"...whatever hopes the crew may have cherished of escaping social turmoil faded en route."
-Sandra Miesel IN Poul Anderson, The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volume " (Riverdale, NY, February 2018), p. 90.
And why was that? Miesel continues:
"Being human, they still carried the trait for conflict within them like an uncorrectable genetic flaw." (ibid.)
No, they did not. Or, to speak more scientifically, that was not put the test. I write now from memories of having read "The Troublemakers" more than once before. About to reread it, I will be able to look out for any details previously missed or not remembered although tomorrow rereading will be interrupted by my monthly visit to Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop when we watch superhero films and discuss the world.
For now, from memory: the planners of the interstellar voyage applied psychodynamics. They deliberately divided the crew into social groups and classes with different powers, privileges, inequalities, deprivations etc. The idea was that this situation would generate resentments, conflicts and power grabs but that these would be manageable, thus preventing the kind of all-destructive Mutiny that had happened in Robert Heinlein's earlier generation ship.
Maybe so. But, since conflict was deliberately built into the social structure of the Pioneer, it makes no sense to suggest that a "trait for conflict" was present in any case. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. No one tried to find out. A crew could have been selected, their activities could have been planned and much more harmonious relationships could have been established from the outset. If, then, conflict nevertheless broke out, a team of psychodynamicists within the crew would have been able to learn something about what went wrong and why. Any "traits" could have been identified, not just assumed.
To cause conflict and then to say that that conflict was inevitable in any case would be one massive ideological preconception, non sequitur and example of circular reasoning.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And there would have been no need for these "planners" to deliberately arrange for social stratification and conflicts. Humans are perfectly capable of doing such things with no need for prompting. That's exactly what I expect to find in any human society.
Ad astra! Sean
Conflict -is- a genetic instinct.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that drive or urge for violence/conflict can show up unexpectedly in anybody at any time in unpredictable ways. Another reason for dismissing Utopianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It does not show up unexpectedly in anybody at any time in unpredictable ways. There are many people in whom it never shows up. Certain conditions bring out violence.
If "Utopianism" is impossible, then of course it should be dismissed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not true, it does and can happen in unexpected ways--and it can happen to anybody. Including the most unlikely persons.
And I do dismiss Utopianism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know you dismiss Utopianism! I do too if it means something impossible. Meanwhile, we have to discuss what is possible and that certainly goes beyond what exists here and now.
You speak in generalities and abstractions. Give us some examples of even the most unlikely persons becoming unexpectedly violent. Might my daughter who cares for her daughter suddenly attack her for no reason? And, if you can find some examples of such unlikely events, how frequent are they?
Paul.
Post a Comment