Science Fiction and American Culture » April 1st: Interstellar (2014)

April 1st: Interstellar (2014)

We aren’t meeting as a class today, but we’ll be back together on Tuesday, 4/03.

Essay #2 is due Friday, 4/04, 11:00pm, on Canvas.

Overview

As I’ve probably mentioned, Interstellar is in my top 10 for favorite movies. I saw it twice in the theater, so that means something because I’ve only done that a few times. I did, however, see The Hangover in the theater 3 times…

More Zombies in Pop Culture

About two years ago, the more-pop-than-punk band Green Day released the song and video “The American Dream Is Killing Me,” and it has zombies (Warning: gross stuff and violence). If you’re ok with some gorey stuff, check it out. Maybe you can compare it to Fall Out Boy’s “Love From The Other Side”…or just the video game series Fallout.

Science and Technology

I’m not going to have anything definitive to say about this topic. Each one–science and technology–could be the basis for an entire semester (or entire career). I do want to reiterate that science fiction has science and technology as major plot elements as well as themes. Interstellar makes a big (and obvious) comment on the value of pursuing scientific discovery. I study technology from cultural and rhetorical perspectives. Simply put, that means I look at how technology is a product of the culture from which it comes and the rhetoric of technology, which is what message does a technology convey and how do we perceive/understand technologies.

Cultural Studies

Simply put, studying culture. Having a cultural studies lens means one looks at ideas, values, movements, society in general as being mediated be prevailing characteristics of a group (often on a large scale). This approach attempts to find (or read) the meanings of artifacts (ideas, technologies, and texts—including literature, film, music, etc.) as products of the cultures from which they come. There’s a social demand for new science and technology. Of course, initial reasons for researching a science or developing a technology can change based on how consumers use the technologies in ways not intended by inventors.

No artifact or idea is created in a vacuum—devoid of external influence. Scientists, engineers, authors and the materials they create are products of the characteristics of their culture, which includes the culture’s moment in time. Although we can’t identify universally essential features of each individual, we can argue (and support) what appear to be prevailing values of a culture. Unlike analysis that aims to “unlock” meaning based on an individual’s life (e.g. psychoanalysis), a cultural studies perspective interprets individual and group actions as primarily influenced by culture. People don’t like to hear this because it emphasizes that we’re really just herd animals.

There are other types of interpretations of science, technology, and society. One thing to remember is that in the Humanities, we don’t consider any one discipline having THE answer. Instead, we arrive at answers based on the questions we ask, which are mediated by our disciplinary epistemologies. Cultural Studies is inherently interdisciplinary because it borrows methods of interpretation from a variety of disciplines: History, Sociology, Philosophy, Anthropology, and others. My research and the classes I teach usually consider science and technology from historical and sociological perspectives—time period and society, respectively.

The (Sub)Cultural Study of Science and Technology

This class is going to take a different approach to science and technology. Instead of explaining how something is constructed or applied, we’re going to consider the value humans place on science and technology. We should view scientific fields as a variety of subcultures. Although biologists, chemists, physicists, etc. share the assumption that the scientific method is the appropriate way to produce knowledge, they focus on different aspects of the natural world (or universe).

Within those disciplines, members speak to each other through, essentially, their own language. Not only do they share a technical slang (jargon), they share assumptions of knowledge. We call these communication systems connecting members of a discipline discourse communities. It is difficult for an outsider to enter the conversation (or understand what they’re reading or hearing) because discourse communities tend to speak to themselves. Often non-scientific and non-technical audiences consume knowledge of the field through a filter. Perhaps a journalist or discourse community member conveys knowledge in general terms, picking and choosing the details to provide.

Another important consideration for us is how the expert’s authority is used to convince a lay audience that doesn’t fully understand the details of a science the way a member of the discipline would. There are many accounts about scientific and technological that identify assumptions that guide scientists and engineers to particular conclusions. Such an activity is the basis for critical thinking—don’t just read for information: read to discover the meaning and reasons behind expert conclusions. This doesn’t necessarily mean debunk or criticize the experts; instead, it means analyzing their epistemology, which is discipline specific.

Interstellar (2014)

Let’s focus on some key areas and think about the adventure aspect that we can relate to Weinbaum’s story in the next section. It’s interesting that Murphy comes into Cooper’s room in the beginning and wakes him up saying she thought he was her ghost. Well, she’s not wrong! Also, the interviews you see in the beginning on the TVs remind me of the way Band of Brothers is framed. I HIGHLY recommend that show (if you can stomach gore—missing limbs and such things). Also, all “quotations” below are really paraphrases.

  • Early on Cooper tells Murphy that “science is about learning what you don’t know…get to the how and why” and that leads you to conclusions.
  • Science fiction often brings in environmental themes. Although there’s no mention that the Earth is dying from our treatment, metaphorically, post-apocalyptic stories often allude to environmental destruction as a cause.
    • The Earth in Interstellar is dying, so the government put its attention on farming and not reaching for the stars to create new science.
  • The government also wants to control science, so it “corrects” textbooks as Murphy’s teacher claims. She cites that the Apollo mission was faked to bankrupt the Soviet Union into spending money on useless rockets.
    • There is a belief in American culture that the arms race was a planned American attempt to make the Soviets bankrupt and not just good luck.
    • After all, the Soviets were mired in a war in Afghanistan in the 1980s…
    • Lastly, the parent-teacher conference is also a comment on the way non-scientists try to regulate the message of science. Think about evolution, global warming, stem cell research, and the “parental rights” forces.
  • Cooper represents the exploratory nature of humanity. Compare this to Weinbaum’s “A Martian Odyssey” below. He claims “we’re explorers and pioneers not caretakers….We used to look up in the sky and wonder; now we look down in the dirt.”
    • Read metaphorically: Nolan (the director) could be warning us to not neglect scientific pursuits: look forward and not to the past. Cooper’s phrase “down in the dirt” could be interpreted as “having our heads in the sand.”
    • Cooper could also be alluding to the fact that we’re being myopic, short sighted. A major reason for SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is technological spinoff: the technologies we “discover” that we can use in applications other than searching for ET.
    • On Interstellar‘s Earth, NASA had to do Lazarus in secret because, with the food shortage, public opinion wouldn’t let them spend money on NASA.
  • The sarcasm of the robots is pretty funny, and, not surprisingly, I quite like that.
    • TARS tells Cooper that absolute honesty isn’t the best policy with emotional beings, so his honesty setting is at 90%.
    • Think about it: “Does this {article of clothing} look good on me?” If it didn’t, would you sat so?
  • Cooper tells TARS he “[doesn’t] like pretending we’re back where we were. I want to know where we’re going.” He’s an explorer like the many who left their homeland and explored the Earth.
    • We can interpret Cooper’s point to mean exploration = progress.

The Issue with Love (in Interstellar)

You might have picked up on my sarcasm surrounding love. Well, even I could set that aside and enjoy Interstellar. Some of you may want to do your Essay #2 on this topic (perhaps comparing it to the chapter Asimov’s “Reason” from I, Robot). Cooper believes his love for his daughter, Murphy, is why the 5th-dimensional beings chose him to communicate to his daughter; also, Dr. Amelia Brand claims love is observable, quantifiable, and powerful. See “Illusion of Love” on February 11th’s page to read what I think…

  • The idea that Cooper can communicate with his daughter across dimensions is a comment that love can do anything {blah}.
  • Cooper also explains parental love.
    • As parents “we’re just here to be memories for our kids. When you’re a parent, you’re the ghost of your children’s future.”—very eerie if you ask me.
    • Of course, that line foreshadows that we learn Cooper is Murphy’s “ghost.”
  • Cooper tells Dr. Amelia Brand that he didn’t tell Murphy the Earth could end because “You make sure you tell your children they’ll be safe, and that doesn’t mean telling a 10 year old the world’s going to end.”
    • Later, Prof. Brand, the father, tells the older Murphy he didn’t tell his daughter for similar reasons.

Dr. Mann…the Best of Us

Well, I’m sure we all hate Dr. Mann, and there’s good reason to. However, put his situation in perspective: How mad are you when you miss your connecting flight or your trip to Vegas is delayed? Don’t you say, “I’d do anything” to get out of this airport? Don’t worry, though. Dr. Mann (in the person of Matt Damon) was better prepared the next time he was stranded on a planet in The Martian (2015), and he needed rescuing.

  • Dr. Amelia Brand tells Cooper “Dr. Mann is the best of us. He’s the reason we’re all here.”
    • This statement ends up being ironic because he was the reason they went to his planet based on manipulated data.
    • There’s also hubris in his statement: “I never really considered the possibility that my planet was not the one.” It’s quite arrogant to think you’ve got the planet trillions of light years away (next to a black hole) that’s the one.
    • Also, the one who finds the planet gets to populate it, making that person feel like a god.
  • Dr. Mann is quite infuriating when he gives Cooper that speech about “Our survival instinct is our greatest strength.”
    • He does explain to Dr. Amelia Brand and Cooper in his base camp that he knew and agreed with Prof. Brand’s policy of not telling people the Earth was doomed.
    • “Prof. Brand knew people wouldn’t work together without believing they could find a solution.” He says people are shortsighted and care about immediate family, but we’re too individualistic and “focused on our immediate needs and family” to “have empathy beyond our line of sight.”
    • What does that comment say about us? Not good. Perhaps it just means without the illusion of hope, we won’t conform and work together as a society.

By the way, I think a Hipster must have engineered those landers because who else would have perfected “retro rockets”? Then again, engineering requires a lot of math, and there aren’t any Hipster mathematicians because math is so derivative.

Stanley G. Weinbaum’s “A Martian Odyssey” (1934)

In the past, I’ve paired Interstellar with Weinbaum’s “A Martian Odyssey” (1934), which we discussed way back on January 30th. Considering the Final Exam is cumulative, maybe you’ll want to revisit the discussion and think about the themes of conquest, colonialism, exploration, etc.

Next Class

We’ll probably start Octavia Butler’s Dawn on Thursday (4/03). We’ll also discuss American culture, and I’ll explain how to reflect on it and argue a position about it.