Things We’ve Learned About Ourselves from Science Fiction - The Imperfect, Misogynistic, Alcoholic and Egotistical Hero

We are drawn to each other as a society, as a collective and as the tribe of humanity, yet we fear each other individually – at least that is the picture we currently project into the mirror of science fiction - on screen, online and in print.

Going back to 1726 or 1735, in the fantastic story tradition of sci-fi, Gulliver’s Travels showed us the strange and petty interaction between societal factions. Jules Verne (1860+) rightly predicted that technology would enhance our hubris as it enhanced our lives. 

Of course the 1950s brought us the communist scare allegories like The Blob, The Thing and The Invasion of Body Snatchers. We were afraid of losing ourselves or our neighbors becoming someone/something else. But it wasn’t about monsters or outer space, it was about us.

Superman inspired our morality, Batman our resiliency. Wonder Woman had strength and showed being a hero included everyone.

Sci-fi, which started as fantasy stories soon discovered that the genre had the ability to abandon all social, scientific, historic and thematic constructs.

Then, television brought us Star Trek, which was initially envisioned as cowboys in space.   It soon became obvious that being free of real world conventions allowed Gene Rodenberry to stealthily open a window on a turbulent time in America.

Star Wars introduced much of the world to the idea that heroes were not perfect and our quests are not necessarily of our choosing, but ours all the same.

From the mind of Stan Lee we are now immersed in the Marvel universe.  A place where heroes are not only imperfect, they are deeply flawed and troubled with hidden powers and gifts, a place where the porous fabric of reality lets evil leak in from unexpected places. A place not unlike ours, where evil seeps into life  and maybe a place where deeply flawed people can be heroes too.  Maybe.

Satan in the Sidelines

The recent attacks in Paris, on top of all the other similar attacks, have created one of those key places in time. Muslims, Westerners, Christians, Jews, conservatives, liberals and everyone in between, must all face their own demons and issues and potentially chart a course forward. Only the cultural predators are sitting by the sidelines and cheering.

The social vultures of conflict instigation, unrest incitement, government destabilization and solo ethnic superiority are frothing at the mouth with anticipation. For the first time in a very long time, events present the possibility that enough chaos and discontent can ensue where their extreme agenda might get a foothold.  

Extremists on the right and left have started spreading propaganda and seeding the rumor mills.  Maybe the Muslim communities can be targeted for expulsion or random public attack; maybe the Muslims can be convinced that it is because of the Jews, Christians, western media or just Americans; maybe the right-wing upper class can convince the world’s terrorists that they are both on the same side. Perhaps the cultural kamikazes can trigger a few civil wars in Europe, or Africa or the Middle East (which has already begun) just to kick off a huge wave of multi-regional destabilization.

Iran has ties in some of the more oppressive South American governments and its state media is already circulating cartoons implying Israel is complicit in the Paris attacks. Right-wing politicians in multiple countries are helping the forces of disaster by calling for closed borders and wholesale deportations.

The internet is, of course, part of this equation of discord. If you can’t have cheerleaders without giving them megaphones, then you need to be careful when the cheerleaders make enough noise to distract the players on the field. If that presents a problem, maybe the cheerleaders should be limited to just running around on the sidelines, as usual.   

Destroying Discourse - A Weapon for Social Terrorism

The most productive tool in fighting social conflict, in reality or online, is constructive interaction. Some people will call it negotiation, diplomacy, discussion and engagement. Others will call it coercion, capitulation, co-opting or submission.  Invariably one side, or both, stands to lose something by reaching an understanding or détente. Sabotaging the dialogue or setting down unreasonable tangential arguments that prevent the real issues from being discussed is an effective way to prevent anything constructive from happening. 

Years ago on a visit to England, after a few pints, I discovered myself deep in a debate about the advantages of having the steering wheel on the right or left side of the car. The debate was serious, it was ironic and it was impassioned. We argued how it involved history, culture, industrialism, imperialism – with people I hardly knew – and no one got called a Nazi or a moron. In the end we agreed that in another 100 years it wouldn't matter because robots would be doing all the driving. It was great. I never looked at arguing the same. 

If you want to prevent discovery, agreement and truth or promote discord and distortion, it is not very hard. It is much harder to earnestly negotiate, be prepared to sacrifice and possibly build something new and unknown.