There was one particular topic that we did not cover in class that I would like to bring up here. The roll of women both on Anarres and Urras. When looked at Shevek's homework it appears that women are entirely free. Free to take whatever jobs they want, live with or without someone, and in general have the same freedoms as the men. However, there does seem to be some prejudices against their sex as natural properterians because they can give birth. Since they produce human life it is natural to desire to hold onto and protect their young, its part of a human's natural instinct. This is the only time that this type of prejudice is shown an Anarres so I am not sure how much weight that one encounter holds.
Then, when we look at Urras, there seems to be a blatant disregard for women everywhere. They are simply used as sex toys and the women seem to think that this is alright. It is true that women can hold a type of power through sexuality over men, but if they men control all the laws, the government, the household, the learning centers, and every societal institution... the power that women hold cannot be that great. Sexuality only serves as a tool if a women has a certain man with a certain type of power interested in her. She must then compete with other women for the control of that man to push her influence on him, and even then, if he is strong willed there may be little to no influence that she has upon him. I think there is nothing so obvious in their lack of power in that it is considered proper for women to walk around topless at high society parties. This, to me, is basically a peep show for rich boys. Since Urras is basically a reproduction of our current world, what does that say about women in our own society? Sure, there are limitations on women in terms of what jobs they can take and which ones are more difficult to aspire to, but there are still options. Are we still only sex toys? In adds on TV and in magazines there are naked pictures of women holding expensive items (the more expensive the less they wear). But is that the case in every day life? I don’t go home, hang out with my friends, and get naked. Clothes have become more covering in the last few years, so I think it is not so much a reflection on our clothes but what we are expected to do. I know girls here at school sometimes sleep with different boys every week. However, that was no different from life on Anarres. They were free to practice their private sexuality, even encouraged. There is something too private to show yourself naked in public that at least the society on the moon understood.
I’m not quite sure how to answer my own question. Women on Urras do seem to reflect something in our American society. Something negative and ugly. In the scene in which Shevek becomes drunk and comes on his hostess I think portrays this grotesque side of our culture best of all. Its almost too alluring, too charming. A society that sedates us with its excess and then expects us to remain proper and cultured is contradictory. There is something else wrong that I cannot quite put my finger on. Anyone else care to take a guess?
Friday, September 08, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Universal Utopia?
Sorry for the late post—I just finished the book and did not want to post without having completed it. I’m glad I waited because the book really changes in the last 150 pages or so. (I also thought it was interesting how, perhaps to mirror the thesis of Shev’s work about the relation of time, the story is related in a way that parallels past and present—they both gain intensity at about the same points so that the suspense of the past actions contributes to the suspense about what is occurring when Shev is on Urras. But I digress…)
Having not been a very heavy reader of Science Fiction in the past, I was surprised at how chalk-full this book was of content highly pertinent to IR—different forms of governments, the interactions between cultures, protectionism, and a myriad of other issues. I also reflected that perhaps a key value of using science fiction as a platform for which to delve into a more speculative IR debate is that Science Fiction essentially allows an author to isolate whichever variables her or she chooses that would not be as possible in other genres. I also think that Science Fiction, as opposed to other genres, necessarily involves politics and political systems because it involves considering what would order different worlds.
What I also find interesting is that the citizens of Anarres feel exclusion of outsiders is necessary in order to preserve the status quo. It seems contradictory to their preached values on solidarity to fear what outsiders would bring. If the system were indeed a very utopian, ideal system, wouldn’t outsiders recognize it as such? The implication seems to be that it would take a special person to understand Anarres. The question is then raised about whether it is human nature to embrace a system like the one modeled in Anarres, or whether those values are not universally applicable enough to appeal to anyone who would journey into the society. If you look at our present society, this seems to be the general consensus about democracy--once people experience for themselves, they will realize its inherent worth and not want to return to a non-democratic government.
I could not help thinking, when reading LeGuin’s descriptions of Anarres, how similar some aspects were to Cuba, where I studied abroad last semester. Obviously, the big difference is the amount of formal state control that exists in Cuba vs. the anarchical nature of Anarres, but many aspects of the society are what were envisioned as the goals for the Cuban Revolution—a permanent revolution, solidarity, work for the sake of work. In my time in Cuba, it seemed to me that the Cuban experiment, while noteworthy, is very much only propped up by government because of the weaknesses in its system. For this reason, I was quite resistant to acquiesce to the interpretation of Anarres as a utopia. The experiment on Anarres appeared to be beginning to atrophy into a dystopia, as hierarchy and bureaucracy had again emerged, although no one would admit to it. However, I think that by the end of the book I was much more willing to admit to the value of such a minimalist society (though I still do not think it would be my utopia…perhaps all utopias depend on the person conceiving them?). I kept questioning which is the worse evil: a society like Anarres, where people can spreak freely about most things except to explicitly admit to the shortcomings of the system (for example, when Sabul is obviously very ingrained into the power structure but no one will expliticly acknowledge this in public because to admit such a thing exists in their society would be blasphemous), or a society like Urras, where people are bound by materialism. I think that one of the conclusions we may draw is that both societies have walls, albeit much different ones.
Having not been a very heavy reader of Science Fiction in the past, I was surprised at how chalk-full this book was of content highly pertinent to IR—different forms of governments, the interactions between cultures, protectionism, and a myriad of other issues. I also reflected that perhaps a key value of using science fiction as a platform for which to delve into a more speculative IR debate is that Science Fiction essentially allows an author to isolate whichever variables her or she chooses that would not be as possible in other genres. I also think that Science Fiction, as opposed to other genres, necessarily involves politics and political systems because it involves considering what would order different worlds.
What I also find interesting is that the citizens of Anarres feel exclusion of outsiders is necessary in order to preserve the status quo. It seems contradictory to their preached values on solidarity to fear what outsiders would bring. If the system were indeed a very utopian, ideal system, wouldn’t outsiders recognize it as such? The implication seems to be that it would take a special person to understand Anarres. The question is then raised about whether it is human nature to embrace a system like the one modeled in Anarres, or whether those values are not universally applicable enough to appeal to anyone who would journey into the society. If you look at our present society, this seems to be the general consensus about democracy--once people experience for themselves, they will realize its inherent worth and not want to return to a non-democratic government.
I could not help thinking, when reading LeGuin’s descriptions of Anarres, how similar some aspects were to Cuba, where I studied abroad last semester. Obviously, the big difference is the amount of formal state control that exists in Cuba vs. the anarchical nature of Anarres, but many aspects of the society are what were envisioned as the goals for the Cuban Revolution—a permanent revolution, solidarity, work for the sake of work. In my time in Cuba, it seemed to me that the Cuban experiment, while noteworthy, is very much only propped up by government because of the weaknesses in its system. For this reason, I was quite resistant to acquiesce to the interpretation of Anarres as a utopia. The experiment on Anarres appeared to be beginning to atrophy into a dystopia, as hierarchy and bureaucracy had again emerged, although no one would admit to it. However, I think that by the end of the book I was much more willing to admit to the value of such a minimalist society (though I still do not think it would be my utopia…perhaps all utopias depend on the person conceiving them?). I kept questioning which is the worse evil: a society like Anarres, where people can spreak freely about most things except to explicitly admit to the shortcomings of the system (for example, when Sabul is obviously very ingrained into the power structure but no one will expliticly acknowledge this in public because to admit such a thing exists in their society would be blasphemous), or a society like Urras, where people are bound by materialism. I think that one of the conclusions we may draw is that both societies have walls, albeit much different ones.
Belief in a flawed utopia
The aspect of this book that stood out the most for me was how Shevek came to clearly recognize what he considered utopia, but never thought of it as flawless. He believes whole-heartedly in the Odonian ideals, but admits that Anarres has strayed from them. When he goes to Urras, he admires the beauty and the efficiency produced by excess and authority, and even cautions the revolutionaries who wish to adopt Odonian ideals that life on Anarres is poor and without luxury, but never backs down from his belief that even a poor but free existence in the deserts of Anarres is better than a governed life in the hierarchical world of Urras, where even the revolutionaries lock their doors.
Shevek is a practical idealist. Though he believes whole-heartedly in Odo's teachings, he recognizes that Odo herself never left Urras, and that the application of her theories to life on Anarres have been twisted over the years. Yet though he sees that Anarres has drifted into having some sort of government, and though he beliefs the revolution has become old and stagnant and requires another (or continued) revolution to revitalize it, he doesn't blame the people on Anarres. They believe in what they are taught, and he does not fault them for not recognizing the difference between Odo's teachings and what they learned it school - just like the students on Urras who come to his lectures though they don't understand his physics.
Something else I found very interesting was Le Guin's inclusion of humans from Earth - Terrans. Through the humanoids of Anarres and Urras, she comments on human nature and examines two extremes of social organization (anarchy and hierarchy), but the history of the Terrans is a reflection of her opinion of the direction of our actual society. If we continue in our unchecked consumption, as the Terrans did, our Earth will be used up and ruined. Le Guin portrays the Terrans' excess as even worse than that of Urras. It is a short note to the larger plot, but a chilling and cautionary one.
Shevek is a practical idealist. Though he believes whole-heartedly in Odo's teachings, he recognizes that Odo herself never left Urras, and that the application of her theories to life on Anarres have been twisted over the years. Yet though he sees that Anarres has drifted into having some sort of government, and though he beliefs the revolution has become old and stagnant and requires another (or continued) revolution to revitalize it, he doesn't blame the people on Anarres. They believe in what they are taught, and he does not fault them for not recognizing the difference between Odo's teachings and what they learned it school - just like the students on Urras who come to his lectures though they don't understand his physics.
Something else I found very interesting was Le Guin's inclusion of humans from Earth - Terrans. Through the humanoids of Anarres and Urras, she comments on human nature and examines two extremes of social organization (anarchy and hierarchy), but the history of the Terrans is a reflection of her opinion of the direction of our actual society. If we continue in our unchecked consumption, as the Terrans did, our Earth will be used up and ruined. Le Guin portrays the Terrans' excess as even worse than that of Urras. It is a short note to the larger plot, but a chilling and cautionary one.
"An Ambiguous Utopia"
There's a lot of significance in this subtitle. Somebody mentioned in the first class that a book can be neither utopian nor dystopian; it's possible for a sci-fi book to balance in between. I didn't quite buy it, or such an idea didn't sound interesting -- but now I see it makes for quite an interesting social dialogue.
The feeling I've come away with from the novel is that both of Shevek's two worlds are simply imperfect and highly divergent versions of the same reality. That reality being the human societal phenomenon. Though at first glance The Dispossessed would seem to be a love song to Leguin's imagined anarchist paradise, light is gradually shed on the world as an imperfect place. People are full of ideals, but in practice find it nearly impossible to stay true to them. Though the concept of property is shunned, it arises constantly. The town on the railway that refuses Shevek and his fellow workers food -- "their food" is a potent exampe. For all its advances in education, in law, in constructing a social brotherhood, Anarres' integrity is ultimately undermined by one thing: human nature. The inescapable NEED to possess, perhaps, to be an individual instead of an anonymous member of a brotherhood.
Urras, likewise, has both faults and triumphs. For all his disgust with the propertarianistic way of life, upon his first encounter with the planet, Shevek can't help but marvel at the beauty of the planet, the efficiency with which many of its institutions (though he disagrees with the fundamentals of their existence) operate. That is, both the pros and cons of both societies are presented -- though perhaps not in equal balance, they are there.
The true ambiguity of the novel comes out best in the passage where Shevek argues the merits of anarchism with a group of Urrasti at Oiie's sister-in-law's party. Shevek is passionate, he is spirited, he is absolutely sure of the truth of his world-view, yet the flaws in his logic are left clear. That many of these questions are in fact open for debate remains obvious. Whether this is a fault of the author, or a deliberate effort to remain ambiguous, to show both sides of the coin, I am not sure (though, judging by the title, I would guess the latter).
The feeling I've come away with from the novel is that both of Shevek's two worlds are simply imperfect and highly divergent versions of the same reality. That reality being the human societal phenomenon. Though at first glance The Dispossessed would seem to be a love song to Leguin's imagined anarchist paradise, light is gradually shed on the world as an imperfect place. People are full of ideals, but in practice find it nearly impossible to stay true to them. Though the concept of property is shunned, it arises constantly. The town on the railway that refuses Shevek and his fellow workers food -- "their food" is a potent exampe. For all its advances in education, in law, in constructing a social brotherhood, Anarres' integrity is ultimately undermined by one thing: human nature. The inescapable NEED to possess, perhaps, to be an individual instead of an anonymous member of a brotherhood.
Urras, likewise, has both faults and triumphs. For all his disgust with the propertarianistic way of life, upon his first encounter with the planet, Shevek can't help but marvel at the beauty of the planet, the efficiency with which many of its institutions (though he disagrees with the fundamentals of their existence) operate. That is, both the pros and cons of both societies are presented -- though perhaps not in equal balance, they are there.
The true ambiguity of the novel comes out best in the passage where Shevek argues the merits of anarchism with a group of Urrasti at Oiie's sister-in-law's party. Shevek is passionate, he is spirited, he is absolutely sure of the truth of his world-view, yet the flaws in his logic are left clear. That many of these questions are in fact open for debate remains obvious. Whether this is a fault of the author, or a deliberate effort to remain ambiguous, to show both sides of the coin, I am not sure (though, judging by the title, I would guess the latter).
Monday, September 04, 2006
A belated intro
I had some difficulty as well logging into this thing and making a post. I tried the other day and gave up on it, and today I finally tried enough times that the system just... gave up and decided to let me through.
I'm a Texan by creed, majoring in Film & Media Arts and Spanish. I spent the spring semester in Spain. I would say I'm a fan of science fiction, though I'd qualifying that by saying my appreciation is limited to movies and TV; I haven't really read much sci-fi. I think I read the Martian Chronicles in 8th grade (though it might have been a different book), and that's about it. My reason for taking the course is that it seems like a really interesting, almost purely intellectual exercise in tying together two fields which seem disparate but which upon further inspection have a remarkable amount in common.
I haven't finished The Dispossessed yet, so I'll withhold my comments for the time-being (I haven't read Vanessa's last post yet for fear of spoilers).
I look forward to the semester and I'll see you all Thursday.
I'm a Texan by creed, majoring in Film & Media Arts and Spanish. I spent the spring semester in Spain. I would say I'm a fan of science fiction, though I'd qualifying that by saying my appreciation is limited to movies and TV; I haven't really read much sci-fi. I think I read the Martian Chronicles in 8th grade (though it might have been a different book), and that's about it. My reason for taking the course is that it seems like a really interesting, almost purely intellectual exercise in tying together two fields which seem disparate but which upon further inspection have a remarkable amount in common.
I haven't finished The Dispossessed yet, so I'll withhold my comments for the time-being (I haven't read Vanessa's last post yet for fear of spoilers).
I look forward to the semester and I'll see you all Thursday.
Dispossessed or Disconnected?
For starters I really enjoyed reading this book. I did the whole thing in one sitting (hopefully sleep does not count as breaking up that one as I remained more or less in the same spot as when I started the book). There was one theme that particularly struck home for me. The hatred that Shevek experiences from those within his own society.
Everywhere Shevek explored on either world hatred followed him. It appeared that because he was specifically on a quest to obtain a utopia that it was denied him. Instead the world seemed to turn its back on him slowly. Perhaps it was due to the fact that he searched for the perfect world on his own, through his constant struggle with physics by himself. However, I don't think that is the particular reason. Shevek's character appeared to be entirely dedicated to the construct of his society. That society, being well planned with good intentions, still had rules that he was following. Because he was so blindly connected to the rules he could not avoid the problems inherent within the society. To explain this I will refer to several examples. The first is his attempt to mate with the girl Gimar while planting trees around pages 48 to 51. She has shifted the rules of Odian ethics to allow her to enjoy the love of her partner while still allowing herself to call it a "sharing". Shevek could not understand anything other than the blatant formula of Odian society, which perhaps explains why his profession physics. The explanation, though varied, is flat and formulaic for him. Even later in the novel, when he too finds his life partner, Shevek attempts to remain within boundaries of his society by accepting a post off in the Dust when he could find work and follow his companion which would allow for his personal happiness. In essence he is defeating himself from his own goal. By following the rules and not creating something for himself he cannot be happy.
Along this line we can also reflect on the portion of the book when Shevek allows Takvar to insist upon using Sabul's name to publish his book, he is following the rules. By the time Shevek begins to bend the rules of Odian society to his own means, he has waited too long. I believe what le Guin is attempting to show in this is the slow process of self discovery. There is no map through which a person might follow the plans to achieve utopia. If we do follow some rules of law or traditions, they will lead to discontent. If at some point one does attempt to break away, as Shevek does in this portion of the novel, it is problematic. Not insomuch as it is not possible and may not relieve stress from our protagonist. The issue is within the society as a whole. Transformation may take place within an individual, but societal change must be a movement of the whole. Instead of working with the community to make change, Shevek became a victim of a lost cause and then forced his new ideas on a people unprepared for a change. In summation I would conclude that the hatred Shevek experiences stems from his traditional social standards coupled with his desire to obtain the new and unimagined. The paradox brings in the hatred.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
My two cents...
Okay, I'm not going to lie--it took me a bit to figure all of this out because it kept giving me the sign-in screen. But I seem to have figured it out now, so onward!
I also think intros are good idea. As for me and sci-fi, I have to admit that I don't read/watch much. I really want to read Dune (and this is probably 1/3 of my reason for taking the class) because everyone says it's an amazing book, and I've heard Jackson is supposed to be a good prof. I'm very interested in where this course will go and am looking forward to it! I have read Ender's Game and seen Starship Troopers and Starwars...thus ends my experience with the sci-fi genre. I have watched "Star Trek" but not recently enough to actually tell you what any episode is about. So I would say I'm venturing into new territory (to infinity and beyond!).
About me:
I'm from Colorado originally, and the longer I'm gone, the more I miss my mountains. I left Colorado when I was 17, after three years in high school, to go to a school called Li Po Chun UNited World College in Hong Kong. I went on my own accord because I was bored of my town in Colorado. I lived in HK for two years and LOVED it--people at my school were awesome and from over 62 different countries. They are undoubtedly my best friends in the world. I traveled around a bit while I was in HK--to mainland China, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. I also went to Brazil for 5 weeks with my sister after my first year in HK. Travel is definitely my passion--I am constantly saving up money for my next trip. Last summer, I went and taught English in China for a month and then traveled around, which was amazing. Just studied abroad in Cuba last semester, and I'm already getting the itch to go abroad again (and I've only been in DC for three months!).
I work at US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. It's very interesting, although I'm not sure if I would want to do it as a career because I miss working with customers.
I also think intros are good idea. As for me and sci-fi, I have to admit that I don't read/watch much. I really want to read Dune (and this is probably 1/3 of my reason for taking the class) because everyone says it's an amazing book, and I've heard Jackson is supposed to be a good prof. I'm very interested in where this course will go and am looking forward to it! I have read Ender's Game and seen Starship Troopers and Starwars...thus ends my experience with the sci-fi genre. I have watched "Star Trek" but not recently enough to actually tell you what any episode is about. So I would say I'm venturing into new territory (to infinity and beyond!).
About me:
I'm from Colorado originally, and the longer I'm gone, the more I miss my mountains. I left Colorado when I was 17, after three years in high school, to go to a school called Li Po Chun UNited World College in Hong Kong. I went on my own accord because I was bored of my town in Colorado. I lived in HK for two years and LOVED it--people at my school were awesome and from over 62 different countries. They are undoubtedly my best friends in the world. I traveled around a bit while I was in HK--to mainland China, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. I also went to Brazil for 5 weeks with my sister after my first year in HK. Travel is definitely my passion--I am constantly saving up money for my next trip. Last summer, I went and taught English in China for a month and then traveled around, which was amazing. Just studied abroad in Cuba last semester, and I'm already getting the itch to go abroad again (and I've only been in DC for three months!).
I work at US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. It's very interesting, although I'm not sure if I would want to do it as a career because I miss working with customers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
