So the movie was just a sci-fi. The novel was an in-depth, critical analysis of our own society. Such a political piece should NEVER be overlooked, no matter how badly marred by today's Hollywood. It doesn't matter if several of our soldiers or only one is a POW. We FIGHT!!!!!
GRAFTON HIGH SCHOOL
A POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF
STARSHIP TROOPERS BY ROBERT A. HEINLEIN
A PAPER SUBMITTED FOR
ADVANCED PLACEMENT AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
FOR THE SECOND QUARTER, FIRST SEMESTER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL STUDIES
BY
TED M. OTERO IV
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
JANUARY 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. SUMMARY………………………………………………………………..1
SECTION II. POINT ONE……………………………………………………………….4
SECTION III. POINT TWO……………………………………………………………...6
SECTION IV. POINT THREE…………………………………………………………...9
CONCLUSION…………..………………………………………………………………11
NOTES………………………..………………………………………………………….13
SECTION I
SUMMARY OF STARSHIP TROOPERS
Essentially, Robert A Heinlein’s novel Starship Troopers weaves a futuristic tale of one young man’s journey through a military career and lifestyle. Juan Rico, an average high school student, is thrust into military service after he joins his friends in signing on for a two-year "term" in Federal Service. His journey takes him to boot camp, to an enlisted life both on and off duty, to an officer training school, and finally to life as an officer.
Beginning with a brief account of a Mobile Infantry "drop" (raid), the novel proceeds to backtrack to the end of Juan’s high school career, when he and his friends Carl and Carmencita resolve to serve their term in Federal Service (and ultimately earn their voting privileges). The three comrades separate and travel to different places in preparation for different military careers. Juan, after failing to qualify as a pilot, attends Mobile Infantry boot camp at Camp Arthur Currie, and reveals (through the first-person narration) just how difficult it was. Here he is trained to be a living weapon, regardless of the type or amount (or lack thereof) of physical weaponry available. It is also at boot camp that Juan witnesses his first court martial and lashing and resolves to resign before something similar happens to him. He is deterred from this course of action, however, when he passes the mental "hump" of his training, just as his History and Moral Philosophy teacher, retired Lt. Col. Jean Dubois, predicted he would in a heart-felt letter.
After basic, Jean is assigned to Valley Forge, a drop ship that is destroyed in a collision moments after Jean’s capsule is released for his first real drop. His first battle with the intelligent (yet "hive-minded") bugs is frightening, and after 18 hours of
grueling warfare he decides that his side has been "licked." He is then assigned to Rodger Young, and participates in several more drops. After one of the shore leaves, Juan decides to make the Mobile Infantry his career and attend Officer’s Candidate School. Before checking in at the school, he meets his father (who had initially disapproved of Juan’s decision to join up), now a corporal, and Juan’s suspicion of his mother’s death during the bug attack at Buenos Aires, is confirmed. Midway through the instruction at OCS, the candidates are given a temporary rank of third lieutenant and assigned to various ships. It is during this time that Juan attains temporary command of a platoon during a particularly critical and grueling battle. Upon returning to OCS, Juan is given a commission, and eventually winds up as the commander of a platoon, with his father as the platoon’s sergeant.
Robert A. Heinlein’s book should not be discarded as another of so many sci-fi trashes written today. Rather, Heinlein masterfully disguised a political stance in an action-filled novel. Naturally, many people are more likely to read material that they enjoy rather than that which they do not enjoy. For example, fiction novels are often preferred over political magazines by much of the populace. Thus, instead of reverting to the traditional "Letters to the Editor" method of expressing political views, Heinlein cleverly integrated his ideas into an entertaining work of fiction. Ultimately, Heinlein used action and a first-person perspective (allowing the reader to relate and sympathize with the main character) to catch a reader’s attention, and then uses flashbacks of Juan’s old "History and Moral Philosophy" classes to convey his opinions on political controversies. His ultimate goal as both an author and political theorist was to provide an
entertaining account in order to distribute his controversial opinions to as many people as possible.
SECTION II
To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.
Chapter XII, page 183
The above quote in the context of the class conversation regarding authority signifies a rather heavy "slam" against many democracies of today. Surrounding this statement, retired Lt. Col. Jean Dubois agrees emphatically that responsibility is the converse of authority and reveals that the 20th century governments are unstable. Robert A. Heinlein recognizes that not only does a democracy transfer power to unqualified parties, but also that many Founding Fathers disagreed with and warned against democracies in the first place.
Initially, to debate the accuracy of the idea that "authority" must be yoked together with "responsibility," one must debate the effectiveness of democracies, especially those of the direct variety. As a democracy grows more direct in nature, more people vote by themselves rather than electing officials to assume this authority. Consequently, as the unlimited authority of voting is transferred from officials to people, less responsibility backs the decisions made. For example, a member of a congress may be briefed on various sides of an issue for days while he or she carefully weighs the options for a decision. Someone whose profession does not involve politics directly may not assume this responsibility, however, and may thus be more likely to make the same decision based on a whim or mood rather than concrete background knowledge on the subject. British politician Chris Patten bluntly summarized this flaw: "In a democracy everybody has a right to be represented, including the jerks."1
Many people share the misconception that the United States of America possesses the ideal form of government. Unbeknownst to many, the United States was never meant to be a democracy; several Founding Fathers admitted directly that democracy was essentially the evil that would destroy a nation. John Adams, for example, blatantly said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."1 Strangely enough, despite the Founding Father’s sternest warnings, the United States continues to grow more and more democratic. Irish playwright Oscar Wilde, while looser with his words, conveys the same image as the Founding Fathers. "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."1 This definition holds very true, especially when one considers how anyone’s "rights" will indirectly interfere with various interests of others.
Essentially, responsibility and authority must be yoked together in order to achieve a government that makes responsible choices. This means, of course, that a better government would possess a much firmer republican form of government. "I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing,"1 quips journalist H.L. Mencken. Heinlein makes a good point regarding democracies through the character of Dubois, and obviously Mencken, Adams, Patten, and Wilde agree with him that it is imperative for responsibility to back authority.
Nor is the people’s judgement always true:
The most may err as grossly as the few.
John Dryden1
Section III
But why? Why didn’t they spank little kids when they needed it and use a good dose of strap on any older ones who deserved it-the sort of lesson they wouldn’t forget! I mean ones who did things really bad. Why not?
Chapter VIII, page 116
In today’s world, corporal punishment is viewed negatively, with theories suggesting that children may be "psychologically damaged" by spanking or other physical means of punishment. Throughout the past, however, corporal punishment served as the backbone to child rearing and produced relatively decent members of society (as compared to today’s statistics). Corporal punishment, in conjunction with a nurturing family environment, is the most essential ingredient in the shaping of a child’s definitive concept of "right" and "wrong."
Apparently while much in our society has made progress over the decades, much has also regressed. For example, crime rates, drug use, and other alarming trends on the rise today can be traced to such momentous events as the removal of corporal punishment (as well as prayer and bibles) from schools. North Carolina Senator Jesse A. Helms describes an awful and frightening reality in his comment, which appeared in Congressional Digest.
You can stand on the Capitol steps and almost throw a rock into neighborhoods where you cannot walk at night because of the violence that takes place nightly. As members of Congress, we pass great big expensive crime bills--but they do no good. Then we go home and say, boy, we really took care of it this time. There is not going to be any more crime because we are going to kill it with money.7
Common sense has been abandoned however, and many social scientists point out that these trends and the significant events triggering them cannot be logically connected.
Obviously crime will not cease because of legislation, but the prevention of crime in the first place begins with a good start for children in their own homes.
"Children need corrective discipline. Is it essential? Absolutely,"5 says Howard Hendricks. Many people avoid disciplining children and look to the future and the possible consequences. Dr. James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family institution, addresses this fear:
Much has been written about the dangers of harsh, oppressive, unloving discipline; these warnings are valid and should be heeded. However, the consequences of excessive punishment have been cited as justification for the elimination of discipline. That is foolish.6
Rather, a child must be corrected, physically if necessary, and guided in the correct way. For example, a child may do something wrong and be punished, knowing what he did was bad but not knowing what other course of action could have been taken.
The discipline process helps the child think through possible solutions and their consequences… Punishment alone will not likely tell him why his choice was wrong. Unless the adult takes the time to help the youngster think through the fallacy of his course of action, he will profit little.2
Naturally, Heinlein’s purpose in introducing the issue of corporal punishment in Starship Troopers was to personally comment on the idiocy of allowing children to grow uncorrected. In the novel’s futuristic society, corporal punishment is correctly viewed as the essential action that it is. A girl in Heinlein’s fictional "History and Moral Philosophy" class comments on this futuristic disciplinary system: "I don’t see anything wrong with our system; it’s a lot better than not being able to walk outdoors for fear of
your life-why, that’s horrible!" (Chapter VIII, page 117) Likewise, British poet Samuel Butler says, "Then spare the rod and spoil the child."1
Ultimately, corporal punishment is a necessary action in the rearing of a child. Without a thorough job of parenting, a child is much more likely to become morally lost during life’s tribulations. Heinlein recognized this fact, and modeled a better-behaved society on the concept, attempting to reveal the truth to the public.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Proverbs 23:13-143
SECTION IV
Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense… We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind.
Chapter VIII, page 117
According to one of Heinlein’s characters, retired Lt. Col. Jean Dubois, man is born without moral instinct. While at times this may seem true, man is indeed born with at least a firm base for, if not actual, moral instinct. Arguments abound, however, with the most popular being that the only thing man is born with is an instinct to survive. Common sense, logic, and most likely experimentation strongly suggests that the survival instinct does, in fact, exist, while the moral instinct issue has a much finer line of acceptance. Naturally this leads to the fact that the moral instinct is much more hotly debated, and is often regarded as something "learned" rather than something "inborn."
One way to analyze the possible existence of a moral instinct is to create a hypothetical situation involving someone reacting to a stimulus after growing up without influence as to what in life is "right," and what is "wrong." For instance, if a man isolated for his entire youth is suddenly thrust into civilization, would he push someone out of the way of an oncoming vehicle and sacrifice himself? Unfortunately, the results of such an endeavor are just that – hypothetical. Heinlein suggests that one must consciously overcome the survival instinct sometime in life, after coaching and experience to allow for a moral reaction. However, Ernest Hemingway makes a point that man instinctively knows what is right and wrong. "About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after."8
Aside from these theories, another source assures us that man has a moral instinct. Basil Hume, archbishop of Westminster, preaches that, "Moral choices do not depend on personal preference and private decision but on right reason and, I would add, divine order."1 Divine order, the direction of God, is inbred in everyone. In the book of Genesis, Moses reveals that "…God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him."3 Widely spread beliefs hold God as the immortal being who created the universe, and hold that he is good, true, and just. In fact, the 100th chapter of the book of Psalms summarizes this general concept: "For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations."3 Therefore, since man was created in the image of God, who obviously has moral sense, it is doubtless that man is born with a moral instinct.
Heinlein’s idea that moral sense is merely an alteration of the survival instinct and that moral instinct is non-existent is obviously false. Through the process of analyzing hypothetical situations, common sense rules that moral instinct exists in man from birth. Doubters of this method may revert to ancient texts, which plainly state that God is good, and man was created in his image. From any perspective, it is evident that although survival instincts exist, they exist in tandem with moral instinct.
The beginning of compunction is the beginning of a new life.
George Eliot9
CONCLUSION
Robert A. Heinlein was a true science fiction author. Today, the mainstream of science fiction literature has been replaced by literature favored by the "sci-fi" fans, and just as the name "science fiction" has been reduced in today’s term, so has its quality. Science fiction of the past was full of political ideas, dilemmas, and theories, while story-less action is today’s trend. In the golden age of science fiction, Starship Troopers stood out from the rest as the ideal blend between the two elements of action and politics. While some hold the recently released movie in contempt because of its heavy "modernization," one can also view it as a motivator to read and re-read the original masterpiece.
Weekends, the blessed off-days of the week, are tragically short. Those people too lazy to spend their leisure time reading opt to "catch flicks" at theaters instead. Others read, but settle for plot-less drivel that holds their attention. Few possess the insight to read intellectually stimulating works, and even fewer appreciate them. It is imperative that more people, for the improvement of the world and its politics, decide to rouse their ideas, values, logic, and emotion by reading such controversial and thought-provoking novels as Starship Troopers. When an author entertains you, he is capable of writing words on paper. When an author involves you in a thoughtful story line, he is skillful at what he does. When an author inspires you to consider deeply your values, others values, the condition of the world, and your views on all aspects of life, he is a master. Robert Heinlein falls into this select category with honors.
Naturally, a controversial epic with the caliber of Starship Troopers will offend some and invigorate others. "Controversial" means just that. As to whether its
dangerous or enlightening, one must decide for himself. Personally, Starship Troopers has allowed me to reevaluate my perspective on our current justice system. I shared many of Heinlein’s opinions from the beginning, but he effectively portrayed, through a class discussion, many flaws existing in current justice systems that I had overlooked. My only reservation towards this masterpiece is the acceptance by many of the characters of a lack of God.
Robert A. Heinlein supported many conservative ideas. Socially, he made it evident that our current culture lacks many disciplines that were evident in earlier times, such as corporal punishment and public floggings. Furthermore, Heinlein emphasized punishing criminals over protecting the rights of the accused. Economically, Heinlein portrayed his "utopia" as being self-responsible; in other words, you were responsible for finding yourself a career rather than relying on welfare. Regarding foreign policy, Heinlein took yet another conservative stance.4 "It doesn’t matter whether it’s a thousand-or just one, sir. You fight," his main character stated when asked what number of hostages justified starting or resuming a war. The above combined dictate that Heinlein be labeled pure conservative, perhaps even radically so. Regardless of his political ideas, however, he is a masterful writer capable of integrating a firm political stance into one of the best action stories of all time-just ask Hollywood.
NOTES