In our Monday class, we touched on Heinlein’s use of the History and Moral Philosophy teachers as voices of political commentary and social criticism. As clumsy or obvious as that may have seemed, his choice to do this very much ties into the idea of Science Fiction as an unappreciated genre for commenting on society and our own culture by using distance, alien cultures and/or the passage of time to reflect from a simulated outside perspective. The Freedman article definitely seemed like a stretch in some places, but both that and the Suvin were trying to highlight the place of Science Fiction in modern life and relate it to reality. Much of the Sci-Fi that is readily available in the consumer market can be appreciated solely for its entertainment value and dismissed when one tries to wedge it into any kind of greater moral philosophy – what comes to mind most readily being many of the Star Wars Expanded Universe books such as the Rogue Squadron series. Interestingly, the original Star Wars movies are full of philosophy and commentary on the disconnection and contamination of the human mind. Yoda comes up frequently in many non-Sci-Fi related theoretical discussions, at least in the mind of this nerd, because of some unexpectedly wise statements. One that came to mind recently in a discussion of the body/mind conundrum was “luminous beings are we…not this crude matter.” However, it seems that Science Fiction is often considered to be an entertainment genre and not worthy of greater study or dissection in order to assess a potentially richer commentary on our present society. Certainly there are exceptions, for example, George Orwell’s 1984 definitely can fit into the Sci-Fi category and is required reading for every school child.
However, trying to return to a focus on Heinlein and his work, it was surprising, especially after watching the film as well, to consider the ideas of sexism. While not considering myself an overly sensitive person, six semesters at Scripps teaches one to be aware of potential points of controversy from a feminist perspective. Yet there seemed nothing overly offensive to women, nor anything to suggest that women had a limited place in Heinlein’s concept of the future. Heinlein, contrary to the movie version, does not include women in the M.I., but does not exclude them from the military in other areas, as was the case for all but nurses at the time he wrote the book. At first his decision to have the women pilots shave their heads was confusing, but once explained it made perfect sense and highlighted some of the more ludicrous details of the film that separated from Heinlein’s vision. He also commented several times on the importance of women for morale purposes, simply their presence on ships boosted the interest of the men in fighting that much harder. Knowing of his previous experience as a veteran himself, this was undoubtedly from deeply felt emotions of his own during that time and not intended to objectify or belittle women. Perhaps it shows the absolute opposite, to elevate women and illuminate them as of great importance to society, the protection of the species and Man’s necessity for a counterpart. The concept of partnership was absent from the social hierarchy of the bugs, with the workers and soldiers being expendable and easily replaceable pawns for the Queen, or Queens, to dispose of as she saw fit. The contrast of these two systems of procreation and gender roles served to point out the importance of Man’s humanity, the value of the individual and the undying devotion to preserving the good parts of our society. As a final side note, had the bugs had more “human” methods of relating to one another and perhaps possessed the ability to love, they would have been a much harder target to demonize and annihilate in the way that they were.