I read an article the other day that was thought provoking for a variety of reasons. I clicked on it for the title, of course ("Sci-Fi, Fantasy and the Status Quo"). I stayed with it despite the discussion on Hillary Clinton. Or perhaps because of it. It was one of those articles I didn't necessarily agree with, but didn't necessarily disagree with either.
I know I've wondered, myself, at the appeal of monarchy in the sci-fi/fantasy world...though I assumed it had to do with making relatable characters. That is, it's kind of hard to have a hero off fighting the evils of bureacracy. And it's hard to make a President quite as much of a character as a King or Queen.
I've also wondered, sometimes, at (what sometimes appears to be the left's) obsession with creating dynasties. That is, the Kennedy family seemed to keep coming up in politics ever since JFK, and now we've got the Clintons. Whereas Reagan, revered by the right though he is, has not had his children enter politics. So far as I know. I have to admit, while there may be more political dynasties than I'm really aware of (families more under the radar unless you know who is who) I've always thought the presumption on a family name to smack of something - unAmerican. Like aristocracy or something. Yes, we had John Adams and John Quincy Adams; George Bush and George W. Bush. And FDR was related to Teddy Roosevelt to a certain degree. That's quite enough, to be honest. (I also wonder about that article some time ago, how Democratic donors met and decided to back Kamala Harris. I haven't fully made up my mind on her yet, but it seems sort of premature/presumptuous and a sign that the Democrats haven't really learned that it's a mistake to crown someone 'heir' before we've even started the primaries. I dunno, I suppose I can't blame them for doing what they can given their political preferences and resources, but it again smacks of the oligarchy I'm afraid we're becoming.)
But those are all sidebars to conversation I wanted to have. Namely, the point this article made that science fiction and fantasy are the art of the impossible. I could make my own guesses as to why dystopian fantasy is so appealing right now, but again it's not the discussion I wanted to have.
See, I've sometimes thought about how capitalism is just one more 'ism in the world's history. That is, we had feudalism, we had the Roman system (with it's slaves), and there's no reason to believe capitalism is the end all and be all in terms of socio-economic structures.
The problem with having this conversation, however, is that it is bogged down in all the Cold War baggage. That is, the fight between capitalism and communism has made it pretty much impossible to suggest alternatives without sounding like you are, again, unAmerican (since support for capitalism goes hand in hand with being American) or a commie, or what-have-you.
And to be honest, there are some things I think capitalism does very well. Better than some. I kind of like having continuously better technology. Smarter, faster smartphones and computers that can store all kinds of things. I see the importance of incentivizing people by allowing them to benefit from the risks involved in building a business, investing, researching, etc.
Yet I feel like the Cold War era politics have made it impossible to discuss some of the flaws in our socio-economic system. The loneliness endemic to our modern way of life. The throw-away-culture that doesn't bother learning how to make things last.
And the perennial challenges of fairness, justice, and the distribution of power. That is, do we truly have a level playing field when certain companies dominate their industries to an overwhelming degree? And how can we say it's a meritocracy when so many people are disadvantaged in terms of their school choices and more, all before they've even reached maturity? (That's not even getting into larger issues).
The funny thing is, the critiques are not actually new to me. I learned some of them through the Catholic schools my parents sent me to, where we were taught how sad it is that our pop culture is so focused on superficial things (like appearances, designer clothes, etc.)
Which happens to be some of the same criticisms the jihadists have of Western society, tbh. See, while I vehemently disagree with their tactics and old-school beliefs (killing innocent people, believing women should wear veils, etc) I do see the appeal of trying to build a community dedicated to serving God (i.e. "Muslim" means "one who submits or serves God", shari'a law is supposed to describe the path required to build a community of faith. There are different interpretations of all of this, though the hardcore jihadists tend to believe the harsher, less forgiving, and more brutal forms.)
I underlined, bolded, and italicized 'community' because that's the key draw, I think. The thing we ourselves (and outsiders) see missing in our modern society. That loss of connection. And the importance of serving something greater than ourselves, though I don't necessarily feel it has to be God. Or rather, there are very good historical reasons why we have a separation of church and state and I don't feel like repeating the religious wars of the 1600's, so I'm emphasizing the universal bits. Humans are social, and they need to feel a sense of purpose.
So if we accept the criticism from the article I originally linked to, if we say that science fiction/fantasy is the art of the impossible and that we should let our imagines run wild, to picture what could be (but isn't), what would I come up with?
I know I've wondered, myself, at the appeal of monarchy in the sci-fi/fantasy world...though I assumed it had to do with making relatable characters. That is, it's kind of hard to have a hero off fighting the evils of bureacracy. And it's hard to make a President quite as much of a character as a King or Queen.
I've also wondered, sometimes, at (what sometimes appears to be the left's) obsession with creating dynasties. That is, the Kennedy family seemed to keep coming up in politics ever since JFK, and now we've got the Clintons. Whereas Reagan, revered by the right though he is, has not had his children enter politics. So far as I know. I have to admit, while there may be more political dynasties than I'm really aware of (families more under the radar unless you know who is who) I've always thought the presumption on a family name to smack of something - unAmerican. Like aristocracy or something. Yes, we had John Adams and John Quincy Adams; George Bush and George W. Bush. And FDR was related to Teddy Roosevelt to a certain degree. That's quite enough, to be honest. (I also wonder about that article some time ago, how Democratic donors met and decided to back Kamala Harris. I haven't fully made up my mind on her yet, but it seems sort of premature/presumptuous and a sign that the Democrats haven't really learned that it's a mistake to crown someone 'heir' before we've even started the primaries. I dunno, I suppose I can't blame them for doing what they can given their political preferences and resources, but it again smacks of the oligarchy I'm afraid we're becoming.)
But those are all sidebars to conversation I wanted to have. Namely, the point this article made that science fiction and fantasy are the art of the impossible. I could make my own guesses as to why dystopian fantasy is so appealing right now, but again it's not the discussion I wanted to have.
See, I've sometimes thought about how capitalism is just one more 'ism in the world's history. That is, we had feudalism, we had the Roman system (with it's slaves), and there's no reason to believe capitalism is the end all and be all in terms of socio-economic structures.
The problem with having this conversation, however, is that it is bogged down in all the Cold War baggage. That is, the fight between capitalism and communism has made it pretty much impossible to suggest alternatives without sounding like you are, again, unAmerican (since support for capitalism goes hand in hand with being American) or a commie, or what-have-you.
And to be honest, there are some things I think capitalism does very well. Better than some. I kind of like having continuously better technology. Smarter, faster smartphones and computers that can store all kinds of things. I see the importance of incentivizing people by allowing them to benefit from the risks involved in building a business, investing, researching, etc.
Yet I feel like the Cold War era politics have made it impossible to discuss some of the flaws in our socio-economic system. The loneliness endemic to our modern way of life. The throw-away-culture that doesn't bother learning how to make things last.
And the perennial challenges of fairness, justice, and the distribution of power. That is, do we truly have a level playing field when certain companies dominate their industries to an overwhelming degree? And how can we say it's a meritocracy when so many people are disadvantaged in terms of their school choices and more, all before they've even reached maturity? (That's not even getting into larger issues).
The funny thing is, the critiques are not actually new to me. I learned some of them through the Catholic schools my parents sent me to, where we were taught how sad it is that our pop culture is so focused on superficial things (like appearances, designer clothes, etc.)
Which happens to be some of the same criticisms the jihadists have of Western society, tbh. See, while I vehemently disagree with their tactics and old-school beliefs (killing innocent people, believing women should wear veils, etc) I do see the appeal of trying to build a community dedicated to serving God (i.e. "Muslim" means "one who submits or serves God", shari'a law is supposed to describe the path required to build a community of faith. There are different interpretations of all of this, though the hardcore jihadists tend to believe the harsher, less forgiving, and more brutal forms.)
I underlined, bolded, and italicized 'community' because that's the key draw, I think. The thing we ourselves (and outsiders) see missing in our modern society. That loss of connection. And the importance of serving something greater than ourselves, though I don't necessarily feel it has to be God. Or rather, there are very good historical reasons why we have a separation of church and state and I don't feel like repeating the religious wars of the 1600's, so I'm emphasizing the universal bits. Humans are social, and they need to feel a sense of purpose.
So if we accept the criticism from the article I originally linked to, if we say that science fiction/fantasy is the art of the impossible and that we should let our imagines run wild, to picture what could be (but isn't), what would I come up with?
No comments:
Post a Comment