by Sherry Ginn
AERYN: And you should listen to him now.
CRAIS: All that I have cared for, gone. My parents, taken away from me. My brother, dead. So now, I live, I plan, I do, all in the service of my own interest. In that, I believe I am not unique in the universe.
CRICHTON: Snap this up; I’ve got to get back.
CRAIS: Despite all of this, I understand the power of the technology that Scorpius is attempting to harness. I understand the horror that will wash over this galaxy if anyone wields this weapon. And last of all, I now know I am the only individual capable of stopping it.
Crais evidences the most noble of qualities at this juncture in the series, self-sacrifice for the good of the universe.
Shared concern for the greater good links the two men, despite their mutual dislike of one another. It takes John several beats to fully digest Crais’ plan:
CRICHTON: Where do we meet up with you and Talyn?
CRAIS: You don’t. Starburst in a confined space where the energy can’t dissipate ... will be the hero’s death that Talyn deserves.
CRICHTON: You’re gonna die.
In fact, both men will sacrifice themselves to prevent Scorpius from gaining wormhole technology (John’s binary twin dies earlier in the season), a fitting symbolic end and heroic death for Crais’ character. The Scarrans, the conflicted Scorpius, and Grayza continue their pursuit until the show’s finale.
Crais, untrustworthy, unhinged, heartbroken, difficult, stands opposition to John’s often amusing, occasionally perplexed, always engaging personification of the hero, deconstructs the paradigm with jaded sorrow. Farscape may deconstruct heroes, but it has not changed the need for them. Perhaps Joseph Campbell said it best, commenting on the idea that there is no longer room for myth in today’s society:
The modern hero, the modern individual who dares to heed the call and seek the mansion of that presence with whom it is our whole destiny to be atoned, cannot, indeed, must not, wait for his community to cast off its slough of pride, fear, rationalized avarice, and sanctified misunderstanding. “Live,” Nietzsche says, “as though the day were here.” It is not society that is to guide and sage the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And so every one of us shares the supreme ordeal—carries the cross of the redeemer—not in the bright moments of his tribe’s great victories, but in the silences of his personal despair [337].
Society may have outgrown the belief in heroes, but we have not outgrown our need for them. With this in mind, Farscape may disrupt and deconstruct the heroic ideal in some respects, but what the series offers instead is a revisionist world, a mythic journey with an existentialist edge. John Crichton participates in a mythic quest but on his terms. He complains, he jokes, and he feels emotion, exploring the Uncharted Territories of Farscape.
Notes
1. Note that Peacekeepers, for all their xenophobic, overwrought militaristic might, function exactly as the name implies. They keep the “peace” throughout the universe, invited by other governments/worlds to maintain order, most often at the expense of the “sub-human Other,” at the request of the ruling class. From the point of view of a Peacekeeper, their goal is to provide requested protection, eschewing colonization. Ironically, the paradigm of Colonialism ensues through this relationship.
2. Or, indeed, soldiers following orders throughout history.
Works Cited
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 3d ed. Novato: New World Library, 2008. Print.
Dundes, Alan. “Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect.” Western Folklore 56.1 (Winter 1997): 39–50. JSTOR. Web. 15 November 2011.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Eds. Kark Ameriks and Desmond M. Clarke. Cambridge Texts, Kindle ebook.
Thomson, Iain. “Deconstructing the Hero.” Comics as Philosophy. Ed. Jeff McLaughlin Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005. 100–129. Print.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey, Mythic Structure for Writers, 2d ed. Studio City: Michael Wiese Productions, 1998. Print.
Friends, Enemies, Partners, Mates
Examining Relationships in the Uncharted Territories
Sherry Ginn
I have discussed the issues of love and sex in science fiction in a number of publications and presentations in the last few years, and I generally include examples from Farscape in all.1 This essay, however, looks at the issue with respect to Farscape in more detail than in those previous works. Farscape lends itself to such an analysis for a variety of reasons, first and foremost because it is a love story and was so from the very beginning of the series. Secondly, the characters were more freely sexual than those in science fiction series preceding it. As I noted in my analysis of the television series of Joss Whedon, Farscape is also about love: love of home, friends, family, lovers, and life. And, as much as Rockne S. O’Bannon, the creator of the series, wished for the series to examine real sex among real “people,” the series fell far short of the mark he hoped to achieve. My discussion of the twin issues of love and sex is filtered through the lens of two theories particularly relevant to contemporary human psychology. These are evolutionary theory, as discussed by scholar David Buss and his colleagues, and the Triangular Theory of Love, proposed by psychologist Robert Sternberg. I provide a short “lesson” on both of these theories first and then discuss each theory with respect to Farscape and its characters.
The Triangular Theory of Love
Robert Sternberg2 proposes that love consists of three components that combine to produce seven types of love. The first of these components is intimacy, which he says “refers to those feelings in a relationship that promote closeness, bondedness, and connectedness” (6). Intimacy consists of at least ten elements: a desire to promote the welfare and happiness of a loved one, giving and receiving emotional support, counting on the loved one in a time of need, holding him or her in high regard, enjoying a mutual understanding with them, sharing possessions and self with them, valuing them, and communicating intimately. Intimacy is the foundation of love and it develops slowly over time. Difficult to achieve, it can be even more difficult to maintain, because as one becomes more involved with another, a fear of losing a sense of self may occur. The task is thus to maintain a sense of intimacy with a partner while also maintaining a sense of autonomy.
The second component of love is passion which involves “a state of intense longing for union with the other” (9). Passion consists of the expression of our needs and desires, one of which is sexual fulfillment, but it is a mistake to think that passion is the only need that can be fulfilled with such intensity. For example, someone with a strong need for dominance could be aroused by someone who provides a convenient outlet for that need. Nevertheless, passion may vanish as quickly as it arose.
The final component of love is commitment, consisting of both a short-term and a long-term aspect. Sternberg states that the “short-term aspect is the decision to love a certain other, whereas the long-term one is the commitment to maintain that love” (11). These two decisions do not necessarily occur at the same time or within any given relationship. It is this component that sustains a relationship.
Seven types of love can be combined using the aforementioned components. The first, liking, consists only of intimacy. It is the type of love one feels for close friends and family members. However, the term liking is not used lightly. Instead, it refers to the type of feeling one finds in friendships or familial relationships: feeling close to the person, but with no passion towards them or expectations of a long-term commitment. Infatuated love consists only of passion, with intense physical arousal. This is what most would consider “love at first sight.” Empty love consists only of commitment. Other types of love may sometimes devolve into this type, as is the case of couples who have been together for many years. In cultures where marriages are arranged, empty love may mark the beginning of a relationship. Romantic love consists of passion plus intimacy. Liking in combination with the arous
al of physical attraction characterizes this type of love (20). Romantic love includes the feeling that one has met the person who is right for him or her and the feeling that one would like to fuse one’s spirit with his or hers. Intimacy plus commitment characterizes companionate love; one could think of this type of love in terms of a committed friendship. Many relationships turn into this type of love once physical attraction, which is a major source of passion, has waned (21). Fatuous love consists of passion plus commitment. We often read about this type of love in the tabloids, when two famous people meet, fall in love, and marry after a whirlwind romance. Since intimacy takes some time to develop, the people who fall “head over heels in love” and rush to the altar wake one morning to realize that they do not even like their partner. As Sternberg notes, “the partners commit ... to one another on the basis of passion without the stabilizing element of intimate involvement” (22). Finally, a combination of all three components yields consummate love. Many people would consider this to be a complete love. Sternberg notes however that it is often like meeting one’s goal in a weight-loss program: it is easier to achieve than to maintain: “like other things of value, [it] must be guarded carefully” (22).
As noted, love may be expressed sexually, although it is not necessary for all types of love. Nevertheless humans are sexual beings and engage in sexual acts for a variety of reasons, including to obtain and hold power over someone, to express love, for recreation, in the place of intimacy, and for relaxation, to name only a few. As would be expected, the characters in Farscape engage in sexual acts. It is interesting that its producers, writers, directors, and even its creator, were determined that an adult science fiction program such as Farscape would depict adult themes, such as sexuality. Yet it is surprising how few of the characters are actually sexually active, and virtually all of the sexual encounters in the Uncharted Territories are heterosexual and what is frequently referred to these days as “vanilla,” that is, non-kinky.
A Google search of the term “vanilla sex” will result in approximately thirteen million hits and a quick scan of the first page will reveal definitions of the term as well as links to sites espousing positive and negative views of the term and what it implies. Many people apparently define vanilla sex between heterosexual couples as sex in the missionary position (i.e., man on top of woman). Much scholarship indicates that a large number of people are not engaging in such a restrictive type of sexual activity (e.g., LeVay and Baldwin; Yarber, Sayad and Strong). Vanilla sex can also include any type of sexual activity that involves insertion, but not fetishism or BDSM (bondage/domination/submission/sadomasochism). For the purposes of this essay, I define vanilla sex as sex practiced by both heterosexual and homosexual adults to give and/or receive sexual satisfaction. Practices included in this definition may be solitary or mutual masturbation and oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse in a variety of positions. Excluded from the definition of vanilla sex would be sexual relations with non-consenting partners, BDSM, or other types of activities that might be considered kinky, such as voyeurism, frottage, exhibitionism, and others. Using this definition of vanilla sex, one observes that the majority of the sexual acts occurring on network television falls into this category as do the sexual acts occurring on premium channels such as HBO, Cinemax, Starz, and Showtime. Sexual acts in science fiction and fantasy (SFF) programs generally fall into this category, although there are exceptions. Regardless of the type of sexual act in which characters engage, most acts end in sexual intercourse. Also, sexual intercourse is the way in which most species, at least on this planet, reproduce. SFF speculates that this is also the way alien species would reproduce.3
An Evolutionary Explanation About Sex
Psychology is defined as the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. Explanations for these behaviors and mental processes arise from a number of perspectives, and one such perspective emphasizes Darwinian evolution (Origin). Behaviors and mental processes that increase the probability of an organism’s survival will be selected, meaning that the organism will survive to reproduce and the traits that aided in that survival will be transmitted to the next generation (Darwin Descent). One of the behaviors which evolutionary psychologists study centers on reproduction, attempting to explain the differing sexual behaviors displayed by men and women in terms of evolution.
According to evolutionary psychologists, men and women have different mating strategies. For example, some men and women display jealousy toward their partners. But men and women display differences in the type of jealousy they exhibit toward their partners. Men are more likely to be jealous of sexual infidelity in their partners, whereas women are more likely to be jealous of emotional infidelity. In other words, men are more likely to be jealous if their lovers engage in sexual activity with another person, and women are more likely to be jealous if their lovers develop an emotional attachment to another person (Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, and Buss). Evolutionary psychologists propose that this jealousy stems from evolutionary forces that dictate mating strategies.
Any individual woman is theoretically capable of producing about 65 children in her lifetime, assuming she could (or would want to) give birth every nine months. This assumes that she would give birth and be impregnated immediately afterwards. Nevertheless, women do not reproduce that often. Even considering advances in modern medicine, the human body probably could not withstand the effort involved in reproducing that often. Men, on the other hand, can father thousands of children in their lifetimes, assuming a limitless supply of fertile women. Thus, evolutionary psychologists suggest that men and women have different strategies with respect to reproduction. Because men produce millions of sperm cells in each ejaculate, but only one is necessary for fertilization, it is in a man’s evolutionary interests to impregnate as many females as possible. This ensures that some of his offspring will reach the age of maturity and his genes will be transmitted to future generations.
Men have little energy invested in their offspring. Women, on the other hand, usually only carry one offspring at a time, and it is in her best interests to ensure that that one offspring survives to maturity so that it can transmit her genes to future generations. Because women invest more energy in their offsprings’ survival, women are motivated in different ways than men. Men want to mate with as many women as possible, but women want to mate with one man who will help them raise and protect their offspring so that the offspring can reach maturity. Although any given woman might not know who the father of her child is, she will always know that her offspring is her own. Men can never reliably know that a woman’s children are his, hence different reasons for jealousy (Buss). If she is sexually unfaithful, then her offspring might not be his, and he is raising a child not his own. If he is emotionally unfaithful, he might leave her, which would leave her and her child undefended, rendering them unsafe in a hostile environment. She would also lose her mate’s resources and his paternal investment (Buss).
Although this was a very brief description of evolutionary psychology and its tenets on human mate selection and reproduction, the theory can be used to explain many of the sexual relations depicted on Farscape. Likewise, Sternberg’s triangular theory explains many of the emotional relationships on the series. For purposes of this essay, I focus my discussion on the series’ major characters: Aeryn Sun, John Crichton, D’Argo, Zhaan, Chiana, and Scorpius—although I mention other characters as appropriate.
Aeryn Sun: Learning to Be More
Officer Aeryn Sun, Peacekeeper by birth and Sebacean by species, was born in space. Peacekeeper soldiers are bred to fill the ranks, but we never learn if soldiers are always chosen to bear children or if some of the births happen naturally. Aeryn learns that she is pregnant during Season Three, but does not tell Crichton because she does not know the identity of the child’s father. When she finally discusses her pregnancy with him, she explains Peacekeeper reproduction briefly, telling him that a female soldier can carr
y a fetus in stasis for up to seven cycles before the child leaves stasis, develops, and is born. Aeryn had recreated (the Peacekeeper term for sex) on a number of occasions with her colleague Velorek prior to the events occurring on Farscape as well as with Crichton. It is also possible that she had other sexual relationships prior to meeting Crichton. In The Peacekeeper Wars we learn that Peacekeepers are actually human in species, but that their evolution was enhanced by a race of beings called the Eidelons. One way in which their evolution was enhanced was that gestation took a matter of days rather than months once the fetus was released from stasis. These two “improvements” ensured that female soldiers were not pregnant during a military campaign and that, once in gestation, they were not out of action for very long, which could be detrimental to their unit’s survival. If Aeryn is any example, female soldiers are capable of giving birth and returning to duty immediately following the birth with no ill effects, which is exactly what Aeryn does in The Peacekeeper Wars. As Crichton anxiously hovers over Aeryn during her pregnancy and subsequent labor, trying to control her actions, she reminds him that she is only pregnant, not incapacitated.