Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Russell

Wow. Okay, so I just stayed up an extra 2 and a half hours to finish the book and I'm not sure where to start on this post but I felt I should write it while I had it all in my head, undisturbed by sleep or papers.
First, I read a lot. I do. Constantly. I'm fascinated by the written word and have been known to absorb books like water. I'm drawn into the worlds books create and find myself ruminating on them after I'm done with the book, unconsciously drawing it out, thinking up extensions. Despite this, I think I maintain some kind of detachment to what I read, I'm rarely really moved to tears by something I've read. Books can be beautiful, conclusions satisfying and joyous and I can cheer for the characters, but tears? Not really my thing. However, I have to admit, around 388, I teared up and I'm not going to wave it away as being tired or allergies; I'm pretty sure I was moved. Perhaps it is the intersection of such a degradation that is bad enough on Earth with the removal to a world that far away, with such an alien race and a lack of complete understanding of the language and culture, having lost all of your friends, some you've loved for decades. And for it to happen to such a religious man, although he doubted he'd changed and reached true belief, is much worse because we hold them in such high esteem and they make such sacrifices for a purpose beyond our mortal coil, so to speak. Perhaps it is worse that you (the reader) felt like things were building up to such a betrayal by Supaari, what with the unease I felt when in Supaari's point of view and the knowledge that something had happened to Emilio, though details were hazy.
Second, as a Roman Catholic this book was doubly fascinating to me due to the idea of Jesuits in space. Kind of funny, all things considered, but they've always been the academic, pioneering sort so I suppose I could see it happening. By the way, pg. 16, for all the non-Catholics, we totally call some priests "Father What-A-Waste", and there's a seminarian at my church at home who really is one. Normal conceptions of monks, men in religious orders, fall under the Friar Tuck image or the closed off, all attention paid to God type. Jesuits however, are a touch different. They are encouraged to be in the world, they are discouraged from wearing robes of the order (habits) or sometimes even a collar outside of Mass, thus wearing what everyone else in their parish or community wears, breaking that barrier to communication that a habit would necessarily have. Russell does a very good job with the Jesuits, both in describing the people and the order itself. It would be a very different book had she chosen Dominicans or Franciscans or Benedictines, the other three most well known Catholic male religious orders. So religion is inherently intertwined in any sort of discussion about the book. The Sparrow is as much about going to another world to see if there's other life out there as it is about Emilio Sandoz's journey of faith, both to it and from it. He got to question it all in a radically different environment whereas the rest of us have to endure it here on Earth, with everybody else.
Third, I suppose I should get around to the science fiction part, Rakhat itself. I seem to recall another book I've read where there's a dominant race, like the Jana'ata, who use the other, more peaceful and vegetarian like the Runa, as food...hmm, what was that? Oh! Right. The Time Machine. Which bounced around between now and then a bit too. Ah, parallels. Anyway, it was interesting to read about the complete world (no, I'm not poking at that argument again, just pointing it out) and the vast differences between how the Jana'ata live and how the Runa live. Brings up an interesting ethical discussion too. Is our way of getting meat more acceptable because the animals we use don't talk/we can't understand it if they do? I feel that it is because the Jana'ata interact with the Runa on a daily basis and yet they can shrug their shoulders and use them as food or a plaything at the drop of a hat. Terrible place. Ignorance can be bliss, can't it?
To close, because I feel I've bounced around a bit and no one should be expected to be this coherent past 3 in the morning, I'd like to note the discussion of politics and Texans on 119 at the bottom, especially about not blaming Texas for producing George Bush (the first, due to the publication date). Funny how a book set in the future can be slightly dated, isn't it?

The Concept of the Political: Post-Class Reactions

I feel like this class discussion was one of the most interesting we have had. In the end it really made me think about the future possibilities of humanity. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that Schmitt thinks that enemies are necessary for a state to function properly. So the question that came to my mind towards the end of class was: is it always going to be just about conflict? To me that just seems depressing. Especially since now conflicts do seem to take that “we are fighting for humanity and you are against humanity if you are against us” theme, which Schmitt says is a bad idea. And as we have seen it creates very intense and hateful conflict, plus to me it seems like that type of conflict can easily be taken to the “ultimate conflict” level, especially with the damage modern weapons can do. In my other class where I have been reading about Dalai Lama and similar peaceful leader, and those readings presented me with an insight to people who believe that if people try then the world can be more peaceful, and societies would live in harmony and understanding. So in the end I was contrasting these two views and trying to see which is more likely, or will it be something in between or something else. Can humanity ever come to a point where it won’t be so quick to label the “other” as an enemy, and try to understand before destroy. Can people become better at cross cultural communications? Or will it be like Schmitt says, always about friends and enemies.

Class 4/1

Before I begin. Did anybody else attempt to go to the Tavern tonight. My God I hate Greek Life on Campus.

Remember when PTJ asked if we could become a political actor against the Greeks. My answer is 100% yes. PTJ, tell us what to do, we are Borg. Resistance is futile, they will be assimiliated to the honors side.

Now back to the discussion.

The idea that a group must be willing to fight as the primary determinate as to whether they can be considered a political entity and thus a state is very interesting. The whole problem of the Palestinians is given whole new life when this is the sort of qualifications that are placed into the context.

I also really liked the distinction made between an enemy and a foe. I would have never thought to create such a distinction but now it seems so clear.

I would end with a found farewell to Heir Schmitt but I came across something as I was looking around that I feel demands some attention.

While I was looking for some other things to bring in I came across this page from the University of Oklahoma. This is an academic site which has copied an entire page directly from Wikipedia. Maybe our blogs and Wikipages will carry more respect than we initially thought.

Reflection on Class 10

Good morning:

I would like to do this reflective post based on the entirety of our conversation yesterday, but I would like to tie it in to a quote from one of my favorite books ever: Grendel, by John Gardener. This is the modern-era book, written from the perspective of Grendel - the antagonist in the ancient epic Beowulf. The quote goes as follows:

"What is the state in a time of domestic or foreign crisis? What is the state when the chips are down? The answer is obvious and clear! Oh yes! If a few men quit work, the police move in. If the borders are threatened, the army rolls out. Public force is the life and soul of every state: not merely army and police but prisons, judges, tax collectors, every conceivable trick of coercive repression. The state is an organization of violence, a monopoly in what it is pleased to call 'legitimized' violence. Revolution, my dear prince, is not the substitution of immoral for moral, or of illegitimate for legitimate violence; it is simply the pitting of power against power, where the issue is freedom for the winners and enslavement of the rest." -The old peasant to Hrothulf

In this instance, Grendel, with his monstrous inhuman appearance, has not yet been detected by the human guards, and so he overhears this conversation in their camp. Both within the content of this speech, and more generally the entire tale of Grendel's persecution based on his inhumanness, the book follows what Schmitt predicts fairly closely. The various bands of human warriors are all tied together by blood in some way or another, hence Beowulf being greeted as cousin, albeit very carefully when he approaches the camp of Hrothgar. These groups are all loosely tied then by blood, but still consider each other Schmittian enemies, in that they push at each other's borders time and again and then relent; yet also Schmittian friends, in that they have some things in common and can see each other as friends. Grendel, once identified, clearly becomes the foe of Hrothgar - he cannot face him alone, so requests Beowulf (the strongest in the land) to come to his aid. He arrives, and eventually bests Grendel in one-to-one combat (which is where Grendel the novel ends up at) - but as can be gleamed from reading the poem Beowulf, Grendel the inhuman, existential threat of a monster is cut down: at this the Danes all celebrate his destruction. Although I did not read much of the [epically long] poem beyond the Grendel and his mother portion, my teacher at the time mentioned the various problems the Danes later encountered amongst themselves, when there was no other enemy such as Grendel to unite against. All in all, a story that fits well into Schmitt's ideas. It is uncanny how well that quote I picked out of Grendel fits into Schmitt's haunting vision of the future (I am not sure if Gardener actually meant to allude to it or not, but I feel like he did).


I do actually suggest that ye who read this post also pick up a copy of Grendel and read it - I could even loan it to you, so just ask me

I also request that you do not ever go to see that epic failure of a movie they attempted to make out of this..... "The American Movie Business: Ruining Good Stories from as early as 1100 AD"

-Mike

Reflection, Class 10

Well. Down with the Weimars...and universals. Oh, and liberalism and pluralism. Yay National Socialist Party? Maybe. For all his political faults (sort of ironic...), I do think Schmitt has interesting things to say. I particularly wanted to touch on that last paragraph that we closed class with. In my Politics in the TV Age class we talked about how everything is sensationalized and turned into an enemy, sort of akin to what Schmitt was talking about when war was changed to keeping the peace. Everything can be justified in that context, covers all manner of sins, if you will. Someone's disturbing class? Kick 'em out, they're disturbing the peace. Causing a ruckus in a public place? Arrest 'em, they're disturbing the peace. Don't know what to do with someone because they don't seem to fit in? Put them away somewhere, they're disturbing the peace.
At the same time, some of that seems necessary, doesn't it? Stability and order in governing and in the citizenry make for a stable country. Governing stability certainly is important, given the lesson of the Weimar Republic. And it seems like, until we do a 180, or at least a 90 on how society approaches the different/non-status quo, those who cause trouble and disrupt the stability need to be dealt with, either through teaching them not to cause trouble (rehabilitation or simple education) or need to be put away (imprisonment). I'm not quite sure how to fix all that. Utopia, I guess. Maybe lots of soma, that seems to work.

The Concept of the Political: Pre-Class Reactions

Originally, when I first read the part on pages 26-28 I couldn’t help but disagree to an extent, I just didn’t see the political as something that belongs in a different category from economics or other social forces. But to me the term political and state applies to governments of various forms and nation states, since nation states are the ones considered as the sole actors in the world and the only ones that can officially wage war by international relations standards (since the time Schmitt writing this globalization has changed the playing field a lot, even though IR still claims states as sole actors in international relations). On page 35 I started to truly see that he was using the words differently from what I am used to when he says that a religious community that persecutes the other side is then acting politically, by current international standards that isn’t the case, at least not with the terms he uses, since only states have the “legitimate” rights to violence and a large part of nation states have separated government from religion. So the main issue I have with this paper is I see political in the same category with for example economical or religious because it is just another aspect of society and affects a particular part of people’s lives. His use of political is a whole different thing because it doesn’t apply solely to governments.

And his point about the enemy vs. friend made me realize just how much this mentality affects our world. Since the “other” is often labeled as enemy, that automatically decrease the chances for peaceful or useful interaction. On page 35 he says that a world without war is a world where the distinction between friend and foe can’t be made and since the opposing side is often just labeled as the enemy it seems unlikely that true peace and understand can exist. People often see different as bad or negative: they don’t live like we do or they don’t act like we do or their moral values are not like ours. And often that is said with a bias, as in: our way of life and morals are correct or superior, they are wrong or bad. So it is easy to see why violent conflict is so prevalent in humanities history. I hope people will eventually learn to first try to learn about and understand the other side and only then make decisions. Humanity tends to have difficulties with “agreeing to disagree” people always want to convert or destroy the other side. I hope peaceful coexistence is something we as race can better adapt. Of course there are some opposing views that need to be stood up against. If one morning I wake up and decide to start randomly killing people I believe deserve to die, I would hope someone would try and stop me. The difference I guess is that when someone chooses to lead a malicious life style then others should try and change that.

Finally I would like to point out the begging of the last paragraph on page 95. What he says there is so true and just powerful. People always justify themselves and often they do commit horrible things thinking they are doing good, and in other cases people use the cover of good ideals to do bad things for other reasons. This hypocrisy seems to be humanities curse that it can’t seem to escape.

The Concept of the Political

I agree that this was not the most thrilling work to read, but then again it is an essay and not a novel so you cannot fault Schmitt for that.

I did think it was really interesting how his beliefs and allegiances were justified and how they interwove with his arguments for political states.

The main thing I saw in this was how close recent history, since he published this, his theories are. He at one point discussed how the world could never actually adopt a completely peaceful stance without enemies. We got close after World War Two with the United Nations but it was quickly apparent that there was a strong mistrust between East and West.

Looking ahead to Thursday I thought it was interesting that since Schmitt said a world could never exist without enemies so long as it was alone, the Federation does exist on Earth peacefully seemingly without any conflict, except of course for the Bugs from space.

I'm afraid that if I were to do too much analysis on the book I would find myself twisting Schmitt's intentions into alignment with history and Starship Troopers, which I kept thinking about as I was reading the book.

See you all on Tuesday.

Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Schmitt

Probably more like Visions of the Present, but again, that darn theme. So, Schmitt. It was kind of hard to get into this one, maybe because of all the preface stuff in the foreword and the introduction and maybe because of the style of the writing. I thought it was interesting how much time was devoted to explaining Schmitt's allegiance to the Nazis. Sort of plays into his friends and enemies discussion though of course the Nazis were horrid and no sane person could follow them.
Okay, so I think I'll focus on the friends and enemies discussion, since it seems to be pretty important. Especially the line on 28: "rationally speaking, it cannot be denied that nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that the distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere." Hmm. Let's see...we do that in wars, Allies vs. Axis, US and other freedom loving countries vs. the Communists, and currently, us vs. the Axis of Evil or the Terrorists. It is also interesting that he notes that "all political concepts, images, and terms have a polemical meaning...focused on a specific conflict and are bound to a concrete situation; the result is a friend-enemy grouping and they turn into empty and ghostlike abstractions when this situation disappears" (30). This too makes sense, even in social situations. We often classify people as enemies based on event alone and when it's done, we can't quite account for why we dislike someone, "we just do".
His point on pg. 32 about party politics being seen as equal to the political is also interesting, because every country with a party system seems to do that to some extent. We do it worse than all the others, of course. Independents are weird for us, we don't quite know what to do with them except have candidates appeal to some basic detail of their lives which would connect them to a party. Once that is done we consider them part of the party, as if they could be anything but. Campaigns are snipe attacks against the other party instead of serious discussion on different ways of looking at issues and working to make the country better.
Anyway, that's it for me this time. I'm sure I'll have more to talk about in my reflection, but these are my points for right now. I do wonder though if we should try to get out of this system that Schmitt is talking about. There's a quote from West Wing discussing how partisan politics is a good thing: "And I don't think Americans are tired of partisan politics; I think they're tired of hearing career politicians diss partisan politics to get a gig. I've tried it before. They ain't buying it. That's okay, though; that's okay, though, 'cause partisan politics is good. Partisan politics is what the founders had in mind. It guarantees that the minority opinion is heard, and as a lifelong possessor of minority opinions, I appreciate it. " (4x05, 'Game On'). So, perhaps party politics is good, just not the way we formulate it.