Luckhurst and Mechanism
"For me, SF is a literature that concerns the impact of Mechanism (to use the older term for technology) on cultural life and human subjectivity. Mechanized modernity begins to accelerate the speed of change and visibly transform the rhythms of everyday life. The different experience of time associated with modernity orients perceptions towards the future rather than the past or the cyclical sense of time ascribed to traditional societies. SF texts imagine futures or parallel worlds premised on the perpetual change associated with modernity, often by extending or extrapolating aspects of Mechanism from the contemporary world. In doing so, SF texts capture the fleeting fantasies thrown up in the swirl of modernity. (3)"
-Roger Luckhurst, Science Fiction
I think SF resonates with us so because Mechanism has inherent transformative implications, especially through the theological lens: God created a functioning world and once we, creatures within that functioning world, create something new that functions on its own without our needing to keep it going the whole time, it becomes the first echo in a vast hallway--the first reflection in a chain of mirrors. And suddenly, in a world where we can change and create new Mechanisms around us, we go from being the eternal dependent children of God to being the mothers and fathers of something born of us: technology. The Mechanism implies humanity growing up and taking on a more involved role in how life proceeds on this planet (or others). Hence, SF perpetuates and promotes the goal of humanity being less helpless to the things that used to frighten us in the darkness outside our fires.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you decided to take the theological approach (are you talking about a specific representation of God or presenting the all-encompassing concept of God-as-the-Creator?) in relation to why sf resonates so strongly with people. If you argue it in this way, all creation, and in this case technology specifically, becomes an act of self-reflection and self-expression of our humanity. Our fascination with what we create becomes an expression of our fascination with ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIt’s even more interesting that you describe this process as a sign of our maturing as a species. Is narcissism or at the very least a delight in external expressions of human selfhood, a sign of our maturation? With babies and children, self-awareness is at the very least taken as a sign of cognitive development, but development is not always the same thing as maturation. Biological reproduction in females of the species is also an act of creation, but again, I have to wonder if you’re thinking of maturity and maturation on an emotional level (as in, we become the embodiment of some social standard for ‘adulthood’ in its ideal form), or simply physical maturation. Even physical maturation in the sense of being developed enough to procreate does not necessarily denote an emotional maturity, and biological maturation is involuntary (at least at this point in history). The act of creation as an expression of selfhood from the perspective you’re presenting seems to involve voluntary creation on a level that is separate from our biological functions (but then, as biological creatures who are reveling in external expressions of ourselves, everything we make would be a reflection of our biology – unless you believe in a priori truths, whew!). Art and technology seem to fall into that category.
The problem becomes whether to be a ‘mature’ human being, a creator, we'd have to be the engineer or the artist. Is it enough to simply experience the creations of other developing humans in a human community?
You also bring up an issue of power-dynamics with your final point: “…SF perpetuates and promotes the goal of humanity being less helpless to the things that used to frighten us in the darkness outside our fires.” The act of creation on a technological level becomes a defense-mechanism (heh) against a feeling of powerlessness by this logic. Considering that you started your comment with a discussion of God as the first creator, does this mean that all creation was instigated by fear and a feeling of powerlessness?
:D Matthew, you just made my brain light up.
SF is primarily embraced by western civilization who, due in large part to the efforts of Pope Gregory in the 6th century, also are primarily Christian. So while it's not something I believe in, I feel it is by necessity the frame of reference from which all theological discussion of western civilization must take place.
ReplyDeleteBut you hit it right on the nose. I think narcissism, to a certain extent, is a sign of maturity. However, I feel I need to be clear on this point. I don't mean the self-centered, self-serving narcissism of a spoiled child; I'm referring to the narcissism of grown adult who has worked incredibly hard to be good at what they do and are ecstatic in recognition of just how their labors have paid off. And if you look at the Christian God this way, it actually rather makes sense. In the Old Testament, He was childishly narcissistic, demanding worship and sacrifice and flooding the entire world. Then He matured a bit and just asked humanity to love Him and each other. And then He left us alone. It's the Him-leaving-us-alone part that actually shows a mature narcissism. Instead of needing humans to validate His existence with prayer and devotion, He seems content to just sit back and revel in the glory that is our world. Silently.
If you believe in that sort of thing.
So yes, in this sense, our creation of Mechanism in the world and our fascination with it is most definitely self-reflective. In fact, I also see our fascination with the Divine to be self-reflective and narcissistic, but that's a horse of a different color.
And if you think about God as a creator, you have to consider (at least in the western sense) that He is omnipotent and omniscient. He has no equal. Before He created anything, He must have been rather lonely and insecure--and I would imagine that He was afraid. Not only afraid of anything that wasn't Him, but afraid of failure. And, to feed that insecurity, His first act of creation was a gigantofuckball of an explosion where it took billions of years for the first molecule to form. Talk about a slow rate of progress.