SFitze Worldcon Struggle Sessions 2024
Hello Everyone. Here is the new SFitze Schwitze. If you missed the L.A.S.T. (migratory) Substack (bleah, good riddance) issue here it is (check it out - for the cute SF animations, Scavenger Reign and Journey to the West Chinese 2022 movie (宇宙探索编辑部)reviews.
First things first. At least if a collective planetary governance planning and thinking has not yet prevailed, maybe the SF community could show the way after the return of history in 2023. Maybe - it could give us to approach "futurity" without disregarding our incipient multipolar world. Well, nothing is as radical as reality (as Lenin said), so clearly SF is not immune to all the geopolitical shitstorms, Election-year posturing, and Military-Industrial-Complex encroachment on SF. SFitze newsletter has tried to forge a backchannel and common-sensical ground to make sure SF never becomes a backwater for the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party witchhunts. The horizon of Cold War 2.0 'saber-rattling' and network competitiveness is upon us whether ee want it or lot. Foreign policy myopia is compounded by the fact that Silicon Valley grift is trying to make the most of this burgeoning conflict of who controls AI.
I initially meant to make a clear break with the recent Hugo Awards post-Chendgu Worldcon controversy because nothing could be added to change the situation. But hell, I do not want to pretend that smoke from this recent flame war left me indifferent. Sadly, on the whole, and despite many opinionated and Western fannish comments or long backlogs on File 770, email leaks, sexual harassment allegations, Hugo Awards big data, back-and-forth Chinese and English translations, Zimozi Natsuco Guest Post, little has been added to avoid further preconceptions. It's not about last year's Worldcon ij particular but years and years of prejudice seeded by Western-centric media and governments and a general inability of English-speaking Western audiences (although there are many notable exceptions here and especially here) to exit the algorithmically amplified Anglo-US bubble and listen to the Chinese or at least give it a truly global spin. When is the World in (World)con really going to become the whole world? As mentioned there are welcome exceptions, especially if Chinese voices get represented - and a more balanced reporting such as Simina Mistrea and Wanqing Chen sometimes makes a difference. My visit to China recently and Indonesia in 2015 made me understand that for all the noise and the money, the Western or Global North is just a tiny sliver of the whole world even if it grabs all our spare time and attention.
Chengdu Worldcon was a double opportunity: an internal one - for SF to get more inside traction with the government and maybe also power up much-needed tourism and consumption levels (China has by far the lowest consumption share of GDP of any economy in the world - 40% compared to 60%) and external soft power projection - by embracing Chinese (particularly female) SF post-Liu Cixin cultural Sinospheric exports by likes of Regina Kanyu Wang, Tang Fei and bestselling authors R. F. Kuang and Xiran Jay Zhao. These are Asian-Canadian, British and Asian-American Chinese diasporic success stories that together with such movies as Everything Everywhere All at Once have helped stem the tide of xenophobia, racism, anti-Asian sentiment, and out-right Sinophobia(with a long history in North America starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act from 6th May 1888). This rooster of excelent authors are important because they bring the necessary 'upgrades' of climate crisis awareness, neurodiversity, and gender fluidity when it's needed most. Leap-frogging does not mean leap-frogging over the above or missing out on the occasion to actualize these potentialities. At the same time it is important to revisit rival epistemologies of anti-heteronormativity that evolved during the Cold War. As a group all these authors have also been vocal in making sure that Chinese SF (and fantasy) genre fiction stays diverse and sharp. Making any of the above ineligible also makes sure that they cannot be claimed as part of a more diverse and polymorph Chinese SF. I think China needs all the divergent qualitative upgrades it can get and from anywhere it can get them, be they speculative fiction theoretical/techno-critical, or xenofeminist/cyberfeminist. IMHO humanity as a whole would be better off if China keeps at the bleeding edge of world SF. Aiding and abetting inter-capitalist rivalries and constant chicanery in our dire time of polycrisis isn't cool.
TRUE INTERNATIONALISM
Internationalism has very rarely been palpably and truly international or planetary, especially at a time rife with trade wars (=class wars) and newly resurrected protectionism (basically Crack-Up Capitalist special zoning) being high on the agenda. Internationalism in this narrow sense usually meant that you had to have published work by foreign US or UK publishers (Tor, Gollancz, Harper, Head Zeus) or be accepted and famous at the industrial capitalist core. This of course also sometimes meant that you got recognition at home only if you already got a confirmation from the Western canon. Ideas of a timeless and changeless Orient ("Science, Tech, and Progress ONLY Good in the Western Hands" narratives) and Techno-orientalism ("American media continues to pump out images and aesthetics of an imaginary Asia to articulate its fears of a futuristic Asian-dominated world" - Robina Nguyen) also played a background part in last year's Hugo debacle.
If you are not active in the Global North you are not deemed global enough and risk remaining a perpetual outernational (or worse stateless) member of the global South periphery or semi-periphery (the situation of Eastern Europeans). What gets published and translated into English, the cultural imperialism language par excellence (watch the Adventures of English documentary by BBC to get an idea) makes it into the news, what doesn't is utterly invisible. Yes English has reached a certain universality, but in fact that many English terms used today that carry on this Cold War rivalry unquestioned. Giving so much credit to the role of Hugo and celebrating Hugo Gernsback is OK, yet this event was evidently a celebration of the burgeoning Chinese scene and SF fandom and re-inscribing local traiectories within a larger historical- materialist (and Marxist with Chinese characteristics progressive perspective). It was not just about Hugo but also more importantly about Chinese Techno modernity. It qas an occasion to celebrate the fact that tehno-modernity comes in many shapes and blends. In fact this was the amazing thing at Chengdu Worldcon the amount of varied Chinese publications, exhibitions, historical displays documenting a SF history and time-line of the movement, the plethora of book releases and translations available. Even if most were inaccessible to me I could but wonder and acknowledge their presence.
Yes, you could blame the Vigilante Hugo Award Invisible Committee which also happened to be citizens of a failed or failing US state that pretends to know everything about its ex partner and new competitor. But as Dipesh Chakrabarty and others insisted, it is important to precisely provincialize European SF (and US-UK SF in particular)in the best of #SFintranslation hashtag sense. There is so much that does not get noticed and will never get published or translated. Does that mean it will never make the Hugo slate? Does that mean that it will die in its semi-obscure corner and never get a wider audience? As Dip Gosh one of the participants at last year's Worldcon from the Global South told me - a lot of the interesting Bengali SF out there is completely invisible to Western audiences. Of course, it is their loss. The always privileged English-only speakers of the Global North start to appear like an isolated and increasingly fearful and provincial lot. Is it really normal that 60 of the 84 Worldcons were hosted in the United States, "with an additional five of the remainder next door to the US in Canada and just two in Asia" (the most populous continent on the planet)- Yokohama 2007 and Chengdu 2023? And is it normal that none in Africa, the Caribbeans or Latin America (that is outside of the 'white' Dominions)? Or the Balkans for that matter... Is it so difficult to understand what the Chinese fans feel and think and how this has affected them - most of all, especially since others have spoken in their name and also taken the liberty to decide in their name what is eligible and what not?
How presumptuous of these foreigners to consider to know not only what the fans think, but what is in the best interest of the Chinese Communist Party (or global SF), wouldn't you say? Especially considering how much everyone in Chengdu and all over China has invested in it and how much everyone worked themselves to death, during sleepless nights, to put up the Chengdu Worldcon and all the sacrifices that usually go completely ignored. Isn't that a part of any Con? Well, the bigger they grow, the bigger their sacrifices. Sadly, as a good friend and young acafan from China said after the Hugo fallout, it is almost like "120 years of Chinese SF" efforts have been undone starting with legendary editors of the SWF magazine. In a futurist pulp genre aware of its colonial and Western-centric biases, one should not be obliged to repeat on and on the following (Michael J. DeLuca): "English should not be the lingua franca of the future nor English speakers its arbiters, and all tools at our disposal should be employed to circumvent that." And most of all it is really stupid, dangerous, and boring to keep it that way. What is most important and what gets lost is that despite pro and anti propaganda (on both sides), China cannot be constantly depicted as a monolithic entity and will always express a plurality and multiplicity of directions. The 100 schools of Thought are not mere historical ballast. China is almost a sub-continent within Asia, a world of worlds and we better learn to accept that.
MEMBERSHIP ONLY
After the end of history, for China and every other developing non-Western country that wanted to join the select club of the World Trade Organization(WTO), it was all a question of sacrifices and conditionalities. It is even alleged that China had to endure more humiliations, more restructuring, and more sacrifices to join the WTO than during the Unequal Treaties Era of the 19th century. Such comparisons seem exaggerated, but let's consider that organizations that have been at the forefront of the Washington consensus (and the Wall Street consensus - check the excellent paper by Daniela Gabor) have acted like exclusivist, membership-only clubs. Does the Hugo Award ceremony have to transform into something like that so that China can feel included or rejected because it has not earned its place in "global" SF? Let's give it to them, it was an act of diplomatic genius to host a Worldcon and invite as special guests African futurist authors (such as Wole Talabi and Nnedi Okarafor). Some insightful commentators of the whole Hugo Awards 2023 fallout have rightfully observed that by excluding the names of Chinese-born or diasporic Sinophone authors from last year's Hugo Awards - it is China who is at a loss and no one else. So the infamous Dave McCarty & Co. gang did no favors to Chinese SF by sealing these exclusions and advising the government. He probably did more long-term damage than anyone can today imagine to Chinese SF (ultimately to the satisfaction of US/China 'decoupling' fans abroad and at home). Chinese SF can only stand to gain from the inclusion of such works, and the fact that R. F. Kuang's Babel: or the Necessity of Violence was excluded by US-Candian vigilantes masquerading as Chinese censors speaks volumes. It is a work critical of British Imperialism and colonialism and an SF book that was already translated and available to the Chinese public mind you, not some blacklisted unmentionable work. Hopefully, more readers will now read it and read more Chinese SF in general. Why did Dave McCarty & Co. behave this way, out of conformism or gratitude? Did the Western freedom-maximizing rational sovereign individuals falter in Chengdu? Chengdu Worldcon invited Westerners to enter a possible future, but somehow these visitors were taken aback by the fact that they didn't encounter there the expected Asian techno-dystopia that they carried in their heads from home. When the top Worldcon Westerners decided on what was dangerous and what not, they either willingly misinterpreted such works or, of course, rather conveniently, managed to confirm what the US State Department wanted to hear and to project all along.
After having said that, my beef is with any such Awards in general. I know that the Hugo Award gala is for some the epitome and career-changing event of their literary life. With all the constant provocations and bad press, China Worldcon 2023 had to embody its commitment to a futuristic Internationalist mindset, forward-looking outlook, and progressive values. And while this has backfired, I refuse any cynical or sarcastic explanations. As prize winners are virtue signaling, leaving exhibitions, and giving back their prizes all over the world, I also understand why people polish and de-dust their prizes with care. So certainly, it isn't just about small matters of an embittered community, because this moment shows we also have to nurture the affective sentivity necessary to be able to avoid inflaming things more than they already are. Ultimately I think prizes can sometimes in moments of crisis be welcome but also become very divisive and destructive in many ways. Yes, prizes and awards awarded to people I cherish in my immediate proximity have influenced my existence. So, my this rant does not come from any spitefulness or feeling of acrimony. I have been part of prize committees of various sorts, from the visual arts to animation festivals. But principally I never checked any exclusive award lists or let them dictate what books to pick up what movies to watch and what book/movies I should ignore. I would probably renounce 80% - 90% of my readings if I would just go for the winners lists only. Hugo votes are bought for whomever can spare 50$, and this touches the crux of things. That you can buy your way to a vote is clear to anyone in a staunchly capitalist democratic society - and one I might say is a society that favors 'Super Packs' during elections. I am happy to depend on friends for recommendations. Generally, people whose trajectory, generosity, and tastes I appreciate but who do not seem to follow bestseller lists or prizes.
My next point is about "free art" and "freedom of expression" or self-censorship as explained by Ada Palmer (who is a celebrated SF author and Renaissance historian)Tools for Thinking About Censorship. Again reflecting on Simon McNeil (thx to Alin Rautoiu for this), the question remains: what government precisely reflects this self-censorship narrative? During the Cold War 1.0 a time still fresh in my memory, art and sponsorship followed ideological force fields and boosted any anti-communist freedom loving politics. Inquiries into the conceptualisation of the Cold War have started questioning in what measure was it largely an American invention. While the aggressively ideological stance of the US was starting to falter after 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Soviet Split (see Cold War Degree Zero by Anders Stephanson), the Cold War was again invoked later by Reagan in the 1980s and never quite went away. So instead of discussing censorship and self-censorship ot would be more fruitful to look into the myths of anti-conformism and conformism. At the height of the cold war, US liberalism reacted both to the ideology of suburbia (see the "bad boy" of Cold War American culture) by deploying a mythic version of rugged American individualism that "stood in contrast to an equally mythic version of conformist imperatives in "totalitarian" societies."(Joanne Meyerowitz).
In keeping with Ada Palmer's argument that there cannot be a line drawn “between state censorship and private or civilian censorship.”, what censorious state or regime are we actually talking about? Germany, a social market democracy has censored by law any mention of "genocide" "apartheid" and "Israel" in the same sentence and made the life of Israeli citizens critical of Netanyahu a hell. Recently, lots of museums (including Neue Nationalgallerie in Berlin) have finally included in their exhibition various ways in which artistic movements were state-supported, encouraged, or considered important or transformative during the Cold War. The thesis of "art for art's sake" has been long debunked, but some art appears more easily amenable to capitalism it seems than other forms that were openly anti-capitalist. Such is the case of abstract expressionism supported officially by the CIA during the Cold War culture wars against Socialism Realism. There is also another point made by Lebanese artist Walid Raad during his memorable performance lecture Walkthrough, Part II in Kassel, Germany 2013 that has left a deep impression on me and my friends. Basically, the affront and criticism found in Western media about the way Western International cultural brands such as the Guggenheim Museum (or let's say Hugos) have been bought or 'leased' by oil-rich undemocratic nation-states such as UAE smacks of more than just envy or hypocrisy. Especially this line rings true:
Who established the Metropolitan Museum of Art after all? Was it not robber barons? Let’s call them American sheikhs. Was it not American sheikhs who established the Met over one hundred years ago, and who helped shift the center of modern art from Paris to New York seventy years ago? Why can’t Arab sheikhs do the same for Arab culture today? They may not shift the center of the contemporary art world to the East, but at least they will certainly establish an eastern outpost for it there.