Within Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future, the characters of Frank May and Mary Murphy are intended to represent the differences and commonalities between activist and bureaucratic approaches to the issue of climate change.
Mary represents the bureaucratic response. Our earliest impressions of Mary show her as a fast-talking, pragmatic bureaucrat (Robinson 18). Among the clearest distillations of this is the scene in which she coolly and calmly discusses the impacts of the recent heatwave in India while drinking with a colleague at a bar (Robinson 31). Although she has been tasked with a significant leadership role in terms of combating climate change, it is clear that she is not in close proximity to the tangible repercussions of the issue. She is viewing it largely from a distance. Additionally, her character is intended to provide the reader with a lens into the universe of intense, lengthy meetings that inform much of climate change policy, but it must be noted that many of those meetings are fruitless (Robinson 139). She is part of a system that is frequently fruitless.
Conversely, we are introduced to Frank as he is providing humanitarian aid to India and is then thrust into the middle of this horrific heatwave (Robinson 1). The reader observes Frank’s intense trauma and intense guilt surrounding the fact that he survived the heatwave. On this note, the text reads, “He was having panic attacks whenever he got hot, and then panic attacks made him hotter still” (Robinson 27). Even further, Frank dramatically reorders his life in service to combating climate change, which was the culprit of the heatwave in India. He refuses to return home (Robinson 27). Then, he attempts to join Children Kali (Robinson 49). He accidentally kills a man (Robinson 77). Then, he kidnaps Mary (Robinson 92). However, it must be pointed out that this kidnapping helps spur Mary into meaningful action. After this event, she establishes the Ministry’s black wing operation (Robinson 109). This is an example of activism - although extreme and illegal - impacting bureaucracy.
Frank and Mary represent two sides of the same coin. They share the goal of combating climate change. Their roles in this fight, however, are very different. Even so, the novel clearly advances an argument that the bureaucratic and activist approaches share commonalities, but only when these approaches stretch the boundaries of their own definitions. The lines between the two approaches become less distinct when there is a unified, singular, and cohesive goal.
The conflict between activist and bureaucratic approaches to solving climate change is at the center of The Ministry for the Future. Frank and Mary are personifications of that battle. Of course, another main fixture of the novel are Robinson’s aside chapters, where no characters are identified and no narrative plot is forwarded. These, I would argue, are where he inserts what he thinks is the answer to that debate: socialism. What Robinson wants, a political revolution that results in the public ownership of basic human needs, is the middle ground between what Frank and Mary want. An effective global shift from capitalism to socialism would disempower the ruling class villains that Frank wants to take out, and would radically change the way resources are consumed, perhaps enough to set humanity back on the right course to save the planet. A socialist government is also bureaucratic in its own right, and provides order and the theoretically stable future that Mary needs. As you point out, Mary is currently part of a fruitless system. The socialist system that Robinson envisions would need pragmatic leaders like Mary to enforce climate change policies, but the lengthy meetings she would be a part of would result in actually effective outcomes.
ReplyDelete