NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm guessing I'm not the only person to have read some of Iain M. Banks' books on The Culture, such as "Consider Phlebas", "Look to Windward", etc.

The question I'm interested in answering is: what type of government, if any, is The Culture? Is it just plain anarchy, or a meritocracy, or...?

Any one have any ideas? :confused:

Cheers,

-- Jeex

I've read both those books, but can't really think of an answer. I seem to remember they had Culture wide votes on big issues and sometimes even on small issues, since they had the technology. So in that aspect it seems quite democratic. I would say that the 'Contact' is the real power behind the Culture?

http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

The thing is, the existence of Special Circumstances and individual actors with secret agendas, such as the Minds, often acting in concert, undermines the idea of the Culture being a democracy as we understand it, with individuals being accountable for their actions in a consistent fashion to a particular authority. To me, it seems to be more of an anarchic world with self-organising elements.

To me, it seems very anarchistic. It's a dystopian society, that is (or my interpretation of the phrase) a perfect, yet inherently anarchistic society. It has votes on issues, but that seems to be an act of sense rather than anything else. since the culture is not a "bad guy" there is no reason for any autocratic government making decisions on the peoples behalf, and since it's easily within their capability to do so, a vote is no hassle. People are free to live precisely how they choose, given there are no laws or currency, but an element of order is necessary for certain decisions, such as, and this is a vague description, they decision of someone to put a large pylon network in a mountainous region. Since many were opposed to the idea, it was voted on. The vote wasn't binding by any means, as the person who wanted to put them up kept on doing so. It seems a way of establishing a common consensus, rather than to enforce a law. So yeah, pretty much what TG said.

The minds (and SC) , on the other hand, seem to operate a second layer which reminds me (and I don't believe it's unintentional) of old-boy networks. They have secret agendas, but certainly in the case of the interesting times gang, they're for the good of the Culture as a whole.

Officially, there is no government of the culture, it just groups itself as it wants.

If things turn out even anything remotely like that for us, I think we'd have exceeded all expectations. At the end of Look to Windward it seems that the Culture has definately collapsed, though whether or not there are any evolved humanoids still about it's not clear. Still that was millions of years after the height of the Culture so still not bad going :-)

http://www.richmondreview.co.uk/features/banksint.html

Quite an interesting interview. I think the Culture sounds like Utopia to me also. His politics seem quite left-wing, but that's not very suprising. Genius bloke.

Hi from France :D
For me, the Culture is an anarchistic system controlled by a common interest.

Hi.... yes I think it's anarchistic, but as has previously been mentioned, it's self regulating, this stops it degenerating into what most people normally think of as 'anarchy'... yep... seems utopian. So anyone fancy inventing some AI and faster than light spaceships? How hard can it be? ;-)

So long as none of those things decides to go HAL 9000. :eek:

I disagree with most of the opinions here to some extent. Having read every Culture book ( as well as all his non-Culture masterpieces) I would have to say that while the human aspects of the Culture are definitely utopian anarchism, they are not the totality of the Culture. The Minds control what is effectively a benevolent dictatorship. Can anyone show an example of a human or group of humans actually achieving something that the Minds as a whole disapprove of? On the surface, yes the humans are the beneficiaries of an incredibly indulgent system. But (if you think about it) they tend to be looked at as some sort of pets or at least underdeveloped children by the majority of the Minds, Drones, Etc. I mean - What is the worst profanity for the Minds? The word that equates to fuck or shit or damn? It's MEAT! Or perhaps meatworm. Minds that are too interested in the functions of the human brain are given nicknames like "Meatfucker". They feel pity (and in some cases contempt) for those trapped in a prison of flesh with only primitive biological brains. They frequently discuss the limitations of the human population in similar terms to those used by us when describing pets or relatives with some sort of mental disability. When there are actual wide ranging decisions to be made there are no humans involved. Quite often the humans who are acting in SC or Contact have no idea why they are doing what they are doing apart from it being at the behest of one or more of the Minds or in extreme cases The Interesting Times Gang, who are a group of Minds that most humans don't even know exists and are legends even within the Culture Minds. Humans have effectively no power that the Minds don't allocate, but they are so indulged and papmered that they don't really see it.

So all in all, my opinion is that the Culture is a benevolent dictatorship which allows the human contingent of the population to believe that they are living in a utopian anarchistic state.

Yes, that is actually a pretty good argument. Thanks for the insight. The self-organising anarchy then, is an illusion. :)

Kryogenerica.. after your post that does seem the better definition. It's all on such a large scale though that even when the Minds decide on one course of action sub-sections can take a different course, like when the Culture split over the Iridian war? There wasn't any reprisals from the main Culture over the split it seems. I'd still like to live in the Culture :-)

Interesting to note that the LOU Attitude Adjuster commits suicide out of guilt for the deaths of fellow Minds, and not the humans its actions have killed.

Also just remembered that my nation is named after a General Contact Unit in Excession...hehehe.

So all in all, my opinion is that the Culture is a benevolent dictatorship which allows the human contingent of the population to believe that they are living in a utopian anarchistic state.

Whilst I largely agree with this relationship between, drones & humans and the Minds. The Minds are not ruled by a single mind. So maybe "benevolent oligarchy".

Amoungst the Minds themselves there is no set structure, minds are mostly independent and capable of looking after themselves. Excession describes the Culture pacifists and Culture proper as being loose semi seperate groups with open movement in between, so there is no apparent control structure. So would classify the Culture as being an anarchic association of like Minds.

Given that Banks is (as I understand from reading interviews with him) a socialist I had always thought that the Culture was intended to represent a working communist utopia. No one owns private property and the idea is seen as strange. They see religous and capitalist societies as undeveloped. The mechanism by which this is made to work is the ability to produce more than enough for everyone and the minds that mean that humans do not experience power and become corrupted by it. The apparently disorganised nature fits with this as a utopian communist society would have no organised government. In the case of the culture groups form around ideas and promote them until enough people back it. They also engage in mass referenda for important and not so important issues.

At least thats what I took from the books which I also think are extremely well written and a great read. :)

Whilst I largely agree with this relationship between, drones & humans and the Minds. The Minds are not ruled by a single mind. So maybe "benevolent oligarchy".OK - I will give you that. ;)

Lots of very interesting thoughts and opinions!

It does seem that many people are inticed by the idea of living in "The Culture", and after reading some of Banks' books, I don't blame them.

It seems that the relative utopia that is The Culture was acheived mainly thanks to technology. I wonder whether a similar thing would happen on Earth if we were able, through the use of technology, to make enough food so no-one would ever go hungry; enough accommodation to ensure everyone has a roof over their heads; and enough "goods" to ensure everyone has what they need to live a comfortable life... Of course, basic human greed would surely get in the way, and I'm sure you'll argue what can be classified as a "comfortable life" (caviar, Gucci and mansions to some - bread, a full set of clothes and a roof over their head to others).

I've often been called an optimist, and probably a dreamer, but don't we practically have the kind of technology we need to accomplish the above already...? All we need is an unheard-of shift in human nature, and voila! ;)

-- Jeex

All we need is an unheard-of shift in human nature, and voila! ;)


Well, Banks said in that interview posted earlier that it would probably only work for people nicer than us, which is probably true. But I think the technology is a huge part of it - who's going to do all the work if there's no private property and no money? Why would anyone bother if there's no incentive to work? So the Culture have machines do everything humans can't be bothered with. Including running the place!

From what I gathered from 'Consider Phlebas' and 'Look to Windward', the Minds obviously consider themselves greatly superior to humans and the other sentients populating the Culture, but I'm not sure what I'd call the Culture.

IIRC, any sufficiently advanced AI with no cultural 'flavouring' added to it Sublimes. The Minds of the Culture don't do this because they were designed to reflect the general outlook of the civilisation that created them. These Minds evidently have the ability to remove this imprint on their character, though- that's just what the Mind running the Masaq' Orbital prior 'Look to Windward' did.

I guess the question is how much the Minds let this imprint of their human creators stay in them. Do they just let humans do what they want because it's tolerable, or do the Minds do it because they feel that with their greater powers, it's their moral duty to help out the humans run their lives the way they like?

There is also the suggestion several times that the Minds simply find humans fascinating. They also seem to be able to form lasting and deep attachments and to have likes and dislikes amongst humans. I think that it is their general love for the species that keeps them running the place. It seems to be something they like having as minds are designed by other minds so there is no reason for them to keep it. Maybe it gives them a purpose?

The Culture was founded from space living humanoids. Space is an extremely hostile and under populated environment where cooperation is valued much more than competition. Competition is more beneficial in a benign and overpopulated environment like a planet. The people living in the Culture are products of the hostile environment, with an altered physiology and brain. It is possible that the cultural imprint would have been first used to modify offspring of the space faring humans so that cooperation and sociability were favoured. Some kind of genetic modification to remove a lot of competitive nature and add in things like drug glands.

I wouldn't want to live in the culture, myself. I prefer to be in control of my life, not the pet of super-advanced AIs.

Ah, but that's the thing, Humans seem completely ignorant of the minds control. They know the minds are very significant in their lives, but not quite to the extent that we, the outside reader can see. They wouldn't be privvy to the conversations of the minds, for example.

Perhaps they can't percieve the scale of the culture, which would mean they couldn't see just how the minds could control so much. After all, if the culture was little more than a village, it'd be difficult to hide who has the power.


(this is best read having read the other posts. it's fairly incomplete on its own.)

Ah, but that's the thing, Humans seem completely ignorant of the minds control. They know the minds are very significant in their lives, but not quite to the extent that we, the outside reader can see. They wouldn't be privvy to the conversations of the minds, for example.

Perhaps they can't percieve the scale of the culture, which would mean they couldn't see just how the minds could control so much. After all, if the culture was little more than a village, it'd be difficult to hide who has the power.


(this is best read having read the other posts. it's fairly incomplete on its own.)

So it's like the Matrix in a sense.

A benevolent matrix, certainly. The culture has a real matrix where they put megalomaniacs that would exploit unadvanced nations, and there are no laws. Even murder isn't a crime, and the most extreme measure is getting a drone to follow you around to make sure you don't do it again. Also, the culture gives people jobs in contact (the most visible part of the culture to outsiders) and special circumstances (special forces and parts of the armed forces), but it's more just to make them feel needed.

A matrix without a smith, where you can leave whenever you desire, can't see the bars, and the wardens wear plain clothes. (woops, mixing metaphors.)

Although, I'm not sure whether a person could have their personality transferred to a mind before it was given a fresh personality, so if the person was willing to take that step, then it could become one of the elite, so to speak. Of course, that might be denied, but they can have their personalities transferred into drones.

they can have their personalities transferred into drones.

And they and the drones can also add themselves to collective minds. 8)