to the movie.

The novel shows a wide range of topics from humanity, relationships, technology, and religion to environment, war, and animal extinction. The film focuses primarily on artificiality, romance, mortality, and relationships. The main character, Rick Deckard, is a blade runner meaning he kills or retires androids called replicants. His latest assignment is to find and retire a group of replicants that has escaped from space. The movie portrays that it is an order to Deckard and he does not have a choice, and the novel it seems like he has a choice whether or not to do the assignment. In the novel, Deckard wants a higher position in his office and wants the challenge. Deckard’s aim in the novel is to find answers about god and humanity. He searches for his answers through Mercerism and holds tight to the notion that in order to progress and be better, he must have a real, living animal. To get one, he must retire androids so that he can earn money. This does not exist in the Film, therefore, the impression of Deckard as a needy or vulnerable individual in search of answers, does not exist.

In the movie, Deckard has no wife and no electric sheep. There is no religion in the film and no mood altering module. The status of owning an animal is not significant in the film either. In the novel, Deckard is a man who desperately wants something to make him complete as a person. The Novel focuses mainly on the aftershocks of war and extinction and how it has impacted the religious and philosophical landscape of this world. The Film shows a future where artificiality blends with reality. In the novel, Deckard is battling a deadness that is trying to creep inside of him and his life is full of heartbreak and disappointment. In the novel, Deckard is in a state of anxiety and exploration. In the film, Deckard is just a blade runner who does his dirty work, gets the girls, and ends up being sad because the girls’ time is running out.

In the film, Deckard starts out by just trying to accomplish what needs to be done and get some sleep. The novel portrays Deckard as someone who is battling with religion and spirituality. It also shows Deckard as a person who needs a wife who displays something more than programmed feelings or an animal to love and care for. In the film, he just needs to be touched by the perfect woman and realize his own mortality. Also in the novel, Deckard commits adultery with Rachael, a girl he is physically attractive too, and then realizes that she is an android wholly devoid of empathy or real emotion and poised for revenge; whereas in the film Deckard is not married and Rachael and his relationship is sweet and she has no ill intentions. In the film when he finds out that Rachael is an android, he feels her pain and relates it to his own loneliness in his life which gives him a sense that they belong together. Any view of a real bond between them is shattered in the Novel when Rachael shows her true android colors and Deckard’s problems in the Novel has less to do with his loneliness than they do with trauma and adversity.

After reading the novel and watching the movie, I came to realize that the character Rick Deckard portrays is a big difference. In the film he is a bad ass blade runner that is very lonely and falls in love with an android; whereas in the novel he is also a blade runner but he is more confused with god and humanity and commits adultery with an android. The plot of both stays similar to each other but the main characters feelings and ideas differs tremendously. I really enjoyed watching the film and reading this novel even though I was not a big fan of science fiction coming into this class. The novel and movie gave me a different outlook on the science fiction genre in a good way.

The Cost of Paradise

People often wonder what a perfect world would be like. What would life be like without violence, disease, famine and other hardships? Life would be better for the many who suffer around the world today. However, everything comes with a price. What would an ideal, utopian, society cost us? What sacrifice would humanity be willing to make to live in a world with no adversities? The plot of the short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, by Ursula K. Le Guin, centers on this idea.

Omelas, a fair city, is introduced to us during a joyous festival. The people are happy, as Le Guin shows us;

“They were not naïve and happy children - though their children were, in fact, happy. They were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched.” (214)

Le Guin indicates that there is music in the streets and others have come from different cities to enjoy this festival in Omelas. The buildings are beautiful and the people seem to have a limitless freedom. The people are beautiful and they are healthy. Yet she goes on to describe one more thing about this jubilant city. In a broom closet in the basement of one of the public buildings in Omelas sits a child, around the age of ten, who is very much distraught and abused. The child, boy or girl, is alone in the room with only two mops and a rusty old bucket. The child receives “a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a day” (216, Le Guin), a jug of water and it is never comforted. The conditions it lives in are miserable, a condition that people should never be forced to live it. “It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually.” (216, Le Guin) The child once had a family that cared for it and the child stills remembers what it was like to have a mother and to be loved. However, it is stated that if the child were to be release and loved again the peace, beauty, health and happiness that has been given to Omelas will cease. This is the price the people of Omelas pay. That is the way of the contract.

Another term of the contract is that everyone in Omelas must know of the child; men, women and children. At a young age children are brought to see it in the broom closet. Most “feel anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations” (216, Le Guin) and would like to do something for it, but they cannot. However, most return home and, over time, grow to accept the hardships that the child must endure. The narrator hypothesizes that this is one of the reasons why Omelas is the way it is. That the citizens realize they are helpless as well and as a result do not take things for granted. The narrator also goes on to explain that some children never return home from their traumatizing trip. That they, along with adults who could no longer live with the knowledge of the child, walk out of Omelas and travel into the mountains to a place the author does not describe.

This short story raises many questions; what would humanity sacrifice for an ideal world? Would you sacrifice one for the safety of thousands? Logically, it would seem like an appropriate choice. Though unfortunate, this deal would ensure many would be safe, healthy and happy. However, the morality of the situation complicates the answer. The child does not have a choice; it doesn’t understand why it must live in utter torment. Who is to call his or her abuse just or unjust? Who can take on the sole responsibility and guilt of forcing the child into this kind of life? Though many would argue that they would be against such a decision I would beg to differ. It is part of human nature to seek safety through any means necessary. That is not to say there are people who, like in the story, would walk away from such society. Still, I think that the offer would entice many people.

Whether you agree with how the Omelas have come to run their society or not, Ursula K. Le Guin makes people wonder what the price of an idealistic society would be. She makes them question their own moralities. This discussion could go on for hours with no real conclusion met. So, the question is, what would you be willing to forfeit so you could live in a city like Omelas?

Works Cited:

1. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin.

Test Blog

This is a test.

Discovering Science Fiction and a look at the The Dispossessed

I know we haven’t gotten to this novel in class yet but I figured since we have it coming up I might as well blog about it. I confess that until this semester I was not a huge fan of science fiction. I have always been a lover of words but for me, science fiction was hard to get into- the science and math that dominated the genre was often a turn off. I had of course read a few well known books such as the Star Wars novels and War of the Worlds but that’s about it. However, when I began reading for this semester the novels I gravitated towards the most were those from this class. There was nothing I read that I didn’t like but The Dispossessed seemed to resonate with me the most.

The Dispossessed was written by one of my favorite authors, Ursula K. Le Guin, in 1974. It has won the Nebula award (1974), Hugo award (1975), and Locus award (1975). Le Guin was drawn to writing at an early age and summited her first story at age 11 to Astounding Science Fiction in 1940 but didn’t manage to become published until the 1960s. Her works include the Hainish Cycle science fiction novel and short stories and the Earthsea fantasy novels.

The Dispossessed is a utopian science fiction novel that explores the topics of anarchism and revolutionary societies, individualism and collectivism, and the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis. Heavily influenced by the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, this novel consists mainly of opposites- a utopian novel that explores the imperfections of its model society, a feminist-themed account with a male protagonist, and a social commentary that presents communal cooperation as the truest human ideal, yet focuses on the inevitable separateness of the creative individual within such a structure. What is unique about the utopian world Le Guin creates is that it is not perfect. One of the purposes of a utopian novel is to critique existing societies by creating a setting where the flaws of real cultures can be clearly exposed. By creating an imperfect world Le Guin’s novel seems more believable, its flaws are the main focus of Le Guin’s novel and allows its ideals to become more apparent.

The novel takes place on twin planets Urras and Anarres. Two hundred years before the story takes place Odo, an anarchist who sought an alternative to Urrass’ current governments, started a revolution that eventually lead to the colonization of Anarres, Urras’s arid moon. The colonist wanted to build a utopian world where communal sharing and cooperation existed under a brotherhood of mutual tolerance. On Anarres there are no laws, no property, no governors, no nations, no money, no marriage, no police, no prisons. In creating laws they believed they would create crime and the need for police and prisons, to have property, money, a sense of ownership would inevitably lead to a division among men- once again there would be upper, middle, and lower classes.

“A child free from the guilt of ownership and

the burden of economic competition will grow up with the will to do what needs doing and the capacity for joy in doing it.” (p. 247)

However, Shevek, a physicist born 200 years after Anarres’s colonization, finds himself an exile in a world designed to be without exiles. He is a genius that has developed a theory to make instantaneous communication across space a reality. As he continues to develop his theory Shevek finds himself trapped by the de facto bureaucracy that has evolved on Anarres. Shevek's theories diverge radically from conventional Anarresti physics, are not welcome by the other scientists and while he is not prohibited from exploring them he is ignored and ostracized, left unable obtain the resources he needs. Based upon the assertion of custom and the pressure to conform, Anarres’s de facto bureaucracy eventually drives Shevek into exiling himself away to Urras. Here he believes he can continue his research in peace a perhaps bring the people of both planets closer together. Despite his enthusiasm, Shevek finds that instead of having a love for science and a desire for knowledge, the scientists of Urras only want power and wealth. They seek to use this knowledge to dominate not only Urras but the other planets as well.

“The State recognizes no coinage but power: and it issues the coins itself.” (272)

In case you haven’t finished reading the book I’ll refrain from telling you how it ends but suffice to say that Shevek finds surprising solutions for his dilemmas. I really enjoyed this novel, it was definitely a heavy read but Le Guin’s style allows the complex topics to flow from the novel into the reader. I hope most of you feel the same and I can’t wait to further discuss The Dispossessed in class next week!

Thou Art God

This is my first attempt at writing a blog. In fact I have never even read a blog until a couple of weeks ago when I started to prepare for this assignment. So I am not really sure how to go about this but here it goes.

The book A Stranger in a Strange land by Robert Heinlein is the story of Valentine Michal Smith. Smith is born on Mars and raised by Martians. He has no contact with any humans until he is in his twenties, when a group of humans bring him back to earth. On Mars religion does not exist so Mike struggles to understand it. The main religion of the world in the book is that of the fosterites, an off shoot of Christianity. The fosterites view of morality is a relativist one a person can do whatever they want if it makes them happy. That is as long they join and believe in the religion. After a long time of trying to understand religion Mike finally “groks”(a Martian word for understand with your whole being) the concept. Smith relates the views of the fosterites to the Martian concept of “thou art god.”

Michal eventually creates a religion, based off of the idea thou art god. Smith really views it as more of a philosophy than a religion. He masks it as religion so it can appeal to more people. The author gives Mike and his preaching much similarity to that of Jesus Christ. Mike was born on mars and raised there making his birth as unique as the immaculate conception of Jesus. Like Christ, Mike also preaches a message of peace and love. Mike’s water brothers can be related to Jesus’s Apostles. Mike and Jesus both perform miracles. In the end Mike and Jesus go willingly to their deaths at the hands of angry mobs. I think A Stranger in A Strange Land is a futuristic retelling of Jesus Christ’s story.

Thou art God is an interesting concept to me. In the book Smith says I am god and you are god all that groks is god. I think the meaning of this statement is that God is being who understands everything completely and therefore is a part of everything. If a corporate being groks God then they are part of god.

I think Robert Heinlein has a few points to make about religion in this novel. One can be seen in the similarities between Michal Valentine Smith and Jesus Christ. I think the author re-tells the story of Jesus this way to make fun of how seriously people take religion. I believe he is also pointing out the dangers of religious fanatics. People who believe they have the one and only truth of the nature of God and try to force others to believe what they do. I think another point can be seen in the statement thou art god. I think the author point in this statement is that people should put aside their religious beliefs and try to understand one another. If all people perfectly understood each other no one would have any reason for hurting others or doing wrong.

So to sum up everything I think Robert Heinlein’s views on religion and morality are expressed in A Stranger in A strange land. His view on religion is not to take it too seriously. His views on morality understand others better, and the world will be a much better place.

Thank you,

Christopher Rock

Electric Totems

Electric Totems

The world of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is devoid of life. Philip K. Dick tells the story of a dystopian future through the story of Rick Deckard, a blade runner. Deckard destroys androids for a living. One of the critical themes in the novella is humanities relationship with animals. The animals of their world are few and far between and many people have to make do with what they call ‘electric’ animals. And, in many of the instances where an animal is the focal point of Deckard’s attention there in it lies the reflection of the current state of the story.

Sheep are a symbol of rebirth and fertility in many cultures. During the spring festival of Imbolc the sheep was associated with the Celtic goddess Brigit. In the book of Revelations the sheep, or lamb, is associated with Jesus Christ. However, from the start the sheep that Rick Deckard owns is an ‘electric’ replacement for Groucho his long dead sheep. In this way, Dick is setting up the backdrop of a world devoid of life utterly. Incapable of subverting the tide of decay on the planet, humanity has set up a mockery of life. The ‘electric’ nature of Deckard’s sheep is a tool for Dick to show the hopelessness of this future.

Horses are symbols of freedom and stamina. They are creatures of power such as Sleipnir and Pegasus. The majestic beauty of the horse in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep may have paled in comparison to our world’s horse, but to Deckard it is a deep yearning.. It represented real living freedom to him something he feel he is without. It represents the final hope in a dark chaotic world filled with despair. And his friend Barbour has a pregnant one. This is another way in which Dick lays the framework for Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

Owls are birds of the night. They have insight when things are obscured. Whether ascribed to the goddess Athene or a Roman harbinger of destruction, owls represent the final revelation of truth beyond the veil. Accordingly, during the scene when Deckard inquires with Rachael Rosen an owl is present. Rick Deckard desires the exotic animal. In this way, we see his desire for insight. The Rosen Association through Rachael wishes to obscure her true identity. But, Deckard see’s through her obfuscation and reveals that she is an andy. Subsequently, Rachael Rosen proves later to be the harbinger of destruction for Deckard’s goat.

Goats are a stubborn breed the lack foresight in their unyielding existence. They are symbols of surefootedness and stubbornness. Also, it is a symbol of lust like the god Pan. In Judaism the goat is considered clean and pure. In both ways is Deckard’s goat a symbol for his place in the story. Recently returning for retiring a few andys, Deckard feels over indulgent and needlessly purchases the goat with all of his money. His lust for something alive is overwhelming. However, Deckard like the goat has not retained his foresight and both pay for it later. Afterward, when Rachael Rosen reveals she has killed Deckard’s goat it he loses his emotional footing. Without the goat Deckard becomes lost.

Toads represent a change of luck through adversity. They are creatures that court via sound and represent altered states of consciousness. Toads are also symbols of longevity. In all these ways, can we find similarities to Rick Deckard’s final journey throughout the novella. After destroying all his marks Deckard is left questioning his relationship with what he hunts. He roams the desert searching for his deific Mercer and in the barrens he discovers a toad. He rushes to his home to share his discovery with his wife. However, she reveals it to be an ‘electric’ toad. Yet, the toad has already served its purpose even in the lie of this future. It has instilled an altered state of mind for Rick and has reopened the silent relationship between him and his estranged wife. And, through the trials of his story Deckard has instilled in himself the humanity to go on.

The final analysis, is that Philip K. Dick must have chosen these animals for a reason. A simple glimpse across the internet and a careful eye can draw these similarities. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K. Dick uses totemic imagery to evoke an emotion from the reader. He utilizes animistic symbolism to convey the overall conceptual themes of scenes and characters.