Chinese influence of a deeper level

POSTED BY: SchoolboysWink
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 21:10
VIEWED: 7286
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

SCHOOLBOYSWINK

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:56 PM

This could be a Blue Sun entry, I suppose, but there is no appropriate category, so here it is...

I was pondering not long ago how many different kinds of relationships there are among Serenity's crew, and how they covey a spectrum not typically seen in a single show. In particular, I was thinking of Simon and River and how rare it is for siblings to be on a show, especially a sci-fi show. This got my gray matter working around something I remembered from non-western civ. classes I had taken, and I went searching for info on the Five Confucian Relationships. I believe Firefly covers these varying relationships better than any show I can think of, certainly within the sci-fi genre.

(I will be substituting gender-neutral nouns in place of some of the more traditional Confucian verbiage. Also, I do not for a moment claim that the way these people interact on the show is what Confucius would have considered virtuous, just that the relationships themselves are explored.)

My contrasting examples throughout will be Babylon 5 and StarGate SG-1, since these are the sci-fi shows with which I am most familiar, and I believe their writers made efforts with characterization and plot continuity that at least approach the scholarly, and they are therefore appropriate for a literary discussion of the medium.

*Disclaimer* I LIKE B5 and SG1. My statements that they may not include or fully explore any or all of the 5 relationships is not meant to cut down or belittle the shows in any way, just an analysis of their subject matter.

1) Parent and Child: This is actualy FF's weakest relationship, though we definately see its influences in the way that Mal and Inara treat Kaylee. More importantly, the conversation between Wash and Zoe in Heart of Gold hints that Joss might have been looking to tackle this relationship more directly in the future. Here SG1 receives full marks, as the relationships between Sam and Jacob Carter and between Teal'C and Rai'ac are recurring issues in the show. B5 deals with the relationship only sparsely (Susan and John with their respective fathers; I personally don't count the Kosh symbolism, but you can if you want), but when it does so it does so brilliantly.

2) Husband and Wife: Zoe and Wash characterize this relationship clearly, especially in their few scenes together in Serenity (Pilot) and the beginning of War Stories, and their aforementioned argument in Heart of Gold. There are other cameos throughout the show. SG1 does not deal with this relationship in any significant way that I can recall, with the exception of a couple of episodes with Teal'c's wife Dray'auc. In B5, the husband and wife relationship is only a past influence (John and Anna) until John and Delenn wed, at which point we do have a living example for one season.

3) Friends: This relationship is a powerful force in FF, as well as SG1 and B5 (and indeed most television shows). While, especially in FF, we may take pause to wonder if any of the characters are really friends or not (and I'm not saying they aren't), certainly within the Confucian ideal primarily characterizing a bond of loyalty, trust, and obligation between people who are not related by blood, the relationship is commong throughout the crew of all three shows.

4) Elder and younger siblings: This may be the most rare and striking example of the Five Relationships in FF. In SG1 and B5, siblings make appearances from time to time, and are sometimes discussed, but there are no living examples that appear throughout the show. In FF, on the other hand, the sibling relationship is one of the most critical elements, particularly to the characterization of Simon. That he is willing to sacrifice his life, more or less, for River tells us something important about him, something that belies the seeming arrogance brought on by his proper-ness and shyness. It also tells us something completetly different about him that we would have seen had he given up so much for a parent or child (wherein the obligation is much stronger) or for a wife or lover (

LAWMAN

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:50 PM

Interesting article, somewhat lacking in logic, but amusing. All of your five points can be said of any culture, any ethnic background, any television sitcom, and practically any novel written in English, German, or Chinese for that matter. Your argument is a very generalized understanding of humanity. At its best, its ignorant. However, at its worst, strong racist tendencies. Comparing sci-fi shows is one thing. Creating some type of argument talking about a Chinese influence is inane and ignorant. Its describing your observation and pointing out the basic human traits which are existent in every culture, and saying its some exotic influence. But other than that, you have every right to espouse whatever message you want to preach.

SPACEANJL

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:30 PM

Well, I found it interesting. Feel free to ignore the other response. (I'm not sure what's racist about using Confucius to illustrate chinese influence...)

Joss is always interested in non-conventional expressions of conventional or family relationships. The weird little 'family' of Firefly expresses a really wide range of how people interact.

SCHOOLBOYSWINK

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lawman:
Interesting article, somewhat lacking in logic, but amusing. All of your five points can be said of any culture, any ethnic background, any television sitcom, and practically any novel written in English, German, or Chinese for that matter. Your argument is a very generalized understanding of humanity. At its best, its ignorant. However, at its worst, strong racist tendencies. Comparing sci-fi shows is one thing. Creating some type of argument talking about a Chinese influence is inane and ignorant. Its describing your observation and pointing out the basic human traits which are existent in every culture, and saying its some exotic influence. But other than that, you have every right to espouse whatever message you want to preach.

First off, Spaceanjl, you're right. I should ignore this post... But I just can't!

I anticipated a fair bit of disagreement with my thesis. I was even kind of looking forward to it. I did not, however, expect to be called an ignorant racist. I read that not as a disagreement, but as an attack, and I can't let it go unanswered. Lawman, let me try and hit the points you brought up in order.

1) My argument is not lacking in logic. You may not agree with it, but it is based in sound logic. Joss himself has stated that in his vision of the 'Verse, the only two cultures to really continue existence are the two current superpowers, America (and by association Western Europe, since those are the U.S.'s primary cultural influences) and China. So obviously there are Chinese cultural influences in the show. Usually in literary discussions, a word straight from the author is considered sufficient proof, but in case you are still un-convinced, you may have noticed that the characters SPEAK CHINESE in every episode. My argument then went on to explain, using examples to show that FF more rigorously examines more of the Five Confucian relationships than most shows of the genre, that the influences of Chinese philosophical schools might extend deeper into the writing of the show than just what we see onscreen. Disagree with it if you like, but I think the logical method itself is sound.

2) They are not MY five "points." They are the Five archetypal social relationships as postulated by the philosopher Confucius in ancient China.

3) Obviously these relationships exist in every culture and ethnicity. Confucius didn't INVENT social relationships, he just devised some categories for them. Do you honestly think I believed that only China has siblings or parents? I doubt you thought that, so I'm trying to figure out why you said it.

4) I must disagree that all five relationships are showcased in "almost every sitcom and novel..." I think FF covers more of them in more deliberate detail in a single source than most fiction, which is the thesis of my original post.

5) Considering that each of us is but one of some 6 billion people on this Earth, I would argue that all of us have only a generalized understanding of humanity. (The fact that I admit this about myself goes along way toward indicated that I am not a racist, but more on that later...) As a matter of fact, my post, and the intelligent discussion I hoped it might inspire, like all good literary discussion, was partially in the hope of exploring and gaining more firsthand insight into that humanity.

6) If either my initial post or this one strike you as something produced by an ignorant mind, I would prevail upon you to employ the pages of a dictionary or thesaurus to help you better understand the meaning of that word.

7) I am deeply offended at your statement that I am a racist or that I or my argument have "racist tendencies." First, let me state that to accuse anyone of prejudice over the internet, by which you have little to no notion of your target's race, culture, gender, religion, etc., is a dangerous move in itself. Secondly, if we are going to continue to eradicate racism and prejudice in the world, we must allow ourselves as humans to enter into discussio

LAWMAN

Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:06 PM

I never called you a racist. I inferred "racist tendencies" at the worst end of your observation. Wordly diatribe hardly justifies your argument. What makes you believe that you can paint a specific idealism "Confucianism" as the prototypical Chinese influence? That is what I am saying as ignorant. If you said that there was a Chinese influence, that can be readily agreed upon since Firefly is based upon a future existence with only China and America surviving as superpowers. You would just be stating the premise to the series. The languages spoken effectuate that premise. The cultures represented in Firefly are vast and many: see Badger. If you had stated that there was a pervasive element or theme of family along with the eschewed relationships, that is something different. My difficulty with your lengthy discourse the "Confucianism" aspect. People who don't understand one very specific element of a culture tend to broadly paint with their own perspective of what they want to see. I will consult a dictionary and/or a thesaurus when the need arises. Such as being paid for every word written. I do regret using the word "preach". As soon as someone mentions an ideal or concept that somehow equates "Confucius" with "China", I get perturbed.

SCHOOLBOYSWINK

Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:42 PM

I see that I should have trusted my original instinct and not baited you any further. Whether it offends you or not, Confucius' teachings are some of the most-studied philosophical precepts in Chinese history, and worthy of comment if they present themselves in literature. In literature that contains influences of the nation from which this philosophy originally hails, the comparison becomes the more striking. I could have discussed the show in terms of Decartes or Socrates, but those aren't the influences I was considering at that time.

I will close (and reply no further whatever you may want to say, as I see now that it would do no good) that I believe your vehement reaction, and your rapid assumption that I believe Confucianism represents all things Chinese (a position for which you will find no actual proof in my posts), both say far more about you than they do about me.

"When you can't do somethin' smart, do somethin' right!" -Jayne Cobb quotes Shepherd Book

LAWMAN

Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:00 PM

I can live with that. I would have appreciated more discourse regarding Descartes and Socrates. Assumptions are everywhere, just as we all carry around our own biases, its part of life. Don't stress so much over one vaunted discourse. You and I had a spirited exchange. I have read over a few things from your earlier post, and I admit I may have flown off the handle. Don't stop waxing poetic on my account. If we can't discuss issues and ideas and polemics, then what's the point of having a free society? C'mon, just one more reply. Tell me you didn't enjoy writing those responses just a little bit. I enjoyed reading your discourses, had a kind of poetry to it. Its no fun if everybody agrees with you.

SCHOOLBOYSWINK

Sunday, September 2, 2007 9:29 PM

Alright, since we are being reasonable now, I will respond again. My philosophy is that if you're dumb, you surround yourself with smart people. If you are smart, you surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you. If I can count on your future disagreements to be more fact and logic-based and less visceral, then we may trade productive words in later days. Still, all manner of unkind things have been said, and I've never had much of a reputation for keeping a cool head, so for my part I'd be speaking amiss if I made any guarantee of future civility.

I did enjoy writing the response because I enjoy logic and debate; however in this case I feel as if I'd been drawn into something that was less debate and more outright argument, and that I could have done without.

As for Socrates and Decartes, though I don't know from what part of the world you hail, I my own self am a citizen of "Western" civilization, and in my schooling those kinds of fellows have all been done to death. I posted about the Eastern influence because it did not bore me so much as the Western, and I thought it would make for a more interesting topic. I guess if "interesting" was my only goal, then I have probably been successful, though left with the feeling that maybe I should have been a little more specific in my ambition.

"When you can't do somethin' smart, do somethin' right!" -Jayne Cobb quotes Shepherd Book

LAWMAN

Tuesday, September 4, 2007 4:43 PM

The future is what the future is. No guarantees in life, except death and taxes. Philosophical tangents aside, I always go back and forth wondering if Joss intentionally put something in a specific scene or in the discourse between characters, to some very attenuated concept for idea. I definitely do believe he is gifted in telling a story and making his characters believable. I don't believe he is as brilliant as we would like to believe. I think the brilliance that many fans notice in the episodes is partly him, but partly the exacting nature of the fan as well. I am not a fan of buffy or other whedonesque works. However, I am a hardcore fan of the Firefly series. Firefly has too few fans, and maybe that is because of who the fanbase is, not necessarily the product we ascribe to. Firefly speaks to me on a level that is more than just science fiction and original story telling. I can watch it with other folks, and they don't see the magic at all. I know that many people see a specific concept or philosophical ideal that they see in a dialogue or scene. I'm starting to think that the viewer brings much of that to light based upon their own personal experiences. And the painful question to ask is: if Firefly was so brilliant, why did most of America sleep on it? A lot of excuses, bad timing, order of episodes... every episode had a brilliance to it that was deep and profound. It would not have mattered, because I would have become an avid fan regardless. I believe that this series was destined to fail because of what the general public has become. Can't appreciate a good thing when it sees it. This all makes me believe that not everyone can become a "browncoat". and I certainly don't agree with a lot of what other "browncoats" believe in. Not socratic, but a lot of thinking on my end.

MERRYK

Tuesday, September 4, 2007 9:48 PM

Quote:
I believe that this series was destined to fail because of what the general public has become. Can't appreciate a good thing when it sees it. This all makes me believe that not everyone can become a "browncoat".

Now this is something I definitely do not believe in, because I have seen it proved otherwise. I am a philosophical person myself, and find huge depths to Firefly (and have been known to find depths in almost anything, much of it probably not deserving), but so does a friend of mine who finds most Western classics too boring. We can't really discuss literary tastes together, but we can connect with Firefly. My father is a computer programmer and reads almost exclusively military thrillers, and it's sometimes hard for me to find something to talk about with him, but Firefly—we could go on for hours about its subtleties.

From my conversions, I have seen Firefly to appeal to everyone, literally. From four year olds who are eerily River-esque to gun-loving teen boys to young ASL interpreters to middle-aged airplane mechanics. The only thing these people could possibly have in common is that they are church-going folk...in all other aspects they are a slice of the general public, and now they are Browncoats as well. Firefly is not for the elite—anyone can be a Browncoat.

1 2 NEXT PAGE