The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin : On Gender Issues

My general thoughts on this work are here.

Because of its thoughtful and detailed look at so many aspects of humanity, an enormous amount of commentary has been written about this book. In an attempt to say something different, I choose to write a few words about just one of several important themes. Furthermore, I am going to focus on a subtheme of this theme.

One very prominent area of exploration in this book is gender and the role of women in society. There is so much on this subject covered within this novel that it would be difficult to focus even on this one area in a single blog post. Thus, I will concentrate on one subtheme within the broader theme of gender. That is, the effects that women’s roles have upon men.

Le Guin depicts the society on Anarres as having achieved full gender equality. Furthermore, no one on Anarres is sexually objectified in any way. But it goes beyond that. Interests in beauty and fashion standards are nonexistent. Much of what we would describe as “feminine” in our modern society is eschewed. There is no debate or controversy about this among men or women. It is simply how Anarres is.

This is contrasted with the various societies on Urras, the other planet examined in this work, where women are extremely oppressed. Even in the more advanced nations that seem to be on the level of those of twentieth century Earth in terms of technology, women hold absolutely no economic or political power and very few rights. In addition, they are universally objectified.

Vea is an upper class woman that Shevek, the main character of this book, befriends during his stay on Urras.

At one point, he describes her,

"Shoes, clothes, cosmetics, jewels, gestures, everything about her asserted provocation. She was so elaborately and ostentatiously a female body that she seemed scarcely to be a human being. She incarnated all the sexuality…repressed into their dreams, their novels and poetry, their endless paintings of female nudes, their music, their architecture with its curves and domes, their candies, their baths, their mattresses.”

I think that that the comment “she seemed scarcely to be a human being” is significant as it illustrates what Le Guin’s views are pertaining on what she believes are the dehumanizing effects of the sexual objectification.

Yet this novel is not simplistic and does highlight other views. Vea’s comments about the society on egalitarian Anarres, as she is talking to Shevek, provides an interesting counterpoint,

"I’ll tell you something, though. If you took one of your ‘sisters’ up there…and gave her a chance to take off her boots, and have an oil bath and a depilation, and put on a pair of pretty sandals, and a belly jewel, and perfume, she’d love it. And you’d love it too! Oh, you would! But you won’t, you poor things with your theories. All brothers and sisters and no fun!”

Based in the text, it seems that Le Guin is depicting the Odonian (Odonians are what the inhabitants of Anarres call themselves. See my first post on this book. ) attitudes concerning gender to be superior to those of our modern Western society. With that, this novel is full of nuanced ideas, and it is illustrated that these are complex issues.

Things get interesting when the men of Anarres encounter the women of Urras. The males of Anarres are depicted as completely progressive when it comes to attitudes on gender. This view seems to be universal even with young men.

Yet when boys on Anarres view videos of slave women on Urras, they become very sexually stimulated. Furthermore, when Shevek, an otherwise sympathetic protagonist, begins to interact with Vea, he is intoxicated by her sensuality and losses control. He commits what can only be described as a sexual assault.

So what is Le Guin saying here? I think that it is safe to assume that the society on Anarres, where the vast majority women do not participate in activities to enhance their attractiveness, is meant to be viewed positively. In the world depicted in this book, both men and women seem to function in balanced and healthy ways when it comes to sexuality and gender relations. Yet, exposure to women who do place value and effort upon physical attractiveness leads to some awful behavior on the part of men who are not otherwise sexist or misogynist in any way.

Le Guin seems not to be condemning men here. However, I think that she is saying that there is an innate tendency for men to objectify women. She is tying to illustrate that this tendency is harmful to both men and women.

Le Guin seems to be saying that a society where people, particularly women, do not bother at all to be sexually attractive is a preferable society to our own. Or, perhaps the author is just throwing the idea out as food for thought.

My opinion is that the issue of some people wanting to be attractive to the opposite sex is an extremely complex one. Likewise, the issue of some people being attracted to certain traits in other people, and how this attraction affects them, is similarly complex. Some aspects of human society clearly objectify people, usually women. Where healthy sensuality ends and objectification begins is a major source of the complexity. I think that a society where women, and men for that matter, take virtually zero care in their physical appearance in regards to attracting others sexually runs counter to our biology and is not desirable. With that, there still is objectification of women in society that is demeaning and that is not conducive to a healthy society.

Thus, while I do not agree with Le Guin entirely here, these are really important concepts that delve deeply into the core of humanity. These concepts are examined in a thoughtful and enlightening way within the pages of this work.

I have only scratched the surface above. This book has a lot more going on in terms of gender. Furthermore, gender is only one of the many aspects of society examined in this work. As I mentioned in the first part of my commentary, this novel takes an intriguing look at economics, violence, war, poverty and a host of other things. It is a treasure trove of ruminations about so many aspects of the human condition.

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin is a highly acclaimed classic science fiction novel. The story alternates between the twin planets of Anarres and Urras. It is a detailed and thoughtful examination of culture, both of the alien cultures that the author has fashioned and, indirectly, of our own human cultures.

Anarres is an anarchistic society. Its inhabitants call themselves Odonians after the founder of their movement. The main character is Shevek, an Odonian physicist who is working on a type of Grand Unification Theory that seems to be symbolic of some of the book’s themes. The narrative concerns Shevek’s groundbreaking visit to Urras. Shevek is the first citizen of Anarres to visit Urras in centuries.

In comparing anarchist Anarres to traditional human societies, Le Guin has fashioned a complex and nuanced novel that digs deeply into human society, economics, poverty, violence, gender and more.

The society of Anarres is anarchist, but unlike the libertarian visions so popular these days, it is extremely community orientated. Social pressure keeps most people from harming others and prompts them to contribute to society in the form of work, creativity, etc. As envisioned by its founder,

“There was to be no controlling center, no capital, no establishment for the self-perpetuating machinery of bureaucracy and the dominance drive of individuals seeking to become captains, bosses, chiefs of state”

Anarres is very flawed. Nevertheless, based on both the novel’s narrative and on the commentary by Le Guin herself, it is clearly meant to represent a culture superior to traditional human ones.

Urras is composed of multiple nations, and it is roughly parallel to the situation that prevailed on Earth in the 1970s, with two power blocs, a capitalist and a communist, in opposition. There are also third-world nations, rich nations, revolutions, etc.

Le Guin effectively uses the nations of Urras as a counterpoint to the anarchist society of Anarres.

The chapters of the book alternate between a narrative of Shevek’s life on Anarres and his historic stay on Urras. Over the course of the story, we are given a close look at the inner workings of the societies on both planets.

Based upon history and economics, I do not believe the Odonian society would actually work. Le Guin does convincingly portray how social pressure to work and to not harm others can be at times very influential. However, I think that in a society without an effective government or monetary rewards for work, more and more people will act in anti-social ways, or at least choose not to contribute to society through work. Eventually, things would fall apart.  With that, Le Guin portrays a nuanced, well thought out system that is, at the very least, plausible.

Shevek’s characterization is also fairly strong. He is somewhat of a loner and an outsider in a society that values community above all else. At times, he rebels against his culture’s rules; at other times, it is illustrated that these rules are a part of who he is. He is shown to be a multifaceted person. He is thus described,

“The social conscience, the opinion of others, was the most powerful moral force motivating the behavior of most Anarresti, but it was a little less powerful in him than in most of them. “

This book is really suburb. Those interested in the examination of society will likely get a lot out of it. One does not have to agree with the principles of the anarchist society that Le Guin has fashioned in order to appreciate this insightful critique of humanity.

In one or more future posts, I will be delving a little deeper into the ideas and social criticism contained in this novel.

My Science Fiction Heritage

I grew up reading science fiction. Though I read various styles within the genre and within related genres, I prided myself on reading what I snobbishly called “the serious stuff.” I preferred stories that were not about space battles. I generally gravitated toward authors that dispensed with action and instead concentrated more upon ideas and character. Some of my favorite writers were Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, Arthur C. Clarke, Phillip K. Dick and ‪Ursula K. Le Guin, to name a few.

I recently ran into an old friend whom I have known since childhood. We both started reading science fiction in our teens. He still mostly reads it. I can envision a slightly different life reading path where I mostly did the same.

Up until my early twenties I read mostly science fiction and history. The science fiction had a great impact upon me (As did the history, but that is a different blog post). These works opened up my mind to big ideas, and whetted my interest in dynamic plots and compelling characters.

These books presented many diverse viewpoints. With that, I was most influenced by authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clark, who seemed to espouse a secular, rationalistic, anti-militaristic, pro-science and pro-space exploration message. These authors, as well as those with differing viewpoints, have influenced my thinking to this day.

During my college years, I began to yearn for books of other types. However, it was the themes of life and death, questioning humanity’s place in the universe, critique of society, etc., that I first encountered in science fiction books that whetted my appetite for other types of works.

I think that one can read solely science fiction and still read mostly meaningful and worthwhile books that are full of ideas. Some of the great works of literature even fall within my definition of science fiction. These books, written by authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, George Orwell, H.G. Wells and Yevgeny Zamyatin, among others, can easily fit within the great literary cannon. There are also a lot of really good science fiction that may not reach the level of great literature, but that are full of compelling ideas and that are more than worthy reads.

However, as I discovered, despite the value of science fiction, there is so much more out there. In order to fully appreciate the richness of human literary art and thought, it began to dawn upon me that I needed to expand my horizons. Thus, I chose to explore both classic and contemporary literature of other sorts.

My life decision to expand my reading interests years ago leaves me scant time for reading science fiction now. In recent years, I have occasionally reread some noteworthy science fiction books from my youth, and I have read a few classics that I missed earlier in life.

As I have been thinking about the genre lately, I will likely devote some additional reading time to science fiction, including, perhaps, some contemporary authors. I have not read anything by these newer writers. There are a lot of worthwhile science fiction books out there and ignoring the genre makes no sense to me.

Yet, reading time will continue to be scarce and my reading of these books will, in the long run, be less frequent than I like. With that, I am determined to devote a little more time going forward to the genre. Science Fiction played an important role in my intellectual and emotional development, and it will always be a genre very close to my heart.

Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre

This post contains major spoilers.

I read the Lloyd Alexander translation of this novel.

Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre is an existentialist classic. First published in 1938, this is the tale, told in journal entries, of Antoine Roquentin. In it, the protagonist faces an existentialist crisis. This is a deeply philosophical, metaphysical and, at times, challenging account of this crisis. As he wanders around a French seaport town, Roquentin is beset with despair and a kind of sickness of the soul that he likens to nausea.

A picture slowly emerges of a man who is facing a malaise brought on by what he perceives as meaninglessness to existence. Much of this work involves his inward ruminations and pain, as well as his interactions with other characters. These include “The Self-Taught Man," who is an intellectual humanist, and Anny, who is Roquentin’s ex-girlfriend, who are present for the protagonist to exchange ideas and emotions with.

A basic understanding of existentialist philosophy as well as Sartre’s version of it is indispensible in deciphering this book. Any summary of the themes presented in this novel is an oversimplification. However, it begins to dawn on Roquentin that the real world, as well as people’s beliefs and lives, contain absolutely no meaning. Furthermore, the protagonist concludes that the past is also meaningless, and it is only the present that counts. Thus, all of humanity seems to be constructing false personas as well as invalid narratives of their lives based upon the past. The above comprehensions weigh on Roquentin, increasing his depression and anguish.

At one point he observes about humanity.

“We were a heap of living creatures, irritated, embarrassed at ourselves, we hadn’t the slightest reason to be there, none of us, each one, confused, vaguely alarmed, felt in the way in relation to the others.”

And later,

“Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance.”

Roquentin is often disorientated and continually experiences strange physical and mental perturbations. Often, his musings veer into the metaphysical. His thoughts take him into long and complex ruminations upon the nature of existence. Some of the passages make fairly clear sense. Others are very complex and obtuse, and I found that they were difficult to discern. I did turn to outside sources of commentary relating to both this book and to Sartre’s philosophy in general. These were extremely helpful.

This novel’s ending is surprising, not because of its conclusions, but because of its abrupt change in tone. This book is, up until its last few pages, unrelentingly grim. At the end, it takes an abrupt optimistic turn. Throughout the story there are hints, that in creativity and art, Roquentin might find meaning. In the concluding pages, while he is listening to his favorite jazz record, Some of These Days, in a café, he has an epiphany.

In this moment he observes,

"I feel something brush against me lightly and I dare not move because I am afraid it will go away. Something I didn’t know any more: a sort of joy."

Roquentin quickly decides that he is going to write a novel that will be deeply impactful. At that point, this book seems to end on an optimistic note.

Finding meaning through creativity and art is a somewhat common idea that I find to be intellectually and emotionally satisfying.  The turnaround, however, was just a bit too abrupt. In my opinion, the novel would have been philosophically and aesthetically stronger had Sartre had more comprehensively developed this idea and devoted more pages to it.  Such a dramatic change in attitude may lead one to suspect some irony. However, based upon some of my readings concerning Sartre’s philosophy, he was apparently serious about this ending.

As someone who has pondered the meaning, and possible meaninglessness, of life, I have always thought that art and creativity is one of the valid factors that can give life meaning. However, as Sartre seems to be proposing this as the primary reason for existence, I think that he is missing a lot of other things.

Many will find this book challenging, as it contains difficult prose that includes a lot of passages that are surreal and some that are in the stream of consciousness style. Furthermore the philosophical ponderings are often dense and difficult to follow. Much of the book is also very dark. With all that, this is a thought provoking and adventurous excursion into the meaning of life. Hence, I found it to be both enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. It is full of ideas that are interesting and that have had an important impact on modern thought. This work is a must read for anyone who is interested or likes to read stories involving existentialist philosophy.