|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
In its twin ex-centricities, District 9 invites comparison with that classic work of alien fiction-as-critique, H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds (1898), about a Martian invasion of imperial London. In 1953, a movie version would relocate it to Los Angeles, center of a new kind of empire, that of global image production. Well’s original aliens prefigured the hapless postcolonial “prawns” in several ways: they, too, had what Wells described as “Gorgon groups of tentacles,” with which they gesticulated as they grunted in communication. But Wells was also writing in the shadow of Darwin. His aliens were less abject refugees than superior beings from what he termed a “cooler world.” Possessed of highly evolved brains and bodies they viewed humans as an inferior, expendable species. Wells meant his tale not merely as a jolt to what Peter Fitting terms the “complacency of his contemporaries,” but also as a commentary on the nature of colonial conquest. In it’s opening pages, he notes that the Martian disdain for lowlier, more earth-bound forms of life could be likened to the wars of extermination waged by European invaders on peoples whom they judged racially inferior: the aboriginals of Tasmania, for example. This critique, clothed in extraterrestrial allegory, was one of the earliest, most unflinching denunciations of the violence of British imperialism. Sci-fi at its best, says Darko Suvin, veteran scholar of the genre, is about seeing what is hidden “yet [is] advancing upon us.”
War of the Worlds was clairvoyant in another way relevant to my theme here. It was also a story of “first contact,” of a consequential first meeting between humans and aliens. At the time of its writing, it invoked European voyages of discovery, and expanding colonial frontiers in Africa and India, where encounters with “others” provided the foil against which a distinctive sense of “Western” civilization took shape. This was also the era in which anthropology, the science of human being in the world, was first gaining recognition. In its founding years, the discipline focused chiefly on the comparative study of other, often radically different cultures, those at the margins of the great European empires. It set out to catalogue the broad range of human social and physical variation, with the aim, as Clifford Geertz would put it in The Interpretation of Cultures, of enlarging “the universe of human discourse.” But its ex-centric method ensured it another, more subversive role: that of nudging the metropole into critical forms of self-discovery. By throwing a skeptical, relativizing light on the axiomatic truths and established institutions of the European heartland, it cast a shadow of doubt upon them, making clear that they were, in fact, particular to their time and place: that they were not the indisputable end-point of all social evolution, of the search for universal truth. In the manner of H.G. Wells, anthropologists gave graphic account of different ways of organizing human society or defining the value and the purposes of life. They challenged us to reflect – as alien visitors might – on our priorities, principles, and precepts, on the organization of our economic and educational systems, on our family lives, our modes of government and our health care. Like District 9 and War of the Worlds, in short, the ex-centric perspective of anthropology has long prompted us to see ourselves in defamiliarized light. A famous example speaks of another kind of alien in Africa, immortalized in the volume, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, published by Edward Evans-Pritchard in 1937. This work explores the Zande faith in witches, raising questions about the ways in which unquestioned truths – paradigms, if you will – are maintained by communities of believers against the onslaught of doubt and disproof. Witchcraft provides an explanation for why it is that “bad things happen to good people.” It attributes misfortune, be it illness or loss of wealth, to the ill-will or jealousy of others. Evans-Pritchard was concerned to explain how ideas so obviously fallacious to the European mind might retain plausibility among an otherwise canny and skeptical African people. The Azande, he insisted, reasoned from evidence in a fully empirical manner. But they did so in such a way as to protect their core assumptions from being refuted – this by a process of “secondary elaboration” that discounted evidence which undermined their entrenched assumptions.
Evans-Pritchard’s account of the triumph of African witches over disbelief was to have a signal impact on the manner in which philosophers came to think about Western thought itself. One, the Hungarian-British Michael Polanyi – note how many boundary-crossing scholars have themselves been aliens – found the account of Zande reasoning highly suggestive. He saw in it a model for the way in which “tacit awareness,” the kind of knowledge that Pierre Bourdieu suggests “goes without saying because it comes without saying,” is perpetuated in spite of counter-experience and disproof. His work anticipated Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, often named one of the most influential books of the late Twentieth Century. Kuhn famously posited that, in the everyday practice of “normal science,” researchers tend to protect theoretical paradigms in which they have vested their faith by discounting as “mistakes” those data that seem to refute their hypothesis. They engage, in other words, in precisely the same forms of secondary elaboration as do the Zande in justifying the existence of witches.
If the Zande occult unsettled home-truths about the workings of empirical reason, the extra-terrestrials in District 9 breach boundaries of a different sort. They raise questions about why it is that borders and aliens have become such an overriding preoccupation – not merely in ex-centric places, but everywhere nowadays. The United States, for instance, is famously a nation built by naturalizing strangers. Yet strangers have become an unnatural source of anxiety for Americans. The movie urges us to ask why, in an era that has seen the ever more global flow of goods, images, currency, and knowledge, the migration of human beings should be a matter of hyper-ambivalence; why international frontiers are such sensitive sites of dis-ease about security; why they should be the object of contradictory efforts to ensure their openness, thus to facilitate the free passage of capital and commodities, and their closure, to protect national polities from the loss of scarce jobs and the unrestricted inflow of undesirable people; why, also, the meaning of identity, belonging, and citizenship should pose such urgent challenges in everyday life and in scholarship; why global efforts to protect the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers should exist alongside xenophobia and the abuse of aliens. It urges us to understand why it is that the treatment of strangers emerges as a yardstick of universal human rights and social justice. District 9, like anthropology, makes plain that what is happening most evidently in ex-centric places teaches us not about aliens, but about ourselves, about our world, about its contradictions. Those faraway places, in other worlds, pre-figure in many ways what we ourselves are becoming. More than this, the history of the modern world, sometimes stranger than the best science fiction, shows all too often how circumstances can make the most secure of us into aliens.
The point of ex-centric visions, in conclusion, is to make sense of the present and future of our world by means of the act of critical estrangement. In this respect, travel certainly broadens the mind; the many American students who join “study abroad” programs each year learn a great deal – most of all, about how others view the United States. But estrangement is ultimately an attitude, one that should permit us productively to ‘go elsewhere’ without actually leaving home: it enables creative doubleconsciousness, both detachment and engagement; it facilitates an ex-centric relationship with the world, both the world of others, and the world which we call our own.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||