One can also attempt to define utopia descriptively, in terms of form, the common sense equation of utopia with a description of a good society is one version of such a definition. Another is the equation of utopia with an ideal commonwealth (Levitas 1990: 2). Some commentators take the form of More’s utopia as a model and argue that utopia is a literary genre, involving the fictional depiction of an alternative society in some detail. However, form does not represent the best approach to utopianism either, because according to Sargisson, it often results in an unnecessarily restrictive definition of utopianism and of utopias (constructions of utopian thought) (Sargisson 1996:50). Approaches that privilege form are mistaken, because utopianism and Utopias are expressed in many forms. Author’s could be tempted to try to delimit the field of utopia to their own individual area of interest and set up boundaries which exclude large areas of material as not properly utopian. Moreover, the form of literary fiction is only available under certain very specific historical conditions; broader historical comparisons require more inclusive definitions, to accommodate changes in the way in which aspirations for a better life may be expressed.
Defining utopia in terms of its function is the last of the three main approaches. This is a less obvious approach as it moves away from the conventional or traditional usage of utopia, which says nothing about what utopia is for, but instead implies that it is useless. According to Levitas Even those who define utopia in terms of form and content, however, see it as having some function (Levitas 1990:3). Many commentators quote Oscar Wilde:
A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.
Thus utopia is seen as presenting some kind of goal, even if commentators, as opposed to the authors of utopias, do not see them as necessarily realisable in all their details. It can also be argued that utopias bring more focus to the question of what exactly this goal should be. Many commentators, however, go further and use the function of utopia as a defining characteristic – although that function is differently represented by different authors (Levitas 1990:3).
One function of for utopian writing used by authors is of ‘politically engaged discourse and critique’ (Sargisson 1996:51). According to Sargisson, the metaphor of a mirror is often employed when illustrating these points (1996:51). Utopian writing is said to place in front of the society that it criticises a construct (theoretical or literary), which reflects back to that society the writer’s perceptions. The mirror tells the viewer/reader that their world is in fact not the best it could be, but that the best (though not necessarily perfect) world is elsewhere. Kumar links the estrangement of the utopian text to its revolutionary function: ‘Utopia challenges by supplying alternatives, certainly. It shows what could be. But its most persistent function, the real source of its subversiveness, is as a critical commentary on the arrangements of society’ (Kumar 1991: 87-88).
These critical function approaches are a useful way of understanding utopian thought and utopias. For Tom Moylan, utopian thought is rooted in discontent: ‘It is, at heart, rooted in the unfulfilled needs and wants of specific classes, groups, and individuals in their unique historical contexts’ (Moylan 1986:1). ‘Utopia negates the contradictions of a social system by forging visions of what is not yet realised wither in theory or in practice. In generating such figures of hope, utopia contributes to the open space of opposition’ (Moylan 1986: 1-2). According to Moylan, a fixed, finite and universal utopia of perfection cannot, adequately critique a fixed, finite and universal capitalist system. Only an understanding of utopia that destroys old perceptions of the genre, transforms them into something new and thus revives utopianism can adequately reflect the concerns of those not content with contemporary society. The critical utopia does not blueprint the perfect society, in fact it does not attempt to create a blueprint at all, as it understands that continuing social change is an essential aspect of any utopia, and imperfection is retained.
In The Dispossessed there has been a total break between two worlds, Urras and Anarresti with disastrous consequences for both. Deprived of the utopian promise of greater human harmony, Urras has become soulless and hopeless, an unchanging and endless war of each against all, while Anarres, with its barren desert landscape, has become characterless and stagnant, cut off from its historical roots. If on one world Shevek finds a rigid utopian ideal, on the other he discovers an equally rigid, idealess present. Shevek later opens up the possibility of a more interactive and dynamic relationship between the sister worlds. The Anarresti utopia, meanwhile, provides the hope that is the catalyst for revolution on Urras, while the continuing reality of oppression and injustice on Urras reminds the Anarresti of why they must be eternally vigilant in testing, protecting, and renewing their anarchism. Each, in other words, gives the other what it lacks in isolation: the reason to go on changing.
From just the short summary above, it is clear that TD does not fall into the category of a utopia when the latter is defined in terms of content or form. TD presents us with two imperfect worlds and neither one of them, even after revolution, become anywhere close to the utopias of old. Le Guin’s ideal society is concerned predominantly with preserving its existence. It has a modest standard of living, conservative of natural resources, as well as a low constant fertility rate and a political life based upon consent. Le Guin offers us the realistic utopian vision of a low technology, organically evolving society at peace with itself and its environment. In addition, the fact that TD is concerned in some way, shape, or form with anarchism cannot be denied. The description of life of the Anarresti population is remarkably close to the accounts of idea societies in anarchist theory: “Members of a community, not elements of a collectivity, they were not moved by mass feeling; there were as many emotions as there were people. And they did not expect commands to be arbitrary, so they had no practice in disobeying them” (1:4). Stow argues that no matter how fantastic the written worlds of literature, they must bear at least some resemblance to the unwritten world in which they are disseminated and published, otherwise readers would not be able to make sense of them (Stow 2005:42). In its concern with the unwritten world theory of anarchism, TD might be regarded as speculative fiction: exploring the possibilities and implications of ideologies and political problems that we already have (Stow 2005:42). In this alone, TD might seem to be disqualified from the genre of utopian literature altogether.
However, it can be argued that TD can be classed as a utopia, if only an ambiguous one (as the book’s subtitle suggests), when utopia is defined in terms of function. TD calls into question the idea that utopia should be divorced from the current political formations. It leads us back to an older tradition of social and political thought. According to Stow it is a tradition that forces us to recognise the connectedness of utopia to the political context in which it is written, with ‘critical leverage and theoretical insight emerging from the juxtaposition of the written world of utopia with the political problems of the unwritten world from which it springs’ (Stow 2005:43). In TD, Le Guin places the metaphorical mirror in front of a society she is critical of and uses it to show the reader what could be. The reader sees, in Anarres, a world that is not perfect, but gives us ideas about what a better could look like, such as when Shevek critcises education and the selling of art for large sums of money on Urras. Moreover, with its anarchist roots it is constantly striving better itself, and as in the end of the book, sometimes needs revolution to accomplish this ongoing task.
Unlike real societies, utopias often have no historical roots, assume a universal consensus on values and institutional arrangements, and are isolated in space and devoid of processes tending to upset them or change their design (Davis 2005:7). As a result they are either politically irrelevant, or – if taken seriously as a model for political organisation – potentially dangerous. These types of utopias arguably have very little function because of their irrelevance to contemporary society, while TD is the opposite as it imagines a genuinely dynamic and revolutionary utopia in which the past never assumes a final shape and the future never shuts its doors. “We are the children of time” (13:385), Shevek declares in the final pages. Davis argues that it succeeds in creating a utopia ‘as a time-sensitive, revolutionary critical perspective that can expand the opportunities for free human choice and meaningful action by helping to break open the horizon of historical possibility’ (Davis 2005:13). For instance, the dissidents march on Urras suggests that utopian ideals are intimately bound up with history and time. Working together, Shevek and the dissidents are able to escape at least temporarily from the Urras’s confines that are all based in the present, and act freely. The dissidents achieve this freedom by remaining loyal to the heritage of their radical Odonian past. Whereas perfectionist utopia refuses to engage in its historical context, instead creating finite societies that inevitably become stale and static, TD has in it a utopia that engages dynamically with time and history which leads to a world that learns from the past and present and refuses to rest on its laurels. In stark contrast to the perfectionist utopia, there is no implication in the dispossessed of a final resolution to all residual conflict nor any suggestion of an end to history and politics. The Odonian philosophy, brought to life by the founding settlers of Anarres is a living, open-ended utopian promise the historical relevance of which will depend largely on unpredictable human action (Davis 2005:14).
Even when not defining utopia in terms of function, TD still arguably counts as one by taking into account its subtitle that states its utopia as ambiguous. Assumptions of a finite, static blueprint and perfect utopianism cannot necessarily be accurately applied to Thomas More’s Utopia, for instance. Its subtitle describes it as ‘Concerning the best state of a commonwealth and the new island of Utopia’, and ‘best’ need not be perfect or even ideal. According to Sargisson, Utopia engages in a debate which took an ambiguous view of the attainability of perfection (Sargisson 1996:52). Any working definition of utopia, beyond "imaginary, ideal place," begins with such criteria as physical isolation, political community, social beneficence, all generalisable characteristics that fit many traditional utopias. But possibly the most important characteristic is the fact that the institutions of the mythical country are always presented as obviously better, more desirable, than those of the author's own. The improvement is seen to result from some special condition, lucky chance, or a historical act that is more usually the commitment to some organizing principle (Bierman 1975:44). In that obvious, non-ambiguous sense, therefore, Anarres, Shevek's Moon colony home, the country of The Dispossessed, is a utopia.
In conclusion there are clearly factors that discount The Dispossessed from being classed as a utopia - particularly the fact that the worlds presented are imperfect, and in the case of Anarres, is actually a hard world to live in, which is a far cry form traditional perfect world utopias. In addition, TD as a novel does not come in the traditional form that defines utopian literature, especially in the way that it deals with real world political issues. However, as I have argued above, there are significant flaws in defining utopia in terms of just content and form, such as the fact that these utopias are impossible to relate to, and inevitably become static with no possible future. Moreover, TD is not alone in this new style of utopia, with a whole host of feminist utopias portraying very different ideas of utopia than that which has gone before, choosing dynamism over staleness.
Bibliography
-
Bierman, Judah (1975), ‘Ambiguity in Utopia: The Dispossessed’, Science Fiction Studies 2:7.
-
Davis, Laurence (2005), ‘The dynamic and revolutionary utopia of Ursula K. Le Guin’ in The new utopian politics of Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed. Oxford: Lexington Books.
-
Kumar, Krishan (1991) Utopianism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
-
Levitas, Ruth (1990) The concept of utopia. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press.
-
Le Guin, Ursula K. (1975), The Dispossessed. London: Panther.
-
Moylan, Tom (1986) Demand the impossible: science fiction and the utopian imagination. New York: Methuen.
-
Sargisson, Lucy (1996), Contemporary feminist utopianism. London: Routledge.
-
Stow, Simon (2005), ‘Worlds apart: Ursula Le Guin and the possibility of method’ in The new utopian politics of Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed. Oxford: Lexington Books.
