Cultural relativism and predation

I didn't finish reading the entirety of the novel before class (It was sold out at the campus bookstore and I couldn't find it at Borders this weekend), which is why I didn't post until now. Sorry.

I feel like we hit upon a really interesting topic when we were talking about the morality of the stystem of predation on the alien planet. That being the importance of moral relativism; to what degree are we committing a cultural mistake in judging the alien culture by our own norms of predation (namely, that it's morally wrong/sinful to eat something that is sentient). I find a few flaws with this point of view. First of all, there's a certain disanalogy between the terran food structure and that on Rakhat. Namely: THE ONLY THING "SENTIENT" ON EARTH IS US! In saying that we oppose eating anything that can talk back to us, we're really just saying we oppose cannibalism, which holds true in any species. So extending our point of view to an alien society in which this sort of predation is the norm seems somewhat inappropriate.

Second, as we talked about, is the question of moral relativism. My first argument aside, what right should a group of human travellers have to impose their own system of values upon an alien world, which has developed culturally within its own closed system and has developed a cultural/social code which seems to function efficiently and to the (general) well-being of all. Cultural relativism is, of course, often a messy subject because there seem to exist some things which one culture (western culture, for example) cannot accept as a matter of differing opinion/worldview. Murder being one. And we define murder by the killing of another sentient being (that's homicide, in humanspeak, meaning killing of the same type of being, meaning killing of another human). However, clearly in this alien society, the label "homicide" wouldn't hold as accurate. So I feel like, on Rakhat, the distinction of "sentience" is a much more trivial one than it is for us. Another species is another species. Eating is eating.

Overall, I enjoyed the novel and thought the development of chracters throughout the novel superb.

I found the scene (starting 195) where Anne performs Alan's autopsy to be particularly interesting, as it illustrates the crossroads betwen faith and science. First off, let me say that I found it to be a little cliched that the one consistently focused on throughouot the book as "the non-beliver", Anne, also happens to be a doctor. I think this is cliched because society is constantly debating the contradiction between science and religion, especially in the creationism/evolution debate. I guess I was just disappointed that the most prominent "non-believer" was involved in science. I realize that Sofia Mendes was not a Jesuit, but I don't feel that her faith was focused on with as much inensity as that of Anne's.

When DW insists that there "has got to be a reason" that Alan died, and Anne shouts, "You want a reason? God wanted him dead" (197). She continues, "Why is that so hard to accept? Why is it that God ets all the credit for the good stuff, but it's the doctor's fault when shit happens? When the patient comes through, it's always,"Thank God," and when the patient dies, it's alwas blame the doctor. Just once in my life, just for the sheer novelty of it, it would be nice if somebody blamed God when the patient dies, instead of me" (198).

This was a very pivotal scene in the book for me, as it illustrates the constant examination throughout the novel of God's nature. Anne's comment underlines the fact that many followers of religion admit to not having known God but to believing in His existence. Even Emillio admits that he has spent his life doubting and wants God to cure him of this doubt. I think one of the major points of the novel is that since "God's ways are not our own" (I am paraphrasing here, as I couldn't find the quote), God's power is not necessarily as just and fair as many believe. This is partially why Emillio insists on carrying the burden of what happened on Rakhat. He has SEEN the power of God and His power to wage both delight and suffering. It is the difference between just believing something--making assumptions and accepting dogma about in which form something exists--and actually knowing something exists.

Theme Swaps for the Jesuits

I would first like to say, Anne, I agree with you about the abrupt ending. The author did such a good job with the build up of the story line only to apperantly get bored with telling the story and just kill everyone off really quickly and have everything simply happen by conicidence. That being said...

There was something that I did not like about sending Jesuits into space. This could be because I personally have issues with the control by religion of new discovery, but it definately makes sence in the context of exploration of new beings. However, the Jesuits fail to provide their normal function in space. Though they send dedicated and intelligent men abroad, they do not attempt to push ideas of God onto the native people in any way shape or form. Anne (ThePinkDoom) mentioned that they do not try to convert Sophia, which makes sence since she has already found God, even if through another religion. There are no attempts to give religion to the Runa, but isnt that the whole reason for being sent into space, to find other children of God?

Not only that, but our protagonist who loses God tells his superiors that they cannot understand how he lost God, that they dont have any way of connecting him back to God even if he tells them what happened while he was there. When he finally tells the story, we see that he begins to heal, that he is getting stronger having been home and taking care of himself for some time. I think this is too hopeful. There should be no redemption for this man. He should remain torn, stuck in his past. He has found that God does not step in to help, he was naked before God and was then raped. Though he was a spritual man for some time, that is torn from him. Going back to God makes sence in a healing process, but in this story healing doesnt seem to fit. Healing only happens with help, and all his friends who can help him are gone. This means he has to help himself, but there is nothing individual about the themes within this book. The Runa are a collective as are the Jesuits, the exploration group, the questioners of the expaditions activities. Being alone is as if the author is giving into another theme that makes the story easy to end.

I think this story reflects on what happens when one gives themselves over to much to what they feel destined to be. There are times when you have to take responcibility for things that happen to you for no real reason. Even if you get swept up in events, one has to take responcibility. This book seems to be a failing of responcibilities. Jesuits fail to convert, Emilio fails to leave the Jesuits for Mendes, Rune fail to stand against their agressors, and the theme of togetherness fails to be maintained in the book. I wonder if the author did this on purpouse, to show that we all fail sometimes. It would be interesting if she had.

The Jesuit ideal

First off, let me say that I was severely let down by the ending of the book. Russell spends almost 400 pages building up to The Huge Reveal!!! but it turns out to be a huge letdown. Not only was the actual plot kind of weak (the reason Emilio kills Askama is... random coincidence!), but Russell's presentation is a serious anticlimax to a well-written, intense buildup - not to belittle rape, but it's pretty obvious, given his character, that Emilio's "prostitution" is involuntary, and while the circumstances are interesting, Russell portrays them in a clinical way that contrasts strongly with her earlier intensity - to the scene's detriment.

But this isn't a blog for a literary class!

I was very interested in Russell's portrayal of the Jesuit Society. She gives the impression of an ancient organization with timeless motivations - to the Jesuits, the mission to Rakhat is just another in a long history of missions to new worlds. Her Jesuit characters are selflessly motivated - Emilio just wants to make the world (worlds?) a better place, the Father General just wants to help Emilio, and even Voelker is trying to do the best thing for all of humanity.

Her priests aren't even particularly dogmatic. No one on the mission even attempts to convert Sofia - or even discuss theology with her in any depth. At various times, the Jesuits in The Sparrow refer to celibacy, the priesthood, and even belief in God as a fluid, subjective thing that works for some people at certain times. Jesus isn't much of a focus. Their attitudes are liberal, accepting, and passive.

Now, I'm not familiar with any branch of Catholicism, but Russell's priests seem to follow the Unitarian Universalist principle of encouraging and supporting each individual to find their personal spirituality (whatever that might be), rather than the usual Christian dogma that there is only one right way. Emilio and the others tend to find their faith in everyday labors, rather than prayer or supplication.

It's all very John Paul II, and differs greatly from the attitudes of Jesuit priests in Shogun, a favorite fiction of mine that follows a shipwrecked sailor through Japan around the year 1600. In this novel, the Jesuits are ambiguous characters, making morally questionable decisions in order to obtain political power in Japan. They are very different from Russell's scientific, data-first-religion-later priests.

I am skeptical not of the presence of Russell's open-minded, accepting priests that embody everything that true Christians (or true whatevers) are supposed to be. Certainly these people exist, even if they are generally overshadowed in the public consiousness by pushy, prejudiced Christians (an issue explored nicely in the latest arc of the comic Something Positive, the storyline starting here). No one criticizes the Jesuit mission for bringing back no information about faith on Rakhat, and for explaining no element of Catholicism to either the Runa or the Jana'ata. Perhaps it's merely a characteristic of the Jesuit Society, or at least Russell's fictional Society, to be more interested in academic study of new peoples than in religious conversion. But I find it improbable.

What does everyone think about the portrayal of a religious society where priests focus less on theology and more on faith, morals, and academia?

Clear distinctions

We've had a pretty hard time making Schmitt's clear distinction between "friend" and "enemy". He argues that every entity has to be one or the other; but we've wondered, does an enemy have to have a clear intent to hurt to be considered an enemy? Can global warming or a virus be an enemy? If we follow Schmitt's statement that an enemy is a similar force, than these examples are not enemies. But are they friends?

Schmitt tries to make friend/enemy an absolute, basic distinction like good/evil, beautiful/ugly - basically, black/white. He leaves little room for shades of gray. Enemies, though it is possible for a political entity to have good relations with them, are in some essential way different, and this difference makes war possible. Yet, Schmitt also states that enemies can change and become friends. Does Schmitt think that the essential nature of political enemies changes, so war is no longer possible? I think he's just covering a hole in his logic: that is, the friend/enemy distinction, just like the good/evil and beautiful/ugly distinctions, is subjective and subject to change.

If two states had been friends, and then gone to war, would Schmitt argue that they had actually been enemies on friendly terms? Or that the very nature of one country had changed so that the two were essentially different, thus making war possible? Are all foreign countries actually just enemies, with the possibility of war latent? How does one discern the nature of another nation, and how can you tell from that nature if war with a certain other country is possible or not?

I have to say, Schmitt befuddles me.

The friend vs. enemy distinction & its application

There's clearly a certain truth to Schmitt's friend vs. enemy distinction and the importance he assigns to it. This distinction is all over social science (and literature, etc.) in the form of the "other". Basically, what Schmitt seems to be describing is an advanced manifestation of the "other" conceptualization with a political application (Look at all those big words!). Schmitt limits the friend vs. enemy distinction entirely to "the political", saying that other manifestations of the other dynamic should be labeled differently in non-political situations.

So my criticism of this point-of-view is severalfold. First, Schmitt seems to have invented his own semantic system with regards to this distinction which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (maybe it has something to do with the translation, but I'm doubtful). As far as I'm concerned -- and Schmitt was unsuccessful in convincing me of the contrary -- one can conceive of anybody with similar interests as a "friend" and opposing ones as a "foe/enemy". These can be economic interests (somebody who wants to balance the budget a certain way could easily conceive of someone with a different take as an "enemy"), social ones, etc. I think Schmitt's point was that only in political circumstances does the enmity get advanced enough to describe the relationship between the two actors as a "friend vs. foe" one. But, I'm unconvinced of that. Again, it's a question of semantics, but I always have a hard time when an author makes up his own semantic system and expects me just to go along with it.

Additionally, I disagree with Schmitt's limitation of "the political" as extending only to situations in which the threat of war underlies all negotiations. Certainly this is true in the case of interaction between countries internationally, but Schmitt's definition requires us to disregard practically all intranational negotiations (except circumstances in which Civil War seems to be a potentiality). And these are the types of interactions that we generally conceive of as "politics" or "political" more than anything else. Even if you still hold that the representatives that we're referring to here represent states and populations with the means and, conceivably, the desire to go to war with one another if sufficiently agitated, I feel that you still have to take what we generally conceive of as "inter- and intra-organizational politics" into account. Having been a member of non-profit organizations and having watched how "politics" (or what I've always conceived of as politics) take root in daily interactions, I have a hard time discounting this side of the political altogether. But Schmitt requires that I do, because nowhere does the threat of physical violence and retaliation come into play.

So, my point is, Schmitt's definition is unnecessarily specific and limiting to an understanding of what really is "political"

The Objective Enemy

Our discussion in class of Schmitt's ideas of the enemy left me wondering about what an enemy might be. Of course according to Schmitt global warming is not what he would consider an enemy, and neither is terrorism. So what is it that we fight these days? We do not fight for ideals and visions for the future, unless that includes economic gains and military might. We does not include individual goals or desires, it is that of the state. What makes me wonder is that apparently the people are supposed to be a part of that state. How is it that our collective points of view get distilled into something like the war on terrorism? Does human behavior constantly strive to find an enemy? Are we out of enemies? I do not think we are done being against each other's ideals, but governments in a global society have to take more difficult routs to get the population to do what it wants.

Many still do follow the government blindly, otherwise our global community would fall to pieces and require a new beginning. I think that most people did not really care enough about the political enemy unless it might injure them directly. In order to get people on the side of the government in terms of obtaining power and funding, there has to be an enemy. Terrorists are better than global warming, so it is best to target them. At least they exist! Who has created the problem of global warming and AIDS other than many years of drivers and sex addicts? The enemy has to be invoked because otherwise the only people left to blame for any problems we encounter are ourselves.

I think a better way to discuss the political is to say that governments and political parties gives up someone to complain about. If we are out of complaints and have come to terms with the previous aggressor, then a political party needs to supply a new motivating factor to drive on society. Before the more modern ages, it was enough to fight to stay alive against the elements of nature. Since we think we have dealt with nature (excepting of course our recent Katrina case) we must move onto the things that might "really kill us". Because global warming isn't killing us yet, there will be no move to stop it. Since AIDS isn't killing all of us yet, or at least political leaders or rich people as a whole, there will be no move to stop it. This list may include cancer, traffic congestion, steroids in baseball (yes this is important), children who want education who can not afford it, children who need to eat, children who waste their education on alcohol, rape, murder...etc. I think the position of the leaders consists of "its not killing me or my family, so why should I care?". As soon as some scandal is uncovered, when enough people are killed, then we step up to the plate.

The enemy is simply someone who managed to take enough of us out that we need to react because we fear for our own lives. This we is the political leadership. As soon as they are scared enough, or enthused enough by an opportunity, they take action. Nature isn't enough any more to scare us, now it is oil availability and people who blow themselves up at parties. Can anyone think of a time in recent history that politics acted for something other than economic gain or military might? I cant, please... help me think.