I have just finished season 3 of The Expanse, the near-future science fiction series based on the books by James S.A. Corey, and although some aspects of the ending of season 3 were disappointing I have been really enjoying this show. There’s a lot to like about it – the setting itself, the aesthetic, the fundamentals of the inter-system conflict, the main characters, the ideologies at the centre of the conflicts, and the plot are all excellent aspects of this show – but for me the thing that really stands out, the thing that has kept me really strongly engaged with this show is the Belters and their culture. I think it is the best example of how to build a synthetic culture that I have seen in science fiction or fantasy for a long, long time, and the Belters present a rich and detailed culture that serves to reflect ideas and ideologies from our real world, while also standing alone as a fascinating, rich and deep vision of a culture all of its own. The Belters feel simultaneously very alien, like a society raised in space 500 years in our future and yet also viscerally close to us, as if they had sprung straight from the present to taunt us with visions of our own failings. Even their invented language is simultaneously alien and yet so close you feel that you can understand it without subtitles.
The Belters are a culture defined by both the harsh environment of their upbringing, and their political struggle for rights and freedom. The broad parameters of their political struggle are very much like something we would have seen in the colonial era on earth: a people born and raised on a land they don’t own, who yearn to liberate that land from its distant owners but who have to work for those owners in harsh and unrelenting conditions. They are dependent on those distant overlords for much of their technology and supplies, just as surely as the Indians or Irish were forced into dependency on their colonial masters by a deliberate program of economic and industrial destruction. Their liberation struggle aims to free them from this yoke, but cannot act decisively out of fear of losing that essential lifeline, which in space is a much more punitive and restrictive relationship of dependency than we ever saw in the colonial era. This a really well defined model of how a colonial relationship would look in a capitalist and highly militaristic near-earth future, a brilliant depiction of the property relations that would arise in space 500 years after the Cyberpunk era.
This deeply exploitative pseudo-colonial relationship is perfectly tied to the general character traits of the Belters we meet in the series. They are fatalistic, cynical and prone to despair, but they are also full of energy, indomitable and apparently immune to fear. They are resourceful, capable of making something out of almost nothing, independent and smart, but also cramped by their physical space, the constant imposing emptiness beyond the walls of their tiny communities, and the poverty they are forced to grow up and live within. Belter society is obviously rife with crime and people trying to get one over on one another – and who could blame them? – but their society is also rich from solidarity and a shared sense of struggle, and many of the characters we meet are ferociously committed to the long-term goal of national liberation.
This Belter personality, and the political complexity of Belter life, is perfectly summarized in the character Anderson Dawes, the OPA leader on Ceres Station. Anderson Dawes is simultaneously a union leader, a gangster and a revolutionary, making sure that he is personally enriched and empowered by his central role as a union organizer on the station, while also being intensely (and often violently) committed to his people’s struggle. His public persona alternates between lazy, corrupt gangster and committed unionist, but occasionally we also see his ruthless devotion to the cause of freeing the Belters and making a Belter nation. We also see this later in season 3 in the form of Ashford, captain of the Behemoth and former pirate, but Anderson Dawes is the quintessential Belter revolutionary, simultaneously venal and ideological, selfish and selfless. These people are a really good science fiction depiction of the kind of colourful characters who arose from the national liberation movements of the 20th century, activists who were ferociously and single-mindedly committed to the liberation of their people but who were also often personally very corrupt. Anderson Dawes and the OPA are also excellent representations of the way in which national liberation movements of the 20th century overlapped with worker’s movements, and show the ease with which Marxism was able to infiltrate nationalism in developing (but not developed) nations. It makes perfect sense to viewers of the Expanse that Anderson Dawes should be simultaneously a criminal, a union leader and a revolutionary nationalist – wouldn’t you be? – and this perfect logic is exactly why so many national liberation movements in the 20th century adopted Marxism. Europe’s colonial subjects were also largely exploited workers, and their political activists saw very quickly where those two oppressions overlapped. In The Expanse we see a very believable model for how such oppression would be exported into space, and how its victims would respond in a similar vein to the Arafats and Sukarnos of the 20th Century.
Belter culture differs from 20th century colonial cultures by its existence as a colonized diaspora, rather than a simple single landmass under the control of a foreign power, and the Expanse handles this especially well in showing their relationship with the Martians. The Martians in the Expanse serve as a kind of model of New Zealand, white South Africa or Australia, the colonies that made good by dint of being built on “empty” land (which, of course, was stolen in the real world but was genuinely empty on Mars). Farmers, land owners and rich workers, they view the “skinnies” of the belt with disdain, just as Americans sneered at the Irish diaspora, and Australians looked down on the Chinese workers who provided them with essential services during the gold rush. The Martians think they’re better because they have their own land, although of course really they’re just lucky. The relationship between dusters and skinnies is thus driven by a dynamic of scorn and envy, with both depending on each other and unable to separate, and both looked down on by Earth natives, but unwilling to admit their shared interests. We see in season 3 what it takes to make them put those interests aside and fight for a shared humanity, but I think we will also see in future seasons that the new threats they face will wash away the dynamic of their struggle, and with it the most interesting parts of this excellent television series.
With all of these details, The Expanse offers a masterclass in how to make a new culture: drawing on existing social history for its key ingredients, it adds in new threats and environmental constraints, and builds the character, society and motivations of the new culture carefully on this basis. The result is a rich, believable and highly appealing society that quickly draws you into its struggle, and keeps you deeply engaged in it until the bittersweet ending. This is world building at its finest!
February 27, 2021 at 11:52 pm
Just finished watching Season 5, and immediately did a search for “Expanse Postcolonial.” You are absolutely right that The Expanse channels not only the neo-Marxist ideology but also the politics of machismo (even when embodied in woman characters) and charisma that are problematic legacies of decolonial and liberation movements. Like many iconic sci-fi vehicles including Star Trek, this dystopia is set within a racial and gender utopia, so that class and territory can be isolated and scrutinized for their own sake. Perhaps today even that fantasy is problematic, but it may be that we can best understand racism and colonial violence when they are transplanted in a future world.
March 1, 2021 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for your comment R. Clemente. I just re-read this and at the end I predict Mars and the Belt will fall out after initially sharing some interests, and well what do you know … Good point about using a setting of racial and gender utopia to isolate the class-based and territorial frictions.
Now that we are at season 5 I’m concerned that the show is going to slide into a typical colonial vision of national liberation movements as only violent nihilists, but I still have hope that the Belters will rise above their internal frictions and find a genuinely new way forward.
Also as an interesting aside, I have seen at least one critic dismissing season 5 as being just a retelling of 9/11, which completely misses the similarities between Marco Inaros and so many national liberation movements from the decades before 9/11, as well as ignoring the struggles other colonizing nations faced in dealing with terrorism (the UK and IRA terror being the obvious model) – now that America has finally experienced anti-colonial terror, its art critics feel like all tales of anti-colonial terror are a copy of their own extremely recent experience. So instead of being a tale drawing on 50 years of liberation movements, Americans see season 5 as an unoriginal tale cribbing on their “unique” suffering … sigh…
March 2, 2021 at 4:45 am
faustusnotes: yes, in the past few decades educated Americans have become very provincial. Many say they reject American exceptionalism, but turn it into America being uniquely wicked and a special force for evil. They won’t let racial theories be a global European and settler movement in the late 19th and early 20th century, Americans have to have been in charge. They can’t accept that 45 is a local expression of a global movement which trades ideas and money and operatives, he has to be central. It is like many educated urban Americans say they are secular, but really rework Christian ideas like original sin and penance in new language (or in private ask Mormon or Catholic friends to pray for them).
March 2, 2021 at 11:07 pm
Vagans, one thing I am sick of in reading and interacting with “educated” Americans on the left (like left of Bernie) is their complete inability to accept that non-white countries have agency, so everything bad that happens outside of America is somehow America’s fault. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that this is often the case but there are also bad actors who would be bad without US interference or support (though they might not be as terrible). This has led to a strange willingness on the part of some of the far left in the US to believe that Russia never does anything wrong, except somehow that it is responding to America’s vast power. It’s of a piece with the strange idea throughout all sides of American politics that only Democrats have agency – so every bad policy is the Democrats’ fault even if the Republicans did it. It’s quite exhausting at times.
Thinking more widely, I think that the core colonial powers need to have a kind of constant amnesia in order to justify themselves in the post-colonial era. They need to be constantly telling themselves that they’re the good guys, and can only do that by memory-holing every bad thing they’ve done. So in order, e.g., to deny China the right to expansion in the South China sea the UK has to pretend that what they did in the Chagas islands never happened. The most perfect expression of this is the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which in a document a few years ago explicitly refused to consider the moral rights or wrongs of offshore detention of refugees by the Australian government – but now spends all its time condemning China’s behavior in Xinjiang. To hear Australian politicians speak you would never imagine that they are still running concentration camps in Australia, and less than ten years ago had a brutal camp regime that leaves everything else in the region in the bloody dust. America has to do this too, of course, and educated Americans interpreting season 5 of The Expanse through the lens only of 9/11 is a good example of this constant amnesia in the imperial core. Weren’t the US funding the IRA just 20 years ago? This regular forgetting is also a huge problem in their entertainment industry generally, which is how they can go from dedicating First Blood 3 to the Mujahadeen to making movies about how terrible the Mujahadeen are.
Empires are great for spectacle, but not so good at introspection.
March 3, 2021 at 3:13 am
“Agency” is another good word! And yes, Americans who identify as liberal / progressive / left / woke often talk about the agency of disadvantaged groups within the United States but have trouble imagining that workers or politicians or terrorist groups have their own goals and values which are not centred around the United States or that brown people could be just as canny at using US state power for their own ends as a Yale MBA working for a correctional services supplier.
I think the US persons who slip from “US propaganda against Russia, Iran, Venuzuela etc. is false” to “the governments of Russia, Iran, Venuzuela, etc. are good” are over-correcting. As foreign news collapses, and the gap between the NATO press release on the war in Syria and the newspaper articles summarizing it becomes harder and harder to see, its hard to know about parts of the world where you don’t know anyone. And everything from civics classes to news to movies teaches them to think about good governments and bad governments!
I would have thought that all the foreign-born people in the California IT industry would have made that industry more aware that most people speak several languages and only a minority of the world uses the simple Latin alphabet, but what do I know.
March 3, 2021 at 3:31 am
I don’t think the reason so many US persons deny foreigners agency is racism, I think its that they have internalized the Bush II administration’s position that only US persons are people. We can be murdered or tortured or locked up without charge at the whim of whoever sits in the Oval Office after all. If you read US or British papers aimed at people with a university education, you’ll see that the treatment of foreigners anywhere is through this lens.
March 4, 2021 at 3:43 pm
Vagans, I don’t want to nitpick but I think the idea that “only US persons are people” is textbook racism.
March 5, 2021 at 3:18 am
faustusnotes: are all Americans one race? An awful lot of awful Americans don’t think so. This rule applies to people Americans would assign to the white, asian, Hispanic/Latino, and black races using their culture’s arbitrary system of racial categories. So the determining factor is not race as Americans understand it, its whether someone is a US person as Americans understand it.
March 10, 2021 at 9:13 pm
Well Vagans, race is a social construct, so …
March 11, 2021 at 12:04 pm
Go on, please finish that sentence. It seems to me that ethnocentrism and prejudice are human universals, but that it is useful to distinguish between racism, nationalism, religious intolerance, classism, family rivalries, etc. Racism comes from a specific context in 16th-18th century Europe and has specific features which not all kinds of prejudice or ethnocentrism have.
March 11, 2021 at 4:58 pm
If you’re saying that “thinking anyone outside your own country is not human” is worse than racism, then I’m with you all the way. But the other -isms you mention don’t encompass the nastiness of thinking everyone who isn’t like you is not human. So until someone can come up with a simple single word that properly captures the grotesqueness of “thinking anyone outside your own country is not a person”, I’m going to run with racism, and not quibble too much about the fact that the Americans who line up behind a unifying political concept don’t all have the same skin colour.
(Incidentally, I don’t really think this is something that Americans do).
March 12, 2021 at 12:57 pm
I think recognising the phenomenon is more important than agreeing on what is exactly the right word for it, but since the question has come up, how about ‘chauvinism’? (One problem with it is that now it is strongly associated with ‘male chauvinism’, but that’s not the original sense of the word.)
March 12, 2021 at 1:54 pm
Chauvinism is good! But I don’t think in every case it’s as bad as Vegans says. I do think ignorance of the rest of the world is very obvious in a lot of American media, and American discussion of media.