Another related problem with Stoicism is deciding just what counts as “natural.” Just because wolves happen to eat sheep doesn’t mean that we can draw the general conclusion that it is “natural” for the strong to dominate the weak. There are also lots of examples of animals, including wolves that take care of each other, nurture their young, and even play for apparently no reason other than for the fun of it. Does this suggest that if Stoics like Heydrich want to act in accordance with natural laws, they ought to be loving and nurturing rather than cruel and emotionless? By viewing our emotional lives as somehow unnatural, the Stoics seem to have a very selective understanding of what nature is all about.
The Stoic idea of accepting fate clearly has a certain appeal, since we can all likely agree that it is better to accept rather than fight things that we are certain can’t be changed. At the same time, it’s equally clear that we ought to be very careful when deciding just what those things are! Rather than asking whether or not we should accept our fates as the Stoics suggest, maybe we would do better move on to our second question and ask how our belief in fate can affect the decisions we make.
Hitler and Horoscopes
One philosopher to have asked this kind of question is Theodor Adorno. Like that of the Stoics, Adorno’s work is directly relevant to The Man in the High Castle, as he was a German intellectual who witnessed the rise of Nazi fascism and eventually was forced into exile in 1934. Adorno was keen to try to understand the roots of fascism and how authoritarian personalities could be so successful in spite of centuries of “enlightened” rationality. Most of his work is deliberately dense, difficult, and engaged with the writings of many other thinkers. However, in his short writings on astrology columns and the occult, Adorno describes how fate plays a role in the development of authoritarianism.
This shouldn’t be too surprising—in the show Hitler himself recognizes the usefulness of fate as a political tool. When Wegener repeats Tagomi’s belief that “Fate is in the hands of men,” Hitler quickly responds by claiming that fate is only in the hands of some men, only those who have the courage and strength of will to bend it to suit their desires. Hitler recognized that what matters most is not the actual existence of fate, but that people believe in such a thing. For he knows that if people see the victory of the Third Reich as a matter of fate they will put up less resistance to it since it becomes a matter of historical or even natural necessity. Just as American colonizers had used the idea of “manifest destiny” to claim that their program of expansion was simply a matter of inevitable fate, so too did Hitler want people to accept the domination of the Third Reich as an irresistible force of nature.
Adorno identifies this as one of the big problems with believing in fate. Instead of taking responsibility for the way things are in the world, we all too easily put up less resistance to things because of the mistaken impression that we have no control over them. Wegener knew that the idea of fate can be dangerous, which is why he insisted on delivering the microfilm to the science minister himself, rather than simply letting Tagomi pass it along. Even though they got along well, Wegener couldn’t completely trust the trade minister, because he might suddenly be convinced by a prophecy in the I Ching to abandon the plan at the last moment. Wegener saw Tagomi as too reliant on his attempts to see into the future, and worried that he might let an ancient book of what he saw as hocus-pocus dictate his decisions.
The Authority of Stars
Adorno doesn’t talk about the I Ching, but he did write about the seemingly innocuous newspaper horoscope. Even though the everyday readers who consult such things are typically not hard-core believers in astrology, Adorno sees their eagerness to catch a glimpse of the future as a small sign of their willingness to give up control of their lives to the dubious authority of star charts. His analysis of astrology columns suggested to him that deep in the modern Western psyche there is a demonstrable tendency towards authoritarianism, a capacity to give up responsibility for our actions and place it in the hands of a higher power, even where there is not much rational reason to do so. It didn’t matter much to him whether this power was religious, occult, or political. What mattered was that people were quite happy to let themselves be guided by irrational forces (like astrology columns or ancient Chinese books) that often went directly contrary to their own best interests. Rather than doing the difficult and complicated work required to achieve the results we want, we all too easily give ourselves over to anything promising quick and simple solutions.
Looking at a horoscope doesn’t make you a fascist, and Adorno didn’t think that. Few people actually guide their lives by what the astrology columns say. Nevertheless, their presence in all our newspapers is evidence of their ongoing popularity, and our ongoing acceptance of the idea of fate. Even if we don’t take them very seriously and only read them for fun, Adorno still sees in this activity the tiniest seeds of what can develop into devotion to irrational forms of authority. In fact, their very lack of seriousness, their seeming unimportance is exactly what makes them interesting. While we might not support such things at a conscious, “serious” level, the fact that we continue to take an interest in them at an “unserious” level is itself a serious issue! Part of his point was to argue that the rise of authoritarianism in Germany was not because of fate, nor because the Germans were more “evil” than anyone else, but because in all of us there is an almost subliminal willingness to accept easy answers and ideas like “fate,” which can be exploited by people hungry for power.
Juliana’s Heroism
The Man in the High Castle provides an excellent illustration of some of Adorno’s ideas. Juliana starts the show as a bit of a Stoic. She’s willing to just go with the flow, and rather than resisting the Japanese empire she even adopts some of its traditions. Then, the first film presents her with hope that things could somehow be otherwise, and as other films materialize she begins to allow the possible futures they represent to guide her actions. But in the last scenes of Season One, she totally reverses direction when she decides to let Joe Blake escape on the boat to Mexico. Here she decides to ignore the prophetic film that portrays Joe as a murderous Nazi and instead believe in her own impression of the man himself. This is my favorite part of the show, because at this moment she abandons her belief in the importance of the films, and reasserts her belief in her own powers of judgment. Regardless of whether this turns out well, we can still see Juliana’s action here as heroic in Adorno’s terms, since she has decided to give up striving for the “destiny” presented to her by the films and start acting according to her own sense of what is right and wrong. At the start of the show, the world depicted by the films means everything to her, but at that moment she has decided that fate is in her own hands.
Whatever you believe about fate—whether you think it is inescapable, or can be shaped by exceptional people or events, or is just a myth that people believe in to comfort themselves sometimes, The Man in the High Castle reminds us that the world we live in could have been very different, had it not been for the actions of both powerful people and ordinary folk who don’t always see how powerful their actions can be.
Even if there is some form of irresistible fate in the universe, the show reminds us that we have to be very cautious in believing anybody who claims to know what our destinies might be. We should never put our lives into the “hands of fate,” for we never know whose hands those actually are.
IV
Flow My Tears, the Ethicist Said
11
Is Resistance to Fascism Terrorism?
COREY HORN
September 11th 2001 started out like any other calm day, people heading to work without a care, traffic filling the streets, and businessmen slinging stocks left and right. No one that morning could have anticipated that one of the largest ever attacks on US soil was about to occur.
In the aftermath of 9/11, as first responders ran from building to building trying to help, one question came to Americans’ minds: who was re
sponsible? After learning that those responsible were a terror-linked group named Al-Qaeda, President George Bush took to the podium to declare the “War on Terror.” Years later, we find ourselves still fighting terrorism. Many argue this is a war that can never be won; this may be true. The current threat has changed names but not form. Today we find ourselves fighting the militant group called “Islamic State for Iraq and Syria,” or as it’s more commonly known, ISIS.
Yet we seem to be fighting an entity that cannot be beaten; no matter how much force the US and the rest of the world employs, terrorism always seems to push back. The question for today is no longer, “Who is responsible?” but rather “What is responsible?” Many groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS claim they are only fighting a war of faith, while others call them terrorists.
In Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle, an interesting, parallel dynamic develops. In an alternative history, the new rulers of the United States, the Nazis and Imperial Japanese, find themselves fighting those they believe to be terrorists, the Resistance. However, the Resistance is not exactly parallel to Al-Qaeda or ISIS: they never exhibit the aggression of the latter, and they have been recently conquered by outsiders.
Can The Man in the High Castle’s American Resistance be considered terrorists—or are they simply fighting a just war against the occupying Germans and Japanese?
Defining Terrorism
The United States government distinguishes between two types of terrorism, domestic and international. It defines domestic terrorism as any act that “involves violent acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law” and “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a population” or “government,” or “affect the conduct of government by mass destruction” (United States Department of Justice). International terrorism is when these same actions take place outside the United States territory. The actions of Al-Qaeda on 9/11 are an instance of domestic terrorism since they happened on US soil, but not every attack by Al-Qaeda has been domestic terrorism. For example, attacks on US military bases are considered international attacks. Using the Department of Justice’s definition (admitting that in The Man in the High Castle’s Nazi-occupied US the domestic-international distinction does not matter), can we consider the American Resistance group terrorist?
We first meet the Resistance in the opening scenes of episode 1 when Joe Blake receives a package that he must deliver to the “Neutral Zone” (land that is mutually agreed to be neither Germany’s nor Japan’s). In this first instance the group operates out of a local business. When Joe signs up for his first mission, we learn what the Nazis do to members of the Resistance: pull fingernails out and other forms of torture. The Nazis raid the business when Joe attempts to leave, and we see that the Germans use brutal and deadly force when dealing with the Resistance or people associated with it.
In this first example, the American Resistance breaks laws of the occupiers, conspiring against the regime, but doesn’t act against the civilian population or cause destruction of property. With this first example, the Resistance may be a criminal organization, but not a terrorist one. A second example from the first episode deals with Juliana Crain’s stepsister. Trudy Walker is a member of the Resistance, also transporting a reel to the Neutral Zone. We see Walker running from the Kempeitai, the Japanese police force, when she is gunned down unarmed. At no point, does she seem to meet any of the criteria brought forth by the Department of Justice definition of a terrorist.
However, we can also hold the Greater German Reich to the same set of standards as well. In the first example, we said they have recently occupied the US and have begun forcing the citizens to adopt their ways. Throughout the first episode, many characters allude to the use of an atomic bomb which forced the hand of the US government. The Germans broke many old federal laws, and in the process coerced the civilian population into fear, and the government into giving the Germans what they want. When the bomb was eventually dropped on Washington, DC, this could be seen as an act of domestic terrorism.
Under the definition of terrorism from “our” Department of Justice, the American Resistance would not necessarily fall into one of the two categories of terrorists. In the first instance, they may have broken laws set forth by the Nazis, but they did nothing to coerce or cause damage to the Greater German Reich. In the second instance, the Resistance can’t be called terrorists merely for transporting cargo unarmed. The United States definition seems to be too broad, since someone who commits homicide could be considered a terrorist under it. Put another way, “terrorism is any form of unlawful violent . . . act intended to intimidate . . . government or populations.”
Four Conditions of Terrorism
Terrorists use violence in a particular way, aiming at certain kinds of intermediate results en route to their ultimate ends.
—JEREMY WALDRON
In order to consider more thoroughly whether the Resistance is a terror organization or just a band of survivors continuing the war their parents had unsuccessfully fought, we need a better standard by which to determine whether a group or organization can be accurately called “terrorist.”
Jeremy Waldron has written on an array of political issues from constitutional rights to torture and security. In his essay, “Terrorism and the Uses of Terror,” we find a helpful definition of terrorism. Waldron gives four conditions for the definition to apply, using the language of “coercers” and “victims”:
1.The coercer gets the victim in his power so that he can communicate the threat and impose the threatened harm if he must.
2.The coercer demonstrates the threat, by imposing harm of the kind that he is threatening.
3.The coercer by making the threat affects the decision-making of the victim; or
4.If the victim defies him, the coercer inflicts the harm.
We can apply these conditions both to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as to the American Resistance and the Nazi party. Throughout the series, we get glimpses into the actions of both the Resistance and the Germans; for example, the Resistance operates quietly and primarily within the Neutral Zone, while the Nazis are very prominent in their providence and seem to ignore borders where they see fit. In the first episode, as Juliana is on the bus headed to the Neutral Zone, she’s approached by a stranger who speaks of a Nazi agent who travels the Zone in search of members of the Resistance. What is important to point out here is the fear tactics used by the Nazis and the quietness exhibited by the Resistance.
There is one instance where the Resistance shows hostility towards others, when Juliana and Joe are in the woods. In this scene, Joe and Juliana are walking with Lem Washington, a member of the resistance, to turn over the film they transported from their respective zones. When they arrive to the meeting place, Lem turns a gun on both of them and demands the film.
At this moment Lem has acted as the coercer and has his victims under his control in order to communicate his demands. Although Lem does demonstrate condition #1, he never harms or shoots anyone to display his willingness to carry out any action if Joe and Juliana do not comply, so Lem fails to meet condition #2. By pointing a gun in their faces, Lem is attempting to make his victims panic and make a rash decision based on fear, which meets condition #3, but since condition #3 works, Lem never has to carry out condition #4. In the circumstance, the Resistance exhibits two of the four conditions Waldron set forth in order for a group to be considered a terror organization.
When we turn to the Nazis, however, we see a group that demonstrates all four conditions. In the very first episode, we see this when the Germans capture and torture the Resistance member from the factory Joe had left. The Nazis got the gentleman under their control (condition #1), and proceeded to beat him to the brink of death (condition #2), and threatened to continue beating him unless he gave up the truck’s destination (condition #3). When the Resistance member refused to give up the information they demanded, the Nazi soldiers continued to beat him savagely (condition #4). Using our conditions, we se
e that the Nazi party in their conduct to promote state security exhibited all four measures, yet the Resistance, which is actively called a terror group throughout the show, only showed two and they were the less extreme two of the four actions.
This leaves us with the question, what examples today fit the script of terrorism by our new definition, and how do they compare with the American Resistance and Nazis?
Modern Instances of Terrorist Acts
Terrorism has been in the forefront of newspapers and social media especially since the events of 9/11. With the recent emergence of ISIS in Iraq and the Middle East, and domestic attacks by those in the name of some cause, a deeper question can be asked: how many different instances of terrorism are there?
Jürgen Habermas is a German philosopher who has written on matters of cosmopolitan issues, political theory, and topics that deal with terrorism. In an interview Habermas gave shortly after the events of 9/11, he addressed the questions of what kinds of terrorism there are, and the difference between acts of war and those of terror.
Habermas distinguished two versions of terrorism; political and global. An example of political terrorism is the situation in Palestine, while global terrorism is highlighted by the events of 9/11. The key differences between the two types of terrorism are the reasons behind them. In the first instance, Palestine and Israel, actions are motivated by religious and political goals, the ends of which are to assert the one side’s agenda. In global terrorism, these terrorists lack an end goal, so in Habermas’s view their acts are largely criminal ones.
These two distinctions allow us to see both the resistance and the Nazis as either political or global terrorists. As we have seen, the Resistance seems to be fighting back against the Nazi Party in order to take back their country. They use force, but only when necessary, and only against the Nazi soldiers, never against the native population. The use of force against non-combatants is also a distinct feature of terrorism, according to Habermas. Terrorism is typically named as such by the group being terrorized; so for example the Germans quickly name the Resistance “terrorists,” or the US occupying forces in Iraq name the Iraqi freedom fighters terrorists. What is important to highlight is both the Resistance and the Iraqi freedom fighters are fighting to take back control of their home country, and exclusively target the occupying forces (in some cases there are civilian casualties, but the question is whether those were intended or not).
The Man in the High Castle and Philosophy Page 12
