Just got to thinking about this after those threads on The Expanse and Military Sci-Fi (which admittedly is probably the sub-genre least affected by this trend).
I know the case can be made for the existence of some conservative authors or sometimes conservative themes, of course they exist, but are they “swimming upstream” so-to-speak? Going against the flow of “the mainstream” of Sci-Fi?
I’m not looking for a list of conservative authors by the way, I want to hear if the people here think that Sci-Fi as a genre may or may not have an inherent bias towards the new, the previously unseen, and thus “progressive” ideas and ideologies. Not even necessarily to castigate Sci-Fi, merely to attempt to understand what’s happening.
The “Sad Puppies” folks probably have some insights on this subject but I don’t know much about them beyond their existence and their claim that the Sci-Fi book awards system has been subverted by leftist/progressive ideologues:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Puppies
Sad Puppies activists accused the Hugo Awards "of giving awards on the basis of political correctness and favoring authors and artists who aren't straight, white and male".
I do see the ideas of sci-if and “progressivism” as connected, but I’m not sure if that’s an inherent aspect of the genre, or if that is perhaps a cultural relic. I lean towards the idea that it is likely largely cultural (i.e. well respected sci-fi authors of old put “culturally progressive” themes in their books about Scientific “progress”, and that has carried on to this day) but I’m interested in where everyone else falls on the subject.
Yes. Science fiction is inherently progressive. It requires an examination of technology's impact on society, or at least a person. War of the Worlds is an allegory for colonialism. Since the English ruled most of the world, it was necessary to introduce a people/technology not from this world to put the English in the role of conquered savages. The "progressivism" there, aside from the political messaging ("see how shitty it feels?") was to examine the impact of the invasion on the British. Star Trek's inherent progressiveness was to look at the impact of technology enabling us to be a spacefaring society. Not just new worlds and new civilizations, but also how it affected OUR civilization. Racial equality, communism, and all that. 1984, in contrast, looked at the way technology could enable tyrants by spying and controlling information. Also communism. The problem is "progressive" has changed from the thoughtful examination of the impact of technology on society to merely "we have gay people in it." Or, in the case of the Hugo's, "we have gay people writing it." That's meta progressivism, where the text is less important than who produced it.