In Kim Stanley Robinson’s “The Ministry for the Future,” a character presents the idea of needing a “black wing” (Robinson 99). Frank kidnaps the head of the ministry, Mary, trying to convince her a black wing is needed to enact real, fast change. A couple of chapters later, Mary finds out the ministry has already had a black wing and has already made changes with some coal plants (113). Her ministry has already performed illegal actions to make changes. At what point do the benefits of change from a black wing outweigh the costs of being unethical? In a perfect world, I believe black wings shouldn’t exist normally, but in times of near-future disaster, it could be a necessity depending on the situation.
Morally, black wings are wrong. A person should never be put in any possible harm to enact change. Just like Mary says “’ Violence begets violence’…’ It cycles forever’” (99), violence is never a permanent solution. Change should be enacted through the law and the system that governs all. This leaves lasting change most will be able to support. However, the world today and the world in the book is by no means a perfect world. It is filled with people who are corrupt, greedy, and who have the power to cause major harm. These people can bend the law to their will to benefit them while the world deteriorates. I believe in times of need such as impending disastrous climate changes, black wings may be necessary to make changes fast.
I think black wings may be necessary because if one person or one organization can deteriorate the world faster while also refusing change, they are risking the lives of many for the sake of their current happiness. The greed and selfishness of this one man can cost the lives of many people while also costing the health of the planet. However, these people despite risking the lives of many, still do not deserve to die. I disagree with Badim when he claims, “there might be some people who deserve to be killed” (115). I believe some people deserve to suffer as much as they have made others suffer but still do not deserve to die. Killing people not only solves little, but it will also only create more harm/death in the world. The founder of the terrorist group, Children of Kali believes now “if you keep killing the wicked ones, the criminals, now that all the worst of them are dead, then you become one of them” (390). Just like we mentioned in class, those people at the top of the organizations are only figureheads easily replaceable. You kill one person, another steps in and continues the actions of the previous.
In times of need, which is the gray area, I believe black wings without killing are necessary to enact fast temporary change. A simple bill in the US will take months, years to pass and enact which will take even longer for something to be passed on a global scale. With the help of black wings, this process could be sped up to the point where millions of more lives could be saved at the cost of our morals.
You raise good points about the morality and necessity of Black Wings. Throughout the novel, there is consistently a theme of change being driven by tragedy. Early on, Robinson sets the scene with the tragedy of the heat wave in India, which is then followed by India and The Ministry implementing changes to try to slow down the rate of climate change. When the concept of the Black Wing was introduced in the novel, I couldn’t help but wonder if a Black Wing could have avoided the suffering that those in India went through. Wouldn’t it be moral for an organization to step in, causing disruptions to a select few to save a country of over a billion?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, people’s views towards violence change as violence’s effects continue to affect those around you. In the start of the novel, as you have outlined, Mary was very against violence. However, towards the end of the book, when Tatiana dies, Mary says she “will kill [Tatiana’s Killers].” (453). Now that the violence has affected her personally, she views it differently and is more willing to retaliate with violence of her own.
Disruptions, violent or not, can serve as catalysts for change and progress. Is a black wing immoral to cause disruptions that move society forward? Is it moral to want to retaliate against a violent act if it brings salvation and enables change going forward?
I agree that the story presents not a moral, but *logical* dilemma about the need for "black wings." However, I would argue that Robinson also shows the need for "innocent" people to face equally "innocent." The way that the novel contrasts Frank and Mary shows this exact disconnect. Frank represents those who are willing to do what needs to be done, no matter how bloody, in order to make change. Or at the very least, he represents those that *want* to, after facing tragic events that could have been stopped if not for said people. Mary, on the other hand, represents those who have not directly suffered, and are therefore "innocent," but are still necessary to making change. That is because, bureaucrats and the like do not listen to those who have been so disenfranchised that they have nothing left. They listen to those in power. So, through the two characters, Robinson shows that those who are "innocent," or to be better put, naive, must shed said naiveté and help those who are disenfranchised, who had no privilege to be innocent. And a black wing is the manifestation of that - doing what needs to be done, no matter how morally crude it may seem.
ReplyDelete