Whatever definition one takes of science fiction, it is generally agreed that it is an organism constituted of interrelated and interdependent facets. To many, science fiction is a complex, dedicated structure of individuals and philosophies held into discernable shape by relationships and desires, different often from "mainstream" literature in attitudes if not in forms. To others, science fiction is a system of philosophies related to, but conflicting with one another, and the promulgators of this view, however naive in sociological theory, often find themselves members of that esoteric group, the Litterateurs. Be that as it may, both views must say that science fiction should be viewed as a whole organism, to quote John Campbell, "a convenient analog system for thinking about new scientific, social, and economic ideas -- and for re-examining old ones" (Prologue To Analog, Introduction, page 13). Unfortunately, however, analog systems in scientific or philosophic thought can be ambiguous and somewhat ethnocentric, although the science fiction writer should conceive of a society as a dynamic organism, frustrating, but nevertheless the pivot for possible technological and sociological advances. However, when the writer isolates and magnifies a certain trend, at the cost of a sociological and anthropological perspective, his extrapolation is worthless; a basic component of society is an irrevocable part of a functioning whole. Hence, referring to Judith Merril's brilliant summation definition in SF #7 (1963), science fiction's function is to consider "the effect on/of of a human being of/on a realistically modern or logically predictable future environment (physical, technical, natural, or manmade)." And since these basic interactions between the parts and the entire structure are constantly evolving and fluctuating, the writer must trace, define, and elaborate on their significance.
The works of Robert A. Heinlein, since 1939, have had an ascertainably prodiguous effect on writers and science fiction in general. As Alexei Panshin is pointing out in his book, Heinlein In Dimension, (currently being published in Leland Sapiro's Riverside Quarterly), Robert Heinlein's work is provocatively new with ideas, and not entirely restricted to the social theory. Nevertheless, the present volume from Ace Books, The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, exemplifies the premise that social function has had a major portion of Heinlein's attention; its growth and revision is particularly evident in the stories printed, beginning with the earliest and first, "Life-Line" (Astounding, July 1939) to the latest, "Searchlight." And the foundations for Heinlein's formulations seem reminiscent, for example, of Emile Durkheim's The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), in which the august sociologist stated that social function must be elucidated "in terms of interconnections of operation rather than in terms of separate units." "Function" in Durkheim's terminology is "observable objective consequences," and in the works of Robert Heinlein (particularly the stories in the present work) several such consequences are extrapolated: social relationships (e.g., "Searchlight"), cultural patterns (e.g., "Solution Unsatisfactory"), military exigencies (e.g., "Free Men"), and psychological perspectives (e.g., "Blowups Happen"). Conversely, we can state that any "standardized item" (i.e., patterned and regularly appearing) in Heinlein's work has been a functional analysis. However, it is ostensible that Heinlein has collected, and prefaced, a work relating primarily to social structure and political institutions.
On a general level, these stories are well-known, have been printed before (except for the novelette, "Free Men"), and deal primarily with cultural change, and the persistance, integration, and survival of mankind in general. For example, in "Free Men," the function of an Underground after a nuclear war is to bring new members into their ranks, providing for a later upsurging rebellion, and, of course, socializing those who might have defected to the Other Side. And this utilization of social function in most of Heinlein's work, particularly Stranger In A Strange Land and Starship Troopers, deals primarily with a particular cultural item's contribution to group and/or individual survival, whether it be military philosophy, sexual mores, or a Zen-like mood of contemplation. Whether or not the reader agrees with Heinlein's thought, it is ascertainable that his subjects are of great contemporaary significance; in fact, our entire culture focuses its foundation on the satisfaction of such needs as sex, war, and companionship.
Analysis of Heinlein's philosophies and social structures have often been consolidated with efforts to define and delineate not only Heinlein's personal philosophy, but likewise what sociologists call "functional prerequisites" -- i.e., prerequisites on which a culture's survival depends. Poul Anderson (in the letter column of Redd Bogg's Shangri-L'Affaires #68, in reply to Alexei Panshin's "By His Jockstraps") has stated that "Heinlein stories make the obvious point that some kinds of social arrangement work better than others, and go on to suggest certain specific changes which our own society might find it worthwhile to make. But nowhere does he claim that these changes will lead to perfection.... I am sure that Heinlein doesn't believe that any final solutions to human dilemmas exist." And various other writers or "critics" have defined Heinlein's meanings in numerous ways, although all seem to agree in a consensus of opinion that each of Heinlein's societies provide for biological satisfactions, the socializing of ignorant members and the motivation of others to assume various social roles. But other than these esoteric points, few agree nor have suggested about little else. Alva Rogers, in commenting on the discussion of Heinlein in Warhoon, in 1962, felt that Heinlein "more than any other writer of science fiction... [is]...almost always charged with in some way advocating the particular philosophy or society he presents." And Rogers presents an analogy to Doc Smith's Lensman series, which he says "are even more unrelievedly warlike and bloody, and no one has accused the gentle Doctor of being a war-monger or a neo-fascist." What most critics are trying to account for, admittedly, is the presence of universal cultural patterns within each of Heinlein's works -- for example, similar family structures, similar governments, etc., and their relations to satisfied needs. Hence, we can assume, in looking through The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress or Stranger In A Strange Land, that a family structure appears in some form because it meets certain necessities of that culture's life.
However, although one can explain certain of Heinlein's extrapolations on the foundations of their functional prerequisities, there exist certain dangers. Concepts in any science fiction novel focus one's attention upon some phenomenon, and, in doing so, we may forget about other factors or related phenomena. This narrowing of vision, as it were, in some of Heinlein's early work, requires one to constantly develop a conceptual analysis of various works; the ability to see and explain recurrent patterns. And, unlike most writers, when Heinlein deals with such ambiguous questions as "God exists" or "Thou art God," he does not ignore the devisive effects of religion. Similarly, in dealing with a government philosophy (e.g., Machiavellianism of Double Star), Heinlein sustains some sort of social order, however tyrannical or subordinated.
Thus, any analysis of Heinlein's functional concepts must not only include their relation to individual societies, but likewise to the social order within a group. The careful extrapolations in the present work, for example, doubtlessly contributed to the efficient performance and development of Heinlein's early philosophies. But its functional importance varies from reader to reader, group to group. And this varied effect on so many exemplifies the point that Heinlein, however wrong on points or however right on others, remains our most important science fiction writer. And The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein is a warm, stimulating entry into the mind of an equally fascinating man.
[pp. 26 - 30, THE NO-EYED MONSTER #8, Summer 1966]
Updated June 26, 2001. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.