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-

The Dispossessed is a very different book than what we have read so far.  Le Guin includes a variety of worlds and messages in this book, which is impressive because, despite their variety they complement each other.  The metaphor of the wall is significant in the book.  The first few pages of the book describe the wall, the wall that separates the two worlds, the two systems of government.  “There was a wall.  It did not look important…But the idea was real.  It was important.  For seven generations there had been nothing more important than that wall” (1). I think that with this statement Le Guin is suggesting, and foreshadowing, that the boundaries that confine us also define us. The “anarchy, the lawlessness defines Anarres, and its citizens.  On the other hand, its laws, as well as its social constraints define the culture on A-10.

The world of Anarres is supposed to be an anarchist world, thereby implying that they are totally without any kind of metaphorical wall or limitation.  But, as Shevek describes his life and work in this rebel colony, we see that human nature inevitably creates boundaries in and around themselves.  One example of this is seen on page 28 when Shevek is at a workshop.  He is trying to explain a concept to the director and his classmates but was cut off when the director said he was “egoizing.”  Here we see that even freedom is limiting.  Freedom for all, community for all means constraints for the individual.

One of the questions I think Le Guin asks is; is it better to create these walls consciously, or unconsciously?  I am not sure what the answer to this question is.  Is it better to let the shortcomings and lesser characteristics of human nature shape the boundaries and limitations of society naturally, or is it better to try and guide those tendencies with laws and rules in an attempt to create something better?

 Justine Kendall 

A theme that I thought was very prevalent in The Dispossessed was the problem of how individual creativity puts people at odds with a communal society in which everything is for “we”, not “I”. This theme was first presented in Chapter 2 when Shevek comes up with an idea and presents it to his “Speaking-and-Listening” group. The director labels Sheveks creative thinking as a direct attack against the communal society and the “we” for which they constantly strive. He states that “Speech is sharing-a cooperative art.” and that Shevek is “not sharing, merely egoizing” (29). Basically, the society of Anarres is based on communal living. Everyone lives for everyone else, and no one can own anything, not even a creative idea. According to them, thinking creatively means that a person is placing individual endeavor above the common good. Shevek breaks away from this thinking, because he feels such a great need to explore the unknown.

Later on, Shevek comes to an important realization:

“The less he had, the more absolute became his need to be. He recognized that need, in Odonian terms, as his ‘cellular function,’ the analogic term for the individual’s individuality, the work he can do best, therefore his best contribution to his society. A healthy society would let him exercise that optimum function freely, in the coordination of all such functions finding its adaptability and strength… His sense of primary responsibility toward his work did not cut him off from his fellows, from his society, as he had thought. It engaged him with them absolutely.”

Shevek realizes that his creativity and pursuit for knowledge does not ultimately separate him from society and those who have criticized him. Not conforming, like the others have done, actually makes him a better Odonian. The people in Anarres are supposed to be completely free. By pursuing what he wants to pursue, Shevek is actually utilizing that freedom more than the others. In addition, by indulging in his creative ideas, Skevek is discovering new ideas that may ultimately benefit society.

After reading so many utopias in this class, I realize that many utopian authors write about societies that are based solely on the needs of the community, not the inidividuals. However, freedom is so valued in this country, especially freedom of speech (which allowed the authors to write about their utopias in the first place). Thus, why would so many authors create “ideal” societies that take away that beloved freedom? I know that many of the utopias claim that because there are not true governments and no true laws in their societies that everyone is entirely free (as Anarres claims). But doesn’t living for the community over the inidividual lend itself to a certain conformity that imprisons people whether there are laws or not? Can a society that functions solely for the good of everyone really work if people are not able to truely be free to do what they want? Isn’t it part of human nature to be creative and to indulge in that creativity such as Shevek so strongly felt he needed to do?  

Elizabeth Lindsay 

Reading Woman on the Edge of Time reminded me of the story in One Flew Over the Cukcoo’s Nest. In the latter, the main protagonist was not crazy, but was subjected to electrosocking nonetheless. Similarily, in Woman on the Edge of Time, Connie is subjected to experimental electroshocking treatments. Even more strikeningly similiar to One Flew over the Cukcoo’s Nest is when Skip, after electroshock, loses a part of himself and ultimately commits suicide (symbolizing the victory of ‘big nurse’)–page 262 in my version of the book. Furthermore, in both novels, the story is told from the inside of the ward and touches, in some way, the final victory of the system over the individual. For those that have also read both novels, my question is, are these similarities coincidental, or do you think one may have influenced the other?

Another part of this novel that interested me was whether or not the author intended the reader to take Connie’s fantasy seriously (i.e. evaluate it as a utopia) or as the hallucination of a desperate and crazed women. For instance, Piercy goes into describing the decision making process in Luciente’s world: “We talk locally and then choose a rep to speak out posit on area hookups” (146). Also, on page 201, she addresses the consequences of crime: “First off, we ask if person acted intentionally or not–if person wantsto take responsibility for the act…” Compared to the other utopias from this class, these topics indicate that Piercy is asking the reader to seriously consider the plausibility of Connie’s utopia. Furthermore, Piercy offers solutions to the problems that certain assumptions of her utopia lead to. For example, because everyone is free to love everyone else, there is the issue of jealousy. Piercy shows that jealousy still exsists on page 176 where Luciente “was dancing to/for Jackrabbit” and drawing resentment from Bolivar. To resolve this and to maintain the harmony of the utopia, Piercy proposes”a worming” to address the hostility between Luciente and Bolivar over Jackrabbit (199). By addressing these aspects of Connie’s fantasy along with other typical utopian elements (such as communal child-rearing), I felt as if Piercy wanted her readers to believe that Connie was really communicating with a better future.

However, there were other parts of the novel where it seemed like there was strong evidence to support Commie’s fantasy as crazed hallucinations–not to be taken seriously. During these parts, the novel came across more like science fiction rather than a utopian work. For instance, there is a strong correlations between the events in the futuristic world and those in COnnie’s life. It can be interpreted that Connie imagines the child Dawn becauses she misses her own daughter and that she created/imagined her sexual experience with Bee because she missed Claud. Also, with Sappho’s death, the intent to begin another baby is signaled and described as “One in, one out” (154). This occurs just when Connie is called to particioate in the electroshock experiment where several monkeys had been previously tested (i.e. one in, one out). Where Connie called the former “heartless” (154), the latter is no more humane. In other words, Connie is projecting the real events in her life to the events that she imagines in her utopia. Stronger evidence is given by Skip and Jackrabbit’s deaths. Both characters had strong sexual identities. Skip’s death (262) preceeded Jackrabbit’s (296). Connie could have created Jackrabbits’ unexplained death after feeling the stress of Skip’s. These correlations point to mental instability as opposed to lending credibility towarn Connie’s utopia. It also serves to undermine Piercy’s feminist utopia ideas by hinting that such a utopia stems from an oppressed woman’s insanity.

 My second question is: why do you think Piercy gave these two contradictory messages about Connie’s utopia, and do you think this is a strongly utopian novel, or more of a science-fiction novel, genre-wise?

Bonnie Lu

            Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time is clearly written for the feminist genre and audience.  This becomes evident very quickly as the main character, Connie Ramos, is a woman who undergoes a cruel and unjust struggle with society.  Piercy further illustrates this concept in one particular passage that describes the role of women in society as Connie sees it in the 1960’s.

           “It was part of women’s long revolution. When we were breaking all the old hierarchies. Finally there was that one thing we had to give up too, the only power we ever had, in return for no power for anyone. The original production: the power to give birth. Cause as long as we were biologically enchained, we’d never be equal. And males never would be humanized to be loving and tender. So we all became mothers. Every child has three. To break the nuclear bonding.” (105)

Here, Piercy notes that the only important role a woman ever had was that of childbirth.  She then explains that in order for woman to be considered equal with man, she must be relieved of that power. 

          However, although Woman on the Edge of Time includes feminist passages such as this one, Piercy does include more subtle feminist undertones.  For example, when she speaks about “Washoe Day” she says that it is a holiday “when we celebrate our new community, named for a heroine of your time” (91).  Piercy does not go into detail here, but I believe that in naming this holiday after a woman she is making a statement.  Most of our holidays today are, in fact, named after men.             

          Woman on the Edge of Time is a prime example of a feminist work in the Utopian genre.  So far, we have not read any other Utopia in its entirety considered to be feminist.  In ready Piercy, I did not find the feminist themes were distracting or more annoying than any other Utopia.  Maybe this is because I am female?  I was wondering what everyone else thought.  Do these feminist undertones make reading Piercy any different from the other works assigned to us?

Courtney Murray

When reading Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time, one theme that stood out to me was the belief in an environmentally-friendly and efficient utopia. Indeed, it seems as though Piercy is advocating the necessity of a utopia to be environmentally friendly and socially conscience to the atmosphere in which it exists. Obviously, those who exist in the ‘real world’ are at odds with this sort of environmentalism. When Connie sarcastically confronts Luciente concerning the disposal of waste, Luciente proclaims: “We sent it to the earth. We compost everything compostible. We reuse everything else” (47). Such a simple answer is clearly a shock to both Connie, and to the readers. Social stewardship is placed as imperative in the utopia Piercy projects.

Furthering this trait of thought, Connie, Dawn, and Luciente expand the importance of environmental efficiency in the futuristic utopia. When Connie delineates the concept of air-conditioning, Luciente and Dawn are shocked at the waste of energy consumed for just one person (240). It seems that importance is given not just in regard to ethical waste management practices, but also in obtaining the best possible efficiency for one’s actions in respect to the surroundings. It would appear that Piercy is critical of the waste and misuse of energy we see in everyday life

These findings generate an interesting thought; do you too believe that sound environmental practices are necessary for a utopia to exist? Currently, the intentional community I’m researching for our assignment, The Farm, places a high value on ecological concerns. Does anyone else have similar findings and note the importance of environmentalism in Piercy’s work and other utopias?

-Steve Jackson

Everybody is given a starting position in life and we all face obstacles either living that life, or finding ways to improve that position. In Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, Connie Ramos is dealt a particularly unlucky hand. Her situation is incredibly undesirable and her obstacles seem to be unfair and insurmountable. However, even if Connie does not realize it, I think that Marge Piercy wrote with the belief that hope is what keeps Connie alive. In the forms of pills, time travelling and adopting children, Piercy helps Connie keep going by giving her hope.

Hope comes from the passage of time. If something does not work now, there is always a second chance to make things betters. For example, the neon fish in Connie’s first marriage: “You just buy more when your tank runs out” (28). There was hope for the future of that girl who, despite her background, was able to shout: “I’m not going to lie down and be buried in the rut of family… Nothing in life but having babies and cooking and cleaning the house…. I’m going to travel. I’m going to be someone” (38). The book shows that even though the present may be imperfect, improvement comes with time. 

Before Luciente and her utopia was even introduced, we learn that Connie’s daughter, Angelina is given a better life (18). Even though she was born into a dilapidated home that would not be able to provide for her, circumstances happened that allowed her to be adopted into a family that would be able to take care of her. 

Furthermore, by taking Connie to a utopia in the future, Piercy is indicating that, in time, this type of society can indeed become a reality. In this society, Connie was able to have another child (251). This time, her circumstance allowed her to share the responsibility of mothering the child. This time, she has the resources and ability to take care of it.

Woman on the Edge of Time described two extreme worlds. Connie’s real world was a terrible place. But the future was a utopia. Therefore, I believe that Piercy’s message is for people to live their lives as they are dealt while making the most of any little luck or chance that comes along the way. By your readings, did you also see the hope presented in the novel or only hopelessness?

Rosie Qin