This is the Stellaris forum, Blorg jokes are part of the Ethos.
- 3
Reception Theory
- Thread starter TheBeautifulVoid2
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Har
Hari Seldon would know...
Don't forget us old dinosaurs. I was a first generation Star Wars fan (b.1966), but before that my bread and butter was Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke. (Trek sort of missed me... too young when it first aired, I picked it up after Star Wars.) I identify with rocket tubes and competent science heroes
I'm only 30 and I love Isaac Asimov too, such a pity that not much people know his Foundation series, it-'s much more profound than many popular Sci'Fi today, even if many of it is still cool. If Stellaris is ever able to use the Galactic Empire and it's decadence as a model for large scale empires and fallen empires, i will be more than content, but if we ever are able to go through similar path of The Foundation... oh man, that would be really cool.
- 1
Eh. It's not something I specialize in (or until slacking off of writing about what I do specialize in, had heard of), but the instant dismissal of it as a conceptual approach just because at no point someone said "and of course, we are doing this because Rome is wicked awesome" is a touch unreasonable.
The point is more that these ideas permeate our frames of reference; "empire" tends to evoke Rome. There might not be something you could point at and say this was wholly motivated by a desire to emulate Rome, but (a) there is very little in public policy that you could say is WHOLLY motivated by anything, and (b) it is part of the world frame of reference - especially if we move back from contemporary Britain, the prevalence of classical scholarship amongst the policy elite was very high.
(fairly scrappy thoughts, but I really ought to get back to writing what I am supposed to be)
The point is more that these ideas permeate our frames of reference; "empire" tends to evoke Rome. There might not be something you could point at and say this was wholly motivated by a desire to emulate Rome, but (a) there is very little in public policy that you could say is WHOLLY motivated by anything, and (b) it is part of the world frame of reference - especially if we move back from contemporary Britain, the prevalence of classical scholarship amongst the policy elite was very high.
(fairly scrappy thoughts, but I really ought to get back to writing what I am supposed to be)
- 3
Yeah, I think the point of the theory is that you can learn something about a society based on exactly what parts of history the gloss over and which bits they emphasise, on how they interpret it. Who do they glorify, and how? Who do they denigrate, and why?
It doesn't mean that the British or Americans modelled themselves on the Romans (or Greeks, or Angles or whatever), it means that we can deduce something of their values in the narratives they tell about history, just as you can by reading their stories, plays, poetry etc.
- 2
Oh, and for the actual point about sci-fi fans looking at it and thinking about how they can create their favourite fandom... I think that might be more of a think about the level of support for modding Paradox give, and the ingenuity of the modding community. It is hard to NOT look at their games and think "wow, that would be cool."
I don't know if this is the answer you are looking for, but I plan to play Space America, but like the the Type 1 Eagleland trope. I guess when i look back at the history of the U.S., I'm inspired by those lofty ideals more than anything else, even if i know they weren't much more than realpolitik in action.
- 1
Ha! I'm in grad school, and I'm teaching Covering Islam while writing an essay on Said and Ursula Le Guin for one of my classes. As for what I think, it's hard to read too much into game diaries, but ethos seems like the richest place to look, especially collectivism. Both slavery and the idea of people who are more okay being slaves--who don't care about freedom, basically--are heavily against the values of liberal Western democracies. And of course since the game is being made in a liberal Western democracy, it makes collectivism seem "evil" and individualism "good." This by itself wouldn't be remarkable, but because collectivism in game is meant to represent much more than this, it opens up the possible association that whatever is "collectivist" is similarly "bad."
The fun part there is that Paradox's definition of collectivism doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with and isn't well defined, so it's not even clear what this is--I've heard it described as everything from fascism to communism to East Asian cultures in general. Either way, the system implies that being individualistic--which is also poorly defined--leads to a greater desire for freedom at both the individual and societal level, even if there are many examples throughout history where this isn't always true. It seems very grounded in Cold War ideas about capitalist freedom versus communist oppression, although I'm stretching it a bit there.
There was actually a great thread on the subject a while ago. Beyond that, it's fascinating to consider what Paradox considers to be the fundamental variables of society. Materialism versus spiritualism in particular is a curious one; it puts a huge amount of importance on religion, but it relies on an Abrahamic notion of the subject as this much more pervasive societal force than is sometimes the case in non-Abrahamic religions. It also continues the old trope that religion is somehow opposed to science, when again, in many cases, that's not a binary present in all cultures, places, and even groups. (Jesuits, anyone?)
Actually, today in class we briefly touched the idea that binaries are inevitably artificial and prone to collapse, since the two sides frequently end up being continuations of the same ideological whole. I think that's worth remembering when dealing with video games in particular. Anyway, now I'm just rambling, so I'll leave it at that.
- 1
When I looked at the thread title, I had a theory that it would get a cold reception.
I'll show myself out.
I'll show myself out.
- 1
- 1
I could be misreading you, but I don't think what confirmation bias covers is as broad as this. It describes when we mistakenly select information to support our existing opinions, but I don't believe it covers beyond that--the experiences and personal preferences we have that shape our decision-making and beliefs aren't inherently a part of it. So confirmation bias might explain why I find a particular newscaster with opinions similar to my own to be trustworthy even if they have a history of inaccuracy, but it would not explain why I believe why I support a given political party in the first place.
As I said, though, I may be misreading what you're asserting.
- 1
@eon47, you could be ten times as long and I wouldn't consider it rambling. I am fascinated. The humanities are something that I've always wanted to know more about.
Interesting thread.
I thought I was not at all familiar with reception theory, but looking into it there areas of overlap with the kind of discourse analysis my own work has centred on. And some of the names are familiar. Might look more, see if I can grab a few references for my PhD proposal.
I thought I was not at all familiar with reception theory, but looking into it there areas of overlap with the kind of discourse analysis my own work has centred on. And some of the names are familiar. Might look more, see if I can grab a few references for my PhD proposal.
Thank you for this. Many people tend to think that Religion is opposed to Science but that has to do with who tend to be opposed to Science today. It tends to be those with strong religious leanings who spout things like the Earth only being 6000 years old or that it is flat. Because of this, people tend to think that structured religion is opposed to science and learning as a whole. And that is just ignorance. Equally, it can come from the other direction with people being against things like vaccines. So ignorance is everywhere.
And since people always forget their history, they forget that Religion (the Christian Church since it hadn't majorly split into Catholic and Orthodox yet) saved a lot of Science during the Dark Ages.
It's a little off-topic, but I totally agree. Look up Georges Lemaître for a very good modern example: he was both a priest and a grade-A physicist. Much of what we know of modern cosmology was developed by him.
I have several friends who are excellent scientists and also religious in their own way, to a greater or lesser extent.
Yeah, I wasn't implying that confirmation bias is how you develop beliefs, but that it can explain why different people can look at Rome and see only the parts of it that fit their own agenda. Doesn't necessarely mean that it equals Reception Theory but it was the closest thing explaining it that came to mind.
That said I think confirmation bias is a more central cognitive mechanism than we give it credit for. The way we do research (very short episodes in a lab) often makes us miss the big picture. Isolated, the confirmation bias is just that: a bias, a cognitive error, preventing you from taking in all available information in one given situation.
But if you string many many cases of it together, it might well start to shape (or at the very least entrench) our beliefs further, because all new information is filtered. Kinda like selective cognition works in depression. And depending on how soon in the process it starts doing that, the more central it is.
- 1
I think there are two sides to the "religion vs science" thing that are easy to confuse even thought they're very different.
On a societal level, sometimes religion will induce an anti-science mentality. Not just "scientists can't be trusted" (which can happend for many other reasons) but actually "learning science or thinking about things that are not the dogma is bad". Anti-vaxxers may be dangerous idiots, but they're not trying to stop science from being taught in schools.
On a more individual level, if you have a deep unexamined belief you're not going to try to challenge it and establish a new paradigm. On the other hand, no matter what Popper says, establishing a new paradigm is a tiny fractions of what scientists do. Yes it's an essential component of science, but you can be an excellent scientist without ever doing it, so religious beliefs don't a priori bar you from science. Additionally, if your metaphysics has say, absolutely nothing to say on cosmology, well then you believing that consciousness is a divine gift will have no bearing on how good a cosmologist you are.
To add in a couple more ec and to swing us back towards the OP, I want to look at Religion and Science in how Warhammer 40k and Star Trek handle them.
I'm not a hardcore 40k fan so my details maybe off but I've played enough Dark Heresy and Only War and Rogue Trader to have some inkling of the lore from those RPGs and from my friends going on and on about it. In 40k, Science and technology are regressing. And the Imperial Cult, the official religion of the Imperium of Man is very strong. Trillions of people lap up whatever the established church tells them. Speaking out against the church is heresy, and all heresy is purged with a bolter round to the face. Or fire. Because fire cleans everything and is very symbolic. What technology there is, is shrouded in mystery and steeped in ancient ritual because the super majority don't know that you can turn something on and off by simply flipping a switch or pushing a button. Instead, they must perform the ceremony of awakening the machine spirit which requires them to strip naked, dance counter clockwise around the bridge twice, and then they must tap the rune of power with their forehead. So some such thing. It's mindless and done for the sake of tradition and from not knowing.
Now does this mean that my friends, in choosing to spend hours and hours in this fandom, are all mindless religious nuts? Not at all. For them I think the appeal is the overall feeling of grimdarkness, which honestly, a lot of franchises try to do nowaday but I don't think pull off. Humanity is losing and will love in 40k. Everything today is fluff and happy and safe. 40k is different.
Speaking of happy and fluffy and safe. Star Trek! Were Science rules and religion drools! Well not really. Trek has always been rather skeptical of religion but I think they handled it rather well. TOS was a bit on the nose about it, what with making the Greek Gods really just advanced beings that partied on Earth for a bit. And of course, Kirk asking "what does God need with a space ship?" TNG I think did the best job of handling things, by saying that any religious beliefs are personal. And they left it at that. DS9 had the Bajorans and their Prophets, who were demonstrated to be aliens in the wormhole. The biggest complaint I have with DS9 and religion is the Bajorans and their constant shoving it in your face. That said, I think the Bajorans are a good example of what a faith is. Even when demonstrated to be just a bunch of aliens, the Bajorans still continue to have faith but get things done themselves. Sure they pray but they get things done for themselves instead of sitting around waiting for things to fall in their lap. Maybe people need that element of the unknown instead of constantly knowing every exact detail of something, which is what Science ultimately is trying to find out. Where as the Religion of 40k had huge helpings of the unknown, and very little know.
Does that mean that people who like Trek are anti-religion? Of course not. But with 40k and Trek there could be elements that people really identify with and enjoy. Maybe some people like being told what to do. What is right, what is wrong. Religion, for a long long time was the primary decided of what was moral. If you did these things correctly, and avoided some other things then you would have a decent life. Some people maybe like the idea of that because perhaps in real life they don't have any guidance at all. Or it is familiar to them and people like what is familiar. Conversely Trek is thought of as you getting to do your own thing as you discover new things. Science reigns supreme. So maybe more independent or assertive people identify with that.
With series that are big and popular enough to have their mods being planned for a game that isn't even out yet, I'm not sure what exactly what we can say from those fans of those fandoms. You can argue maybe that the person that likes Trek really likes religion too (see the Bajorans) or that the person that likes 40k likes being independent and working with aliens as opposed to purging them in holy flames (see Rogue Trader).
Okay I am rambling and beating a dead horse I think. So I will stop. I will end with saying I got the be the Rogue Trader in our RPG group and I based her off Janeway. Fun times were had by all. My GM almost killed me once he figured out the character.
I think how much you like a fictional setting has little to do with how prevalent science or religion is in that setting, more about your aesthetic sensibilities.
Similarly, people who love A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones generally don't wish to go back to feudal system of government more than other people.
Similarly, people who love A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones generally don't wish to go back to feudal system of government more than other people.
Ah. I'd actually argue (as a historian and archivist), that this is a bit more (and less) than what Americans/Brits/Italians think of Rome. Or the like. Partly because most people get their historical knowledge while in elementary/high school, and then just coast on the vague memories of it for the rest of their lives. For example, when I was a kid, the big thing was the Greeks creating and passing the Torch of Freedom (and knowledge) to the Romans, then the lull during the dark ages, where it was picked up by Britain and France and finally passed to America... and everyone else kinda didn't matter.
But at the same time, various historians and historical schools of thought were going through generational changes (particularly post WWII and post Vietnam), with the American schools consistently about 20 years behind the European ones. So while the above narrative was propagated after World War 2, it was still being taught to kids by teachers who learned it while in University when it was still the dominate position. Yet the historical profession had moved on to other ideas (particularly history as science nonsense and later micro-histories, which were popular during my post-grad work).
But yeah, to go back to what you're referencing, yes. Historians are profoundly influenced by their own period, and it has a huge influence on what they write. The post-WWII historians in the US were (ironically) really high on nationalism, which lead to the 'torch of freedom' narrative, which generally came across as really tone-deaf to the European historians at the time, who understandably had a much more negative view of nationalism and where it leads. I've known archaeologists with socialist leanings who argue that 'of course' stone age societies were inherently communal 'because obviously.' In many ways (and this is true of fiction authors as well), histories are usually far more reflective of the author than they are of the society being studied. In many ways, it is more true than ever, since the current gibberish is if you acknowledge your biases, you're completely absolved of any sins committed while writing about them. [But that may be my own bias speaking, since I'm far more an archivist than historian these days.
]- 3
- 1
Ah. I'd actually argue (as a historian and archivist), that this is a bit more (and less) than what Americans/Brits/Italians think of Rome. Or the like. Partly because most people get their historical knowledge while in elementary/high school, and then just coast on the vague memories of it for the rest of their lives. For example, when I was a kid, the big thing was the Greeks creating and passing the Torch of Freedom (and knowledge) to the Romans, then the lull during the dark ages, where it was picked up by Britain and France and finally passed to America... and everyone else kinda didn't matter.
But at the same time, various historians and historical schools of thought were going through generational changes (particularly post WWII and post Vietnam), with the American schools consistently about 20 years behind the European ones. So while the above narrative was propagated after World War 2, it was still being taught to kids by teachers who learned it while in University when it was still the dominate position. Yet the historical profession had moved on to other ideas (particularly history as science nonsense and later micro-histories, which were popular during my post-grad work).
But yeah, to go back to what you're referencing, yes. Historians are profoundly influenced by their own period, and it has a huge influence on what they write. The post-WWII historians in the US were (ironically) really high on nationalism, which lead to the 'torch of freedom' narrative, which generally came across as really tone-deaf to the European historians at the time, who understandably had a much more negative view of nationalism and where it leads. I've known archaeologists with socialist leanings who argue that 'of course' stone age societies were inherently communal 'because obviously.' In many ways (and this is true of fiction authors as well), histories are usually far more reflective of the author than they are of the society being studied. In many ways, it is more true than ever, since the current gibberish is if you acknowledge your biases, you're completely absolved of any sins committed while writing about them. [But that may be my own bias speaking, since I'm far more an archivist than historian these days.
Thank you very much!
In your opinion, could the same be applied to other fields? Can we speak of the reception of Stellaris by fandoms, for example, or is history a special case?