Wasn't as active in the discussion as I wanted due to some real-world stuff but want to be semi-contrarian again despite thinking that this society would be a marked improvement over our own if for no other reason than the citizen population doesn't hate themselves, their history, or their nation.
Obviously we see the current state of the US military and just today it came out that the military effectively seized power from the civilian government back in January. Obviously there is an "us versus them" attitude between the civilian government and the military when the military doesn't like the civilian government.
In the book there is no civilian government, and the "us versus them" in the book seems to only be in one direction with some of the civilians resenting the citizens. The entirety of the book is how a citizen grows to respect the value of citizenship itself and their duty to fellow citizens and of course to their society as a whole, but you don't see much in the way of a cultivating of duty and obligation towards the civilian population. So what in that society prevents the "us versus them" thinking of the citizens towards the civilians? Is it simply a cultural norm? If so what prevents that cultural norm from changing over time, especially as multi-generational families of citizens start to emerge?
Or perhaps put in more concrete terms: what prevents that society from going full-on Australia and beating the shit out of civilians for simply leaving their homes?
Well the Federal Service was "two years or as long as may be required" and wasn't necessarily military. Then you could go career by becoming an officer. But once the service was up under normal circumstances you were a citizen. Still you have people who "put in the time" and people who don't, and I could easily see an attitude of "Don't like it? Put in your time" emerging unless it was actively suppressed.
And it's a recurring thing we see in many such groups over history. The Thin Blue Line attitude for example. Or the old aristocracies. Possibly made worse because unlike those two groups in theory anyone and everyone can sign up to take the test and be a member.
Made worse because anyone by law can sign up to take the test, so if you don't do it it's either because you don't want to or you aren't good enough to pass the test. Either way you are the "other".
The latter is probably the more dangerous of the two, because it would be very easy to consider civilians "inferior" due to their inability to complete the service. There's no "there by the grace of God go I"; it's been replaced by "you have been measured, weighed, and found wanting"
I suppose another comparable system in modern society is the university system. With the public university system, it started out with an almost purely meritocratic system where pretty much anyone who had the grades could attend; and it was a good way to cycle elites because it allowed smart kids from poor families to work their way up to doing something more closely aligned with their potential than they otherwise would have done. But over time that system came up with a culture all of its own that ended up so insulated from the broader culture that became much less likely to occur. And of course it thinks less of people who aren't a part of that culture.
Again it may be the best of all possible solutions, but I'm trying to think about the possible failure modes since we now have the benefit of 70 years' worth of hindsight.
I have not read the book, so it may be addressed within it, but couldn't it be as simple as needing an enemy? Having a common enemy is a great unifying force. I think that society would only have a serious us/them problem if they manage to run out of space enemies. The lack of opportunity for military men to risk their lives fighting would also diminish the value of citizenship, causing standards to slacken.
As far as our real life troubles, I'm comfortable saying we do not have an enemy to unify us. There are many "attempts" at creating an enemy, but they're all weak and ultimately result in us becoming even less unified. Add to this the problem of modern society largely being low-trust, and you get a lot of your citizens eager to attack their neighbors.
Wasn't as active in the discussion as I wanted due to some real-world stuff but want to be semi-contrarian again despite thinking that this society would be a marked improvement over our own if for no other reason than the citizen population doesn't hate themselves, their history, or their nation.
Obviously we see the current state of the US military and just today it came out that the military effectively seized power from the civilian government back in January. Obviously there is an "us versus them" attitude between the civilian government and the military when the military doesn't like the civilian government.
In the book there is no civilian government, and the "us versus them" in the book seems to only be in one direction with some of the civilians resenting the citizens. The entirety of the book is how a citizen grows to respect the value of citizenship itself and their duty to fellow citizens and of course to their society as a whole, but you don't see much in the way of a cultivating of duty and obligation towards the civilian population. So what in that society prevents the "us versus them" thinking of the citizens towards the civilians? Is it simply a cultural norm? If so what prevents that cultural norm from changing over time, especially as multi-generational families of citizens start to emerge?
Or perhaps put in more concrete terms: what prevents that society from going full-on Australia and beating the shit out of civilians for simply leaving their homes?
Well the Federal Service was "two years or as long as may be required" and wasn't necessarily military. Then you could go career by becoming an officer. But once the service was up under normal circumstances you were a citizen. Still you have people who "put in the time" and people who don't, and I could easily see an attitude of "Don't like it? Put in your time" emerging unless it was actively suppressed.
And it's a recurring thing we see in many such groups over history. The Thin Blue Line attitude for example. Or the old aristocracies. Possibly made worse because unlike those two groups in theory anyone and everyone can sign up to take the test and be a member.
Made worse? How would it be worse to be able to actively enter a "privileged" class simply by earning it?
You could never earn your way into being a royal.
Made worse because anyone by law can sign up to take the test, so if you don't do it it's either because you don't want to or you aren't good enough to pass the test. Either way you are the "other".
The latter is probably the more dangerous of the two, because it would be very easy to consider civilians "inferior" due to their inability to complete the service. There's no "there by the grace of God go I"; it's been replaced by "you have been measured, weighed, and found wanting"
I suppose another comparable system in modern society is the university system. With the public university system, it started out with an almost purely meritocratic system where pretty much anyone who had the grades could attend; and it was a good way to cycle elites because it allowed smart kids from poor families to work their way up to doing something more closely aligned with their potential than they otherwise would have done. But over time that system came up with a culture all of its own that ended up so insulated from the broader culture that became much less likely to occur. And of course it thinks less of people who aren't a part of that culture.
Again it may be the best of all possible solutions, but I'm trying to think about the possible failure modes since we now have the benefit of 70 years' worth of hindsight.
I have not read the book, so it may be addressed within it, but couldn't it be as simple as needing an enemy? Having a common enemy is a great unifying force. I think that society would only have a serious us/them problem if they manage to run out of space enemies. The lack of opportunity for military men to risk their lives fighting would also diminish the value of citizenship, causing standards to slacken.
As far as our real life troubles, I'm comfortable saying we do not have an enemy to unify us. There are many "attempts" at creating an enemy, but they're all weak and ultimately result in us becoming even less unified. Add to this the problem of modern society largely being low-trust, and you get a lot of your citizens eager to attack their neighbors.