Who is the enemy?

In Ender's Game there are so many different enemies. The one that Ender is instructed to fight in the end are the bugs, the alliens who the human world is so afraid of. But in terms of the other, I would think that Ender and his jeesh are more "other" than the alliens they are fighting. These young children who have these great minds are taught tactics and battle manuvers that no normal human child would be able to do. In the effort to creat these guenius children the government created another "other" that they will eventually want to distroy. As soon as he killed all the buggers, all of the countries of the world came after him. Even though he was their hero, he disolved their united front against an attack by the buggers. He was too powerful and too good to let anyone have him. Therefore, in the minds of the normal citizens of the world Ender became that other that needed destroying.

There always needs to be a semblance of sameness within any society. We destroy or condem what is not like us because it is frightening. What if it could hurt us? What if it too is determined to destroy what they do not understand. Peter while the world does not understand him, still believes him to be a normal human being. They swapped the impressions of Ender's compassion with Peter's violence. People can empathise with someone who wants power, like Peter. Ender however, his ability to work with others and to create a coalition of young people who unwittingly destroyed an enemy is too great of an idea for people to place themsevles within. Instead, Ender becomes the other. Is it possible then, that there are always humans, always people who are others? Perhaps the Jews? Albanians? The other is simply what we ourselves do not understand within our own ignorance. It doesnt need to be an alien for us to desire to anihilate it.

Who is the creator?

From our discussion in class about the creators of both Yod and Joseph, I have been thinking about the differenctiation between men and women doing the creating. While the male representatives in the novel did put the pieces of the two new beings together, it was really the women who gave them their personalities. This is not to say that men do not have personalities in real life, but in this novel the women seem much more in touch with who they are and their specific problems, much more so than the men. For example we hear from Shira and her grandmother about their fears in terms of how they used to be and how they are reacting in the current world. We even hear about the the creations interact with the world. In the case of the male creators, we never hear about their fears and worries unless the women and creations are discussing them. IT is as if the women are the means by which men and machien communicate. The women have deep personalities while the men appear to have very basic supperficial modes of being. I think this is most apperant with Gadi, who cannot create anything. Not only does he not create a cyborg nor a human child, but he is also incapible of having a real relationship with women. He is stuck in a childish stage based soley off of sensory perception. Everything he becomes involved with turns sour and brings about trouble. Gadi's creations are the vids that people plug themsevles into in order to feel good. He is not interested in life, only feelings.
Even so, in this desire to feel pleasure Gadi is more closely related to the female creators than the male. He at least wants to feel soemthing rather than create a tool to accomplish any ends. While Avram wants something that will protect him, Shira's relationship to Yod is not to that of a tool. Though she does use him for sexual favors and to help her retrieve her stolen child, it is her emtions that make an impact on Yod. She treates him as a sentient being eventually, and becomes attached to him, just as Gadi is attached to pleasurable senses. Would Gadi have been a better male creator than the other men in Shira's life? They were best friends, and held a true passionate love at least for a little while. While it does appear that Gadi used Shira as a tool to impliment his sexual pleasure early on as a child, he did have some attachment to her. Im not sure that the emotional side of Gadi would be enough to make him like a female creator in the way the author was suggesting. He was too in love with himself to make room for other people. While he did thrive in pleasure, he did not care to share that with anyone. It was the sharing that made Shira and her grandmother different from the other creators. Avram and Juda were selfish, with purpose built into life. They held no intention of sharing their human like toys. Gadi had no intention in sharing his love. The women not only created, but they shared and partook of the enjoyments that accompany being emotional creatures.

Sexuality of the sexes

Something that I found very interesting was the different sexual desires of the different character in the novel. Shira is totally locked up and scared of sex toward the beginning of the novel while her grandmother has had so many sexual encounters that she cannot count them all. Similar to Shira is Avram since his wife passed on his sexual abilities appear to have vanished with her. Gadi appears to be stuck in his love life as a teenager as he surrounds himself with a crowd of them while targeting them as sexual objects. Last but not least there is Yod, who has a new sexual hunger that appears to be unquenchable. That Yod is Malkah's last sexual encounter and Shira's sexual reawakening is important, like the dying of an old era to make room for a new one.
Beyond the differences of the apparent sexes, Yod the cyborg is more interested in sexual encounters than any of the humans. I do not think it follows his same desire to learn about the world around him. If that were the case he would just want to experience it once. Instead he desires Shira, pursues her, for another sexual experience. He is addicted to pleasure, just as a human beings can be. As Russ mentioned, there is a line on page 93 where Yod says "I am conscious of my existence". Since that is Descartes major qualification for being a human being, I am a little confused as to what makes Yod not a human being. His sexuality would therefore be rational, and all his desires to learn, even to kill sometimes. This thought is not yet complete, but it is hard to define what is a human being, and I'm not sure that I am prepared here to give a complete definition of one. Anyone have any additional thoughts?

So what IS human anyway?

We've sure had this theme in quite a few books so far. There was the question of just what exactly constituted being alive in TMIAHM. (Parenthetically, whether or not Paul was "human" was drawn into question at the beginning of Dune, though for different reasons than we're talking about here). And now He, She and It, with its strong themes of creator-created, the nature of being alive, etc.

The modern age just seems to have compelled a lot of writers (particularly sci-fi writers) to ponder this question and explore it in their works. I think the idea of creating something that is essentially the equal to a human on metaphysical terms (Yod's got this great Descartian line about thinking, therefore being) is something that has bothered most thinkers since it's become plausible with the advent of the age of robotics (and cloning, for that matter). Playing God just touches a really ugly, scary spot for a lot of people, for understandable reasons.

I have to leave this post here for now, but I'll come back and post more soon.

The power of tradition in Dune

I hinted at this in some of my earlier posts. I think the "leading/power through tradition" point that Weber brings up is perhaps the most applicable one to the case of Dune. The economics of survival in Fremen society have forced a very strict adherence to certain rituals -- both of day to day goings-on and of the more religious kind. Fremen society seems to be almost fundamentally based on the repetition of these rituals, seemingly as a means to pound it into the heads of all Fremens how precious their lives (and their water) really are, the importance of thrift and diligence, etc. Necessity is -- I feel almost without argument -- the single most powerful factor in the formation of societies, of beliefs, of rituals, etc. The survival instinct, our strongest instinct of all, is fundamentally honed in to necessity, and expresses this as often as possible.

Paul's legitimacy as a leader of the Fremen people is then an extension of this spirit. The rituals of supremacy, or whatever you want to call them, have clearly developed historically in a way to weed out the strongest and the smartest -- a tried and true way to assure that the race will be led as effectively as possible, in a way that best utilizes precious resources, both human and liquid.

What kind of leader was Kynes?

In class, we talked about a distinction between a "charismatic" leader and a "logical" leader. We did not, however, talk about Kynes, and I think looking at his (and his father's) leadership of the Fremen provides an interesting study of leadership.

First, I want to make it clear that Kynes' leadership is neither of Weber's two other types: he does not rule by tradition, as the Fremen's tradition is not that of the Empire; and though he rules by legality as Imperial Planetologist, it's not a government that the Fremen necessarily recognize, and thus not relevant to Kynes' rule among them.

Therefore, Kynes would be what Weber would qualify as a "charismatic" leader. However, as we discussed in class, there is perhaps a sister or sub-classification to charisma: logic. I would argue that Kynes rules through logic, not charisma. He (and his father) use scientific explanations, as well as the proof provided by limited experimentation, to convince the Fremen to embark upon a journey that would take a dozen generations to complete.

It's a dream that must last long past its original rulers - long past when Kynes' father and Kynes himself have died. I argue that the rule provided by a charismatic leader often dies when that ruler dies; yet as the dream of a watery Dune is pushed by logic, not just charisma, and will live on through the generations.

Power through Legality or the Biggest Baddest Dude

After thinking about our conversation on what makes a more powerful leader, I am still unsure what is the most effective way to gain power. In America our system seems to be completely controlled through legal issues in terms of who gains the presidency or makes it into any office, its through the electorate. At the same time, why do other country's cooperate with the U.S.? I do not believe it is from our mind boggling and impressive legal system. Instead, I think our nukes and big guns make us the biggest baddest dude out there. No one wants to mess with "the Dude". Legal systems can be shifted to introduce new ideas but when someone has bigger guns, there is not much you can do if he does not like you.
As we noted, in the case of Dune Paul makes use of both these elements to prove his legitimacy. This leads me to wonder, because Paul's status as Duke was built up through his family line and his abilities as a mentat brought out through his mothers teachings, can legitimacy be induced within an individual? Eventually, a person could acquire training in powerful fighting techniques and gain connections through powerful friends. But even if someone gains legitimacy through legal issues, not everyone will believe that person. Legitimacy only works if everyone follows that political system. When that system fails, legitimacy shifts hands. The biggest baddest dude will remain in his status until someone eliminates him entirely. Even if his arsenal were destroyed, his reputation would precede him and would still open doors. Therefore, while Weber was a fan of the political legitimacy idea, I think he would quickly change his mind if he were to encounter "the Dude".