Hans Rusch, Margrave of Drakenstane on Norstrad, is descended from a rough lot, miners, fishermen and hunters of red-haired ice apes on glaciers. His Queen, descended from gentler equatorial farmers, derides their culture as serfs and war-loving aristocrats with nothing but folk art, music etc.
Rusch comments:
"'Even if the democratic assumption - that the eternal verities can be discovered by counting enough noses - were true...you cannot repeal eight hundred years of history by decree.'" (p. 166)
He is wrong about democracy but right about history. Need we reply to his parody of democracy? Democrats do not discover scientific laws by voting on them but decide how much of the common wealth should be invested in scientific research. However, as Marx said, men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing.
Queen Ingra rightly replies that it is possible to work towards change and adds that:
"'...Earth could send psychotechnic advisors...'" (ibid)
- so psychotechnics has been developed in this timeline also. Much futuristic fiction relies on common reference points.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I would not scorn folk art, music, poetry, etc. After all, that is how we got such masterpieces as BEOWULF and THE SONG OF ROLAND.
AND I think the Margrave is only partly wrong about democracy, however that word is defined. I have read about and seen too much corruption, foolishness, stupidities, follies, cruelties, etc., perpetrated by democrats to believe that type of government is perfect. It's mere better than others.
And I would prefer that not all scientific research be funded by the state, any kind of state. My view is that it is better that purely private patrons or organizations also have a hand in supporting the sciences.
I think both Margrave Hans and the Queen Regent agree that change has to be gradual and cautious. Far too much harm has been done in too many countries by hasty, ill thought out, or violently imposed changes.
And that mention of "psychotechnic advisors" is itself a sign telling alert readers that "Among Thieves" belongs to Anderson's early phaste. By the time of his middle phase (which I dated as beginning in 1959) Anderson was plainly becoming more skeptical of notions about Asimovian predictive "sciences" of history. Which explains why Anderson either did not use "psychotechnics" in his middle phase stories or shows how flawed and unsatisfactory they were (such as in "No Truce With Kings).
You seem to have a strong interest in stories featuring "psychotechnics" and even, perhaps, wish such things were feasible.
Sean
Sean,
The idea is interesting but I think that it is collective action that changes society, not government policies based on psychotechnic analyses.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not just "collective action," which is a vague term needing defining. I also insist that INDIVIDUALS can change societies, for better or worse. I can think of any number of individual persons whose inventions or discoveries have changed the world. I can think of any number of leaders in war and politics who, if they had not existed, the world would have been very different, for good or ill.
Sean
Sean,
I think that social change, like evolution, is a mixture of gradualism and catastrophism. Our current British Constitution of constitutional monarchy is a Revolutionary Settlement resulting from two Revolutions and a Civil War in the 17th century. Common people fought on both sides in the Civil War. Their actions changed history.
Individuals change society because, like Archimedes, they have a lever long enough to move large masses. Alone, they can do nothing. As part of humanity, they can be pivotal.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree at once that socio/political changes, good or bad, can happen thru a mix of gradualism and catastrophism. Ditto what you said about the British constitution emerging from the Civil War and "Glorious" Revolution of the 17th century. But I do think the Royalist cause had a somewhat better case than did that of the rebel Parliament in the Civil War. But Anderson was careful to stress the wrong did not lie all with Parliament in A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST. As you said, plenty of ordinary persons fought on both sides. They did contribute to changing history.
SEan
Post a Comment