After being published in 1959, Starship Troopers was considered a controversial piece of science fiction. Not because it was racy (there was practically no discussion on things of a sexual nature) or because of violence (while there was plenty of that though it was fairly tame).  The “controversy” behind this book is actually found with a fair amount of ease.  Whereas some sci fi authors choose to veil any sort of social criticism or personal opinion, Heinlein forgoes what some might call tactful subtext and instead makes it blatantly obvious to the reader.  Though some might find his pseudo soap boxing annoying and “non-literary,” he tells the story through Jonnie Rico, a high school grad who impulsively signs up for the military.

In Ricos world, you’re not a citizen, can’t vote, hold public office or anything of that sort unless you’ve served at least one two-year term in the federal service, aka military. This came about when the previous democracies all failed and after a worldwide revolution, humanity finally coalesces into a global government.  The unity came about because the old veterans of the 20th century banded together amidst the globe encompassing chaos and together brought the world into a new age of piece and prosperity.  Their reasoning for such exclusive democratic rights is partly utilitarian, partly common sense.  If one chooses or wishes to exercise the ability to influence the populace (via voting, holding government office etc.) they must first prove their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. In this way they will actually give value to the above-mentioned rights, because they’ve earned them.  This, according to the future society, was the failing of the democracies of the past.  What value is placed on something given away freely?  What sense of responsibility does one hold towards a thing that has needed little to no work or sacrifice?  These questions are asked in a straightforward fashion.

Heinlein brings social morality into the mix as well.  He asks, via high school class flashback, as to what we do when housebreaking a puppy?  Rub its nose in the mess it makes, spank it perhaps, but most definitely we punish it in some way and choose the most effective way to teach this dog not to make a mess in the house.  So why is it, that with adolescents, we get frustrated or bewildered when constant “punishment” is dealt but no change in behavior is witnessed?  The reason being is that we are not instilling in them any sort of duty or responsibility they have to society.  Which brings another question, why do we call these types juvenile delinquents? A delinquent is someone who is acting willfully against duty and responsibility. But you see, in this future, children are punished severally. Lashings are perfectly acceptable, and common place.  Children are given a real sense that they can do harm to those around them.  The deterioration of the 20th century society is said to come about in part by the willful disobedience of adolescent peer groups (gangs) to the social practices and the complete lack of respect concerning their duty to anyone other than themselves.

Here Heinlein spends almost an entire chapter discussing morality as duty and responsibilities that operate on several levels.  Starting at the self, on to the family, then the peer group, the community, the state/nation, until finally arriving at the species level.  These juveniles previously discussed were only operating on a very small moral level.  Through corporal punishment, the altered democratic system and required history and moral ethics classes, Ricos society is able to work on a much higher moral road, ensuring each person, citizen or not, is working to fulfill their moral duty on every level.  Heinlein brought this society to life by confronting head on many issues that were current at the time of writing, as well as in the present.  He also took a moment to strictly criticize Marxism and socialism as failed experiments.

In these ways Starship Troopers must have been very controversial.  Flying in the face of the basic foundations of American society, rejecting the popular/less severe treatment of child rearing, blaming tolerance of the law enforcement and courts towards “petty” crimes, and in fact rejecting the idea of “inalienable” rights.  Many people did/have/will disagree with this book and the ideas expressed there in.  But when we take into account that the practices that Heinlein criticize so heavily, back before Vietnam, are only more prevalent today and have only led towards greater social strife, does he not have some validation?

Starship Troopers is less science fiction, more social criticism.  It is decently written with science, but strongest in asking questions and challenging accepted thought.  Compared to Childhoods End, which is heavy scifi, Starship Troopers might be more appealing, but probably loses quite a few when it flies boldly in the face of one or more commonly held beliefs. Suffice it to say, read this book. No matter if you agree with it or not. The military adventurism is fun, while maintaining a certain amount of romance towards such a life, but not glorifying it too much.