Manifest Destiny, or Not

In the book "Manifest Destiny" there was a lot of discussion describing the religious state of the United States. The chosenness of the American people seemed a prevalent idea (as that was Stephanson's definition of the phrase). A particular section or word choice on the author's part struck my fancy. On page 36 the author describes America's plans for Mexico,

"The chief intrigue concerned the exiled Mexican general Santa Anna, whom Polk planned secretly to ferry back from exile and assist in resuming power, after which, in return, he would gratefully sell the desired territory to the United States (California). On the assumption that this would mean a short, little war, that indeed the United States would even be greeted as liberators, Polk confidently advanced American troops to the Rio Grande. When the Mexican army retaliated, Polk declared that the United States had been invaded and so war began.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else? While we are not currently in Iraq because they invaded our territory, we are there for a presumed attack on the United States by someone. Is it then that we are not perhaps the chosen people? Our destiny was forged by men who desired good land and worked hard to beat out the competition even through unlawful means. What does this suggest for the history of our country? The hard toil was done by slaves, our wars fought be ignorant troops, and the country's foundation built upon a christian faith that no longer seems to rule our society. I'm not sure how this quite connects to space being the final frontier. We think of space as being empty, but really it is full of beings and things that we ignore and plow over to encourage nature to be more productive. Space isn't the final frontier, because there will always be more of it. Instead we should refer to it as the continuing frontier.

Addition to Women and Sexual Power

While looking over Anne's post about women and sexual power I started thinking about what we had talked about in class, specifically when all of the girls raised their hands at the same time. Our responces to PTJ's question about if we would rather live on the moon than the world seemed a little too quickly answered, or at least my answers were. Life on the moon for women, though they were in control, was similar to those who had the greatest wealth. Since women were a commodity, it was simply another way to say supply and demand. Women had power because in their choices they decided the sexual and reproductive fate of Luna.

However, looking at the rest of the book I think there is more to the enjoyment of women and that theme of pleasure that is carried throughout the book. Women represesnt pleasure and there are few other opportunities for pleasure on Luna. For men, the only option then is to hope for pleasure, there is no creation of it. In Mike's situation, as a computer, we did not think (as a reader) that pleasure was possible for a computer. But on page 338 Mike describes his experience of rock throwing as an "orgasm. That's what it is when they all light up. Now I know". That Mike experiences pleasure at a job well done, and at a job of destruction seems to be the opposite of what Loonies concider pleasure. Please for humans is of the flesh and of continuing life, Mike enjoys perfection and anihilation.

I think what Heinlein is attempting to show here is that woman and machiens have power, just as they both can produce pleasure. Women have the power to alter a man's mind and a machien can correct him. While women do have power, it is based on its ability to shift a man's thoughts. Women in themselves would not have power if men were satisfied in their pleasure in other ways. A machien like Mike however has power because it's facts are always correct (or at least men assume they are). The true source of social power in this book is not women as we are originally lead to believe, but artificial intelligence because men and women asume so completely that it will be correct and mathmatically falcifiable.

Women and Sexual Power

Hey guys, sorry I'm posting so late - I lent my copy of TMIAHM to a friend in the class and didn't get it back until ten minutes ago, and I hate posting without having the book to flip through.

I really enjoyed this novel. I loved Heinlein's exploration of the sentience and growth of a computer, following the path of revolution from fomentation to completion, and how he throws in references to real world IR. I even got out tabs to mark all the passages I liked.

The most interesting element of TMIAHM, however, was how power was distributed between the genders. I agree with Russ, that the society of Luna (evolved from a penal society) and the anarchist society of Anarres show a number of similar characteristics. But even on Anarres, women were considered naturally propertarian and therefore not quite as good as men.

On Luna, however, women have more power - absolute power in the sexual realm (look at what happens when the tourist LaJoie tries to kiss Tish! Mannie's explanation is on pages 164-5. Also relevant is the opting of Wyoh into Mannie's family, starts page 215, where the men are allowed a veto - which is odd, for Loonies); but also an element more power economically. In Mannie's family, Mum runs the show - not just the relationship element, but she manages all business on the farm, too.

However, the economic power comes from sexual power. Women are clearly viewed as sexual objects - the standard greeting of a man meeting a woman is for him to check her out and express his opinion of her attractiveness by whistling or hooting (see Mannie greeting Wyoh pages 26 and 39). So my question is this - is this power of women a good thing? Or a bad one?

I personally can't decide. I disagree with power based on gender (whether it be men or women that gain based on it), as well as power based on attractiveness (though, despite the standard cat-call greeting, Mannie/Heinlein never mentions if more attractive women have more power than less attractive women). However, the result seems to be a more or less egalitarian distribution of power - women are the heads of households, but skills are valued regardless of gender. In a way, it's the reverse of today's society, where men and women are officially equal but really there's a structure of male privilege.

As a footnote to this topic, it's interesting that though Heinlein writes a society that supposedly values women more than men, he lets a more old fashioned gender prejudice slip through. On page 118, he (or rather, Mannie as narrator) states: "Average Loonie was interested in beer, betting, women, and work, in that order" - discluding women from the "average Loonie". Though statistically this would be correct (since there are more men than women on the moon), in a culture where women loom as large as they do, it's doubtful that any Loonie would leave them out of a summation of the population. A similar line is on page 366 - "Lenore was allowed to go in and out, fetching coffee and food, or sitting and saying nothing. Lenore is a sensible fem and knows when to keep quiet." This image of an obedient, subservient, placid woman, valued for those characteristics, is certainly different from the outgoing, proactive women Heinlein promotes as the Loonian ideal throughout the rest of the novel!

TMIAHM

I'm not quite done with this one either -- I think I take a lot more time on each page than other people, savoring each word, trying to get a feel for the gestalt of the lines and paragraphs before I move on to the next one. Or that's my excuse at least.

From what I have read, the similarities between this and The Dispossessed are pretty interesting. In particular, the fact that they live on a created anarchist society on the moon (although the two books differ in most other respects). I've been reading it as more or less a sort of step-by-step how-to fantasy of popular revolution. In the first half of the book, things go incredibly smoothly and perfectly -- though my assumption is that this won't hold. I'll have to wait and find out -- am hoping to finish it tonight so I don't have to hear all the spoilers in class tomorrow.

Pretty prophetic, eh?

So I just finished Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and am not sure what I make of the ending. Will have to think on that and come back. What to make of Mike's sudden silencing? And I agree with what Bia said--it did make me sadder than Prof's death. Even sadder is that Mike's role in the whole thing was never acknowldged (of course not--it would do a lot to unravel the new society, but still...). Perhaps that's a little too egoistic...i should stop egozing...

What I was struck by in the book was how accurately Heinlein predicted certain parts of our world. This was written in 1966-66, when China still adhered to a Communist economy and was on the eve of the Cultural Revolution. Yet, Heinlein portrays the Chinese (or Chinee) as ardent capitalists, eager to make business deals that will put them in front of the crowd. Dr. Chan, much the archtype of the Communist Chinese hero admired at this period, says, "Anything which is physically possible can always be made ifnacially possible; money is a bugaboo of small minds" (247). Sounds more like China today! Much energy is also focused on India, which is a country that has had enormous economic growth. Also, Hong Kong Luna is further indicative of a decidedly Eastern influence on the world of 2072 (or whichever year the novel takes place in). Seems commonplace in our world today, but to do this during the Cold War seems almost groundbreaking and highly visionary.

The failure of diplomatic measures and ultimate success of force in achieving Luna's aims for Terran recognition highlights the ultimate success of power politics and again, is a highly accurate portrayal of our current reality where international organizations like the federated nations are manipulated by economic interests of those countries in charge rather than "what's right" for the people. In this case, this is represented by the federated nations sending basically "the authority" to oversee Prof and Manuel's pleas to be recognized as sovereign.

Another interesting (although insignificant) insight is on pg. 204 when the woman wants to define what Loonie language is and fine anyone who doesn't use it. English as the Official Language, anyone??

The method of using stones to launch at Earth reminds me of the (was it Einstein?) quote that said, "I know not what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."

A Human Computer

The most interesting part of this novel for me, other than how similar it seemed to the attacks from September 11th (as that is today's date). Mike starts out as a genius child and turn into a leader of a new nation. It is hard for us to think about how that is possible as we have so often defined what is human based off of the idea that humans are the only beings that are capable of higher level intellectual thoughts. This challenges that law of humanity and forces us to question what it is that really separates us from a machine. Not only a machine, but one that enjoyed telling jokes, da? I was happy that the author never made the computer go mad and start killing everyone, which is what I anticipated. Strange also that we learned of the computer through its concept of playing. I think the parallels that the author was attempting to draw with Mike is that we, human beings, can be very intelligent but when we are left alone we become mechanical. Mike, as a computer, started in a reverse position. As a computer and inherently lonely, he had a human intellectual awakening. He became a character that we connected with, not a human. I think I mourned his "disconnection" from his personality more than Profs death. Prof was always about to die, that was his fate. However, Mike seemed to represent a new beginning. He was "Adam S.", a revolutionary and able to see the basic logic in every situation.

What would happen to our world if something like Mike were invented? No one on Luna knew how powerful he was, and yet he changed the course of history through his abilities. Perhaps there are other forces for our world like Mike, yet not a superhuman computer. The catalysts here for social change does not come from the moon, they come from discontented people with a plan. Mike wasn't the being that came up with the plans for revolution, he simply computed the risks and made the technology possible. Does that mean then, that a group like a terrorist organization is empowered through the technology and information that they can gain from other groups? Do people give terrorists information because they too are lonely and want to make friends? I do not see any reason for helping them other than local social prestige. Is that a universal factor, or is money or revenge a more real reason?

Human nature?

It was touched on in class, but I think the issue of how a type of government and authority and property develops on Anarres is an interesting one and I wanted to explore it futher.

Society on Anarres was set up to discourage propertarianism and encourage equality. From the language (instead of possesives, "the mother" and "the hankerchief that I use") to daily necessities (food is provided at a general cafeteria, accomodations in dormitories, and clothes and blankets at depots) and even to relationships (there is no marriage contract or other binding placed on couples; no special effort is even made to keep them together, unless the couple themselves request postings together). No part of Odo's vision includes restrictions on the individual or allowance that something "belongs" to someone.

Yet society on Anarres has developed restrictions, possessions, and authority. Why is this? Why do family units form, as Shevek and Takver and Sadik do (not just recognized by themselves, but by society, as shown by the teasing of Sadik for her parents' involvement in the Syndicate of Initiative)? How do people like Sabul gain authority in an anarchist society? Why do people feel pressured to go wherever a posting is suggested?

My opinion is that these things are a result of human nature. Humans like rules; look at the importance in setting boundaries in parenting, or how students will complain when their professors don't give them enough guidelines for a paper! But instead of a single authority, the anarchist society on Anarres provides social guidelines through social pressure. It is also human nature to conform, and to pressure others to act the way you want them to; therefore, the Odonians keep each other within certain boundaries through social pressure. This is why people go to postings where they are needed, why they sign up for once-a-decad work.

I would argue that possessions, monogamous relationships, and power like Sabul's are also the result of basic human nature. People desire to possess things (and each other) and desire power over each other. Society on Anarres is designed to counter these desires, but without constant effort and vigilance (which Shevek calls "revolution"), the human desires for power and possession crop up again.