Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Artificial Intelligence, Anthropics & Cause Prioritization

What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?

Building the Virtues Control Panel

Convergent Risk, Social Futurism, and the Wave of Change (Part 2 of 2)

Beauty Is Skin-deep—But That’s Where Genetic Engineering Is Going Next

Convergent Risk, Social Futurism, and the Wave of Change (Part 1 of 2)


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
by Martine Rothblatt


comments

CygnusX1 on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 28, 2014)

instamatic on 'Beauty Is Skin-deep—But That’s Where Genetic Engineering Is Going Next' (Jul 27, 2014)

instamatic on 'Why We’ll Still Be Fighting About Religious Freedom 200 Years From Now!' (Jul 27, 2014)

contraterrine on 'Radcliffe-Richards on Sexual Inequality and Justice (Part Two)' (Jul 27, 2014)

contraterrine on 'The Sad Passing of a Positive Futurist' (Jul 27, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 27, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'How do you explain consciousness?' (Jul 27, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Nanomedical Cognitive Enhancement
Jul 11, 2014
(6034) Hits
(0) Comments

Interview with Transhumanist Biohacker Rich Lee
Jul 8, 2014
(5878) Hits
(0) Comments

Virtually Sacred, by Robert Geraci – religion in World of Warcraft and Second Life
Jul 3, 2014
(4468) Hits
(0) Comments

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
Jul 5, 2014
(3719) Hits
(18) Comments



IEET > Vision > Bioculture > Contributors > Kyle Munkittrick

Print Email permalink (0) Comments (4507) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Fringe and the Neutrality of Technology


Kyle Munkittrick
Kyle Munkittrick
Pop Transhumanism

Posted: Dec 15, 2009

In keeping with the theme of talking about my favorite TV shows under the pretense of some sort of analysis, I’d like to talk a little bit about Fringe.

For starters, Fringe does three very important things.

  1. It gives us a genuinely mad, morally gray scientist who works for the good guys. Who doesn’t love Walter Bishop?
  2. Three very strong female characters: FBI Agent Olivia Dunham, FBI Agent Astrid Farnsworth, and CEO of Massive Dynamic, Nina Sharp.
  3. A completely human and yet totally Other menace.

If I’m feeling cheeky I may write a post on each of those points (especially #2) sometime this week, but for now I just want to point out those are traits of the show rarely seen on TV. And though I’d love to talk about how much I love the gross-out factor of the show, (giant parasitic worms? sign me up!) what I’m more interested in the moment is Fringe and its portrayal of technology as neutral.

Like its cousin Lost, Fringe is a mythology show, with a long, extended plot arc that requires and rewards viewer loyalty and neurotic attention to detail. Unlike Lost, Fringe has mastered the “monster” episode that made the original X-Files so popular. A “monster” episode is one in which the larger mythology of the show is secondary to the investigation of something weird, like a feral child or a chimera. They have a jump-right-in feel and are less subtle. Monster episodes in Fringe are some of the most enjoyable and, curiously, some of the most ripe for analysis because of the formula used by the shows writers.

fringe_s1

Invariably, whatever horrific thing the team from Fringe Division is investigating, Walter Bishop and William Bell, the two super-scientists from Fringe’s fictive universe*, had a hand in inventing it. At some point Walter remembers what he was trying to do when he concocted said malicious thing, reverse engineers his own invention and solves the case. The fantastic part about this goofy formula is that it shows the technology to be invented by a man we trust and like yet are unsure of, Walter Bishop, is then misused by evil people, and then better understood and countered by that same inventor. In short, the technology is always a pawn. There is never a moment where the inventor is taken over by his inventions (a la Doc Ock) or is his invention shown to be inherently evil.

For example, one of my favorite episodes involves Walter’s elaborate scheme to hide the components to a teleportation device and the criminals usage of a matter-wave disruptor thingamajig that allows them to walk through solid matter. What makes it brilliant is that neither technology comes off as evil, or even bad. The episode makes a point to highlight the very good intentions Walter had with his initial invention. Furthermore, we see that technology did not merely “fall” into the wrong hands, but was stolen by manipulative double agents. Abrams, despite his tendency to camp things up a bit too much, always knows how to seek the human element in a situation.

VYZ9E4IkV_Jg1FcLiqeWHw53657

We accept cursory explanations of how a person can transform into a beast or how a computer screen can liquefy someone’s brain because the story isn’t riding on the reality of those events, but on how people work together to cause evil and do good. Every case on the show has been solved by a full team effort. Every character has their weaknesses, but as a team (which at its largest was six people including Charlie and Broyles) their strengths are able to shine and save the day. It’s schmaltzy when I spell it out like that, but what makes Fringe entertaining is that the dynamic between the weaknesses and strengths is different every week.

In addition to the presentation of technology as a neutral thing in non-neutral hands, Fringe does a decent job of showing medicine and drugs as neutral as well. Though initially used for humorous purposes, Walter’s seemingly wanton usage of hallucinogens and narcotics is shown to stem not from hedonistic drives (though those are sated) but from intellectual curiosity and self-control. At least twice, we see Walter’s use of LSD to allow Olivia to confront her own mental situation. Yet in another episode, we see Walter suffering due to a minor overdose of Valium. The usage of drugs by an exquisite mind for both enjoyment and betterment is a rare portrayal in popular entertainment indeed.

It is very easy for a show like Fringe to take the Michael Crichton approach where science goes crazy, escaping its inventor’s control. Instead Fringe shows a consciousness is necessary to guide a technology to good or to evil. Walter and Bell invent a technology, evil people misuse it in their absence, Walter reasserts ownership of the tech through his intellect and regains control. It’s nice to see a show about new technologies and cutting edge science that focuses more on the people and their reasons for acting than just the tech itself.

I also enjoy watching Olivia shoot people and Walter eating Twizzlers while he is doing an autopsy. Also Broyles and Nina Sharp are both terrifying and weird. Did I mention there was a snake-bat-lion-scorpion? The show is good. You should probably watch it.

*It is worth noting that J.J. Abrahms uses science fiction tropes (time travel, parallel universes) to actually explain his fictive universe. In Star Trek, time travel explains his reinvisioning of things. In Fringe, parallel universes explain why Walter Bishop, William Bell, and Massive Dynamic exist yet the rest of history so closely matches our own.


Kyle Munkittrick, IEET Program Director: Envisioning the Future, is a recent graduate of New York University, where he received his Master's in bioethics and critical theory.
Print Email permalink (0) Comments (4508) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Dialoguing with the US Military on the Ethics of Battlebots

Previous entry: Human Enhancement: Bioliberation or Biothreat?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376