Where Power Lies: Inspiration from Science Fiction

When it might seem as though we’re living in the midst of a rather dark science fiction novel, perhaps we might look to the wisdom contained in this literary tradition. Let’s be honest, we need all the inspiration we can get right now.

The activist and writer, Adrienne Maree Brown suggests looking to sci-fi, particularly  the works of Octavia Butler and Ursula Le Guin, can be a fruitful strategy for social change. In Pleasure Activism: The Politics of Feeling Good she writes, ‘I believe that all organising is science fiction – that we are shaping the future we long for and have not yet experienced.’ Something in us knows, as Arundhati Roy so succinctly put it, ‘Another world is possible.’ Exploring ‘other worlds’ through story can inspire us to create changes in our own. And so we might organise ourselves in the ways that we really want to live, despite the dominant story of who is ‘in’ or ‘has’ power. To modify an anarchist slogan, let’s ‘invite the impossible’. 

We might go so far as to begin by asking, was Douglas Adams on to something when he wrote in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, ‘Very very few people realise that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all’? 

The word power is often used to imply the ability to control. We are told that power is ‘held’ by certain people and that others are powerless. But what if this is, in a way, a lie? Or perhaps, if we wish to be kinder, a kind of theatrical performance. We all know that a tremendous amount of effort goes into the stage management of any governmental system – the actors have to look right, say the right things and influence the right people. They are carefully coached with speeches prepared for them, and clothing and make up chosen to suit the stage upon which they stand. And it doesn’t take much research to see who is funding some of these actors, including the new Prime Minister. If you’ve seen the film Back to the Future, you might remember the Dr Emmet Brown’s disbelief that the actor Ronald Regan was going to be president of the United States. As the theatrical nature of government has become increasingly obvious, probably none of us would be surprised now.

My sense is that at least some people in these systems are there with a genuine heart and a desire to help support the health and wellbeing of people and planet. It seems to me this is where real power lies – not in ‘control,’ but in the vitality of life, in being open and honest about the challenges we face, in coming together to face them with dignity, integrity and compassion.

Ursula Le Guin wrote in Powers, the concluding novel in a trilogy which begins in highlands clearly modelled on a colonised Scotland, ‘Belief in the lie is the life of the lie.’ In this series, Le Guin demonstrates the possibility of escaping unhealthy relations of power and rediscovering our creative, compassionate and cooperative nature as human beings. Perhaps the first step, as she describes here, is to unlearn belief in stories of the world as being fixed in a certain way. Octavia Butler similarly writes in Parable of the Sower, “All that you touch, you Change. All that you Change, Changes you. The only lasting truth is Change.” For Butler, change is the nature of life – not the story that a rigidified mindset, whether institutional or individual, will be telling us. As the author of Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda said, “If you are not happy with the way life is turning out, change the pattern.” 

Of course, this requires an awareness that the pattern we’re in isn’t the only one possible. In Powers, Le Guin writes, ‘Freedom is largely a matter of seeing that there are alternatives.’ If we get pulled into stories of the powerful and the powerless, whether in support or in resentful opposition, we are in danger of having our perception defined by that story. A rigidified mind (and body) is a common consequence of trauma and oppression, limiting our capacity to see other possibilities. Liberation and healing go hand in hand. Both include cultivating our ability to see, sense and move differently. 

We don’t need to identify as victims. We can step into another pair of shoes and rediscover our integrity, dignity and capacity for autonomy. And we don’t need to wait for a new government in Westminster, or the independence of Scotland, or the solution to any of the myriad crises that affect our world. The time is now. But we can’t do this on our own. We need to inspire and uplift each other, support and encourage each other. And perhaps most importantly, we need to listen to each other if we really want to connect in a meaningful way.  

It might seem that what we can see in Britain now is like watching a car crash in slow motion. The great thing about slow movement, and the perception that it affords, is that we have time to change our course. Not by relying on those who claim to be ‘in power’, but by discovering where power truly lies – in the aliveness of Life Itself. In the aliveness in you and me, in our relationships, our communities, including all of what we seem to define as separate from ourselves and call ‘the natural world’. Maybe that’s a clue that we’ve been living unnaturally, in a way. Maybe now is the time to let go of the story and engage directly in the living experience of being alive. As Le Guin wrote in Gifts, ‘To see that your life is a story while you’re in the middle of living it may be a help to living it well.’

Tags:

Comments (17)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Vishwam says:

    I’d just like to add that DD Johnston’s novel Disnaeland is another great example of radically inspiring science fiction. You can read our interview together here — https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2022/07/23/disnaeland-an-interview-with-author-d-d-johnston/

  2. 220910 says:

    This is all very well, but political power has f*ck all to do with ‘the vitality of life, in being open and honest about the challenges we face, in coming together to face them with dignity, integrity and compassion’ or ‘the aliveness of Life Itself… in you and me, in our relationships, our communities, including all of what we seem to define as separate from ourselves and call “the natural world”.’

    Political power isn’t anything real; it’s a relative conception that depends on the specific understandings you and I each apply to our relationship and requires my recognition of a quality in you which would motivate me to change in the way you intend (e.g. follow your ‘path of love and service through self-development and direct experience of the Real’). It’s the social production of an effect that determines the capacities, actions, beliefs, or conduct of those who are related in that production. That relationship can be coercive, based on a mutual understanding that you will reward my compliance or punish my non-compliance, or it can be institutional, based on my voluntary subscription to and participation in the social structure and language-game of (say) the Heart of living Yoga tradition.

    I’m more interested in the exercise of counterpower than in submitting to any coercive or institutional power. Counterpower has come to prominence through its use by participants in the global justice/anti-globalisation movement from the 1990s onward. David Graeber defines it as any countervailing force that can be used by the subordinate partner in the power relationship to counterbalance or erode the existing matrix of official and unofficial relations by which our capacities, actions, beliefs, or conduct are determined, a.k.a. the ‘establishment’ or ‘status quo’. Tim Gee, in his 2011 book, Counterpower: Making Change Happen, identifies three categories of counterpower – idea counterpower (critique), economic counterpower (piracy), and physical counterpower (self-defence) – that can be deployed against those who seek to change me in accordance with their will.

    As Martin Buber wrote in Paths in Utopia in 1949: ‘Power abdicates only under the stress of counterpower’. It doesn’t abdicate in the face of the slave morality of ‘dignity, integrity and compassion’.

    1. Vishwam says:

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Isn’t it wonderful that we can agree on some things and disagree on others? I believe I was saying much the same as you about the nature of political power and my apologies if I didn’t make that clear. I’m also largely in agreement with David Graeber whose work and life had a strong influence on me. Wishing you well.

      1. 220911 says:

        Indeed, but the disagreements have greater heuristic value. Agreement takes us no further along the path of self-discovery and personal growth. (‘Self-authentication’, as Anthony Giddens called that learning path in contrast to the ‘teacher-pupil’/’guru-student’/’master-disciple’ model of education.)

        1. Vishwam says:

          In that case, you’ll be pleased to know, I disagree

          1. 220911 says:

            I’d be even more pleased if you’d elaborate.

          2. Vishwam says:

            It seems to me that agreement is one of the elements that helps communities come together and that community is an important aspect of our individual healing, liberation, authentication or whatever other words you might like to use. Of course, disagreement is also an important aspect of community, but on it’s own it can lead to a lot of loneliness. I wouldn’t wish that path on anyone.

            Is it ok if I admit surprise you cite Anthony Giddens? I didn’t think his politics and yours would overlap that much.

            BTW, I was chatting with one of David Graeber’s ex-partner’s today and they said he was a huge science fiction fan. I also wonder if you’ve heard what he said about joy being the nature of the universe? He was a mystic, I’d say, with a very open mind as to what counts as ‘counterpower’ if you want to put it that way. Personally, I wouldn’t like to define something against a system because then it depends on the system for its existence. Constituent outside and all that…

            I hope you enjoy disagreeing with me and would be curious if you might possibly see any ways in which we agree. 🙂

          3. 220912 says:

            As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog, I greatly admire Anthony Gidden’s critique of sociology, in which he continually redefined the field through the critical reinterpretation of its canonical texts.

            I also admire the theory of structuration he developed out of that critique, by which he explains society as an ongoing dialectical tension between agency and structure in which he ascribes primacy to neither.

            He also has some interesting things to say about modernity, globalisation and politics, especially the impact of modernity on social and personal life. In the last 25 years, he’s turned his attention to social and political issues relating to the evolution of world society, environmental issues, and the digital revolution (what the ‘great resetters’ of the World Economic Forum call ‘the fourth industrial revolution’). His Politics of Climate Change (2009) and his Turbulent and Mighty Continent (2014) (a critical interpretation of the role and nature of the European Union) are well worth a read in relation to these themes.

            I’m not so keen, however, on his his critique of postmodernity and the new utopian-realist ‘third way’ in politics that he worked out in the 1990s, in books like The Consequences of Modernity, Modernity and Self-Identity, The Transformation of Intimacy, Beyond Left and Right, and The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. It’s represents for me a last throw of the dice for capitalism.

            Giddens social hope is that, in the fin de siècle age of late and reflexive modernity, pluralism, and post-scarcity economics (the economics of affluence and conspicuous consumption), ‘life politics’ (the politics of self-actualisation) and ‘emancipatory politics’ (the politics of inequality), which he dubbed ‘reflexive projects of the self’, might lead voluntarily to more positive social change than political parties can achieve operating coercively through the state.

            In particular, he hoped that such ‘reflexive projects of the self’ in the fields gender and sexual relations and decolonisation, for example, might lead the way via the ‘democratisation of democracy’ to a new era of Habermasian ‘dialogic democracy’, in which differences are settled and society ordered voluntarily, through discourse, rather than coercively through violence or the threat thereof. He called this regime of dialogic democracy ‘communitarianism’ in contrast to the ‘authoritarianism’ of our traditional adversarial democracy of competing parties.

            The thing about dialogic democracy is that it’s based on dissensus rather than consensus, on accommodating our differences through restrained dissonance rather than through agreement. Restrained dissonance is realised through the institution of checks and balances on the exercise of political power that prevent any community from asserting its norms of cognitive, evaluative, and practical behaviour (its ‘truth’) over those of any other. Community is an important aspect of our life politics, but it’s only emancipatory if its based on difference rather than agreement, and all attempts on the part of any community to privilege its ‘truth’ over any other in society is to be resisted.

            Regarding the loneliness to which you reckon disagreement and difference can lead, this is overcome through a social diversification that affiliates each not to all, in some sort of mystical union, but only to such kindred spirits as circumstances may offer.

            I’d disagree with David almost as a matter of principle: I take the view that the universe has no nature other than that which we ascribe to it in its telling. David chose to narrate the universe as joyful; alternative, equally valid narratives are available.

            Regarding definition and meaning, we can’t help but define things against a system because there is nothing ‘outside’ our systems of signs against which it could otherwise be defined; everything’s meaning is differential and contingent (dependent) on our understanding, ‘immanent’ rather than ‘transcendent’.

            Which kind of brings us back to my point, that our disagreements have greater heuristic value than our agreements. Agreement takes us no further along the path of self-discovery and personal growth; it doesn’t challenge the system of our understanding and the world that depends on it and thereby advance our learning. Disagreement and conflict is the engine that drives our personal growth unendingly towards self-actualisation or ‘enlightenment’.

  3. Alice says:

    I enjoyed this piece ….certainly brightened the present thought patterns ….really just the establishment battening down its hatches …gives us time to watch and reflect on ways ahead.

    1. Vishwam says:

      What a beautiful response, Alice. Thank you.

  4. Matt Colborn says:

    Really excellent blog Vishwam. Many thanks for gifting it to the world 😉

    1. Vishwam says:

      Thank you, Matt!

  5. Muiris says:

    As Jim Larkin (1874-1947) said: ‘The great appear great, because we are on our knees. Let us arise’

    1. Squigglypen says:

      What an excellent comment!
      FOR SCOTLAND!

    2. Vishwam says:

      Indeed – let us all stand as equals in dignity and mutual respect.

  6. SleepingDog says:

    Ursula Le Guin also envisioned a corrupt populace:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
    not unlike the empire-supporting people of the UK whose ‘standard of living’ has long depended on viciously exploiting others, sometimes yonder awa’ or otherwise out of sight or mind.

    Political power is something of a mirage, it is only demonstrated in the moment of its exercise, and even when subjects obey, rulers don’t ever know just why, or when the tipping point or phase change might come, and may live in terror of the first signs of mass disobedience or a short-ranged stab. Loyalty is something of a mirror image.

    Perhaps sometime soon, enough people in Scotland will get up and walk away from Omelas.

    1. Vishwam says:

      Thank you for pointing us to The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas. It’s such a profound story with layers and layers of meaning. I might need to read it again to see what I learn this time!

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.