‘Tradition was safety; change was danger’ – The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell

by Elecia

TW: Rape, violence

Contains spoilers. 

It’s been a while since I’ve visited my writing space. My new job has meant that my headspace has been chaotic, so I’ll apologize that this post isn’t particularly critical but more to re-familiarise myself with the rhythm of an essay. And mostly for fun.

The Sparrow (written in 1996 by Mary Doria Russell) is a huge first-contact novel. Russell poses incredibly thought-provoking religious, theological and ethical questions about what it means to be human, and I’ve been struggling for weeks just wondering where to begin. The Sparrow is told in two time frames – the first in 2019, detailing the experiences of a crew who journey to a distant planet after radio broadcasts from the area are picked up on Earth. The second part is set in 2059 after the expedition returns to earth. Emilio Sandoz, a Jesuit priest, is the only survivor. Sandoz slowly retells the events of the mission to Rakhat to his superiors, and the story that unfolds is a tense, emotional and spiritual investigation of faith. For me, the most interesting aspect of this novel is Rakhat’s societal structure. By travelling to a new planet, Russell has effectively created a space to explore issues our society has from a different perspective. Rakhat has no unemployment, no overcrowding and no starvation – but this comes with a price.

Two different sentient alien species create the society on Rakhat. The Jana’ata are dominant carnivores, educated with many skills. On the other hand, the Runa are herbivores, living communally and travelling in groups. The Runa form the majority of the population. The humans often remark on the slow and gentle pace of the Runa, becoming bored and impatient with their lack of academic intelligence. It is clear that the Jana’ata and Runa were once involved in a predator/prey relationship similar to carnivores and herbivores on Earth. Male Jana’ata and female Runa are similar in size and appearance, leading the humans to suggest that survival in the past probably depended on the ability of the Jana’ata to blend in with the Runa when hunting. It is surmised that the Runa children and males would form the inner circle of the herd, with the females on the outside. Sandoz admits ‘we were confused about their gender because … their sex roles did not match our expectations’ (406). (Side note: gender refers to cultural characteristics ascribed to masculinity and femininity, sex to biological characteristics.) In Runa culture, the males are smaller and take on the role of caring for young. Female Runa carry out trade negotiations and choose to marry males who will make good social fathers. The Runa gender roles are essentially the reverse of human gender roles, and thus the Runa are similarly confused about the human explorers. In both instances, gender binaries and assumptions based on traditional social roles cause the humans and Runa to misinterpret and misperceive one another.

The Jana’ata, as the dominant carnivores, are able to control every aspect of life on Rakhat through the power they have gained by being ‘top of the food chain’. Here, we can draw links between Jana’ata and humans, as our society also equates eating meat with power. In the Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams remarks that ‘[t]he hierarchy of meat protein reinforces a hierarchy of race, class, and sex’ (53), as ultimately meat is a valuable economic commodity and thus those in control of meat production achieve power (Adams, 58). On Rakhat, there are only two species and two classes, but it is clear that those in charge of food hold power. There is no monetary system, but goods are traded to keep the Runa working to provide for the Jana’ata. The Runa are gatherers, farming plants and flowers for the Jana’ata. In return, the Runa are paid in manufactured goods like perfume and ceramics. The Runa also ‘buy’ the right to reproduce by having a good trade year. The Jana’ata ensures the libido of the Runa remains low by forcing them to travel to naturally grown food, which uses energy. If a Runa village reaches the produce quota set by the Jana’ata, they are granted extra food to encourage them to have children. Yet, the Runa are still ‘bred to the standards of the Jana’ata’ (468), meaning that if the Jana’ata officials are not pleased by the Runa births, the babies are immediately removed and consumed by the Jana’ata public. Sandoz explains their flesh is a ‘sort of veal’ (468), and this process is ‘quite a humane system, compared to the way we breed meat animals’ (468). Assumingly, Sandoz means that the Runa are allowed a measure of freedom and independence in comparison to factory farmed non-human animals on Earth. Dairy cows, forced to live in a constant state of pregnancy, often give birth to male calves who are considered unsuitable for the beef industry. These male calves are kept in tiny, dark crates and slaughtered for ‘veal’. Runa young apparently don’t endure this suffering before being killed for food. The term ‘humane’, by definition, means ‘having or showing compassion or benevolence’ (Oxford Dictionary). Can sentient beings be killed with compassion? Does ‘humane’ meat exist? I don’t think so. There is nothing kind or caring about the murder of a living being for the ‘needs’ of a more powerful species. (Obviously, this is problematic as the Jana’ata are carnivores, and presumably need animal tissue to create energy to survive, whereas humans can live on a plant-based diet).

The Jana’ata impose strict population control on their own species. The first two children born to a Jana’ata family are allowed to reproduce, but any other children born in the family are forcibly sterilized. The Jana’ata use the Runa as sexual partners as a form of ‘birth control’ (411) because interbreeding is impossible. Sandoz is asked whether the Runa consent to being ‘concubines’ (411), and responds that ‘they are essentially domesticated animals. The Jana’ata breed them as we breed dogs’ (411). So, the Jana’ata exploit the Runa as a productive workforce and as slaves for sexual purposes. Sandoz assumes that the Runa are only alive to submit to and serve the Jana’ata, and therefore the concept of consent cannot exist. This is dangerous. Sex without consent is rape. Furthermore, supposing that the Runa have no interests of their own outside of Jana’ata purposes is speciesist, and similar to how many humans perceive animals in our society. The poignant comparison Sandoz makes about dog breeding highlights how the Jana’ata view themselves as the superior species on Rakhat, which consequently gives them the belief that they can use and exploit the Runa. On Earth, dog breeding is largely due to human entertainment and pleasure, without taking the interests or consent of the nonhuman animals involved into consideration.

Can a society exist without oppression? On the surface, Rakhat does not suffer from hunger or overpopulation, but this is because the Jana’ata impose strict rules on trade and production. The Runa are perceived as having no autonomy because the species still retains their primitive herd mentality – but perhaps their lack of academic intelligence is a result of their separation from Jana’ata culture. The Runa are seemingly exploited by the Jana’ata because of their difference. Speciesism – the Jana’ata’s belief in the superiority of their species – results in the rigid control of the Runa for the interests and purposes of the Jana’ata. Of course, the traditional balance of society in Rakhat is damaged by the ignorance of the human explorers – but I wouldn’t want to spoil to much for anyone who hasn’t read the novel yet.