The Sword and Laser discussion

I'm going to start this out by saying that this book caused the most visceral uncomfortable reaction I have ever had to a piece of fiction. I think this was in large part due to the consent issues involving bodily antonym that are in the book. Just because someone's body likes it, doesn't somehow negate the verbal 'no' that they have given.

However as someone who is not 'normal', I'm disabled among other things. I have to wonder how the Oankali would respond to humans that are different from the norm. Would,my learning disability, for instance, something that I view as a part of what makes me, me, be removed without my say so, because of some idea of making me 'better'? What about individuals who are part of the LGTBQA community, would they be accepted or would thier difference be removed, healed from them?

I'm pretty sure that the Oankali would view many of the differences I would view as part of the diversity of what a human can be as errors to be fixed?

Thoughts anyone with a different opinion?

I absolutely agree that they would "fix" these things. I'm not sure about LGTBQA, given the relationships in their species, but other things like learning disabilities, or my genetic disorder (assuming they could find its marker in my DNA) would almost definitely be fixed, just like they eradicated cancer.

However, just as they eradicated cancer, I'm reasonably certain they could find some "use" for these "abnormalities." For example, my disorder causes my joints to be super-stretchy (and sadly fragile). Just like they turned cancer into a tool that could be inserted into their DNA to spur re-growth/healing, I bet they could find a use for the "good" aspects of my disorder...

I imagine they would remove the genetic components necessary for same-sex attraction. Same sex attraction is caused by the interaction of a number of genes and epigenetic traits (that is traits that are present on the genome but may not necessarily be active), not just one, but overall they don't exactly contribute to the continuation of the species so I imagine that the oankali would see these as junk DNA strains and purge them, much like a genetic predisposition towards cancer.

The oankali have a trinary gender structure - male and female equivalents and ooloi, the third necessary to facilitate reproduction and that's how their family units are comprised - 3 parent units (1 male + 1 female + 1 ooloi) and children. This isn't non-normative for them, it's exactly this set-up that's necessary for oankali reproduction and I imagine that given their advanced knowledge of genetics they wouldn't have non-normative - i.e. LGBTQetc - members of their society because they wouldn't allow for the genetic and epigenetic alterations necessary for them to occur.

As a gay man, I wouldn't want my DNA tampered with to change who I'm physically attracted to any more than I'd want my DNA changed to alter any other part of my physiology. Who we are as people is determined as much by genetics as our experiences because our genetics can often be the cause of our experiences. Gay people and straight people have different experiences in life, as do men and women, as do people of different ethnic backgrounds all because of our genetic make-up and how that's expressed to the world.

Ethically speaking, what the oankali do is questionable at best, altering humans in such a way as to create their idealised humans. If they picked up a human male with Klinefelter syndrome - having XXY sex chromosomes - would it be okay for them to scrub out the Y chromosome or one of the Xes? I don't think it would, especially not to a grown adult who's had a lifetime of experiences. It's one thing to wipe out a badly written bit of DNA to make someone not susceptible to cancer any more, it's a whole other thing to wipe out a genetic component that has dictated a section of a person's life experiences.

That said, I have no doubt that they'd do it - they have no respect for the human race as it is, why would they want to preserve any abnormalities they find?

Julia wrote: I'm pretty sure that the Oankali would view many of the differences I would view as part of the diversity of what a human can be as errors to be fixed?

Thoughts anyone with a different opinion?

I'm less certain the Oankali as presented think about variations amongst humans (such as gays, for example) in quite the same way humans tend to do.

For one thing, the Oankali as presented appear to have a completely different mindset on gene exchange. Humans (and indeed, most life forms on Earth) compete for this purpose, which is why males tend to be much more promiscuous than females, due to natural selection. I.e., males who in the past mated with multiple females tended to pass that particular proclivity along, whereas more monogamous males self-restricted their genetic propensities for monogamy by being less promiscuous.

The Oankali, however, approach the exchange of genes from a completely different perspective. Instead of genetic restriction, they have taken an entirely different route, creating and nourishing diversity. The Oankali who left Earth without exchanging genes will, over time, become a completely different species than the Oankali who remained behind to mate with, and thereby exchange genes with, humans.

Now, being such a different species with such a unique mindset, it's probably impossible to say what unconventional genetic traits they might value; a few we think of as benign might well trigger some cultural prejudice on their part. But overall, my thinking is that the Oankali would tend to be far more tolerant of diversity than humans, since 'diversity' is the foundation of their evolution, not to mention their culture.

I am so glad this topic was brought up! I was surprised and a little disappointed when (view spoiler)[all the humans Lilith awoke started forming heterosexual pairs (hide spoiler)].

I realize that the Oankali might only want humans who are cisgender (I assume from what we are told) and heterosexual. The human male/female pairs would then be able to fill the exact role that the Oankali male/female pairs do. But I think if the Oankali are so good at mixing genes, this exact pairing might not be necessary. Other groups of two humans and one ooloi could have been formed and probably still have been successful (the ooloi in the group could have been supported, genes could have been exchanged). The Oankali want to re-create the exact family structure they have and add humans in to the mix, but humans don't always fit in that structure. Is this an oversight of the Oankali or an oversight of Butler?? I am bothered that none of the humans (not even Lilith) question the absence of non-normative human sexualities.

I haven't read the additional books, so I don't know if this issue is developed further later on. But when I started Dawn, all I knew about it was that the aliens had a third sex. I was therefore disappointed that there was barely any mention of non-normative human sexuality pre-ooloi. I guess Lilith (or any of the humans) (view spoiler)[aren't exactly heterosexual in a binary sense anymore (hide spoiler)], but I still feel frustrated by the absence of LGTBQA humans at the outset.

Since the Oankali's whole purpose seems to be recreating their own 3-way family bonds, it makes sense to me that they would only give Lilith cisgender, hetero humans for her group. I'm assuming there are many more humans still in sleep pods, and I'm positive the Oankali will have separated out anyone they didn't see as optimal, especially for this first attempt.

It seems pretty clear they want to let the humans create their own pairs and then insinuate the ooloi as a third, to keep the small family units they and the humans are used to.

They could obviously create huge armies of perfect human clones and teach them whatever social groupings they wanted, then interbreed with those clones. Why they want to do things the hard way, I don't know.

Mahriana wrote: "I guess Lilith (or any of the humans) (view spoiler), but I still feel frustrated by the absence of LGTBQA humans at the outset."

I'm not trying to make this an excuse, but the book was written around 1987. Culturally, LGBTQA wasn't at the level of awareness that it is these days...the Cold War was still much more present (as evidenced by this book and the cause of the end of the world). I think the 3-gender (or 2-gender and asexual third party) system may have been as close as Butler was able to get.

You are quite right, terpkristin. I simply went into the book expecting a bit more given the loose set of information I had about the book before I started it (non-binary aliens!). Certainly Butler is not required to address all social issues and structures of human existence. Regardless of my frustration, I'm really quite struck by how well the book stands up to the passage of time. Really the only thing that dates it is the Cold War context.

This thread hits on the head why I was surprised that so many people had a positive reaction to the oonkali. There's been a lot of "oh they have different values systems than us, and I guess as a species we help them helps us survive" attitudes. This is an oppressive colonialist species that shows up, acts like messiahs, tells a now-minority that their values are evil, hypocritically embraces similar values, tortures and experiments on people, continually rapes whichever people each ooloi chooses to bring into their family units, massively invades any individuals body to make whatever adjustments they see fit, and ultimately plans to wipe out the entire species once they have appropriated whatever genes they need from it. Even those whom they've claimed to love, whom they've adopted into their families, they force to do whatever they choose, for they know better than those silly savage humans with their backwards thinking.

I mean, even if the race metaphors weren't really overt, the body horror, rape, and use of humans as breeding factories I would think should make most readers at least a bit uncomfortable with these things.

Rob wrote: "This thread hits on the head why I was surprised that so many people had a positive reaction to the oonkali. There's been a lot of "oh they have different values systems than us, and I guess as a species we help them helps us survive" attitudes. "

Good point, I'd noticed the lack of discussing surrounding what I felt were some of the core issues of the book (slavery, race, and loss of bodily autonomy) but I hadn't noticed this attitude as you did.

I hadn't thought about it, but from explanations of how Oankali+human family groups work in the second book, there's no reason that you couldn't have a unit of male Oankali, female Oankali, ooloi Oankali, and same-gender mated human pair, with the ooloi mixing up combinations that the female Oankali carries and gives birth to, or both women if that's the case. In fact, in the second case, that's more efficient if there are three "wombs" giving birth. But Butler might have only felt she could go so far and no further.

Rob wrote: "This thread hits on the head why I was surprised that so many people had a positive reaction to the oonkali. There's been a lot of "oh they have different values systems than us, and I guess as a species we help them helps us survive" attitudes."

I didn't think the actions of the oonkali were particularly generous. It actually felt more like they were bribing their way in and forcing their way in. But rather than think of it like slavery and such, I thought of like an invasive species...almost like the cancer they eradicated.

Rob wrote: "This thread hits on the head why I was surprised that so many people had a positive reaction to the oonkali. There's been a lot of "oh they have different values systems than us, and I guess as a s..."

I'm with Rob.

Rob wrote: "This is an oppressive colonialist species..."

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. To be honest, had I read this book maybe 10, 15 years ago, I'm not sure I would have felt the same way, that's how insidious colonialism can be, e.g. the "but it's for their own good!" mentality. But nowadays it's harder for me to not see that in Dawn.

terpkristin wrote: "I'm not trying to make this an excuse, but the book was written around 1987. Culturally, LGBTQA wasn't at the level of awareness that it is these days..."

Extrapolating from today's knowledge, where we might be a few decades away from seeing children with the genetic heritage of both of their same-sex parents--if the ooloi were such skilled gene mixers, could they not mix the genes of a same-sex couple? Those plants the Oonkali had repurposed into stasis pods for adult humans, could they not also serve as artificial wombs for gestating human embryos?

If the offer of artificial wombs had been made by the Oonkali to the human women--i.e., they would donate genetic material but not be asked to carry a hybrid fetus to term--might they have had more acceptance of the project from the humans?*

(*Titus had a very negative reaction to the use of his genetic material to father children, but a) it was done without his consent, and b) his upbringing was traumatic and devoid of typical human socialization to say the least, so I don't think we can take him as representative of the other late-20th century citizens of Western societies we encounter in the book. Representative of the Oonkali's colonialism/incarceration methods, certainly.)

Rob wrote: "This thread hits on the head why I was surprised that so many people had a positive reaction to the oonkali. There's been a lot of "oh they have different values systems than us, and I guess as a s..."
I think part of the reason we've discussed the oonkali that way is how Butler has crafted the narrative. The forum conversation started from the premise that the oonkali can't be stopped because Butler has written them as being effectively all-powerful in their control of their human prisoners. Accordingly, a lot of the conversation for the characters and for the readers is would you go along with them or refuse. Whether or not the oonkali are benign or evil doesn't automatically figure into that choice.

I love this thread. It's thought-provoking and enlightening.
I'm going to read through it a few more times, but for now, I just wanted to remark that this sounds a lot like some of the arguments that some in the deaf community have been making for many years, and the controversy surrounding cochlear implants and other interventions to "cure" or "repair" deafness. According to those who hold this view, being deaf is part of a person's character and self, and not a problem or a disease that needs to be cured.

There's a short story by Greg Egan called "Cocoon" about a technology that could prevent a baby from being born gay. There ensues a discussion about nature and culture.