On “Starship Troopers” (part 2)

Today I am going to discuss some of the philosophical aspects of Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Yesterday I addressed some of the many criticisms of the novel, and today I will extend this to philosophical criticisms.

The first and most important aspect of Starship Troopers is militarism, fascism, and ultra-patriotism. In the novel, human society has consolidated into a single world government, “the Federation.” This government is democratic, but only “public servants”—veterans—can run for office and vote. Indeed, veterans are referred to as “citizens”, and everyone else is simply “civilians.” Furthermore, the society is portrayed as being very close to ideal, and because of this Heinlein was harshly criticized for promoting militarism.

I believe the answer is a bit more complicated than this. Starship Troopers is somewhat militaristic in that is does glorify patriotism and the military, but it is important to remember that Heinlein speaks out strongly against conscription, which he refers to disgustingly as “slave armies.” The military force in Starship Troopers is a volunteer force, and Heinlein emphasizes that the military cannot turn anyone down; they must allow everyone a chance to perform public service. However, recruiting stations are present in every school in Starship Troopers, and students are required to take a class called History and Moral Philosophy, which is simply a teacher lecturing on why to join the army. The whole culture of the society is based very much around the military, and “citizens” are glorified. In terms of prosperity, the society Heinlein describes is so ideal it is almost utopian—and remember that the original definition of utopia is “no place,” a society too perfect to exist. The justification for the society is rooted in the idea that man is simply a wild animal, without any higher moral authority. This theme is prevalent thought the novel, and though it does justify mankind’s war with the novel’s aliens it does not fully account for the nature of the society. One of the characters defends the society by saying that veterans are more responsible than non-veterans, and they are more qualified to vote because they are lacking in civic virtue. To put it politely, this completely absurd. A government of veterans would be just as corrupt and inefficient as a regular one, and civic virtue is not as important as intelligence when voting. I suspect that this justification, along with the fact that the society is portrayed as ideal, is not meant to be taken as face value: it is actually satire. In many other books, Heinlein satires a concept by pretending to promote it; here, though he does show militarism in a positive light in some ways, Heinlein is mocking the society he is describing. The only part of it that has any legitimacy is the idea that man is a wild animal, which his reflected in some of his other novels.

Additionally, there are several famous soliloquies in the novel, in which Heinlein comments on various philosophical topics. I have already discussed one of these in a previous post, but I would like to tackle another one.

The first is a speech given by the teacher of a History and Moral Philosophy class. In it, the teacher justifies corporal punishment, stating that because man has no moral instinct, our moral sense must be cultivated with cause-and-effect learning. He compares it to raising a puppy, saying that if a puppy were never scolded for doing something wrong he would never learn. He then goes on to relate this to juvenile delinquents, stating that minor criminals must be punished so that they learn proper morals. The idea of moral sense rather than moral instinct is very prevalent in all of Heinlein’s works, so I suspect that this speech is not a mockery or a satire. Here I agree with Heinlein in terms of the concept of moral sense, but I disagree in the corporal punishment is not always necessary to cultivate moral sense.

Also, Heinlein viciously attacks communism in Starship Troopers. Though Heinlein was a leftist in his early days, the left of the 40’s understood the fundamental difference between socialism and communism; Heinlein was a socialist but not a communist. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein calls Marx a “pompous fraud,” and denounces Plato’s The Republic as “weird in the extreme.” He bashes Marx’s labor theory of value, explaining how the theory pales in comparison to the traditional supply and demand model. Also, the alien race in the novel, the Bugs, is a hive-mind organism. Heinlein uses them to speak out against communism as well; he admits that communism is useful for a species evolved for it, but he still points out many flaws in the Bugs' society. Here Heinlein is not equivocating or being subtle—his message is abundantly clear. For whatever reason, Heinlein has a serious personal vendetta against communism, and it is very apparent in his works.

Tomorrow I will cover more of the philosophical and political aspects of Starship Troopers.