Composing Utopia

Reading through the book, what struck me as most interesting were the numerous, seemingly paradoxical, contradictory, and ultimately thought provoking ideas that were presented. These ideas, scattered throughout the story, added to the overall theme: the idea of possession and freedom.

 In the beginning, on page 26 (I have a library book, page #’s may be different), LeGuin jumps right into presenting a paradox. Young Shevek proposes the well-known paradox of asymptotic reasoning. That is, a point in space can never be reached because there will always be a point in time where you will be half-way between that point in space and where you were a moment before. Theoretically, with this line of reasoning, you will never be able to catch up with someone walking in front of you. Of course, this can be proved wrong mathematically. Nevertheless, LeGuin has opened Pandora’s Box of contradictions.

On page 40, Shevek points out the idea that the boys are not kept from leaving Anarres by any outside force. It is only their identity as Anarres that keeps them there. That is, this identity is their freedom. The concept was contradictory in the way it was stated: Order is not “order.” We don’t leave Anarres because we are Anarres… that is our freedom. To avoid it, would be to lose our freedom.” He then goes on to say that to leave (which would be to exercise that freedom), would be to lose that freedom.

Another example is on page 113 where Shevek notes that the student’s freedom from obligation was in exact proportion to their lack of freedom of initiative. The theme of freedom reappears several more times. On page 202, Shevek says, “Because our men and women are free-possessing nothing, they are free. And you the possessors are possessed.” Where on the moon possessions mean nothing and where “Excess is excrement” (87), earthlings are so obsessed with material goods that the women have even taken to implanting magnets under their skin so that they could secure jewels onto their bodies. (an absurd idea… but then again…)

This last and overlying idea that the possessors are in actuality possessed by their possessions–that is, their freedom to possess enslaves them and takes away their freedom–is reinforced by the many other paradoxical ideas in this novel. For instance, in one of the example I used above, Anarees have the freedom to leave, but to leave would be to lose that freedom.

For me, these paradoxes made the more interesting parts of the novel because they invited reasoning. Did anyone else find other paradoxes? If so, how did it add to the central theme of possession and freedom? And is instantaneous space/time travel possible, or is that a paradox as well?

Bonnie Lu

It is always interesting to read different opinions or methods on the same subject. In the case of our class, and the books The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin and Nineteen Eighty-Four  by George Orwell, both authors touch on the topic of language and culture.

Both authors believe that language is capable of modifying culture. This is why in both stories the establishment takes such great care in the formation and maintenance of language. Formally, this theory that language shapes culture is called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Indeed, the structure of language and the word available in Pravic severely limit the expressive abilities of the Annarestis. Yet, the language is also fundamental in creating the utopian culture that emphasize community and equality. By differentiating the definition between “status” and “class” justifies, or at least explains the anarchy or equality (16).  The lack of the word “splendor” stops the residents of this resource-scarce moon from consciously realizing its bare landscape (23). The word “ammar” which means brother or sister and can be applied to anybody is central to the communal spirit of the society (47).

Language creates a culture that keeps its residents inside of its circle, just as importantly, the language is a barrier that keeps out other cultures. Despite the proximity of Anarres to Urras, the cultures are vastly different, in large part because of the language barrier.”Shevek realized he had spoken to [Kimoe] in Pravic, called him ammar, brother, in a language Kimoe did not understand.

Ironically, languages that we would generally consider to have no barrier, math, physics, ethics, and the sciences, are more difficult to understand. “They can’t understand [Shevek’s] books anymore than I can,” says Bedep (363).

After reading Orwell’s excerpt on limiting language, I thought that eventually the removed words and ideas would return through necessity. Now, after reading The Dispossessed , I think that once words are removed for generations, the ideas that are associated with them may also be lost permanently. If you were not convinced by Orwell’s piece on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, are you convinced now? If you were convinced, then do you think that lost ideas might never be found? For example, might there be  ideas, or thoughts that we are just not capable of imagining because we do not have the words to express it?

 Rosie Qin

One of the most interesting topics in The Dispossessed is the idea of progress and change in a utopia. Most of the utopias that we have read are technically open to change, but we have never really seen people trying to changing anything. For example Skinner’s Walden Two has a council and Bellamy’s Looking Backward has a president to make changes or fix problems in society. However, as readers, we never really encounter these authorities discovering a problem and then attempting to rectify it. This idea of an eternally problem free society is completely unrealistic, even if human nature was changed. No matter the time or the place, some people or groups of people will always gain power either intentionally or unintentionally.

The Dispossessed shows readers that a utopia is by no means perfect. In fact, when Shevek first lands on Urras, he comments: “This is what a world is supposed to be like”, making reference to the beauty of Urrras (65). Essentially, Shevek is suggesting, possibly on more than one level, that Anarres is not the Garden of Eden that many utopia’s claim to be. As we advance through the story, we discover many other important flaws in Anarres, but these are able to be rectified. The most significant downfall of Anarres is the illusion of freedom. Anarres is supposed to be an anarchist world where the people are not forced to do anything by some legal authority. However, as Shevek states: “And then we leave the little room in our minds [that says we are free] and go where PDC posts us, and stay there till we’re reposted” (329). Essentially, Shevek believes that the PDC is gaining an unjust power, but not on purpose. In response, Shevek and his friends try to rectify the problem by undermining the power of the PDC by ignoring its advice: “Your Syndicate of Initiative … has proceeded with building a transmitter, with broadcasting to Urras and receiving from them. You’ve done all this against the advice of the majority of the PDC” (355). Overall, Shevek is trying to make changes his utopian world. His actions allow us to question: can a utopia be a process of constant change and modification or is a utopia, by its very nature, stagnant because it encounters no problems?

-Jon Chekan-