The Narrator of Um-Helat

The Coordinator’s Dilemma: Neutrality and Control in Um-Helat

1. Introduction and Summary

N.K. Jemisin’s “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” presents a thought-provoking exploration of utopia and the ethical implications of maintaining such a society. The story begins by painting a vivid picture of Um-Helat, a city where equality, joy, and prosperity reign supreme. We’re introduced to the Day of Good Birds, an annual celebration that showcases the city’s vibrant culture and harmonious diversity.

In Um-Helat, societal ills like racism, poverty, and discrimination have been overcome. The city is described as a place “where no one hungers, no one is left ill, no one lives in fear, and even war is almost forgotten.” This utopian society seems to have achieved what many would consider impossible: true equality and universal prosperity.

However, the narrative takes a sharp turn when it reveals the hidden mechanism behind Um-Helat’s perfection: strict control of information from other worlds, particularly our own. A group of social workers are tasked with eliminating those who access and spread this information, viewing it as a dangerous contagion that could undermine their society. This revelation forces readers to grapple with difficult questions about the nature of utopia and the moral cost of maintaining it.

2. The Story’s Perspective: A Misapplication of the Coordinator Role

The story presents Um-Helat’s social workers in a way that initially appears to align with the coordinator archetype. However, upon closer examination, their actions represent a significant deviation from the true coordinator ideal.

The narrator’s statement, “Sometimes, only by blood sacrifice may true evil be kept at bay,” reveals a departure from the coordinator’s goal of creating and maintaining neutral public spaces. Instead of managing conflicts and balancing diverse interests, Um-Helat’s system imposes a specific ideology, eliminating alternative viewpoints rather than finding ways to coexist with them.

The medical metaphors used to describe the spread of information (“The disease has taken one poor victim”) further illustrate this deviation. True coordinators would seek to manage the interface between private values and public behavior, not eradicate certain thoughts or ideas entirely.

3. Potential Objections: Violations of Coordinator Principles

The objections raised in the original analysis remain valid, but we can frame them more specifically in terms of how Um-Helat’s system violates core coordinator principles:

1. Neutrality vs. Ideology: Um-Helat’s violent suppression of certain knowledge contradicts the coordinator’s goal of creating neutral public spaces where diverse viewpoints can coexist.

2. Conflict Management vs. Elimination: Instead of managing conflicts arising from diverse ideas, Um-Helat eliminates one side of the conflict entirely.

3. Equal Participation vs. Controlled Access: The coordinator aims for equal participation, but Um-Helat’s system deliberately excludes certain information and ideas, preventing true equal access to the public sphere.

4. Balancing Interests vs. Imposing Values: Rather than balancing diverse interests, Um-Helat imposes a single set of values on its entire population.

5. Boundary Enforcement vs. Thought Control: While coordinators manage the boundary between private values and public behavior, Um-Helat’s system intrudes into the realm of private thought and access to information.

4. The Story’s Response: Justifying Overreach

The story’s defenses of Um-Helat’s methods can be seen as attempts to justify a system that has overstepped the bounds of the coordinator role:

1. Necessity of Extreme Measures: This argument fails to consider alternative ways of managing conflicts that don’t involve elimination of differing viewpoints.

2. Inherent Toxicity of Certain Ideas: This stance contradicts the coordinator’s principle of creating neutral spaces where diverse ideas can coexist.

3. Moral Imperative: This implies a specific moral stance, rather than the neutrality a true coordinator would strive for.

4. Historical Context: While coordinators do adapt to changing needs, this justification for extreme measures goes beyond adaptation to imposing a rigid system.

5. Redefinition of Freedom: This represents an imposition of a specific ideology, rather than the creation of a neutral space where different concepts of freedom could be debated.

5. Conclusion: The Perils of Overreach in the Coordinator Role

“The Ones Who Stay and Fight” presents a society that has taken the coordinator role to an extreme, moving from managing public spaces to controlling private thoughts and access to information. This overreach raises critical questions about the limits of societal management and the potential for abuse when the principles of neutrality and equal participation