A Conglomeration of Pseudo-Related Important Ideas
During our conversation in class today, I felt there were several very important issues that we glossed over or ignored completely. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of them in as a organized a fashion as possible. (Can’t promise it’ll be the most comprehensible post ever.)
First, the idea of free choice in a Utopia. I believe that the differences between individuals mean that a society that might be a Utopia for one person might be hell for another. This requires that people be given the freedom to choose the society they’re going to live in, in order to find their own Utopia (as Ketho does at the end of The Dispossessed). However, if people are not indoctrinated with the ideals on which their society is based, many may choose to leave it, rendering the society unsustainable due to inefficiency and constantly fluctuating demand for resources. On the other hand, by indoctrinating them with the belief that their society is the only right one, they are likely to try to force themselves into the mold that society creates, whether it fits their own individual personality or not. The dilemma is this: some stability is necessary to avoid surpluses and shortages, but too much stability may result in constraints on individuals.
Second, the idea of moving Anarres to a beautiful tropical island replete in natural resources. In my opinion, this would change the society in one of two directions. The abundance of resources might destroy the ideals of hard work and community. People could become greedy and try to take as much as possible for themselves. The communal nature of the endeavor would then fall apart and the society would begin to reassert a class structure. The other possibility that I see is that the greater access to resources would actually be conducive to the ideals of the Odonians. Despite the many communist-type thinkers who have spouted about the proletariat rising up to overthrow the upper class, historical evidence indicates that revolutions come most often from the middle classes (this is the point I was trying to make in class today, and I know TA Jesse had something to say about it, but I don’t know what). The explanation for this that I most frequently hear is that the very lowest classes are fighting so hard for survival that they don’t have time to rebel. The people on Anarres are thus like these very lowest classes. The inhospitable nature of their planet means that they are always fighting so hard to just keep living that they never have time to question the anti-anarchical bureaucracy that is building up around them. Given an abundance of resources, they might be able to spare enough time to really consider what is happening and truly be vigilant in maintaining the ideals on which their society was based. Or they might get fat and lazy and watch reruns of “Baywatch” on the beach while getting sloshed.
Next, what I considered one of the most interesting, disturbing and completely unexplained statements in the book, which remained completely untouched throughout our discussion. On page 142, Atro is taking to Shevek about “humanity”, which he says also applies to aliens: “A man, so-called, who has nothing in common with us except the practical arrangement of two legs, two arms, and a head with some kind of brain in it!” My question is this: why is that a “practical arrangement.” Personally, I can think of other ways to arrange a body that might be more efficient, particularly in certain environments. However, in her book, LeGuin never deals with any non-humanoid sentient creatures. Shevek says that Takver feels a connection to her fish, and he himself calls to some of the animals he encounters on Urras “brother” (152), but there is no actual attempt to humanize any of them. There seems to be an implicit assumption that only animals that are human in shape could be human in intellect. Why? I’m not saying I think that LeGuin should have had lots of fuzzy green crystalline dolphin-Martian men. I certainly understand the idea that, in writing for a (presumably) human audience, she might expect them to sympathize better with a humanoid protagonist. But why is there an assumption that all worlds are earth-like and all intelligent creatures are humanoid?
Finally (I promise!!), the idea of a utopian society vs. an individual utopia. After our discussion today, I am tempted to believe that the two cannot completely coexist. A utopian society must seek to meet the needs of the majority of its citizens in an ideal way, but the existence of individuals means that there will be individuality of desires, and no society can meet the desire of all of its citizens all the time. The implication of this, as I see it, is that a utopian society is a utopia for the majority of its citizens, and a hell for others, while an individual utopia need not be conducive to the happiness or utopian goals of others. I believe that this links back to the first idea I discussed, that of letting each individual find his or her own Utopia, so I will stop here. (Especially because I’m sure everyone has already stopped reading).
posted by lennearb @ 3:57 PM
<< Home