Kill All the Bugs
I really liked Ender's Game, but I had a huge problem with Ender's killer instinct. I was interested in the explanations that Rachel and Andrew were advancing for this, one, that Ender was trying to avoid having to hurt others, and, alternately, that Ender was trying to make everyone stop bothering him. I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle, that Ender was trying to avoid having to deal with these issues again, which would make him hurt others, possibly at the extent of getting hurt himself.
However, I still am not really satisfied with the claim that his actions were, therefore, justified. Although he didn't intentionally kill Stilson or Bonzo, he knew before he made his final blows, that they were already defeated, and he couldn't stop himself. Of course, in the case of Bonzo, at least, we know that it was the nasal blow that sent bone splinters into his skull and killed him, not any of the other injuries, although they can't have helped. But that does not excuse Ender either. If Ender's intention was to humiliate Bonzo enough so he would stay away, but not to kill him, than he should have used only enough force to injure him, perhaps knock him out. A boy with Ender's physical control should know precisely the amount of force he is using and what it will do. I personally think that Ender may have known, subconciously, that he was killing Bonzo, and meant to do it.
I am also against the complete annihilation of the Buggers, although, in that case, I do not really hold Ender responsible. His goal was to get himself out of the game, and he didn't realize it was a real fight. (Unless he realized that subconciously as well, which is certainly possible.) In this case, I take more issue with the adults manipulating him. They knew that eliminating all the Buggers, including civilians was morally wrong. This is clearly demonstrated by Mazer's reaction when Ender asks if he can use the Little Doctor on the planet (p. 290-3); he cannot bring himself to say that it is acceptable, and tells Ender to make his own decision. By not telling Ender that the "simulations" were real battles or giving him guidance on the fate of the planet, Mazer and the other adults were trying to distance themselves from the guilt of having wiped out an entire sentient race. They know that it is morally inexcusable, so they are trying to build a sheild of "not me" around themselves.
I know that many in class will disagree with my claim that killing the Buggers is unacceptable. They feel that the attack was carried out in self-defense, but that is clearly not true. After the second Bugger war, it may have been rational to build a fleet and send them towards the Bugger homeworlds, in order to forestall an attack, but by the time that the ships reached the other planets, it was clear that the Buggers were not going to attack. It was therefore unneccesary to actually carry-through with the war. The humans might have kept ships near the Buggers to protect Earth, or kept an advanced military in the area directly around earth, but just wiping out the race which obviously had decided to mind it's own business was unnecessary cruelty and morally reprehensible.
Bugs and Buggers
At the beginning of the semester, I blogged about the proliferation of bipedal aliens at the expense of any imagination about possible alternate evolutions. In the past week, I've come to regret my impatience. What is up with bugs? Why is there an obsession with highly evolved bugs with centralized brains? In particular, why is there an obsession with wiping out highly evolved bugs with centralized brains?
I guess that can be my new pet peeve. When the aliens are bipedal, we can all just get along (AKA The Dispossessed), but with bugs we need to wipe them out. I can here the admiral of a starfleet saying, "Oh, no, more buglike alienas, get me my intergalactic can of Raid!!" Seriously. Because we're not big fans of bugs on earth, that means we have to wipe out anything in the universe that resembles an earth-bug?
It reminds me of one time when I went to camp with some friends. We all had mosquito netting (summer in New England), but one of my friends took hers down as soon as her parents left, insisting she preferred to sleep without it. Then, when we went to bed, she started screaming because there was a spider above her bed and wanted one of us to rescue her. I feel like all the humans in the stories we read this week are acting the same way: they saw a bug and now they want someone to kill it because it's gonna hurt them. Granted, these bugs haven't been the nicest crowd, but still.
Our story so far... "If a humanoid alien comes to your planet, that's ok. If he looks like a bug, KILL IT! KILL IT! OH, KILL IT! EWW, IT'S GROSS!! IT TOUCHED ME! I THINK IT'S POISONOUS!! KILL IT!"
Humanity and Judaism
Ok, I'll admit it. I felt a little like my personal humanity was being threatened Tuesday. When we delved into a discussion of the relative humanity of children produced by fertilization techniques and Ceasarian sections. I wanted to defend my own right to be alive and considered human. I always felt a sense of pride when I read Macbeth- "Look at me, I'm just like the hero, I'm a good person!" Professor Jackson pointed out what I didn't want to admit- MacDuff's birth made him something that wasn't wuite human by the standards of those around him. Of course, I understand that many in the rooom would probably have been dehumanized if we'd actually adopted a standard that eliminated fertilized and Caesarian babies... but nevertheless...
I also wanted to talk a little bit more about the use of Judaism for the characters in He, She and It. After class, I asked two of my Jewish friends (totally unpracticing, un-Bar Mitzvahed, terrible Jews from a religious perspective) whether they thought that being Jewish played a bigger role in informing their identity then being Christian did for those around them (say me, baptized, confirmed, somewhat practicing). After making a joke about Yod ("A Jewish cyborg? Twice the accounting power!"), they said, "Of course." They went on to add that being in a minority always makes that minority classification a bigger part of a person's identity, because cultural traditions of the majority are built into society's expectations.
This brings me to two points about the importance of Judaism in the book. First, since the world is divided into multis who expect and are expected to determine the religion of their employees, the importance of Judaism to Shira is key. Jewish practices were made part of her identity at home in a town where Judaism was taken for granted, but removed from that environment she continues the traditions of her religion. It becomes a concious part of her identity, even encouraing her to marry Josh, whose Jewishness attracts her with a sense of kinship. Secondly, since most of the story takes Jewish practices and language for granted, Judaism serves to give the (non-Jewish) reder a sense of alienation. In short, Piercy has turned the tables making those mainstream in modern American culture outsiders, and the outsiders insiders.
Sexuality
I have noticed that almost all the books we have read have a tendency to play with the use and connotation of sexuality in society. Common morality concerning homosexuality, bisexuality, monogamy, etc. are all grounds for manipulation and experimentation. The book/movie for this week continued that trend and introduced the new concept of human-nonhuman sexual contact.
In particular, I percieved the manipulation of sexuality and sexual roles in He, She, and It, which I guess is not surprising considering the title. The method of imbuing sexuality and sexual capabilities onto nonhuman creatures, such as Joseph and Yod, provided a new dimension for shaking up common beliefs about sexuality. The use of stimmies, and net-based flirtations were also important elements of divorcing sex and sexuality from any role in forming an interpersonal bond between people. There was also a sense of transient sexuality depending on the environment, with different multis idolizing different sexual proclivities.
I also think that the role of sex was different because of the different emphasis on conception, and the different biological situation surrounding conception. "Like every other girl in Tikva, [Shira] had been given an implant at puberty to prevent pregnancy" (42), and this is a vital difference in the attitude towards sexuality, I believe. In that society, a male and female do not need to take any proactive steps to prevent conception. Rather, they would need to do something to cause conception, perhaps even engage in expensive fertility treatments, since radiation has rendered many infertile. Without the danger of unwanted pregnancies, the entire meaning and implication of sex changes, and individuals are able to be more free with their sexuality, because they are more free from the consequences. This is also true of cyborg and stimmie sex.
I believe that the desire to play with sexuality and sexual mores is an irresistable one for science fiction writers. We have seen it in all the books we read: the free homo and hetero-sexual pairing in The Dispossessed, the lunar marraige customs of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the concubines and wives of Dune and the pregnancy permits of The Gods Themselves. I have also seen it in other, less serious, science fiction, for example the orgasm machine in Woody Allen's Sleeper. Because sex and sexuality are important parts of human lives even when they are kept underground by the society, and because they have changed greatly over the course of history, I think the temptation to try altering them again is strong. However, it is interesting to observe that all these works (arguably, except Dune) suggest a freeing of sexual mores and the emergence of a less prudish, less monogamistic society. If they are experimenting with a fundamental part of human society, why do they all foresee the same changes?
drowning
Any article that uses the phrases "flaccid premonitions" and "phallic mothers" should be drowned at birth.
Paradigm vs. Theory
I wanted to use this entry to expand on my reasoning for concluding that those concepts we refer to as "paradigms" in social science, specifically IR, are not paradigms under a Kuhnian conception. In Kuhn's explanation, paradigms are universally accepted, irreconcilable, theories about how the world, or a particular phenomenon, works. In order to be a practitioner of a certain area of scientific study, one has to adhere to this paradigm. In times of controversy and revolution, it is possible for adherants of multiple paradigms to coexist; however, one paradigm must gradually win out, forcing others into obscurity and forcing those who refuse to accept the dominant paradigm out of the field of science.
Clearly, that is not how "paradigms" fundtion in international relations. Just because neo-liberalism exists and has become widely accepted, does not mean that all eralists must convert to neo-liberalism in order to continue as social scientists. (Indeed, prominent realists can still be seen in public life in positions such as Secretary of State.) Since multiple theories can exist and be practiced at once with relative credibility, and can sometimes be blended into a new middle paradigm in the practice of an individual or group. This leads to two conclusions about social science in relationship to Kuhn's theories: 1) social science is not a "science" and 2) social science theories are not paradigms.
Of course, my conclusions, logical as they seem to me, are in direct opposition to the belifs of many leading social scientists as I feel I should defend/clarify them somewhat. First, my conclusions only state that social science and social science "paradigms" do not fit the strict Kuhnian definition of science and paradigm. I do not intend to say that Kuhn's works and conclusions do not have valuable applications in and lessons for social science. His way of thinking about paradigms and paradigm shifts can still say important things about how the world and human psychology works. Furthermore, it is possible that some of these social scientists may later adopt a universal paradigm, and convert to a more "scientific" method of practice. In this case, they could, potentially begin to be "sciences" in Kuhn's definition and we would, in retrospect, view this current period of proliferating theories as a pre-paradigmatic era such as the ones that existed in natural or hard sciences in the early days of their development.
The Irony of "Scientific Revolutions"
I will admit that when I initially started The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I was not particularly drawn in. However, when I arrived home for Spring Break, my parents found the book on the table. Apparently, they have both read it, so they gave me a lecture about its vital importance to understanding the changes in the social system... Anyway, I started again with renewed interest, but I got bogged down again.
After careful consideration, I think I have determined the central problem for me, as a non-scientist, trying to read this book. It is, as I'm sure others have discovered, that I don't know anything about the scientific revolutions that he uses to illustrate his points. As he natters on about the gradual evolution of the Leyden jar, I'm reading along thinking, "What in the name of Tarnation is a Leydon jar, what does it do, and why do I care!!" Although I can understand the larger points that he is making, and their application to the wider world (at least I think I do), I slow way down as I try to make it through pages of examples I don't understand illustrating his points.
I find the difficulty of understanding the book ironic. Kuhn's book purports to be about the process of shifting between scientific paradigms, and he claims that old paradigms, although rejected by modern science still have validity in the context in which they were created. He also mentions that science frowns on the writing of books for the lay audience. Since his is supposed to be a cross-paradigmatic book, it should escape from the constrains of writing for a scientifically-informed audience, especially because he claims no such audience exists. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be able to escape from the confines of his field's convention, and he too falls into the trap of writing exclusively for an audience that knows what he's talking about.
(BTW, can someone explain a Leyden Jar?)
