The Bene Gesserit Seamstresses of the 'Verse

[trinityvixen]

A link kindly provided to me by linaerys about the class conflict in Firefly/Serenity has been eating my brain for the past twenty minutes because, being bored as nuts around work, I am doing nothing but thinking on a plot bunny I plucked from my brain last week and how to work it out. It's not what the article itself talks about that I've been considering

Comments

[trinityvixen]

I have my doubts about illegitimacy existing in the 'verse. For one, the issue of monarchies seems to be a joke--in "Serenity," Mal says on whim that he'd love to be "king of all Londinium" as a parallel to an equally unfulfillable wish of Kaylee's. Not direct proof, granted, but something to consider. Where there are still monarchies on Earth, the issue of legitimacy amongst the citizens is still a major concern--and those deemed to be not worthy (as has plagued the empress of Japan until recently, I believe) are often treated extremely harshly. I don't doubt that Mal's dislike of the Alliance would lead him to snipe about the monarchy if there were such a system, but I don't think the passing references to possibly such a system existing are proof that it does (Sir Warwick Harrow, for instance, might have been knighted but that doesn't mean there is a king to have done it--it may be a relic from the Sino part of the Sino-American Alliance).

As for the children of companions, it's a tricky question. In the series, no Companion was conscripted for the express purpose of bearing an heir or just to have children for a client, but I have to believe that, given how Inara defines the freedom to pursue their own hearts and likes within the strictures of the Guild's teaching, there are some Companions who are free to do so. Actually, it might be encouraged as another form of trade, a la the Bene Gesserit, such that wealthy folk could obtain children in a legal transaction where there would be not lingering fear of the mother returning to usurp their place and claim the child--with the adoption system in the US, there is a fear that many parents and children have that the natural parents might return to reclaim the kids or at least interfere in their life; if a Companion were to do the birthing, the exact details would be worked out by having done so before and would be contracted.

I do not believe that Companions are sterilized. Their autonomy is absolute so long as they obey the rules of the Guild. Sterilization would compromise that autonomy. As far as we know, it is possible to renegotiate your position in the Guild--Companions like Inara who travel with given ships, Companions travelling outward to train new students at schools, et al--so it seems physically compromising a Companion's reproductive ability permanently would be contrary to that idea of freedom.

Then again, if freedom is, as it is with all things in the Alliance, only an illusion, so, too, might be the Guild's policy. I have no doubt that there is pressure exerted on some of the students to go with certain clients to curry and maintain favor. The line is blurry as to how much that is abused, and only an assumption of the Guild's benevolence can make it clear. Since we believe that Inara believes it is so, and she's pretty smart and clever with headgames, it's reasonable to assume that while some freedom is curtailed unwillingly, it's not done overly much (certainly not on the scale the Alliance does it) so as to offend the Guild's members.

No, I have not read the Kushiel series, but I may have to. I have heard good things.

[stakebait]

Interesting point about the monarchies -- I never made the connection. I was thinking that they still have inherited money and power, and therefore illegitimacy would likely be an issue as regards inheritance.

I don't think the Companions autonomy can be totally absolute -- we have the example of Inara's friend, who quit the Guild because she found it too confining, and of Inara implying that any romantic relationship with Mal would be frowned on -- not just because he's the captain, I got the impression, but because ongoing romantic relationships themselves were viewed with suspicion, if not outright forbidden.

It seems to me if the Guild involves itself in romance it is quite likely to involve itself in childbearing, which is even more likely to impact Companions' ability to work, but requiring birth control or temporary reversible sterilization are more likely than permanent. And your point, about a form of surrogate motherhood as a possible Companion function, is even more fascinating.

[trinityvixen]

You're absolutely right about the romantic entanglements being controlled in some respect. Inara says it would be complicated for her to simply date someone, which may be one method of controlling Companions right there--when the Companion wants for company, she must satisfy it in her work. That might be the guiding method of the Guild, in fact--finding your own satisfaction in providing and receiving the pleasure of others. The fact that you would not then be able to pursue a relationship outside of a client-worker basis seems most unfair as that would, ideally, be the same thing (you'd want to be in the relationship for the give and take and exchange). I can only assume that it is curtailed to save confusion and keep people from attempting to romance Companions for free (as was the problem with certain whore houses in ancient Japan, where lotharios would try to make the whores love them so that they'd basically make themselves unsellable to other clients when they'd give their lovers tokens of their affection like fingers). The Guild is a business, after all, and, unfortunately, they can't have the cows giving the milk away for free except to those with whom they cannot help but having some kind of interaction with (like the captains of ships that Companions travel on). Basically, Companions are Companions all the time, not just when they're specifically being romantic with a client, so they can't just turn off their services. The Guild accepts this to a point and draws the line at the obvious, fairly sexist definition of romantic intent, probably because of the popular misconception that sex is essential to the Companion's duties with a client.

And, in that, I could see there also being the question of legitimacy in the sense of direct, unconfused paternity. If a Companion were to maintain a romantic interest who wasn't a client, and she'd arrange to go off her birth control for a client, there's a not unreasonable assumption a mistake might occur such that she would have to prove that she had not entertained or been intimate with anyone other than her client. It's easy enough to prove she's not scheduled clients (there's the Guild's database for that). It would be less so for her to eliminate the possibility of a lover being the sperm donor to a child conceived. This is very patriarchal as concerns go, but I think I've established that the 'verse isn't nearly so egalitarian with regards the war between the sexes as it's sometimes thought to be. Plus, this could also be a strong Chinese influence, with the emphasis on young generations upholding the honor and name of earlier ones (not to mention the subtle, but still present prejudices of males being responsible for females, such as with Simon being the Number One Son who must look after River--I don't doubt he loves her in the extreme, but I can't divorce his actions of protecting her from a cultural bias implied by the origins of these human transplants).

I'm sorry I brought up the babies-as-trade bit about the Guild, only because now I'm dead curious about it and there's zero evidence or ground to argue about it in the series itself. Alas.