Serenity Found

[purplecat]

Serenity Found is a set of essays on the Firefly TV series and the film Serenity edited by Jane Espenson. I found them a rather mixed bunch. My initial thoughts, after reading the first couple, were that the authors tended to rather over-state their case. I think Firefly was one of the best drama series of the past decade, however that doesn't mean I think it represented a quantum leap forward in either the insertion of social commentary into TV-SF or in the representation of women in genre shows.

However I was fascinated by a trio of the essays which, almost certainly unintentionally formed a dialogue with each other. Freedom in an Unfree World by P. Gardner Goldsmith interpreted Firefly and Serenity as a libertarian political tract, one in which the allegorical links to the American Civil War highlighted the South's position as one opposed to excessive government meddling. Mal Contents by Alex Bledsoe focused on the character of Malcolm Reynolds and explicitly rejected the idea that he is some kind of libertarian hero, stressing instead his teenage-like refusal to accept any authority over him, any criticism of his own authority or indeed any responsibility for others beyond those in his immediate vicinity. Bledsoe's theory is that it's only towards the end of Serenity that Mal is motivated by any kind of principles beyond self-absorption and knee-jerk rebellion. The Bonnie Brown Flag by Evelyn Vaughn examined directly the Civil War allegory and tried, though I'm unconvinced it succeeded, to address the erasure of the issue of slavery from the allegorical story. This highlighted one of the aspects of Goldsmith's essay that troubled me. In painting the South as heroic libertarian heroes, freedom fighters and underdogs and sidelining completely the issue of slavery it rather showed up, I felt, one of libertarianisms flaws - it's failure to account for the way the privileged tend to rise to the top in an unregulated environment and human-kind's unfortunate tendency to assume that people with superficial differences either do not count, or are happy with their lot. I find it hard to consider a side which was in no small part funded by slave-owning and motivated by a desire to protect the practice, even if it did not primarily consist of slave-owners, as suitable role-models for heroic freedom fighters and I doubt, somehow, that was Whedon's intention. It seems more likely that he found the cause of the South in the American Civil War a convenient allegory for Malcolm Reynolds' knee-jerk rebelliousness.

But, in the end, it has to be said I came away from the essays less happy with the Firefly stories than I went in. While I accept that slavery was far from the only issue involved in the American Civil War, I'm uncomfortable that the series can be read as a vindication of the South's position, that it provides a way for people to erase the issue of slavery from the conflict and, as a result, let's them view the Confederates as heroic freedom fighters and, essentially, the good guys. I also think libertarians should find themselves better heroes.


This entry was originally posted at http://purplecat.dreamwidth.org/28122.html.

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

mmmmmm yes, but so *many* things have been changed / removed from the equation that sort of seems a bit forced to me.

The fact that other people will read their own views into it - I'm not sure that should affect how I see it myself. Isn't that the road down which protecting all photos of children because of what other people might read stuff into them, lies?

(I expressed that badly. Hope you can figure it out!)

[purplecat]

I think (hope) there's a difference between saying "it worries me that this can be used to justify that" and, I hope, pointing out ways that it maybe doesn't and in saying "this should not have been created" or "this should not be enjoyed" or even "this should not be seen".

My intention is in the spirit of the former not the latter.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I see your point. Thing is though that the South does have a lot that is appealing about it in some ways : it's not like Nazi Germany where you can fairly easily slot the whole 'side' neatly into the 'bad guys' niche.

If the South had not been, (or, had not believed that their society was) dependent economically on slavery, then what? I dunno. It is a question that is strangely appealing to ask, even though it does take a HUGE element out. For that matter, if the South had not seceded, then the war would not have happened, and nor would abolition, so presumably at some point, the South would have had to tackle the whole slavery issue internally... Hmmmm.

[purplecat]

I'm tempted to side-track this comment into asking how libertarianism interacts with real (or perceived) economic necessities where such necessities involve interfering with the liberty (in the case of the South) or these days the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

I'll just agree that I can see its an appealing question but it's important, I think, that when you make or encounter an allegory you recognise both what's makes it the same and what makes it different.

the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Not entirely sure it is a different Q : the economic equivalent to the Southern slave worker is the factory worker of the Northern USA and Britain, who had more freedom (but, the slavery apologists of the Confederacy would argue, less security, though I understand this claim is thought to be incorrect.)

Thinking about this issue, I wondered about other historical references in sci fi that leave out uncomfortable truths, and thought of Star Trek and the Frontier, which I *think* can be seen as a similar parallel, but doesn't cover the whole 'genocide' aspect so much (so far as I recall).

You'll have to talk to PP about libertarianism: he says I am an anarchist. (shakes head sadly)

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[purplecat]

I was thinking more of the plight of various modern Chinese factory workers and the like who build iPad's for us and the economic arguments that we need cheap luxury goods to drive growth in the economy (gross over-simplification I know). Western governments seem pretty toothless in the face of this kind of exploitation but I can't help feeling that a country run on libertarian lines would be even less well-equipped to exert any kind of pressure on anyone involved in that system of oppression.

I once did one of those political affiliation test things, which possibly PP linked to I'm not sure and it turned out that on economic questions I'm dead centre, but on most other political and social issues I'm somewhere to the left of Stalin...

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

But are the Chinese factory workers not the inheritors of the mantle of the British workers who worked long hours and suffered during the Industrial Revolution?

I think my take on that is that it's not good enough to rely on governments to regulate : the problems just move to somewhere else, and this will continue as long as the majority of people don't think that the suffering of others is their problem, but should be sorted out by some vague 'Them'.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Probably also worth pointing out that Chinese factory workers in 2010 are better off than Chinese peasants during the Great Leap Forward.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[purplecat]

Which makes libertarianism the correct approach to the problem?

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

China is probably too far removed from a properly free society to go straight to libertarianism and have it work well. You can't go from Mao to Hayek, you have to go via Deng first.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[purplecat]

But regulation has improved conditions of factory workers in the UK, not to mention providing women and the unpropertied with the vote, protecting children and (to a limited extent) animals and a host of other measures which help to prevent exploitation and cruelty. I don't really feel that would have happened without some meddling on the part of government because, sadly, I don't think there is any point in the forseeable future where the majority of people can be persuaded to care a great deal about a wider group of humans than those they meet on a day-to-day basis.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I agree with you : what I'm suggesting though is that there comes a point where the effective power of national government legislation is quite limited, and at that point, reliance on legislation becomes something of a double edged sword, because people expect government to handle everything and can't/won't take responsibility for the consequences of their own buying decisions.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[purplecat]

That's pretty much what I think. I think you want to limit regulation to the minimum necessary to prevent exploitation and cruelty it's just I seem to part company with most libertarians of my acquaintance (and I'll exclude PP and sixgun here, since I don't think I've ever really discussed it with either of them) is were "minimum necessary" lies.

I think most would think it not the government's business at all what wages an employer chose to pay, what hours the employer chose to demand and what working conditions he chose maintain so long as the employer was up-front at the hiring stage on what those wages, hours and conditions were and I think that is far to open to abuse. Similarly most think it entirely a person's own business how they discipline their children and pets so long as no bones are broken.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

"I think most would think it not the government's business at all what wages an employer chose to pay, what hours the employer chose to demand and what working conditions he chose maintain so long as the employer was up-front at the hiring stage on what those wages, hours and conditions were and I think that is far to open to abuse. Similarly most think it entirely a person's own business how they discipline their children and pets so long as no bones are broken."


Most libertarians certainly, but all the major UK political parties think that the government should set a minimum hourly wage, a maximum hourly working week.

Re: the ability of people to lift themselves out of poverty but that's a different question.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

You're right that regulation improved conditions of factory workers back in Victorian times. Since then? I'm not so sure. Regulation also brought in enforced trade union recognition and all the problems associated with that in the 1970s and subsequently. There are people unemployed today because of the Minimum Wage Act. There are small businesses struggling because of the bureaucratic demands of the state. There are companies who cannot invest because of high corporate taxation.

Etc.