Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 6: Robert Heinlein): gentle and tame treatment of controversial SF writer

Declan Whitebloom, “Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 6: Robert Heinlein)” (2011)

After a few episodes of worthy yet not very controversial science fiction writers, this series now switches to a writer who espoused a range of seemingly contradictory as well extreme opinions about humans’ relationship to their society and people’s obligations to maintaining social order versus their responsibility as free and independent individuals to resist conformity and defend liberty. Robert Heinlein was a prolific writer of sci-fi short stories and novels throughout his long career that spanned nearly fifty years; his most famous works include “Stranger in a Strange Land”, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and “Starship Troopers”. Born and raised in Missouri in the early 20th century, Heinlein absorbed the values and attitudes of a politically and socially conservative mid-western American culture; he joined the Navy as a young 20-something but had to leave in the mid-1930s and thereafter held down a series of jobs including campaigning for US writer Upton Sinclair’s socialist End Poverty in California movement and himself campaigning for a seat in California State Assembly. When he failed to get a seat, Heinlein turned to science fiction writing and struck gold; he began writing SF fiction for a magazine and in 1950 contributed to a space exploration movie “Destination Moon” which won an Academy Award.

Through the usual mix of interviews (most of which are with the same people who’ve featured on other episodes of “Prophets …”), animation, archived film, historical drama re-enactments, excerpts from Hollywood movies based on Heinlein’s work and voice-over narration, the film conveys some major themes of Heinlein’s work: his firm and unwavering belief in self-reliance, self-determination and personal liberty, his patriotism and belief in a strong US military and defence against America’s enemies both political and ideological, and his faith in US scientific and technological progress. Several technologies and modern concepts such as the use of exoskeletons, travel to the moon and lunar exploration, the Internet with its decentralised networks and transcranial magnetic stimulation – the use of electromagnetic induction to produce weak electrical fields with a rapidly changing magnetic field to stimulate or influence activity in the brain or parts thereof – are shown to have been predicted in one way or another by Heinlein in several of his novels and short stories.

Interestingly, the film veers away from examining Heinlein’s attitudes on race, sexual liberation as a necessary adjunct to personal liberation, incest and child sexuality, unorthodox family structures and his interest in the work of philosopher / scientist Alfred Korzybski (whose theory of general semantics states that the structure of human nervous systems and of languages limit and even distort human knowledge and acquisition of knowledge) and in cultural relativism; and makes of Heinlein a less complex and more conservative figure than he might have been. All of these interests Heinlein had surely stem from his belief that humans are capable of determining their own values and ways of thinking, behaving and living, and that humans should not conform for the sake of conformity; at the same time, he was a fervid believer in upholding the US military and US military capabilities against Communism and in space and cyber-space. The novel “Starship Troopers” holds that citizenship is to be earned and people should respect the military and soldiers; the Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, who is interviewed in the documentary, turned the novel into a satire on US politics and culture.

The documentary ends up treating Heinlein very gently and seems rather at a loss in explaining his seemingly contradictory positions on many issues. It notes several times that “Stranger in a Strange Land” attracted the attention of the US counter-culture, as if the film-makers can hardly believe that fact themselves. Yet Heinlein’s beliefs on sexuality and free love are of a piece with his libertarian outlook.

At this point, it might be fun to consider what Heinlein would make of contemporary US society were he still alive: doubtless he’d be glad to see a black man as President but he’d also be horrified at the killing machine the US military has become  across the world (Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan among others), at how US military values have been warped and US soldiers forced to fight and die in foreign lands to serve the interests of a small elite that controls politics, the economy, the media and religion in his beloved America. He would be incredulous at the extent to which the Internet and Internet-based social networks and search engines are increasingly used by governments and private interests to spy on people and track their movements through cyberspace for profit or as a way of controlling and managing dissent. He might realise that current Western capitalism itself can embody values and ideologies that are just as destructive of self-determination and individualism as belief systems that favour the group above the individual – because ideologies based on a negative definition of liberty and which don’t include a positive definition not only verge on psychopathy but are ultimately self-defeating. “Freedom” is not really freedom if it chains you to a worse master than externally imposed political / social / economic tyrannies: your inner desires and appetites.

Outsourced!: small-scaled film offers a resigned look at call-centre work outsourcing

Anna Cater and Safina Uberoi, “Outsourced!” (2006)

An interesting and pleasant personalised film revolving around eight call-centre workers in India and Australia, “Outsourced!” examines the effect of the offshoring of call-centre jobs from First World countries like Australia to developing countries like India on both Australians and Indians alike; in particular, the impact of call-centre work on Indian society and attitudes towards working women, gender relations, marriage and life-styles. The film tackles these topics by following four female call-centre workers in Gurgaon, a burgeoning hi-tech satellite city on the outskirts of New Delhi in northern India. To a much lesser extent, the film also looks at how the outsourcing of call-centre jobs and similar white collar jobs will affect the Australian workforce and Australian people’s attitudes towards Indians and other people in countries where Australian industry and the jobs associated with them are flying to.

Through interviews and a voice-over narrator, the film itself flies back and forth between its Indian interviewees and Australian interviewees, contrasting the very different attitudes of Indians and Australians towards call-centre work. In Australia, call-centre work carries lesser prestige than most other white-collar jobs and many workers are employed on a casual or temporary basis; no special qualifications are thought necessary to apply for a call-centre customer service job. In India on the other hand, working in a call centre is considered highly prestigious and many people with impressive university qualifications – one of the Gurgaon-based women featured is a medical professional – hanker and compete for such work though it is stressful and tiring and makes considerable demands on Indian workers. Indian employees spend a great deal of training time perfecting their accents in speaking English so they are not suspected by Australian callers of being foreigners. Many Indians also have to unlearn what they were taught about saving money and only buying what they need and/or if they can afford it: buying things on credit and taking out a mortgage on a house are not only unusual and unfamiliar activities for these workers but the very nature of these activities may strike them as unethical and morally suspect.

The effect of working in call-centres on Indian women is dramatic: a generation of young female call-centre workers is discovering financial freedom and independence, and this discovery is generating a demand for goods and services which in turn leads to a rise in retail jobs and businesses, construction of shopping malls and an accompanying rise in the value of commercial real estate as more land must be made available to build shops and other businesses. (Nothing is said about how such results might be having an adverse effect on slums and slum-dwellers, farms, wildlife reserves and areas where tribal peoples live.) Call-centre workers work in groups and teams, forcing young men and women of different ethnicities, religions and social levels to rub shoulders: Western work habits and values must be learned and adhered to, distinctions of caste are breaking down, traditional ideas about how unrelated men and women should interact are falling away, people no longer care what religion their boyfriends and girlfriends belong to, women are putting off marriage and starting families at a later age, and a new youth culture based on a fusion of Western youth culture and native Indian culture is developing in new night-clubs and other places frequented by the workers in their free time with cash to spare. Just to watch these young Indians, men and women, boldly negotiating a new path for themselves and their families, confronting old ways of thinking and behaving, defying family and cultural traditions, and contemplating and relishing personal ambitions and goals hitherto alien to their families and culture, can be very dizzying and uplifting; imagine then, what effect this generation of youngsters might have on Indian society in the future. (This is assuming that current trends in global offshoring of jobs to India will continue, and that assumption cannot be taken for granted.)  At the same time though, a new Indian youth culture might end up having a homogenising effect on Indian society and much about traditional Indian cultures that’s seen to be incompatible with Western and fusion Western / Indian culture may well be lost forever to our detriment.

Back in Australia, call-centre workers ruefully accept that they can’t stop jobs going off to developing countries. Some are happy that Indian people who’d otherwise live in poverty are able to earn money and live comfortably. Australian employers interviewed talk about how Australia must develop more highly skilled work for IT and other white-collar professionals but this depends on universities and TAFE colleges being able to educate and train people to the standard required. Obviously if the Australian government continues to cut funding to higher education and does nothing about the working conditions and job security of Australian university and TAFE teachers - about two-thirds of Australian university academics are employed as sub-contractors and have no job security or holiday and sick leave provisions – then the highly skilled hi-tech professionals required will become very scarce and this will be Australia’s loss. As for India, some people there are already concerned that countries like China and Sri Lanka will compete with India for call-centre work and some such jobs in India will flow to those countries; in the not too distant future, countries like South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria will also join the competition with even cheaper English-speaking labour.

No statistics are offered in this program and the documentary doesn’t look at any trends likely to affect globalised call-centre work or whether it will even last well into the 21st century. Rapid changes in technology could all but make call-centre work redundant in the next 10 or 20 years. The film accepts that call-centre work in its present form, migrating to whichever country can offer the cheapest, most compliant labour and cutting a swathe through traditional society and ways of thinking and acting wherever it goes, is here to stay: no challenge or alternative ways of working are offered. For that bleak and unsatisfying outcome, I leave the film in some despair.

The Dictator: comedy savages Western self-righteousness, ignorance and hypocrisy

Larry Charles, “The Dictator” (2012)

I confess I saw this latest Sacha Baron Cohen film to see how offensive and tasteless it is. Truly dictatorial “The Dictator” is, in dredging up every known Western stereotype about Middle Eastern / North African countries and peoples, and tin-pot dictators around the world, and throwing it all hard and brutally back in our faces. At once LOL idiotic, puerile and revolting, SBC’s latest comedy vehicle hides a subversive and biting satire on Western ignorance of other peoples, cultures and religions, the West’s cynical support for freedom and democracy in Third World countries which masks corporate greed for those countries’ natural resources, and how easily so-called progressive and idealistic causes can be corrupted by contact with rapacious capitalism and political oppression.

The movie is at once a romantic comedy and a “fish out of water” adventure. Admiral Shabaz Aladeen (SBC) of the oil-rich desert nation Wadiya, located where Eritrea would normally sit (and thereby potentially antagonising real Eritrean people), is compelled to visit New York City to address the United Nations Security Council when that august body threatens to invade his country for stubbornly forging ahead with  a nuclear weapons production program. Little does the feckless Aladeen know that his wicked uncle Tamir (Ben Kingsley) plans to usurp him and take his place as Supreme Leader so he can “democratise” Wadiya and open up the country’s resources to Western oil companies. Soon enough, Tamir’s hired hitman kidnaps Aladeen but the dictator escapes and finds refuge with Zoe (Anna Faris), an eco-activist who manages a food co-op with the help of Third World refugees. It so happens that the co-op supplies food to the Lancaster Hotel where Aladeen’s entourage is staying so with the help of Nadal (Jason Mantzoukas), the exiled former head of the Wadiya nuclear weapons development program, Aladeen attempts to infiltrate the hotel and get rid of his simple-minded double who is being manipulated by Tamir.

Along the way, Aladeen learns about co-operating with people of different origins and cultures, running a business based on lofty idealistic principles, falls in love with Zoe, discovers the extent to which Muslims and Arabs are detested in the West and finally recognises the worth of democracy – or maybe not in all cases.

The film is chaotic and messy (though not as meandering as SBC’s earlier “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation Kazakhstan”) with skits raggedly put together and then wrung and squeezed to their utmost for bad-taste comedy. A scene in which a woman gives birth in Zoe’s store can be excruciating to watch for layering several tasteless vulgarities to the nth degree and the punch-line Aladeen utters when the baby (inevitably) is a girl can be predicted ten parsecs away. The funniest bits are quite subtle and easy to miss, and not for the first time (nor for the last) did I find myself the only person in the cinema – I admit that there were not very many people watching the film with me and we could all be counted on the fingers of two hands – laughing out too loudly at idiotic jokes like the Fallujah Firebomb during the torture scene, the equation of Dick Cheney with Saddam Hussein and Colonel Muammar Gadhafi during the would-be suicide scene and the UN Assembly scene in which Tamir requests Exxon not to use BP oil-rigs in its share of Wadiya’s territorial waters.

Director Charles and SBC pay attention to visual details that lampoon the media and the profligacy of wealthy political elites: two talking heads for a TV news program dissect the performance of Aladeen’s double at a conference and wildly misinterpret his bumbling behaviour as having momentous import for viewers, some of whom might be policy-makers and other government lackeys; and it’s not only Aladeen who is misogynist and has flamboyantly bad taste in furnishings, recreational pursuits and clothing – diplomats from other, better-behaved countries are also portrayed as vulgar twats. The music, chosen by SBC, loudly and merrily runs the gamut from lovey-dovey schmaltzy to trash disco and faux Middle Eastern techno.

The film makes its biggest Laugh-Out Loud impact in the climax in which Aladeen tears up Tamir’s “democratic” constitution and expounds at length on how tyrannies should exercise social and political control over populations: his speech ends up a condemnation of the US (and by implication the entire First World), the global financial industry, the global media (News Corporation and the Murdoch family being singled out in particular) and the way in which a tiny elite – the “one percent” – controls everyone else through debt / global finance and culture.

Just as hilarious and creepy is Aladeen’s management of Zoe’s food co-op, using the violent and unorthodox methods he used as the Wadiya kahuna in turning around the fortunes of the store and winning back the contract to supply food to the Lancaster Hotel. Another outstanding scene finds Aladeen in the emigre district of Little Wadiya where everyone he meets turns out to be someone he condemned to death years ago but who was spirited away to the US by the Wadiya state executioner; this scene is a commentary on the travails of refugees when they reach what they imagine are countries offering friendship and security but which spurn and consign them to lowly neighbourhoods where they eke out an existence running restaurants catering to their own community. A fourth very funny scene is the helicopter scene in which Nadal and Aladeen chat excitedly in Wadiyan about visiting the New York City sights while two American passengers opposite them grow alarmed at what they think is a discussion of plans to bomb the Statue of Liberty and Yankee Stadium.

The film narrowly escapes charges of being racist and discriminating against Muslims and Arabs by taking on a range of targets and skewering each and every one of them in crude and savage ways: the laugh is on us Western audiences and our smug self-righteousness, hypocrisy and ignorance about peoples and cultures we continue to care less about.

The World Tomorrow (Episode 5: Moazzam Begg, Asim Qureshi): series is becoming repetitive and a little disappointing

Julian Assange, “The World Tomorrow (Episode 5: Moazzam Begg, Asim Qureshi)” (Russia Today, 15 May 2012)

At last Julian Assange gets a real cosy conversation with both interviewees bunkered down with him in his house prison. Moazzam Begg  is a British citizen of Pakistani origin who was detained in both the Bagram Theater Internment Facility and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for three years by the US government until his release in January 2005.  He and Asim Qureshi, a former corporate lawyer, run Cage Prisoners Ltd, a human rights organisation working to raise public awareness of prisoners still trapped in Guantanamo Bay prison. The talk is part-interview / part-discussion as Assange sets the agenda in a general way and Begg and Qureshi answer his questions and probing to the best of their ability.

Begg and Qureshi are polite and articulate interviewees who are open about what it means to be Muslim and to witness for their fellow Muslims and struggle on their behalf. They discuss the concept of “jihad” and what “submission” to God means to them personally as Muslims. Assange questions the men at length about how they reconcile their beliefs in Islam and their concept of an Islamic caliphate with social justice and living in the modern world. The three range across many issues facing Muslims in the world after the World Trade Center attacks on 11 September 2001, in particular the Arab Spring events, and how Muslims across the Middle East and northern Africa are continuing to push for democracy and social justice and move away from repressive dictatorships supported by foreign powers. Finally Begg and Qureshi talk about why they formed Cage Prisoners Ltd and why they want to continue agitating for the rights of people still trapped in Guantanamo Bay prison and similar prisons around the world.

The episode is a very condensed version of what the men actually talked about; a full transcript is available. Reading the transcript, I discover that Begg is quite knowledgeable about the history of British repression of the IRA and early support for mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Colonel Gadhafi in Libya in 2011, and how current laws in the UK being passed to restrict Muslims’ rights and to spy on them can very easily be used against the rest of the British population. There is mention of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born imam who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011 and what his death represents in the context of the US becoming a criminal police state that kills people before they’ve even been charged with committing crimes. There is also talk about Western hypocrisy in the conduct of the War on Terror and the demonisation of al Qa’ida.

Assange still can’t quite get his head around the concept of “submission” to God, taking “submission” very literally whereas I suspect that for most Muslims, “submission” refers to accepting God and religion with all its disciplines and strictures in their lives, and the spiritual peace and assurance that come with that acceptance. I am disappointed that Assange didn’t ask his interviewees more details about what Cage Prisoners Ltd is doing to publicise their cause and how the general public in Britain can support the organisation’s activities.

Interestingly near the beginning of the talk, Begg mentions that while in prison he heard the sounds of a woman screaming next door and was told the woman was his wife: he does not say which prison he was in at the time but if he had been in Bagram when he heard these sounds, it’s very likely that he had been hearing Dr Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani “Grey Lady of Bagram” neuroscientist, arrested with three of her children while in Pakistan in 2003, and imprisoned and subjected to horrific abuse for five years while the children disappeared. In 2008, Siddiqui was arrested in Afghanistan and while in custody, supposedly shot US soldiers guarding her; for this, she was forced to stand trial in the US in 2010 despite being severely ill and was convicted of all charges against her. At this time of writing, Siddiqui remains in jail, having been sentenced to 86 years’ imprisonment; two of her children were returned to her family and the third child is now known to have died during her initial 2003 arrest.

Overall this episode was a good introduction to Moazzam Begg, Cage Prisoners and the work they are doing but beyond that, I’m afraid there’s not much really substantial that hasn’t already been dealt with in previous “The World Tomorrow” episodes. The series is starting to sound repetitive with constant references to the Arab Spring, Tunisia and Egypt, and while the fight for democracy and social justice in the Arab world is important, the concept of the series was intended to be more inclusive of ideas and concepts going beyond current events.

Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 5: Isaac Asimov): patchy and shallow portrayal of famous science fiction writer and his influence

Declan Whitebloom, “Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 5: Isaac Asimov)” (2011)

Curiously in this episode on American SF writer Isaac Asimov, none of his really major works apart from parts of the “Robot” series perhaps gets a mention: reference to the “Foundation” series of novels or his “Nightfall” series is absent - but then the emphasis is all on robots and robotics, for which Asimov is known and remembered, rightly and wrongly perhaps. As with the other episodes in this series “Prophets of Science Fiction”, the program examines Asimov’s life and significant events in it that spurred or influenced him to write the stories that he did, and the scientific, medical and technological advances that his stories, novels and other writings inspired with a mixture of interviews, different forms of animation, dramatic re-enactments of moments in Asimov’s life, excerpts from Hollywood movies and archival films. The documentary breathlessly covers, among other things it ranges widely over, the Three Laws of Robotics that Asimov developed as a thematic device to generate and plot short stories and novels, and through them explore the relationship between humans and their technology and what happens when (usually of course) any of the three laws is broken.

It’s a pity in a way that only Asimov’s influence on science through robots and robotics is the focus here, impressive though the innovations in that field are. The man was a true polymath, writing widely on many topics including history and science, and his influence on science fiction writing was so great that the history of science fiction writing itself can be divided into two periods: BA (before Asimov, the period before the 1950s) and AE (the Asimov Era, 1950 onward), as though Asimov were a Jesus figure; therefore, no one documentary can hope to encapsulate the full extent of Asimov’s influence over SF writing itself, let alone over science and technology! The episode contents itself by mentioning that Asimov wrote many non-fiction works and noting that he managed to have at least one title published in nine out of the ten categories of subjects in the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme.

Even Asimov’s fiction isn’t mined that much in the film for ideas and innovations: for example, the “Foundation” series, inspired in part by Edward Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, has robot characters that can influence human minds and thinking and these characters could have inspired technology currently in progress that has the potential to change human thought, perhaps for sinister purposes. I have a very strong feeling that the film-makers picked those aspects of Asimov’s fiction to make connections to scientific, medical and technological innovations seen to be “safe” and easy for the general public to accept; the same criticism can be made of all other episodes of “Prophets …” I have seen so far. The focus in the series has generally been on fiction writers whose work tends towards optimistic scientific and technological progress and takes the values and assumptions underpinning such scientific and technological progress for granted.

The coverage of Asimov’s life and achievements is patchy and gives the impression that he did little else but write loads of stories (although a brief stint in the military is mentioned). There is cursory reference to his phobia of wide spaces and nothing about his fear of flying or his membership of unusual clubs such as the Trap Door Spiders, an all-male partying literary club made up of science fiction writers, which influenced some of his writing.

As with some of the other episodes, Hollywood movies like “I, Robot” and “The Bicentennial Man” are mentioned as examples of the extent of Asimov’s popularity in pop culture; a better example might have been Asimov’s association with Gene Roddenberry and the “Star Trek” TV and movie franchise. Overall I am rather disappointed with this episode’s presentation of Asimov the man, the writer and the futurist.

Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 1: Mary Shelley): conservative message about scientific responsibility delivered

Declan Whitebloom, “Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 1: Mary Shelley)” (2011)

This episode revolves around Mary Godwin-Shelley’s famous novel “Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus” and the circumstances in which it was inspired and written, and the scientific ideas and innovations the novel generated. Mary Shelley was the product of the English Enlightenment: her mother Mary Wollstonecraft was a famous feminist who died partly as a result of giving birth to her and her father William Godwin was a philosopher who educated his daughter; as indicated by the documentary, much of Mary Shelley’s early childhood focussed on finding out as much about her dead mother as the girl possibly could, reading all the mother’s writings and visiting her grave often. As a teenager, Mary eloped with Percy Bysshe Shelley and in the summer of 1816, affected by the atmospheric fallout of Mount Tambora’s eruption in Indonesia the year before, the two wound up at a place near Geneva in Switzerland with various friends who included the English poet Lord Byron. Byron set all the friends a fun task to see who could write the best horror story and after thinking about a possible plotline for some weeks, the idea came to Mary during a dream in which a scientist creates a new life from dead flesh and becomes terrified and disgusted by what he has done. “Frankenstein …” was born.

Using a mix, often fast-moving and bewildering at times, of animation, CGI animation, dramatised re-enactments, excerpts from the 1994 film “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” made by Kenneth Branagh and snippets of interviews with fiction writers, scientists, computer experts and others, the film makes a plausible case that the novel has inspired and even foretold many scientific, medical and engineering concepts and innovations. The use of electrical impulses to stimulate dead or damaged tissue or parts of the spinal cord cut off from the brain through accident is portrayed in an impressive way with the example of paraplegic Rob Summers undergoing tests conducted by Professor V Reggie Edgerton of the University of California (LA); other innovations investigated include human genome research and engineering, artificial intelligence and transplants of organs and limbs.

Interestingly the film addresses the issue of scientific ethics and responsibility with regard to how the results of research and experimentation should be used, and how scientific research itself should be conducted. The interviewees themselves suggest that scientific inquiry should never be hobbled although it’s possible their words were edited in such a way that they come across as self-interested and a little arrogant about the role of science in society that they never intended. There’s nothing about how science and scientists can be compromised and forced by their employers, whether public or private, to fudge results or lie about them, or to run experiments and conduct research based on dubious assumptions and questionable ethics as in the case of German and Japanese scientists who ran hideously sadistic medical experiments on prisoners of war and civilians during the Second World War.

The film does rush through Mary Shelley’s biography and the various ideas, concepts and issues raised by her novel, trying to cram as much information as it can into 40 minutes of TV viewing time. A message about being responsible for and owning the work you do and its results, and for science to serve the needs of humanity and benefit it, comes through quite clearly but it’s a limited, conservative one that says very little about the very real problems scientists often face today in thinking and behaving ethically in a world that’s becoming increasingly hostile towards scientific inquiry and the original Enlightenment quest for truth, objectivity, accountability and accuracy.

A brief tour of the novel’s influence on literature and popular culture comes at the very end of the documentary almost as an after-thought. Perhaps this part of the documentary should have been reserved for a separate episode on the influence of novels such as this, Joseph Sheridan le Fanu’s “Carmilla” and Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” on pop culture products such as Hollywood movies, pop music, youth subcultures and computer games.

 

The World Tomorrow (Episode 4: Nabeel Rajab, Alaa Abdal-Fattah): a lesson in how to be a human rights activist / revolutionary

Julian Assange, “The World Tomorrow (Episode 4: Nabeel Rajab, Alaa Abdal-Fattah)” (Russia Today, 8 May 2012)

In this episode, Assange interviews two human rights activist revolutionaries, Nabeel Rajab of Bahrain and Alaa Abdal-Fattah of Egypt. At the time of the interview, Rajab had been menaced by police and government authorities who had tried to arrest at home while he was in the UK visiting Assange; after the interview, Rajab returned to Bahrain and was almost immediately detained by the authorities. Abdal-Fattah was under house arrest and forbidden to travel so he participated in the interview through a Skype connection. The interview took up three hours but only 28 minutes made it to video and this video constitutes the basis for this review.

Both interviewees are very articulate about their respective countries’ politics and the general politics of the Middle East. Rajab provides a quick short history of Bahrain: the country has long been ruled by one family with Western support (mostly British as Adam Curtis’s post “If You Take My Advice – I’d Repress Them” on his blog reveals) while the desires and needs of the Bahraini people for democracy go ignored. The media organisation Al Jazeera supports the Bahraini government and does not report on the meddling of Saudi Arabia in Bahraini affairs; ergo, Western media also ignores the situation in Bahrain and how Saudi Arabia undermines Bahraini sovereignty. Rajab admits that fighting for freedom and democracy involves a heavy cost but he is willing to fight to the utmost to achieve abstract ideals.

Abdal-Fattah describes the various crimes he has been accused of, to the extent that he finds humour in the list of crimes that make him appear super-human, being in two or more places at once and single-handedly taking on two platoons and stealing their stash of weapons. He discusses the current state of the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt and how it seems to have stalled with no clear direction. The interviewees move onto different aspects of the revolutions in Bahrain and Egypt including the role of social media and technology in spreading and exchanging information among different groups fighting for freedom, and the impact of the revolutions and the interviewees’ own experiences with the police and government authorities on their own families. Interestingly, far from being cowed by threats and harassment, the families resolved to resist the authorities. Even the role of football clubs in the Egyptian revolution got a mention – and you thought football clubs were good only for soccer hooliganism!

Apart from Nabeel’s opinion that Iraq is a democracy and that Russia and United States should speak with one voice on the situation in Syria and should help that country, I didn’t find much to fault what the two interviewees said. I do think that Nabeel is looking at Syria and Libya in a naive way, equating the struggles in those countries with the struggle in Bahrain, and not appreciating that these countries have had very different post-1945 histories from his own in spite of a shared language and to some extent cultural heritage. At least he said that the Syrians must be allowed to decide for themselves what government they want without interference from outside. The trio also discussed politics and democracy in the United States and the United Kingdom, finding much in those countries that paralleled the repressive rule in Egypt and Bahrain, but this part of the interview failed to make it to the 28-minute video presentation.

As it is, the video is a mere shadow of what the men ranged over and abruptly cuts off Abdal-Fattah while in the middle of talking about his son. I hope that Assange will be able to edit the three-hour interview he did and upload this to the Russia Today website. The 28-minute interview can be viewed here and the full three-hour transcript can be read here.

 

Psychology of Fraud: Why Good People do Bad Things – a well-considered presentation let down by weak solutions

Chana Joffe-Walt and Alix Spiegel, “Psychology of Fraud: Why Good People do Bad Things” (National Public Radio News / All Things Considered, 1 May 2012)

A very interesting multi-media presentation that consists of an online article, a podcast and a comic strip, this joint effort combines recent psychological research on unethical behaviour and why apparently good people commit fraud and engage in immoral activities with a real-life case in a way that’s easy to read and identify with for the general public. The podcast and the article can be heard and read separately or in isolation as each doesn’t add anything that the other doesn’t already have.

The podcast is in two parts: the first part features both Joffe-Walt and Spiegel talking about Toby Groves who in 2008 was sentenced to two years in prison for carrying an incredible bank fraud that US$7 million and which drove several companies out of business, cost one hundred people their jobs and sent a company president to jail also. Groves himself also appears on the podcast, talking about how he slipped into making one unethical decision after another despite having had a moral upbringing and having promised his father as a young college student that he would never copy his older brother and go to jail for fraud.

The second part deals with Joffe-Walt and Spiegel discussing the psychological research that tries to explain why people like Groves and his employees willingly fell into criminal behaviour. Psychologists like Ann Tenbrunsel of Notre Dame University explain that when we are faced with problems, we are usually in a particular cognitive frame of mind that influences how we deal with the problems; this cognitive frame of mind itself may be influenced by our physical surroundings, the networks of people in them and the information we are receiving and how it is structured.  An example is an experiment Tenbrunsel carried out with two groups of people: one group was told to think about a business decision, the other to think about an ethical decision. The groups produced mental checklists and then were given an unrelated task to distract them. Tenbrunsel presented the groups with an opportunity to cheat. The group that had thought about the business decision was more apt to lie than the other group.

The article on NPR.org was structured in six chapters with a comic strip illustrating the relevant parts of Toby Groves’s case in each chapter. The psychology lesson first appears in Chapter 3 and comes to dominate subsequent chapters. What is really intriguing about Groves’s case is how readily people helped Groves do what they clearly knew was illegal, simply because they liked him a lot, thought he was a decent person and so wanted to help him solve his financial problems. This of course means that human beings do unethical and even criminal things, not because they are essentially immoral or amoral but because they want to be helpful, especially to people they like or look up to. Empathy for people who may be like us or who have been dealt unfairly overrides abstract considerations of right versus wrong, of the long-term cost to some vague concept such as the global environment versus the short-term cost of cheering up the person right in front of you.

The major weakness of the overall presentation was in the solutions suggested to combat this problem of how our decision-making and other cognitive processes may be influenced too much by situational factors. One solution that is suggested is forcing businesses to change auditors every two years to address the problem that close relationships with auditing firms developed over the years may corrupt audits themselves. This solution could be extended to many other aspects of company operations and processes: companies perhaps should change their accountants and lawyers every few years to avoid the corruption of their financial reporting and legal work. In practice, this might disrupt company operations and may even waste company resources. Other issues to consider include the business organisation’s culture and how it shapes people’s attitudes and loyalties: are people encouraged to speak their minds, to hold heterodox opinions and to challenge themselves or does the company demand conformity, loyalty and insularity? Are employees allowed to mix with outsiders and to discuss company issues with people outside the firm? What juicy company secrets might be spilled and passed on to competitors and the press?

There is also the situation, exemplified by News Corporation, in which senior management and other employees may try to guess what their managing director or his/her equivalent is thinking or would think and subtly communicate through body language and corporate customs, conventions and rituals what is required and what is discouraged. People, especially new employees, eager to please may fall into committing fraud and other illegal activities without even realising that what they are doing is wrong.

It’s not enough to conclude as Joffe-Walt and Spiegel do that right is right, wrong is wrong and people should know the difference: people like Toby Groves know that already yet still go ahead and do stupid things; and there are times also when what’s right and what’s wrong aren’t always clear and people may need standards and guidance to determine what to do. Companies can assist in this regard by encouraging staff to attend internal and external ethics courses, instill ethics and standards into the work culture so they become as natural as breathing, and provide back-up, counselling and legal advice in cases where individuals are in danger of making grave mistakes or have already done so. People also need a proper work-life balance so that they are able to pursue individual and other group-oriented interests and become well-rounded beings rather than hollow workaholics lacking a moral and spiritual dimension.

Ultimately companies don’t operate in a social vacuum; if companies and/or their employees behave in a less-than-moral fashion, that’ll be because our society sanctions their behaviour. What is it about business decision-making intrinsically that can encourage people to make bad moral decisions? It boils down to values and assumptions about doing business generally, about competition and how we define it, and about success and how we define that, that we hold and which we should examine: how did these values and assumptions originate and why, and the historical context in which they arose.

The article can be accessed here.

Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 4: Arthur C Clarke): superficial and deferential treatment of major sci-fi writer

Declan Whitebloom, “Prophets of Science Fiction (Episode 4: Arthur C Clarke)” (2011)

Having never read any of Arthur C Clarke’s fiction, perhaps I’m not the best person to review this episode of the “Prophets of Science Fiction” TV series with respect to whether the author is fêted appropriately. Certainly the later years of Clarke’s life before his death in 2008 were under a cloud as an interview in which he admitted to having engaged in pedophilia was published shortly before his knighthood ceremony in 2005. Anti-pedophilia activists in Sri Lanka (where Clarke spent much of his life) were livid at their government’s apparently soft treatment of this British celebrity in their midst as the country’s anti-pedophilia laws passed in 1995 are strong and carry heavy penalties. Now that Clarke is dead (and presumably getting his just desserts from his maker), we have his literary and other output from which to draw his outlook on life and vision for the future which is the chief focus of this episode; the good thing is that Clarke’s optimism and enthusiasm about humanity’s future, based heavily on technology, space travel and space colonisation, together with his speculation on the evolution of human consciousness, are acknowledged as the main themes that inform the writer’s work. (For the record, Clark decried organised religion and was interested in the paranormal.)

For all his considerable output (over 30 novels and about 117 short stories / novellas), the program concentrates on just three of Clarke’s novels (“Childhood’s End”, “The Foundations of Paradise” and “Rendezvous with Rama”, the last co-written with Gentry Lee) and his screenplay “2001: A Space Odyssey”, demonstrating how each of these works gave rise to a scientific innovation or idea that has been realised or is in the process of realisation:respectively, these ideas are the further evolution of humans, especially human consciousness; a cable built with a super-material that goes to heaven (the genesis of the space elevator); an asteroid-warning system; and artificial intelligence. One significant innovation mentioned in the film is the geostationary communications satellite, conceived by Clarke while working as a radar specialist during the Second World War. These innovations barely scratch the surface of the ideas Clarke expressed in his fiction: among other futuristic ideas Clarke has been credited with are videophones, iPads and the personal laptop linked to other computers, through which the network of communication links that forms as a result will enable online banking and shopping.

In “2001: A Space Odyssey”, Clarke conceives perhaps the most remarkable notion: that of a super-computer (HAL 9000 in the film) so sophisticated that it not only outstrips human intelligence and memory but acquires self-consciousness and knowledge, and becomes neurotic as well. Another breath-taking light-bulb notion, comparable and perhaps superior to Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, is Clarke’s Three Laws of Prophecy: if a scientist well-known and respected in his/her field says something is possible, the thing will happen; if the same scientist says something is impossible, eventually it becomes possible; and one person’s technology will appear to someone of a less technological background as magic.

Through a mix of interviews with writers, film director Ridley Scott and various scientists including Michio Kaku, a voice-over narration, dramatic re-enactments and computer-based animation, the film paints a positive portrait of Clarke, blithely ignoring any dark side to his personality (only his brief marriage is mentioned in such a bland way that viewers not familiar with Clarke would never know that he had been gay) or scandals he might have been caught up in. On the whole, the film is enthusiastic about its subject and very reverential towards him but it might have been a much better documentary if viewers could have seen something of Clarke’s less attractive qualities. For all his intellectual brilliance and scientific knowledge, Clarke was still fallible and in some ways blind to aspects of his nature and human nature generally, and it would reassure people that he was like us and not a flesh-and-blood version of HAL 9000 without the neuroses.

Mailer for Mayor: dull documentary of limited historical value

Dick Fontaine, “Mailer for Mayor” (1969)

This BBC documentary was included in UK journalist / film-maker Adam Curtis’s recent post “White Negro for Mayor” on his blog. With a minimal voice-over narrative, the film follows writer and intellectual Norman Mailer on his campaign to stand for mayor of New York City in 1969. Mailer discovers that he needs a huge campaign machine, an army of volunteers and (even in those days, over 40 years ago) shit-loads of money to finance his tireless campaigning. With an original theme (the 51st state), catchy logos and enthusiastic support from young people, fellow intellectuals like Gloria Steinem and an assortment of bohos, culture vultures and hipster types, Mailer tries to make some headway in the general consciousness of sceptical or apathetic New York City voters. Can he actually make an impact on a cynical electorate and become mayor?

The fly-on-the-wall style of presentation and the minimal narration which could have put all the details into a general context frankly made the film an ordeal to follow. Much of it is pernickety on details and viewers outside the United States (and many inside the US) not familiar with the day-to-day routine of political campaigning as it was done decades ago will be totally lost. The film is never clear on what Mailer’s platform was all about and I confess to having to look up Mailer’s Wikipedia entry to find out what it was: he was in favour of decentralising the city in a way such that every neighbourhood would have its own school system, police force, housing progams and philosophy that gave it purpose and direction. Minor issues that he stood for included non-fluoridation of the water supply and the freeing of Black Panther leader Huey Newton who was in prison at the time. While most of Mailer’s supporters were too young to vote, he did get some backing from surprising quarters: the libertarian economist / anarcho-capitalist and political activist Murray Rothbard gave his platform the thumbs-up, believing that Mailer’s decentralisation proposal would be the only answer to solving New York City’s many urban problems.

Not suprisingly, Mailer fails dismally in his campaign and the political right-wing forces he’s up against triumph yet again. If there is any value for contemporary audiences from the documentary, it is to show that life in 1960s NYC wasn’t the free-wheeling, love-is-all-you-need hippiedrome we imagine it was: for most people at the time, life was as strait-laced, conformist and dominated by socially and politically conservative ideologies as in the 1950s. The political machinations of Mailer’s more professional and seasoned opponents are as slick and cynical as ever they were in the days when Orson Welles made “Citizen Kane” and before then; the voters are also as disaffected and unimpressed by politicians and their hacks as their descendants are now. What has changed is the scale on which these things happen: larger amounts of money spent on spin and greasing palms, greater voter alienation, a greater sense that once again an opportunity to reach out to people, listen to what they’re really saying rather than going “I feel your pain” and actually doing something to right the wrongs of society is being wasted.

It should be said that Mailer was no angel: he married six times with five marriages ending in divorce and he is known to have been violent to his second wife at least and unfaithful to his fourth wife. His fifth marriage in November 1980 lasted just a day and was done to legitimise the birth of a daughter in 1971 while he was married to Missus No 4.