A Few Thoughts on Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy

Despite some significant philosophical problems, the Foundation trilogy is essential reading for any science fiction fan, or anyone interested in social, scientific, and philosophical themes.

The greatest civilization humanity ever knew is on the verge of collapse. The human race is on the brink of a dark age that could last thousands of years. Can a small group of intellectuals keep the spark of civilization alive?

This could be a description of the dying days of Rome, or perhaps even of Western civilization today. But it’s also the setting of one of the most notable and influential works of science fiction ever written: Isaac Asimov’s Foundation. Drawing inspiration from the fall of the Roman Empire, Asimov created a trilogy of gripping novels centered around the collapse of a galaxy-spanning empire—a trilogy rich with thought-provoking scientific and philosophical ideas.

Key to the story of Foundation is Asimov’s original concept of “psychohistory.” This projected science is the study of how groups of people behave over long periods of time and why; a fusion of psychology, sociology, and history. In the Foundation novels, psychohistorians make precisely accurate predictions about the future by studying the past interactions of nations and other groups and mathematically predicting the most probable outcomes in complex detail. 

The idea of psychohistory exemplifies Asimov’s admirable passion for science, which he recognizes applies as much to human behavior as to physics or chemistry. It also shows that he appreciates the value of integration between traditionally distinct fields of study. (How many historians today study psychology in their efforts to understand the past?) 

But the way psychohistory is presented in Foundation also implies a degree of determinism. The idea that the actions of nations can be predicted accurately, far into the future, by someone with sufficient information and computing power implies that those future events are predetermined by what’s come before, and are not open to influence from the actions of individuals. In short, it leaves no room for free will. 

However, Asimov steers clear of implying that individual human behavior can be predicted this way. Psychohistory only works when applied to large groups of people—individuals, the novels tell us, are too unpredictable, but a large enough group can be predicted with exacting accuracy. Although this preserves individual free will, it raises another philosophical issue, which is the implication that an individual cannot alter large-scale events—that what nations will do is beyond the power of one individual to influence and alter.

Real history tells us this is not true. Individuals have radically altered the course of human history for good and for evil, from Aristotle to Caesar and from George Washington to Adolf Hitler. Foundation’s psychohistorians argue that these individuals picked up on a trend in the group that would have expressed itself through another individual in their absence. Asimov is picking up on an important fact many gloss over: Events such as the rise of the Third Reich cannot be explained simply as a madman taking control, but reflect much deeper philosophical and social trends already at work in the society (for an excellent analysis of this in the context of Nazi Germany, see Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels). But Asimov’s psychohistory goes too far the other way, removing individual agency almost entirely. (If you’re curious why it’s “almost” entirely, see Foundation and Empire.) Ultimately, history is shaped by individuals, whether that is the many individuals whose ideas comprise and perpetuate the norms of a culture, or the powerful individuals who use and manipulate those ideas to change the direction of history more noticeably.

A final point on psychohistory concerns the manner in which it uses probability. One psychohistorian states in Second Foundation that “a particular event may be infinitesimally probable, but the probability is always greater than zero.” This is a commonly held view among scientists today (for example, Michio Kaku argues that literally any event is possible as a random arrangement of particles), but it overlooks a fundamental fact about reality: that things can only act in accordance with their identities (the law of identity). It is not possible for a Boeing 747 to spontaneously pop into existence in deep space, as some physicists claim would definitely happen in an infinite future, because that would require atoms and molecules to behave in a way that is not in accordance with their nature.

Both the deterministic and probabilistic elements of Asimov’s ideas are representative of the very problem he seeks to address in creating the concept of psychohistory: the failure of people to integrate often-separated but fundamentally connected fields of study. In his case, those fields are the physical sciences and the philosophical fundamentals of metaphysics and epistemology. Nevertheless, he deserves enormous credit for exploring these concepts in the first place, and for weaving them into a fascinating and thrilling narrative.

Aside from these more fundamental ideas, the Foundation trilogy also dabbles in ethical and political issues. There are multiple clashes between parties representing dictatorship and democracy, and Asimov explores arguments for both. But the books never really deliver a final verdict on these questions, and Asimov again focuses more on broad-strokes sociology than on how these systems affect the individual living under them. If there is one fundamental problem that runs throughout the entire trilogy, it is this burial of the individual, the proper standard of value when evaluating any social system, in favor of a collective perspective. One of the Foundation trilogy’s great strengths is its epic, galactic-scale narrative and multi-century timescale, but the downside of such a wide scope is a lack of focus on the individuals affected by the events, especially when the story repeatedly changes lead characters as the timeframe advances. 

Despite some significant philosophical problems, the Foundation trilogy is essential reading for any science fiction fan, or anyone interested in social, scientific, and philosophical themes. Its influence on subsequent works is massive (fans of Star Wars will spot numerous points of inspiration on that franchise). It is extremely thought-provoking and stands head-and-shoulders above much of today’s mass-market science fiction in its exploration of complex ideas and concepts. As long as one reads it with a critical mind ready to challenge its premises, it can be a source of considerable inspiration, as well as a captivating story.