Frank Herbert was a very intelligent man with some weird ideas, who wrote an extremely involved epic saga of humanity’s future.
One of his major ideas was that aristocracy was a natural human state of governance. As he put it, leadership and power to accumulate in the hands of a few, with the bulk of the population content to let others run things.
This notion sets up the whole future society of a space empire and a formal class system that is the setting for Dune.
This isn’t news. But what is interesting to me is to explore the idea of “aristocracy” a bit further, and then I’ll post observations from later in his books.
Naturally “aristocracy” implies a hereditary ruling class with a formal class society. But consider that some other systems effectively become aristocracies.
Note the glorious revolution in Russia to overthrow the Czar and institute a utopian society of equality and give power to the workers - the people. How did that turn out? The Communist Party becoming a hoarder of power that privileged the few over the masses. Being the offspring of the well-to-do has airways been a shortcut to wealth and power, and being offspring of Party officials was no different. Until the collapse of communist Soviet Union.
But another parallel can be seen in the US. Our government tends to gather power seekers to run things, and they amass money and political power, which then begins to feed into family dynasties. Popular names are Kennedy, Bush, Cheney.
Not always, not everyone wants to continue in their parents’ footsteps, and the doorway is more open to entry than a lot of societies. But there still is an element of segregating the bulk of government decisions and actions to a select few, and the bulk of people content to live their own lives.
What inspired me to write this thread, however, was I’m reading my way back through the original books, and discovered interesting comments in the later ones.
A note here: some of these comments necessarily start to have connections to ongoing political events in the US. I think those are open. Indeed, those are the point of this thread. If the thread has to be relocated, I’m fine with that, but I am exploring the connection between Herbert’s ideas and how politics are now playing out.
Specifically, Chapterhouse: Dune. This thread will be open spoilers.
This is summary. I’ll flag the meaty quotes below.
This book is set in the very distant future of the Dune universe well after Paul’s time. The most striking importance is that the Bene Gesserit are still a big political power in the original home planets, though a major diaspora has occurred that sent humanity into the vast reaches of the universe, and now some of the descendents of those groups are coming back to the home planets with an eye to conquering them.
Also, the Empire has largely collapsed because of the actions of Leto Atreides II, the God Emperor. His time is also in the distant past, but his actions created the diaspora, as well as bred generations of Atreides to foster a specific goal of being invisible to prescience, i.e. nobody can use spice to see them in potential futures or their direct actions.
There were also technological advances that made artificial navigation possible, breaking the Navigators Guild monopoly on space travel, and the Worms on Dune were transformed, which created a spice shortage that led to the Bene Tlielax finding a way to grow it in their axlotl tanks. So the planet Rakis (formerly Arrakis or Dune) does not hold the monopoly on spice production. In fact, that is a smaller segment than the Tlielaxian spice.
The setting of the specific comments comes when one of the invaders (an Honored Matre, the “Spider Queen”, Dama) is questioning a Bene Gesserit (Lucilla). I put this for references in case someone wishes to look at the context.
COMMENTS BEGIN HERE
I’ve extracted bits of a conversation, so it’s a little choppy, not an essay. L is Lucilla and D is Dama. I’ve numbered sections for parts to consider, as well as looking at the whole.
1)
L: “But your society is administered by bureaucrats who know they cannot apply the slightest imagination to what they do.”
L: “They have no room to maneuver because that’s the way their superiors grow fat. If you don’t see the difference between regulation and law, both have the force of law.”
L: “Laws convey the myth of enforced change. A bright new future will come because of this law of that one. Laws enforce the future. Regulations are believed to enforce the past.”
L: “Necessary rules and laws keep you from adapting. Inevitably, everything comes crashing down.”
Sometimes I find myself lost in Herbert’s writing, like I can’t quite parse out what he’s saying. I can read the words, but the meaning is so fuzzy. This is one of those sections where I welcome thoughts on what he’s saying, the difference between regulations and laws.
If I understand it, he’s saying that laws are constraints that define how behavior is allowed to be, while regulations are descriptions of how things have been that has been “working”. A regulation is something that can be ignored or rejected if the situation changes, whereas a law still limits until it is actively changed.
Does that make sense? An I on the right track? Is Herbert on the right track?
He’s seems to be saying the Bene Gesserit operate by regulations and tradition, but not laws.
2)
L: “Isn’t it odd, Dama, … how rebels all too soon fall into of patterns if they are victorious? It’s not so much a pitfall in the path of all governments as it is a delusion waiting for anyone who gains power.”
D: " ‘Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ "
L: “Wrong, Dama. Something more subtle but far more pervasive: Power attracts the corruptible.”
This is an interesting spin on the old adage. I think there is a lot of truth in both statements.
3)
L: “I’ve really tried to help you, Dama. Laws are dangerous to everyone – innocent and guilty alike. No matter whether you believe yourself powerful or helpless. They have no human understanding in and of themselves.”
L: "Laws must always be interpreted. The law-bound want no latitude for compassion. No elbow room. ‘The law is the law.’ "
L: “That’s a dangerous idea, especially for the innocent. People know this instinctively and resent such laws. Little things are done, often unconsciously, to hamstring ‘the law’ and all those who deal in such nonsense.”
Observations and comments welcome at this point.
4)
L: " ‘More law!’ you say. ‘We need more law!’ So you make more instruments of non-compassion and, incidentally, new niches of employment for those who feed on the system."
L: “It rolls and rolls until it injures the wrong person or the wrong group. Then you get anarchy. Chaos. Rebels, terrorists, increasing outbursts of raging violence. A jihad! And all because you created something nonhuman.”
Again, a pause point for comments. To me, there seems to be something in what he’s saying. The stricter the society, the more our chafes. The more people resist, the tighter the restrictions get, the more people are wronged, the more it escalates. Oppression only works until people think they have more to gain than lose. Then comes rebellion, upheaval, chaos and destruction.
So far, these comments have merely been interesting. Now I get to the ones that really have bite.
5)
L: “Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate. Get the rich, the greedy, the criminals, the stupid leader and so on ad nauseam.”
L: “You know the flaw. A top-heavy bureacracy the electorate cannot touch always expand to the system’s limits of energy. Steal it from the aged, from the retired, from anyone. Especially from those we once called the middle class because that’s where most of the energy originates.”
L: "I presume you have some sort of civil service for the ‘lower orders.’ "
L: “Then you know how that dilutes the vote. Chief symptom: People don’t vote. Instinct tells them it’s useless.”
This is a fascinating observation. The effect of a system of looking out for the ones who support the regime creates the experience of favoritism, which generates the idea that someone’s vote doesn’t matter.
What’s more important and fairly obvious, feeling like your vote doesn’t matter undermines democracy in itself, as it fosters lack of participation.
IF YOU’VE ONLY SKIMMED SO FAR, THIS IS THE REALLY INTERESTING PART!
6)
D: “Democracy is a stupid idea anyway!”
L: “We agree. It’s demagogue-prone. That’s a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are ready to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythms, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity.”
L: “Sincerity with nothing behind takes so much practice, Dama. The practice can always be detected.”
L: “By anyone that learns the signs. Repetition. Great attempts to keep your attention on the words. You must pay no attention to words. Watch what the person does. That way you learn the motives.”
At this point, I’m obliged to point at American politics at the current moment. The prescience of Herbert outlining Trump is fascinating. This is the comment that drove me to post!
7)
D: “So you know how to make a democracy so whatever you want.”
L: “The technique is quite subtle but easy. You create a system where most people are dissatisfied, vaguely or deeply. This builds up widespread feelings of vindictive anger. Then you apply targets for that anger as you need them.”
L: “I prefer to think of it as a distraction. Don’t give them time to question. Bury your mistakes in more laws. You traffic in illusion. Bullring tactics.”
L: “Wave the pretty cape. They’ll charge it and be confused when there’s no matador behind the thing. That dulls the electorate just as it dulls the bull. Fewer people use their vote intelligently next time.”
Comments?
FINAL TOPIC - How Bene Gesserit govern.
8)
D: “Because you’d have to permit open voting, juries and judges and…”
L: “We call them Proctors. A sort of Jury of the Whole.”
L: “They can arrive at any decision they desire, the way a jury should function. The law be damned!”
L: “The first rule of our democracy: no laws restricting juries. Such laws are stupid.”
L: “There appears to be a rule of nature that says it’s almost impossible for self-serving groups to act enlightened.”
I’m very curious to explore just how this alternative form of democracy would be workable. It may be a topic for an independent thread, if anyone is interested.
) ruled for 3.5k years approximately, not 13000. Of course, there are nearly ten thousand years past the death of Leto II before the story picks up again in Heretics which leads directly to Chapterhouse, so if you’re referring to the whole period between your novels as Leto’s rule, it would be somewhat accurate, but I’d politely disagree…