My most downloaded academic paper on SSRN is a yet to be published book chapter on the political economy of Frank Herbert’s Dune. Do read it here. As Dune Part II is now on our screens (I write this just before going to see it), I thought it was worth revisiting my thoughts on the social science underlying Herbert’s fictional universe. All quotes are from my paper unless otherwise noted.
Dune's spice trade is like real-life oil politics but with giant sandworms. It shows how economic monopolies fuel power struggles and corruption, reminding us that even heroes can't escape the grip of entrenched interests and ecological realities.
An open question is whether the Atredies are destined to end up like everyone else. Yes, they can under the influence of a few good rolls of the monarchy dice rule better. But the same forces that caused decadence throughout the Corino empire would inevitably wear on them. The lifestyle on Arrakis would change them over generations.
All these stories have the problem of what to do when the rebels win? Star Wars literally just kept making new deaths stars and new empires.
The common issue in these stories is that power is extremely personal and out of balance. The force or spice or shields mean that having tiny armies (or even single warriors) high investment high force generating power is more useful then mass mobilization. Open order societies are built around the idea of mass mobilization. Let us compete or we will bring you down.
When the common weapon is expensive or difficult to make, despotism rules. When the dominant weapon is cheap and simple the common people have a chance.
A story coherent with the basics of economic theory (actions flow from preferences, constraints, and information), is necessary to have the plot of the story make any sense. Otherwise, it would be like painting with ultraviolent or infared paint. Rational choice approaches to human behavior then can be considered the proposition that the real world has no plot holes.
I think the new movie gets across the tragic aspect of the story and what one could call Paul's theological-political dilemma. There are are some issues with the movie (pacing and some departures from the source material) but they get this core point.
Dune's spice trade is like real-life oil politics but with giant sandworms. It shows how economic monopolies fuel power struggles and corruption, reminding us that even heroes can't escape the grip of entrenched interests and ecological realities.
An open question is whether the Atredies are destined to end up like everyone else. Yes, they can under the influence of a few good rolls of the monarchy dice rule better. But the same forces that caused decadence throughout the Corino empire would inevitably wear on them. The lifestyle on Arrakis would change them over generations.
All these stories have the problem of what to do when the rebels win? Star Wars literally just kept making new deaths stars and new empires.
The common issue in these stories is that power is extremely personal and out of balance. The force or spice or shields mean that having tiny armies (or even single warriors) high investment high force generating power is more useful then mass mobilization. Open order societies are built around the idea of mass mobilization. Let us compete or we will bring you down.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/big-data-george-orwell-and-tanks
When the common weapon is expensive or difficult to make, despotism rules. When the dominant weapon is cheap and simple the common people have a chance.
On your first point about whether fictional worlds need to have a coherent political economy. In my high school senior thesis (which I posted here https://theeconplayground.com/2016/12/17/economics-and-plot-vol-1-theory/).
A story coherent with the basics of economic theory (actions flow from preferences, constraints, and information), is necessary to have the plot of the story make any sense. Otherwise, it would be like painting with ultraviolent or infared paint. Rational choice approaches to human behavior then can be considered the proposition that the real world has no plot holes.
Yes. There is an underlying logic that needs to be obeyed. But writers can abstract from a lot.
This is a good essay. How much of it would come across to someone who only saw the new Dune movie?
I think the new movie gets across the tragic aspect of the story and what one could call Paul's theological-political dilemma. There are are some issues with the movie (pacing and some departures from the source material) but they get this core point.