Cyberpunk: A Return to Myth
Virtual Morality
But what of morality? If we will have new gods in cyberpunk fiction, should we not expect a new morality, and a new set of rules, as well? Even if human morality is erased by technology, a new form of morality forms itself in the wake of the old, a "virtual morality" based upon the premise that you should do what makes you stronger. Expedience is not the most popular view, particularly when it involves hurting others to get what you want, but it does appear to be the new morality in cyberpunk fiction and society. Nike ads on the cyberpunkish MTV tell us to "Just do it," saying nothing of who we're doing it to. Questions of punishment for sins are thrown out the window with God, and as new gods form, so do individual egos and personalities, each with their own morality. These examples from our own society provide a vivid glimpse at what cyberpunk is talking about. As Campbell says of myth among youths in today's society in his Power of Myth interview:
They make them up for themselves. This is why we have graffiti all over the city. These kids have their own gangs and their own initiations and their own morality, and they're doing the best they can. But they're dangerous because their own laws are not those of the city. (8)For better or worse, the message preached by cyberpunk literature is one of individual morality. Cyberpunk writer Rudy Rucker complains that Gibson's newest cyberpunk work, Virtual Light, contains "groovy goodygoody" characters who are "presented as moral"; he doesn't trust them because he sees them as openly advocating some sort of morality. Rucker doesn't trust people who talk about morality, preferring people to simply "be moral" for themselves (E-mail). Indeed, can we even trust the moral decisions of a pickpocket and a murdering mercenary, the main characters in that novel? Such talk of an immoral, selfish morality would seem to support the earlier notion that I mentioned, the thought that cyberpunk literature is hopeless and depressing. I certainly do not support such a belief.
Good and evil are a matter of traditional moralities, and cyberpunk exists in a realm beyond traditional morality, beyond good and evil itself. Nietzsche's philosophy in Beyond Good and Evil is certainly appropriate here:
Here is the place for that famous opposition of "good and "evil": into evil one's feelings project power and dangerousness, a certain terribleness, subtlety, and strength...according to slave morality, those who are "evil" thus inspire fear; according to master morality it is precisely those who are "good" that inspire, and wish to inspire, fear... (207)Here Nietzsche talks of two ways of looking at good and evil: master morality and slave morality, and many assume that he supports master morality. This is not the case, as the title of the book states quite clearly. Nietzsche, and the cyberpunks, believe in moving beyond the realm of traditional morality, and thus beyond the distinctions of "good" and "evil". To be certain, it is a frightening prospect when one looks at how people such as Hitler can misinterpret this philosophy, striving to wipe out "inferior" races. While cyberpunk literature deals with such topics, it does not support genocide. Beyond good and evil does not mean beyond kindness; after all, Nietzsche also tells us that "whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil" (Nietzsche Beyond 90).
Cyberpunk literature supports the belief that through the machine, human beings have the opportunity to escape the world of morality. It suggests that through that escape into a more subjective, personal, virtual morality, cyberpunk characters can become gods. Part of the reason for the fear of this belief has to do with the fact that we are repulsed and attracted by the possibilities of becoming cyborgs at the same time. The best example of such a paradox is evident in Frankenstein: A Modern Prometheus by Shelley. In the novel, cited by some as among the major influences on cyberpunk theory and writing, Dr. Frankenstein is able to create life through technological means. The creature, the definitive "technologically-created being" (Rushing 62), is stronger, more intelligent, and in all other ways superior to the man who created him. As Rushing and Frentz explain:
...the Frankenstein complex recapitulates the Greek myth of creation: like Prometheus, Dr. Frankenstein enters forbidden territory to steal knowledge from the gods, participates in overthrowing the old order, becomes a master of technics [technology], and is punished for his transgression...many critics recognize that such dystopian stories are not only based on myth, but have attained the status of myth and archetype themselves... (62)This description nearly fits archetypal figures, such as Adam and Lucifer, as well as cyberpunk characters; Adam eats the apple, and is punished, and Lucifer desires godhood, and falls from heaven. The difference between these and cyberpunk characters is that in the case of the Neuromantic, there is no punishment for transgression. Cyberpunk may be "fundamentally ambivalent about the breakdown of the distinctions between human and machine" (Csicsery-Ronay 191), but this ambivalent attitude does not stop cyberpunk characters from mingling with technology. They may be aware of dangers, but they ignore them. The moral repercussions for using technology are gone, and so the creator and the user alike in cyberpunk fiction can revel in the outcome; the monster will no longer destroy the creator, and man will no longer be punished by God for eating from the tree of knowledge. Cyberpunk creations, such as the replicant androids in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, can feel free to question their own place in the heavens, among the angels and gods (Rushing 67), without fearing moral judgment. With the possibility of transcendence to godhood, and the lack of punishment for any supposed sins, cyberpunks have a clear road to the heavens. This is certainly not the depressing, hopeless view that many critics apply to cyberpunk literature.