Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Thursday, January 07, 2010

"Science Fiction Is the Entertainment Wing of Futurism"

Bloggerheads has an interesting exchange up between the always fabulous but far-too-kind-to-transhumanists Annalee Newitz and one of the transhumanists she is far too kind to, James Hughes.

They cover a lot of interesting ground in their conversation, and I found that Annalee especially said lots of stuff that had me nodding my head sympathetically. I so rarely agree with anybody as much as I tend to agree with Annalee that that experience itself is nicely edifying. Nevertheless, one of the things that excited me most in their exchange was something Annalee said that I think I disagree with.

At one point she said in a rather offhand sort of way that "science fiction is the entertainment wing of futurism."

As somebody who has been devoted to science fiction ferociously all my life but who frankly abhors futurology, Annalee's subsumption of science fiction under a futurological wing was a window on a really alien mapping of terrain that preoccupies me as intensely as anything I can think of.

And after all, what queergeek doesn't love an alien contact narrative?

I certainly would never want to put words in Annalee's mouth, but I can say a little about how I would personally relate science fiction and the futurological to suggest how her phrasing here might be at odds with my own.

My own glib variation on Annalee's phrase would be to say that boner-bill commercials and ads for the armed forces involving CGI laser platforms zapping debris out of the path of orbiting satellites with the caption "It's Not Science Fiction" better represent the "entertainment wing of futurism."

In my view futurology is always selling a kind of reassurance to incumbent interests that "the future" (which I forcefully distinguish from futurity) will be an extrapolation or amplification of the terms of their own parochial present. That futurism and futurology function primarily as a genre of reassurance -- even if sometimes in a disasterbatory mode in which incumbents get to stew in what usually looks to be a high state of arousal in their worst pet apocalyptic fears, their own private Room 101 -- is suggested to me already in the very notion that one could append to the radical contingency of futurity ("future is a process, not a destination" as Bruce Sterling rightly scolds) an -ism or an -ology, of all things, in the first place.

Futurology, it seems to me, is just another variation of the familiar swindle in which we are bamboozled into mistaking the profession of a wish or promise or unwarranted prediction for an asset. In futurism as in an enormous amount of corporate sales, promotion, and public relations discourse one is parted from one's money or deranged in one's wants by the projection or prediction of some hyperbolic hope or anxiety idientified with "the future," typically a straightforward extrapolation or amplification of key terms of the parochial present.

As I have remarked elsewhere, I regard futurology as the quintessential genre and gesture of neoliberal ideology. The characterization of the waste, stratification, destabilization, precarization, and distress exacerbated and exploited by neoliberal financialization as "accelerating change" "acceleration of acceleration" or even "progress toward transcension" by the current crop of futurologists (especially in the Robot Cult Caucus of futurology) is the reductio ad absurdum of futurism as neoliberal (corporate-militarist) apologia.

Not to put too fine a point on it, financialization is the temporal (futurological) elaboration of the alienation already enabled, first, through the abstraction from the unjust social conditions and unsustainable ecological impacts of production through the fetishized commodity-form and also, second, through the spatialization of uneven development/(post)colonial organizations of exploitation.

From a political perspective the present has always been riven by the diverse vantages and aspirations of the plural stakeholders who share and contest the world, peer to peer, and hence the present is always as Hannah Arendt put it, "between past and future," a collaboration and antagonism interminably reconciling the diversity of human hopes and histories, always restlessly edging us waywardly elsewhere and otherwise. In our own anthropocene epoch of thoroughly technoscientific agencies the intensity, inter-dependency, scope, and stakes of this open futurity in our present (in our plural presenting, peer-to-peer) is exacerbated to a point of crisis for which the word "revolution" or the phrase "quarrel of the ancients and moderns" are hopelessly inadequate.

Science fiction, it seems to me, provides the generic conventions through which our technoscientific present can be rendered unfamiliar enough for us to gain some critical and imaginative purchase here and now. Science fiction at its best redirects us to the open futurity inhering in our plural present, and is far from reassuring. If anything, science fiction mobilizes stakeholders in the present to educate, agitate, and organize where we are on our way elsewhere.

For me the futurological (as well as the futuristic, which I think was well characterized by Daniel Harris as a style vocabulary involving the perverse denial of the present at the level of details -- which is not at all the same thing as a critical interrogation of the terms of the present -- treated thereupon without cause as markers of "progress") is a profoundly de-politicizing discourse. This feels paradoxical, I know, since we associate technoscience with disruption and denaturalization. But to politicize or de-naturalize the status quo is to insist that the terms on which the present is given are open to collective contestation, are contingent formations caught up in interminable historical struggle. When historical change is figured as reductively techno-determined (deduced, extrapolated, amplified, or even hyperbolized from a parochial vantage in the present) then it is radically de-politicized however disruptive or "transcendental" its apparent preoccupations. It is not surprising, then, however paradoxical it may be, that we find every futurism functionally to be a retro-futurism, a reactionary endorsement of incumbency stealthed behind the mask of a false festival of change.

I won't deny that there is plenty of science fiction that takes on the coloration of the futurological, that sells itself as a spinning of predictive what-ifs in a way that disavows it is always much more about who we are and where we find ourselves now than it is indulging in some at once neutralized and hyperbolized blue-skying about what the world will be like in the next decade or the next century. But it seems to me that such pieces are almost inevitably camp (or just crap), and that they are still most interesting when they are treated as symptomatic engagements with their historical situations anyway.

I have sometimes derided futurologists as folks who cannot distinguish science from science fiction, or futurologists as would-be sf writers so inept that they not only endlessly regurgitate sf tropes and conceits with whiskers on them but also they don't even try to do the work of elementary character and narrative and setting building that even crappy fiction writers grasp as part of their task. But I do think it is crucial that we avoid making too close an identification of sf genres with the promotional pseudo-scientific genres of futurology, and certainly that we resist subsuming science fiction and speculative fiction underneath the futurist or futurological heading altogether.

While I will grant that some sf functions as a retro-futurological celebration of incumbency as the eternal protagonist of history the rest of us can best hope to consume or screen, I think it is crucial to insist as well that much sf is a critical intervention in the present that is politicizing and hence democratizing, at once testifying to and invigorating the open futurity inhering in presence, peer to peer, and as such the insistent opposite of futurism and the futurological.

"The Future" of futurism and futurology is constituted through the denial of open futurity. Futurisms and ologies characteristically substitute for the promise of political freedom arising out of open futurity the sterile promise of incapacious capacitating amplifications of instrumental force. They pretends their essentially promotional discourse is a science when it isn't, that their sales-pitch is foresight when it isn't, and that their celebration of triumphalist incumbency is a doctrine of change when it isn't. Quite in tune with the neoliberal spirit of its time, futurology originates in facile error and consummates in fraud, and to the likely ruin of the world.

3 comments:

jimf said...

> At one point she said in a rather offhand sort of way
> that "science fiction is the entertainment wing of futurism."
>
> As somebody who has been devoted to science fiction ferociously
> all my life but who frankly abhors futurology, Annalee's
> subsumption of science fiction under a futurological wing
> was a window on a really alien mapping of terrain that preoccupies
> me as intensely as anything I can think of.
>
> And after all, what queergeek doesn't love an alien contact narrative?

Some SF **does** function as "the entertainment wing of futurism",
of course.

It's interesting to see where the fault lines are, as they go back
decades (as in "New Wave" SF vs. the "rayguns 'n' rocket ships"
contingent of SF authors and readers).

You and I both enjoy SF authors who are clearly not (or at least
not without tongue hovering near cheek) cheerleaders for futurology.
William Gibson. Bruce Sterling. In my case, J. G. Ballard.
Octavia Butler. Ursula Le Guin. James Tiptree Jr. (Alice B. Sheldon).
Ray Bradbury. Perhaps George Turner. Olaf Stapledon.
Frank Herbert, I guess. Philip K. Dick. Cordwainer Smith.

These authors, tellingly, tend **not** to be liked by the
contemporary >Hists (and have historically tended not to be
much appreciated by the ray-guns-'n'-rocket-ships
SF fans, either).

Other authors who have been embraced (or at least were at one
time embraced) by the >Hists were so co-opted, I think, under mistaken
assumptions. I'm thinking in particular of people like Greg Egan
and conceivably even David Brin and Vernor Vinge. Charlie Stross, maybe.

But some SF authors, then and now, **have** been out-and-out
cheerleaders for futurology (or cults of other sorts, like
proto-Scientology). A. E. Van Vogt. Arthur C. Clarke, a
fortiorissimo (but who nevertheless had his virtues.)

How would you classify John C. Wright? Once beloved of the >Hists,
and then he met God.

Dale Carrico said...

How would you classify John C. Wright?

I would classify John C. Wright as the sf equivalent of a forger of velvet Elvis paintings the originals of which never had anything but camp value in the first place. I don't understand why transhumanists would hold Mr. Wright's finding God against him, inasmuch as they see god every time they look in the mirror and daydream about transforming themselves into eight-foot chrome dildos.

jimf said...

> I would classify John C. Wright as the sf equivalent of
> a forger of velvet Elvis paintings the originals of which
> never had anything but camp value in the first place. . .

Speak of the devil:

http://johncwright.livejournal.com/304719.html
-------------------------------------------
The topic of bioethics is of some interest to me because
my latest science fiction book examines some of the implications
of Transhumanism, which were touched on only tangentially in
my earlier book THE GOLDEN AGE. In that book I simply assumed
the men of the far future to be all of morally upright and
perfect sanity, human weaknesses having been long ago bred
and trained out of the race: ergo none of the particular moral
quandaries pertinent to men with the power to remake mankind
would arise.

Be that as it may, I confess I am a little disappointed by
the current state of what is called Bioethics. . .
-------------------------------------------

Do tell. So what is this latest science fiction book?
I guess the author is still writing it. Something to look
forward to.

I notice I forgot to mention Iain Banks among the authors embraced
by the >Hists without fully understanding them.

But let's not even mention Orson Scott Card. ;->