Asimov’s psychohistory between determinism and freedom

Using psychohistory, Seldon mathematically proves that the Empire, despite its apparent strength, is doomed to collapse into a 30,000-year dark age. In the beginning of the Foundation books, Seldon works to shorten this dark age. He gets to the idea of creating a foundation at the edges of the galaxy. With the help of Eto Demerzel pulling the strings backstage, what is dubbed the Seldon Project takes shape, and a small community is sent to a distant, peripheral world to realise the apparent aim of the foundation.

The Encyclopedists were placed at the head of the community with the mission to compile a comprehensive encyclopaedia that would preserve the knowledge of the Empire. The foundation undergoes successive crises at regularly spaced intervals, in which the members of the pioneering community are due to open a cave where a hologram of Seldon appears. Every time, the hologram summarises the main features of the current crisis and its expected outcomes relevantly. At least, until the advent of the character known as The Mule, on which more is to be eventually said.

What is psychohistory? It is a fictional version of cliodynamics. This science – a recent yet real one – views history as a set and develops theories to explain the dynamical processes at play in historical events like the rise (and fall) of empires, demographic highs and lows, and the emergence and decline of major religious phenomena. The work of ‘Cliodynamicians’ is to translate into mathematical models. In the Empire and Foundation series, this psychohistory is able to use mathematics to predict the trajectory of history and uses these predictive models to interfere with the expected events with the aim of shortening the dark ages that follow the collapse of the Galactic Empire.

At the basis of psychohistory is the premise that the movement and behaviours of large numbers of people can be calculated and, thus, predicted.History is in itself dynamic. Social sciences have studied dynamics of human groups since, at least, the late nineteenth century. Indeed, Asimov was an ideological opposite to such a reactionary scientist as Gustave Le Bon. Yet, his/Seldon’s psychohistory holds that large groups of humans could be dealt with using the tools of mathematics and physics. As T. Siegfried noticed (Siegfried, 2006), psychohistory is “(m)ixing psychology with math; psychohistory hijacked the methods of physics to forecast and influence the future course of social and political events.”

The interest in it is that psychohistory is no more confined to the Foundation fictional world. In fact, Siegfried goes on to point to the fact that “today, dozens of physicists and mathematicians around the world are following Asimov’s lead, seeking the equations that capture telling patterns in social behaviour, trying to show that the madness of crowds has a method (idem).” To relate with what has been previously discussed (see part 1), many narrative inventions by Asimov have started to be real, or to at least match with facts occurring in our own reality. This is strikingly relevant in the discussions and debates on robots and AI; it is also the case for psychohistory.

Indeed, Asimov did not invent everything out of the blue. In terms of psychohistory, it may be possible to trace this science back to the late nineteenth-century social sciences’ sociological modelisation, crowd psychology and, more generally, positivism, social Darwinism and behaviourism. In short, psychohistory is a fictive way to discuss historical determinism.

Philosophies of history and historical determinism

This no-more-so fictional science is genealogically traceable to the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. major philosophies of history. Philosophies of history are the offspring of post-Enlightenment and romanticism. They developed as a post-Napoleonic reflection on the economic and social conditions of such rapidly industrialising Western societies as those of Great Britain, Germany and France.

Kant’s view was that despite its chaotic and idiotic course, history progresses toward the advent of a happy society and the advent of reason. The finality of history for Immanuel Kant is thus closely linked to his essay On Perpetual Peace.

Certainly! Here’s a concise passage you could use in an article:

Hegel's version of the philosophy of history offers an insight into the advent of human progress. To him, history is a rational process driven by the dialectical movement of conflicting ideas, among which is the master/servant dialectic. Central to his thought is the concept of the "World Spirit". This one orchestrates the evolution of freedom through historical stages. Key individuals play pivotal roles in advancing this progression, acting as catalysts for change. In the line of Kant, Hegel envisions a culmination where freedom is universally realised, reflecting a harmonious synthesis of human development. Thus, Hegel enjoins us to view history not as random occurrences but as a coherent narrative of human advancement.

Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel's dialectical method. However, he shifts the focus to material conditions to develop his method of historical materialism. In his view, economic forces and class struggles drive historical change, and societal transformations are rooted in the modes of production. He foresees the eventual rise of a classless, communist society after the final proletarian revolution. While Hegel emphasises the idealistic evolution of ideas, Marx adapts the dialectic to a materialist context, framing history as the result of tangible economic conflicts. Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive view of history as both ideologically and materially driven, reflecting a dynamic interaction between thought and socioeconomic conditions.

Philosophers and theorists believed that history had a determined course and an end. One of the latest of such theories was that by F. Fukuyama, who mistakenly believed that the temporary triumph of capitalism over Soviet socialism signalled the end of history and the advent of liberal democracy. Fukuyama was corrected by his fellow neoconservative S. Huntington, who believed in a clash of civilisations. What is tragic is that these two latter’s beliefs have been turned by their political acquaintances and followers into self-realising prophecies and a geopolitical programme whose aim is to maintain the hegemony of the West and, more specifically, that of the USA.

At the beginning of the Foundation fictional era, the course of history seems to be determined by the predictive equation written down by Hari Seldon. And the inhabitants of the federation formed by the expansion of Terminus and the foundation live in the comfortable conviction of the Foundation’s manifest psychohistorical destiny to rule the Galaxy and restore peace and prosperity to the Galaxy. The reason for that is understandable: it was predicted by Hari Seldon and verified every precedent time. In a nutshell, Asimov's psychohistory melds the deterministic elements of Hegelian and Marxist thought into a scientific approach. He thus offers a speculative method of understanding and guiding historical developments. Yet, unforeseen events happen and challenge the assumptions of psychohistory.

The Mule is a mutant with mentalic abilities. Nobody had seen him coming. He, the mutant who would shake the galaxy. One by one, the Mule subjugates worlds, using his powers to convert people into his servants and minions. It is not the Foundation he is after. To be more precise, he is not after the First Foundation on Terminus, but the Second Foundation, which no one on Terminus knew of hitherto. Because there is a second foundation, established in secrecy by Seldon himself with the assigned goal of improving the equations of psychohistory and amending the Seldon Plan according to the contingent necessities. Like the Mule, the second foundationers are mentalists.

They trained younger prodigies in their art or science to form successive generations and carry forward the Seldon plan. Besides correcting equations, the members of the Second Foundation pull the strings to make sure of the First Foundation’s successes. At least, it is what they did until the moment when The Mule rose to Paramountcy. The aim of the Second Foundation is quite similar to the first one. That is, to establish a second empire, of which it seeks to be the ruler. But the Second Foundation’s intention is to remain backstage and rule the rulers by influencing their decisions and their unconsciousness. Therefore, a war opposed the Foundations against each other besides the Mule.

This narrative twist underscores the complexities and potential flaws in deterministic models, reflecting a nuanced view of history that accounts for both structured patterns and chaotic elements. Both the trajectory followed by the Mule and the conflict opposing the Foundation's evidence that predetermined plans irremediably failed at some point. We know, since at least Giambattista Vico, that people make their own history. If history is made of the various types of human interactions (whether these are economic, social or political), it results in its course following directions that humankind is unable to predict. At best, we can forecast some trends and evaluate relatively short-term directions a society heads towards. But it is very unlikely that abstract figures such as Humanity or, say, the Proletariat will ineluctably follow teleological trajectories planned in advance by either Hari Seldon or Karl Marx.

Cornelius Castoriadis relevantly said in his writings on ‘Marxism and Revolutionary Theories’ that the proletariat may or may not do the revolution; the outcome of the development of the forces of production is indeed unpredictable since it depends on, at least, thousands of unstable factors. Marx failed at predicting what he expected to happen in a rather short time in industrial Britain. The failure of Asimov’s/Seldon’s Psychohistorical Fortune Tales is thus even more understandable.

Asimov was aware of this when he wrote The Second Foundation. In fact, this is the topic he wrote about: prediction science is illusory and deceptive. In the course of history, unforeseen and unforeseeable events happen that change the context in newer ways. But this is but the first of Asimov’s admissions that psychohistory could not work. In effect, this science never worked. The success of the First Foundation against all odds was, as the reader gets to know, indeed assisted secretly by the Second Foundation, whose mission was to make the Seldon plan work effectively. The predictions did not self-realise; they were man-made. Thus, determinism was doomed to fail in fiction just as it is in our reality. At least, apparently.

The desperate search for Earth

After The Mule passes and the conflict between the two Foundations ends with the apparent victory of Terminus, things seem to be back in order, and the Seldon plan follows its due course. Seldon’s predictions are again relevant. Indeed, they are too relevant. The Mule story turned the galaxy upside down, including the two foundations. There should be consequences, and things could not be as though nothing happened. There was no possible turning back.

This was well understood by the main protagonist of the Foundation and Earth book, which concludes the three series (Robots, Empire and Foundation), Golan Trevize. A more detailed account of the search for Earth by Trevize was already written on Meer (Gardini, 2019). In the later books of Asimov's "Foundation" series, Golan Trevize embarks on a quest to find the legendary planet Earth, believed to be the origin of humanity. His journey, alongside Janov Pelorat and Bliss, is driven by the need to confirm his intuitive decision to support Gaia, a global consciousness, as the future path for the galaxy.

Trevize's search takes him across various star systems, uncovering clues about Earth's existence and its obscured history. He visits worlds with ancient records and encounters remnants of past civilisations, piecing together Earth's legacy. The journey raises questions about the nature of humanity and intellect, ultimately challenging Trevize to reconsider his decision in light of newfound insights. This quest underscores themes of exploration, identity, and the quest for knowledge, while reinforcing the interconnected fate of the galaxy and its origins on the mysterious, long-lost Earth.

In the conclusion, Golan Trevize finally encounters R. Daneel Olivaw on Luna, Earth’s moon. Daneel reveals that he has been influencing human history from the shadows since the end of the Empire and the rise of the Foundations. The robot explains his long-term mission to guide humanity towards a peaceful and stable future, avoiding destructive paths. Doing so, he realises the last will of R. Giskard Reventlov. Following the lead of the ‘dying’ robot, R. Daneel Olivaw has been instrumental in shaping events to protect and advance human civilisation, including supporting the development of Gaia. Daneel elaborates on his vision of Galaxia, a collective consciousness for the galaxy, which aligns with Trevize’s decision.

The meeting emphasises profound themes of unity, evolution, and the balance between individualism and collectivism. It is also highlighting the intricate interplay of human and artificial influences in shaping history. It is also a compromise between determinism and agency. In this future, history follows the paths traced by predictive calculations. But these calculations are the brainchild of, on the one hand, the bright mind of Hari Seldon – a brilliant mathematician who applies it to humanities and social sciences – and, on the other hand, R. Daneel Olivaw, an android with an incredibly powerful artificial intelligence device – the positronic brain – which he/it perfected over about twenty thousand years.

Asimov had us think that, in the last analysis, people make their own history, to use the words of Giambattista Vico. Yet, humanity’s history has been externally influenced by superhuman intelligence. R. Daneel Olivaw thus impersonates an artificial intelligence version of Hegel's Providence at work in the course of history. Daneel can be seen as a substitute for the traditional notion of Providence. This one is replaced with the calculation power of Daneel’s robotic stewardship of human destiny. This substitution mirrors Asimov's exploration of science and rationality driving historical development. In fact, R. Daneel Olivaw's role highlights how Asimov understands the idea of rational, scientific guidance steering humanity's future. In this regard, the writer remains an heir of Positivism as it was invented by Auguste Comte.

Asimov's portrayal of Daneel Olivaw guiding humanity aligns very closely with Comte's positivist teleology. It is worth noticing that Comte’s ideas were rather close to Hegel’s if one sets the latter’s idealism aside (Caldwell, 2010). Both philosophers and Asimov envision a future that is shaped by scientific reasoning and rational governance. Comte's positivism also stresses that societal advancement happens through progressive stages and culminates in a rational, scientific society. Similarly, Daneel's efforts to steer humanity towards Galaxia reflect similar attempts to achieve a harmonious and unified future. This parallel evidences a shared belief in the power of reason and science to transcend conflict, abetting a stable and progressive civilisation driven by informed, deliberate action.

One main difference lies in Asimov’s project for future humans, a project voiced by R. Daneel Olivaw. The robot plans to extend his precedent trials on Gaia, whose people are all mentally connected, to humanity to have them form Galaxia. The project has an environmental feature that neither Hegel, Comte nor Marx could have figured out, as ecological issues were none of the concerns of their century. Indeed, the ‘History of the Future’ ought to be read as a postindustrial tale, in which the author shows concern for the rapidly degrading environment.

This contrasts with the metaphysical or divine aspects of traditional Providence, showcasing a future where human and robotic intelligence collaboratively shape historical outcomes. This narrative thus reflects a vision of progress driven by deliberate, reasoned actions rather than chance or divine intervention, highlighting the potential and responsibility inherent in advanced technology and intelligence.

Conclusion

Asimov's "Robots", "Empire", and "Foundation" series interweaves complex threads of historical determinism, human agency, and scientific rationalism. The author elaborated a narrative that encompassed tens of thousands of years of ‘future history’, addressing issues and topics which nowadays readers may feel the urge to deal with: the role of AI and its embodiment in human-shaped mechanoids/androids, the rise and fall of imperial civilisation and the remote possibility of space exodus, the theme of historical determinism and the control of human destiny by humanity itself.

Through the lens of psychohistory, Asimov explores deterministic elements reminiscent of Hegelian and Marxist thought. Nevertheless, he infuses these ideas with his own views on scientific reasoning, which are quite akin to Comte's positivism. The emergence of characters like the Mule and R. Daneel Olivaw challenges and refines these deterministic models. These episodes reveal the limitations and unpredictability that are inherent in attempts to forecast human history. Ultimately, Asimov invites us to consider the delicate balance between deterministic forces and human agency in the unfolding tapestry of history. By portraying Daneel as a guiding force similar to Hegel's Providence, Asimov underscores a future shaped by rationality and (artificial) intelligence.

Moreover, the series anticipates modern concerns about environmental sustainability, revealing a postindustrial narrative that addresses the possible outcomes of trusting technology and intelligence to shape a stable, progressive civilisation. In the last analysis, R. Daneel Olivaw is some kind of further evolved human, and he displays more empathy for our species than some members of Homo Sapiens often do. Though in some very different ways from Philip K. Dick, Asimov underlined how tenuous the frontier between humans and androids can be.

In his final discourse in “The Great Dictators”, Charles Chaplin enjoined people to not “give (themselves) to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! They are not machines! They are not cattle! (They) are men!” (Charlie Chaplin: The Final Speech From The Great Dictator, s. d.) Except R. Daneel Olivaw very likely had a softer, gentler heart than these “unnatural men” once decried by Chaplin.