Post Binary Gender in SF Debate

[Nerds_feather]

Grunkins,

Banks is absolutely making a political statement with his treatment of gender. In fact, I'd say that nearly everything in the Culture novels contains a political statement. Banks is a smart enough writer to explore the uncomfortable moral gray areas, most notably in the tension between the Culture feeling "superior" and its impulse to act "imperially." But those books are, literally, awash in his political leanings.

What you're describing is when a writer predicates their political observations and views OVER the basic elements of storytelling, which is quite different from when a writer utilizes their political observations and views to ENRICH or ENHANCE the basic elements of storytelling--which is what Banks does. And what Maureen McHugh does in the work in question.

For me this boils down to the old "showing" vs. "telling" distinction. The former is good writing; the latter is bad.

 

[Ursa major]

I want an end to the default of binary gender in science fiction stories.

In my ignorance, and poor reading of the original article o), I had assumed (or taken a default position ), that what Alex MacFarlane was talking about was more along the lines of sexual orientation, which is, obviously, far from being binary and involves positions on a scales (or scales) rather than binary 0 or 1. Given that erroneous assumption, it seemed to me that having authors at least thinking about whether their characters should all be straight men and women before they are set in stone (or, at least, in print) would be not only a good idea, it would make the characters in a story more representative of humans** as we know them. It seems, though, that something far less commonplace, something beyond "simple" sexual orientation, is being discussed.

So permit me to return to the quote above, in particular the word, default, which in the sense being evoked above, means "a selection made in the absence of an alternative", or "a value used when none has been given; a tentative value or standard that is presumed". Where I'm having problems is with how non-binary-gendered (NBG) people would be represented in a story. I don't mean how they should be portrayed, although most binary-gendered (BG) people might have some difficulty in giving an accurate picture of how NBG people might think and act differently from them (although this is an issue, with a risk of falling into charicature); it's more of how one would let the reader know. (One has to let the reader know in some way or other, if only because the reader is likely to take the default position that the characters are BG. Unless Allex MacFarlane is contemplating some form of external (to the books) reeducation of all readers....)

Something that is little experienced, discussed, or even considered, by the general public (and so is, in a way, invisible) is hard to bring into a story. One could, as in the book being reviewed in the link that NF has just provided, have an NBG narrator/PoV character; one might have the narrator/BG PoV character(s) discuss NBG-ness with an NBG character (or, perhaps more problematically, observe the NBG character's behaviour). But if NBG-ness is not the main subject of a story, what is the point of crowbarring it in? If it's to add "colour", fair enough (puns not intended, but what the heck). If it's to look relevant, this risks the problems Larry Correia mentioned. (Whatever one thinks of his various arguments, I think a lot of readers don't like preaching in novels; I know I don't, which is why I dislike Stranger in a Strange Land. )


I'm afraid to say that I'm veering towards the belief that Alex MacFarlane's posts are click bait, if only because I find it hard to believe that she's saying more than: "I'd like to be able to read more books containing NBG characters." I suspect what she'd really like is to read well-written and well-informed books with (about) NBG characters. And why not? It seems a perfectly reasonable request. However, in saying, as she does at the end of the first article,

I hope you’ll join me in making the default increasingly unstable

she is, sadly, probably asking for books containing a lot of ill-informed speculations*** about NBG characters, which none of us might like reading.



** - Who knows what genders aliens (fictional or otherwise) might have? Who knows how gender might apply to AIs?

*** - Because how many people are going to do the necessary research into NBG people (who are likely to be as diverse as everyone else in every other aspect of their lives) as well as the things they're basing the books on?

 

[Gramm838]

Grunkins,

Banks is absolutely making a political statement with his treatment of gender. In fact, I'd say that nearly everything in the Culture novels contains a political statement. Banks is a smart enough writer to explore the uncomfortable moral gray areas, most notably in the tension between the Culture feeling "superior" and its impulse to act "imperially." But those books are, literally, awash in his political leanings.

What you're describing is when a writer predicates their political observations and views OVER the basic elements of storytelling, which is quite different from when a writer utilizes their political observations and views to ENRICH or ENHANCE the basic elements of storytelling--which is what Banks does. And what Maureen McHugh does in the work in question.

For me this boils down to the old "showing" vs. "telling" distinction. The former is good writing; the latter is bad.

I'm not sure that I agree with your views on IMB's books - although he was never a raving loony socialist in the way that Ken McCleod is, he was a socialist...but to my mind IMB's books are not political in the true sense of the word, but he used his books to gently (and sometimes satirically) take the piss out of political systems, as well as his readership

 

[Nerds_feather]

I'm not sure that I agree with your views on IMB's books - although he was never a raving loony socialist in the way that Ken McCleod is, he was a socialist...but to my mind IMB's books are not political in the true sense of the word, but he used his books to gently (and sometimes satirically) take the piss out of political systems, as well as his readership

The Culture is, in essence, a SFnal Marxist utopia--classless, religion-free, no scarcity, no social categorical distinctions that matter, a "withered away" state, which to the degree that it exists is run for the benefit of the masses by dedicated technocrats who do not use the office for personal benefit or the accumulation of power, etc. Regardless of whether one thinks Marxism can work, this is undeniably a SFnal variant of what Marxists dream of.

Nearly every society the Culture encounters that does not conform to this idea is interfered with, manipulated and in some cases destroyed because it is insufficiently moral, according to the Culture's criteria. This is Trotskyism, in a nutshell--permanent revolution, by war if necessary.

Banks' brilliance is that he doesn't shy from the negative implications of this--imperialism, paternalism, colonialism and so forth. But there are very few corners of his Culture books that do not, at least, reflect and explore his political views in a SFnal context.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

This is worth a read, by the brilliant humanist Marxist Erich Fromm.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Ursa -- have you read The Player of Games? In it, Banks offers two models of NBG. First, there's the Culture, in which any individual can shift gender after undergoing a regimen of self-produced chemicals. Tired of being a man? Become a woman! Tired of being a woman? Go halfway back! The Culture only recognizes gender as a temporary state and an individual choice.

Azad, on the other hand, has three genders: male, female and apex. Sexual reproduction involves two interactions: M -> A, then A -> F. Socially, there is a rigid and oppressive gender-based caste system--with females basically treated as baby-carrying vessels, sexual objects and domestic laborers, and males treated as studs and menial laborers.

It's interesting because there are two visions of NBG, one of which seems utopian and the other dystopian.

 

[Ursa major]

Ursa -- have you read The Player of Games?

Yes, in May 2010, according to that month's reading thread. An excellent introduction to the Culture and a good read.

In it, Banks offers two models of NBG. First, there's the Culture, in which any individual can shift gender after undergoing a regimen of self-produced chemicals. Tired of being a man? Become a woman! Tired of being a woman? Go halfway back! The Culture only recognizes gender as a temporary state and an individual choice.

Azad, on the other hand, has three genders: male, female and apex. Sexual reproduction involves two interactions: M -> A, then A -> F. Socially, there is a rigid and oppressive gender-based caste system--with females basically treated as baby-carrying vessels, sexual objects and domestic laborers, and males treated as studs and menial laborers.

It's interesting because there are two visions of NBG, one of which seems utopian and the other dystopian.

And it's also interesting because, as far as I recall, there's no hint of preaching to the reader about NBG-ness itself (i.e. whether it exists, or should or should not). Which is not to say the book doesn't encourage us to take sides. (Did Tony Blair - the bets are off concerning Dubya - perhaps read the book...? ) Though it also seems clear that Banks wants us to know that we're being guided into taking sides**. I expect Alex MacFarlane will be reviewing a Culture book later in her series of blogposts. And if not, she should.


As an aside... While I like most of the Culture books I've read (though not Look to Windward - too random for me - or Use of Weapons, which I've never been able to finish), and will be reading the rest (UoW included), the society described is very odd. The question I have is: Are the humans (or whatever they are) pampered pets of the Minds, or are they the equivalent of birds in a gilded cage?


** - Perhaps in a Culture book I've not yet read (or finished) the Culture is shown to be as aggressively and randomly imperialist as it perhaps really is.

 

[Toby Frost]

I've known people who see the Culture not as socialist, but as a parody of modern America, where individual liberty is (in principle) everything. To my mind, the important thing is that, unlike now, there's no need to parcel out resources. Everyone can have whatever he wants, and the average Culture citizen probably lives better than a modern billionaire.

As far as imperialism is concerned (and this strays close to pure politics) Azad is clearly worse than the Culture by any standard. Almost all of its citizens are oppressed, women are basically a slave race, cruelty is institutionalised and celebrated. It deserves to be improved*, and I think the view that the Culture takes - that it's fair game to be destroyed - isn't totally unreasonable. The Culture has the unassailable moral edge of not murdering its own people.

(As an aside, and not directed at you, Ursa, I wonder what the Left will do when Tony Blair dies? Who will be our Great Satan then?)


* "Civilised", as Space Captain Smith would say.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I've known people who see the Culture not as socialist, but as a parody of modern America, where individual liberty is (in principle) everything. To my mind, the important thing is that, unlike now, there's no need to parcel out resources. Everyone can have whatever he wants, and the average Culture citizen probably lives better than a modern billionaire.

Once books are out of the hands of the author, they are up for interpretation and not tethered to the author's intentions, but if you read Banks' statements, it's clear that he intends the Culture to be a vision of post-scarcity utopia, and that its inspiration comes from his politics.

That the Culture does also resemble a parody of modern America in some ways is, to me, a testament to Banks' brilliance. He doesn't just present a straight utopia, but a complex society and with a lot of wrinkles.

As far as imperialism is concerned (and this strays close to pure politics) Azad is clearly worse than the Culture by any standard. Almost all of its citizens are oppressed, women are basically a slave race, cruelty is institutionalised and celebrated. It deserves to be improved*, and I think the view that the Culture takes - that it's fair game to be destroyed - isn't totally unreasonable. The Culture has the unassailable moral edge of not murdering its own people.

(As an aside, and not directed at you, Ursa, I wonder what the Left will do when Tony Blair dies? Who will be our Great Satan then?)


* "Civilised", as Space Captain Smith would say.

Azad is clearly a dark and oppressive place, but is it imperialistic? As far as I remember, it doesn't violently expand to enforce its system beyond its borders (maybe I'm just forgetting). The Culture, on the other hand, does. For me, the brilliance of the book lies with the fact that we so clearly prefer the Culture over Azad (for obvious reasons), yet as the Culture interferes with and

Spoiler

essentially colonizes Azad

, I had uncomfortable thoughts of the US/UK in Iraq (I did read the book in 2004) or Cortez in Mexico. I don't think Banks is rationalizing those historical events (he is, after all, a well-known opponent of the Iraq war), but I love the fact that he doesn't shy from those difficult questions, and that he doesn't provide easy answers.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't think Azad has any plans for the rest of space, just its wretched inhabitants. If anything, it was less expansive and more stable than the Culture. The appendix at the end of Consider Phlebas is interesting in assessing the Culture's motives: IIRC, it suggests that the Culture recognised that the Idrian society was a sort of expansionist religious fascism, and that it inevitably had to choose between fighting or accepting that it was doomed. I suspect this choice happens to all liberal societies confronted with some sort of fascism. But then, Azad didn't obviously threaten the Culture. Presumably, the Culture felt that it was so unpleasant that it couldn't be morally tolerated, which is certainly an arguable point.

I think the fact that Banks discusses these issues, and acknowledges that there are issues to be discussed, puts him a long way ahead of most people on both sides in the leadup to the Iraq War.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I don't think Azad has any plans for the rest of space, just its wretched inhabitants. If anything, it was less expansive and more stable than the Culture. The appendix at the end of Consider Phlebas is interesting in assessing the Culture's motives: IIRC, it suggests that the Culture recognised that the Idrian society was a sort of expansionist religious fascism, and that it inevitably had to choose between fighting or accepting that it was doomed. I suspect this choice happens to all liberal societies confronted with some sort of fascism. But then, Azad didn't obviously threaten the Culture. Presumably, the Culture felt that it was so unpleasant that it couldn't be morally tolerated, which is certainly an arguable point.

I think the fact that Banks discusses these issues, and acknowledges that there are issues to be discussed, puts him a long way ahead of most people on both sides in the leadup to the Iraq War.

We're totally off-topic now, but this is such a great avenue of discussion that I simply don't care!

I guess in history you can identify a small number of reasons for imperial behavior:

1. We wanted stuff that others had.
2. We felt threatened and consequently felt the need to respond.
3. They were doing horrible things and we had to stop them.
4. It was our duty to bring enlightenment to the unenlightened.

In Consider Phlebas, the Culture's rationale falls under #2. In Player of Games, it's somewhere between #3 and #4. Banks does seem to argue that this kind of thing can in fact be justifiable, but there's a scene near the end, with the drone, that makes me think of neoconservatism--a movement Banks hated. I believe he did this on purpose.

 

[Toby Frost]

It's an interesting point, and in some ways this is what science fiction does best - not so much discussing what might happen in the future, or how technology will change, but letting us talk about the principles of what happens now without the particular details getting in the way.

I suppose the question is whether the Culture has the right to spread itself in this way. It's difficult to answer. I suspect that the majority of citizens of Azad would rather live in the Culture, because it isn't a tyranny. But even if you could be sure of that, would that justify conquering it, even for enough time for it to change into a democracy/whatever the Culture is? Also, it's hard to see when one number changes into another. Orwell once wrote that there could never be compromise between democracy and fascism: one had to destroy the other. The same could probably be said for Stalinism or Bin Ladenism. But what if they could be contained? Would it not just be better to Culturise them?

Tricky, but then that's the point. Is the scene you mention the one where it becomes clear that Gugei has been manipulated? Because that does seem to cross a moral boundary.

On the subject of furious prose, which this thread was almost once about, an SF writer linked to this random generator on her facebook page. The results are eerily similar to a certain angry blogger's SF website, which was quite popular about a year ago. Be warned: whilst a good parody, it involves very little except foul language and Newspeak, and may well not be safe for work:

This is Social Justice - SJW Blog and Argument Generator

 

[Nerds_feather]

It's an interesting point, and in some ways this is what science fiction does best - not so much discussing what might happen in the future, or how technology will change, but letting us talk about the principles of what happens now without the particular details getting in the way.

I suppose the question is whether the Culture has the right to spread itself in this way. It's difficult to answer. I suspect that the majority of citizens of Azad would rather live in the Culture, because it isn't a tyranny. But even if you could be sure of that, would that justify conquering it, even for enough time for it to change into a democracy/whatever the Culture is? Also, it's hard to see when one number changes into another. Orwell once wrote that there could never be compromise between democracy and fascism: one had to destroy the other. The same could probably be said for Stalinism or Bin Ladenism. But what if they could be contained? Would it not just be better to Culturise them?

I think the problem with the Orwell statement is that fascism (and communism and most other forms of totalitarianism) have been contained plenty of times, historically speaking--including, notably, the case Orwell was referring to, Spain. After the end of the Spanish Civil War, Franco basically ignored the rest of the world. He refused to enter the Second World War on Germany's side and never fought an external war. Ditto Salazar in Portugul.

And the "Domino Theory," predicated on Communism being inherently, fundamentally expansionist, never quite matched reality either. A Northern victory in Vietnam was meant to presage a general expansion throughout the region, though united Vietnam only engaged in one foreign war--and that was to depose the also Communist and genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (which, ironically, was being covertly funded by the US and Britain at the urging of China).

...and that's without even touching on the question of whether Saddam Hussein's regime had been contained in Iraq (and I'm pretty sure I know what Banks' answer to that would have been).

So I guess my point is that there's nothing about totalitarianism that makes it inherently, fundamentally expansionist, though certain manifestations of it certainly are (e.g. Nazism).

Azad, it seems to me, is not concerned with exporting its model--and I'm glad Banks kept it that way, because it would be too easy a moral choice otherwise.

 

[tinkerdan]

I've read this article and came back confused.

I'm not sure what is being asked so I have to fall back on what I know.

Gender itself was proposed as a binary thing. Man-Woman Masculine-Feminine. This based on the biological sex nature of Gender.

But there are three considerations that might be used when using the term Gender. There's the Biological theres the Social and theres the Gender Identity.

You would expect the biological to be cut and dry. Male-Female. But nature pulls it's little tricks and we have a section of population born with ambiguity in this area. Is this what we want more of in fiction? I think not.

The social has staunchly tried to adhere to a binary system. But history has at least two examples where this has not been the case. There again is a social sexual ambiguous choice that is acceptable to the small communities. Where regardless of sex there were those who would dress and act out of character- so to speak.

And then the Gender Identity itself which I think it's safe to say does not try so much to adhere to the identity necessarily having to be dictated by biology and there is also room for the ambiguity of an identity that does not directly relate to the binary standard. Perhaps this is the one that is meant in the article.

The odd thing to me is that I see all of these now in then in what I read and though its not predominant it is still evident and I think it is fairly representative so there should be no overwhelming discussion or rebellion.

I in fact, recall recently reading some work by Mercedes Lackey where a male character had attributes that were quite feminine and I found myself constantly thinking of him as her and was never bothered by the romance throughout the novel because she did such a great job of identifying that person and I couldn't see him with a woman. Also it was handled in a way that didn't really make it the focus of the story. That was just the nature of the character and the character stayed true to his nature.