Summary of “The Ones Who Stay and Fight”

N.K. Jemisin’s “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” presents a vivid portrayal of Um-Helat, a utopian city that seems to embody the ideal of a perfectly coordinated society. The story begins with the Day of Good Birds, an annual celebration showcasing the city’s vibrant culture and harmonious diversity. In Um-Helat, societal ills like racism, poverty, and discrimination have been overcome, creating a place where everyone’s needs are met and all individuals are valued - a scenario that appears to be the ultimate realization of the coordinator’s goals.

As the narrative progresses, it reveals the mechanisms behind Um-Helat’s societal structure: strict control of information from other worlds, particularly our own. A group of social workers, initially appearing as perfect coordinators, are tasked with managing the flow of this information, which is viewed as potentially destabilizing to their society. These social workers play a crucial role in maintaining Um-Helat’s way of life, making complex decisions to balance individual curiosity with societal stability. The story presents their actions as necessary for preserving the utopian nature of Um-Helat, raising thought-provoking questions about the nature of societal perfection and the measures required to maintain it.

The Coordinator Archetype in “The Ones Who Stay and Fight”: A Critical Reassessment

While the social workers in N.K. Jemisin’s “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” initially appear to embody the coordinator archetype, a closer examination reveals significant divergences from the core principles of a true coordinator. This divergence highlights the paradoxes inherent in the coordinator role and the challenges of maintaining a truly neutral space in any society. Let’s explore these differences:

1. Neutrality vs. Ideology: True coordinators strive for neutrality and the creation of a space where all can participate equally, embodying the paradox of enforcing neutrality as a value. The social workers in Um-Helat, however, actively enforce a specific ideological vision of utopia. They don’t maintain a neutral public space, but rather a carefully curated one that aligns with Um-Helat’s particular values, more akin to the robot’s perfect conformity than the coordinator’s balanced approach.

2. Managing Conflicts vs. Eliminating Opposition: Coordinators typically manage conflicts between diverse interests, acknowledging the value of dissent as embodied by the rebel archetype. In contrast, the social workers in Um-Helat eliminate those who threaten their societal model, rather than finding ways to integrate diverse viewpoints. This approach is more reminiscent of how society might deal with the monster archetype than the coordinator’s inclusive methods.

3. Equal Participation vs. Controlled Access: While coordinators aim to ensure equal access and participation for all, Um-Helat’s system restricts access to certain information and harshly punishes those who seek it out. This creates an inherently unequal system of participation, contradicting the coordinator’s goal of creating a space where all can function equally.

4. Balancing Private and Public Spheres: True coordinators manage the interface between private values and public behavior. The social workers in Um-Helat go beyond this, actively policing and eliminating private thoughts and curiosities that don’t align with their societal model. This level of control over the private sphere is antithetical to the coordinator’s role of maintaining a neutral public space while respecting individual autonomy.

5. System Optimization vs. System Preservation: Coordinators continually refine societal processes for better efficiency and effectiveness, much like how the genius archetype introduces innovations to improve society. The social workers in Um-Helat seem more focused on preserving their current system at all costs, rather than allowing for evolutionary improvements.

6. Conflict Resolution vs. Conflict Suppression: Instead of resolving conflicts in a way that maintains system stability while respecting diverse viewpoints, the social workers in Um-Helat suppress conflicts through force, eliminating those who disagree. This approach fails to recognize the value of the rebel archetype in challenging and improving societal systems.

In conclusion, while the social workers in “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” do exhibit some traits associated with coordinators, such as actively managing societal systems and making difficult decisions for societal functioning, they ultimately diverge significantly from the true coordinator archetype. Their actions are more aligned with enforcing a specific ideology rather than maintaining a neutral, equally accessible public space. In doing so, they embody the coordinator paradox taken to an extreme - their attempt to create a perfect society has led them to abandon the very principles of neutrality and equal participation that define the coordinator role.

This analysis highlights the complexity of Jemisin’s work and raises important questions about the nature of utopia, the role of information control in society, and the ethical implications of enforcing a particular vision of societal perfection. It challenges readers to consider the costs of maintaining such a system and whether it truly aligns with the ideals of equal participation and neutrality that define the coordinator archetype. Moreover, it invites us to reflect on the inherent tensions and paradoxes in our attempts to create fair and neutral social systems, acknowledging that even our most earnest efforts at impartiality are shaped by the values and structures of our modern liberal context.