at Company Station must wear skirts, dresses, and such things. They are not permitted masculine garb.”
“But such things,” said Brenner soberly, critically, “tend to emphasize gender differences.”
“Certainly,” she said, puzzled.
“Surely you regard that as wrong,” he said.
“I regard it as wrong not to emphasize such differences,” she said.
“Surely you object to being forced to wear dresses, and such things,” he said.
“No,” she said. “I want to wear such things. I love such things. And, too, I am pleased that we are forced to wear them. I enjoy having no choice in this matter. Such garmenture, and the coercions attached to it, speak to me of my differences from men, and of my own nature, and of the rightfulness and legitimacy of these differences, and of this nature. Too, it then makes it more difficult for a certain form of woman to imitate men, and to attempt to instill guilts in others, who would prefer not to follow their perverse example.”
“You know that women on the home world do not wear such things,” said Brenner.
“Perhaps they do in secret, with their lovers,” she said.
“Surely such things do not occur,” said Brenner.
“Perhaps not,” she said. “I would not know.”
“Are you from the home world?” asked Brenner.
“Once,” she said.
“What of your silk?” asked Brenner. “Surely you regard that as deplorably feminine.”
“Why deplorably?” she asked.
“I don’t know,” admitted Brenner. He didn’t. He supposed that perhaps it was his conditioning program which, in effect, had spoken. Conditioning programs are useful in the inculcation of values. They are useful in the production of uncritical, reflexive responses. They have many advantages, such as social control, the manufacture of consensus, and the protection of particular establishments, depending on the program in question. Also, of course, from the individual’s point of view, they can produce the comfort of unquestioned certitude and the illusion of knowledge. That they save the time and trouble of thought is another considerable advantage. It is not unusual for a puppet to interpret the jerking of its strings as the deliverances of rational intuition. That is part of the jerking of the strings. How very few individuals, incidentally, are even aware of their conditioning. It is rather as though colored glasses were strapped on them at birth and, as a consequence, they lived their lives seeing the world as green, and not even knowing they saw it as green. In a sense, of course, our sensors are such, too. We see the world in a given way, and few of us suspect, or understand, that it might be seen in an infinite number of alternative fashions. Brenner’s species did not live in the same world, experientially speaking, as the zards, or the teswits, or, say, the ant, the bat, and cuttlefish. Returning to conditionings, it must be understood that not all stings and shocks, all negative reinforcements, are as simplistic as those administered through electric grids, nor all rewards as obvious and naive as the food pellet rattling about in the feed pan. And if many individuals are not even aware of their conditioning, taking their conditioned responses as the deliverances of reason, or rational inspection, or insights into the nature of reality, or whatever, it is even less surprising that fewer individuals have the audacity or courage, or simple curiosity, to inquire into the nature, justification, or validity of these programs. That, in virtue of the program itself, part of which is to the effect that it itself may not be questioned, except perhaps in a superficial or token fashion, is dangerous, being attended with various risks to the individual, internal, such as self-doubts, miseries, and guilts, and external, such as social sanctions, which may range from ridicule and exclusion to death. It is not surprising that many individuals who pretend to undertake an inquiry into the validity of their conditioning programs will not cease their endeavors nor rest easy until they find themselves securely returned to the point they started from, whatever that point happens to be in the particular case.
But if conditioning programs are so effective, how is it that they are ever changed, or transcended, even over periods of generations? The answer to this is at least fourfold. First, they are not, as yet, at least, that effective. Second, not all conditioning programs are identical. Accordingly, the inconsistency generated by the collision of competitive conditioning programs necessitates adjustments, not all of which can be resolved easily by exterminating the adherents of the alternative program. Thirdly, such programs often encounter difficulties, such