Recommendation | What would Ursula say?

Ursula K. Le Guin masterpiece The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia, takes place in an alien Solar system, similar to ours, on twin planets that orbit each other. Anarres is home to an anarcho-feminist society that exists in a harsh climate, with extreme drought and a scarcity of natural resources required to sustain life. This society was created by anarchist revolutionaries who originate from the twin planet of Urras, they left to Anarres to establish a utopia based not on a central government, but on systems of voluntary division of labor, principles of mutual aid and social commitment, ethics of shared suffering, solidarity, Comradeship and above all, freedom. Urras is an allegory for Earth during the time of the 1970’s Cold War, where an ongoing struggle was taking place between a capitalist USA and a communist USSR for the territories of the countries caught between them, and the resources those countries hold.

The story centres on Shevek, a physicist from planet Anarres. He develops his revolutionary ‘General Theory of Time’ and discovers along the way that the anarchist society in which he was raised and educated is losing its commitment to the values on which it was founded 170 years ago. He challenges this society both internally, by questioning the existing division of labor, prevailing methods of work and research, and the implicit assumptions underlying social life on Anarres, and externally by seeking contact with physicists who live on the neighbouring planet Urras, in what is a liberal capitalist superpower.

Le Guin’s literary work is both a political-moral manifesto, a physical theory, and operating instructions for human emotions. But above all, The Dispossessed is an idea.

“My society is also an idea. I was made by it. An idea of freedom, of change, of human solidarity, an important idea.” (p. 335 in Harper Collins’ eBook)

In 1974, Le Guin put the above words in the mouth of the story’s protagonist, Shevek, the dispossessed. These words can also be understood as ars poetic. The idea that the protagonist is talking about does not only exist within the book; it is the book itself. Le Guin’s idea was so detailed that she managed to create it within the context of a climate crisis, a solution to a complex physical problem, an anarcho-feminist utopia (admittedly vague, but something to strive for) and even a map of the two planets!

Alongside these, Le Guin examines the challenges facing the very existence of the idea she conceived in her fevered mind. One of these challenges is fear. There is fear of external forces, fear of deviation from what began as social norms and have cemented to become rigid rules, fear of irreconcilable competing ideologies, fear of despair. Sound familiar?

In her novel Le Guin extensively explores the influence of language on our consciousness. She invents wonderful words such as ‘egoize’, which in a world without private property is considered a particularly colourful, juicy curse. She also explores the messages we consciously and unconsciously absorb from our language and environment. Amidst all these words, she seems to be conveying an important and thought-provoking message to all of us, in the Middle East, on planet Earth:

“He’s got the message. You heard it: detest Urras, hate Urras, fear Urras. […] All right. I agree that it’s probably wise to fear Urras. But why hate? Hate’s not functional; why are we taught it?” (p. 49 in Harper Collins’ eBook)

Hatred can lead to the liquidation of businesses, unemployment, economic hardship, crime and violence. Hatred burns the soul from within. It blinds us and blurs any difference or distinction between us, and anyone who is not part of ‘us’. In the words of Le Guin, many things are “dysfunctional”. So why are we taught to hate?

Probably because of blindness. After all, blind obedience is the best kind of obedience.

How Can the Blind Restore Their Vision, How to See, Again?

Le Guin has a solution. The solution is related, on the one hand, to partnership, to the ethics of shared suffering, and on the other hand, to complete independence.

Let’s start with the first part: the ethics of sharing suffering. One of the characters in the novel describes a moment she experienced during a severe drought, when a co-worker was dying right next to her. The character realised that there was nothing she could do to save her friend and that the only moral thing to do was to share in his suffering and be there for him. To be there until death and acknowledge his very existence. Sometimes all we need, especially in time of suffering, is a hand to hold us, a compassionate and loving face looking at us, a friend-brother, a friend-sister, who will simply be there with us, simply because we are social creatures.

But how does this fit in with the ultimate attainment of individual independence? Shevek’s research of the “General Theory of Time” has led him to conclude that the fulfilment of one individual’s will, in other words, to be a free person, is also the fulfilment of that individual’s social commitment. He explains the role of the individual in the social formation, first as a cell in a complete structure, in which each cell has a function it can perform in the best possible way. Fulfilling this role will realise not only the individuality of that specific cell, but also the common good.

The conclusion: critical thinking and the willingness to resist are priceless resources that we all possess. It is our duty to nurture these resources and protect them, even and especially when it is challenging to do so. Only critical thinking that does not take social conventions and norms for granted but constantly reexamines them, seeks to adjust and innovate as necessary, will ensure the long-term freedom of the people in that society.

“…for though only society could give security and stability, only the individual, the person, had the power of moral choice —the power of change, the essential function of life.” (p. 324 in Harper Collins’ eBook)