Thank you for this read-along, which prompted me to finally move The Dispossessed from my "need to read" list to my "read it once" list. Now it's on my "need to re-read" list.
I am at work so I don’t have my copy on me to pull the exact quotes, but reading this so soon after The Human Condition I was very struck by how Shevek’s account of what loyalty or promise does in terms of time (which is of course germane in his discussion of the ansible) exactly mimics Arendt’s accounting of what a promise or a contract does in her work on action — ie a way of linking the past, present and future with each other. I was really moved by both accounts of loyalty and promise as fundamentally temporal phenomenons instead of abstract or moral ones.
I have an edition of More’s “Utopia” (published by Verso, 2016) that includes four essays by Le Guin as a kind of afterword (the intro is by China Miéville). Two of these are explicitly about utopias. Here is an excerpt from one of those, “A Non-Euclidean View of California as a Cold Place to Be”:
“Utopia is the application of man’s reason and his will to the myth (of the Golden Age), man’s effort to work out imaginatively what happens—or might happen—when the primal longings embodied in the myth confront the principle of reality. In this effort man no longer dreams of a divine state in some remote time: he assumes the role of creator. // Now, the Golden Age, or Dream Time, is remote only from the rational mind. It is not accessible to Euclidean reason; but on the evidence of all myth and mysticism, and the assurance of every participatory religion, it is, to those with the gift or discipline to perceive it, right here, right now. Whereas it is of the very essence of the rational or Jovian utopia that is it _not_ here and _not_ now. It is made by the reaction of will and reason against, away from, the here-and-now, and it is, as More said in naming it, nowhere. It is pure structure without content; pure model; goal. That is its virtue. Utopia is uninhabitable. As soon as we reach it, it ceases to be utopia.”
In a new note to this essay, Le Guin asks, “Is it possible to write a utopia, now, that isn’t in the old science-fiction mode, a mere technofix?” and seems to offer her later novel “Always Coming Home” as an attempt at that. “The society there described, aware of its shaky foundations, is less assertive, more introverted than the classic utopian societies, more yin than yang. It draws its inspiration from Lao Tzu as much as from Thomas More. Still, it is an early attempt to carry the great utopian project More began into a new world, beyond the conventions and limitations of the old.”
"It was our purpose all along—our Syndicate, this journey of mine—to shake up things, to stir
up, to break some habits, to make people ask questions." This theme has been on my mind lately: the questioning of institutions when they have drifted away from their original values, and whether we have a responsibility to shake things up and make people ask questions. We don't see the aftermath of this to see what Le Guin felt, but I got to think strong societies can survive these stirrings-up.
Very telling that the first line of the book reads: "There was a wall."
I like especially the next para, "Like all walls it was ambiguous, two-faced. What was inside it and what was outside it depended upon which side of it you were on."
The (former?) Odonians let bureaucratic inertia take over and build a wall around themselves. The mob mentality we see at the end, where they cast Shevek (and his family, like real rabid witch-hunters) out of the walls. But it depends - was Shevek walled into a social prison, or was he walled out from society? It's of course sort of both as some people took pleasure in gawking at and humiliating Sadik, keeping her around just to torture (prison) whereas Shevek and Takver are just ignored (cast out).
**changing gears, thought experiment based on a point in the essay**
You make a point here about the battle stories from the drought "There’s a kind of pride to them that’s premised on shared pain." This goes back to some of Shevek's remarks at the end of Chapter 2. There's a heated debate on suffering and mutual aid meant to prevent suffering, what did Odo want etc. And it ends with this exchange:
"What have you left, then? Isolation and despair! You're denying brotherhood, Shevek!" the tall girl cried.
"No-no, I'm not. I'm trying to say what I think brotherhood really is. It begins-it begins in shared pain."
"Then where does it end?"
"I don't know. I don't know yet."
The battle stories are the human connection that might have been lost at the expense of the bureaucracy (i.e. nobody reminisces about all the greatness of divlab!) and form the basis for re-igniting Odonianism. It takes time for that to happen but we have to assume that Shevek's return (and perhaps the counsel of a Hain whose culture has done just about everything except anarchism) are the spark. There's no indication they'll start from ground zero, but rather take what Anarres is when they land. It's sort of Hegelian:
Odonianism + Emergency = Divlab Bureaucracy (the bureaucracy thinks itself Odonian of course, as it's benefiting everybody not just non-laboring shareholders)
Divlab Bureaucracy + Odonian Revivalism = ?
This is where Odonianism can thus REALLY begin, according to Shevek, with shared pain. Not just naive idealism. Where it ends remains to be seen.
First of all, I want to thank Jared for the read along (and for all the content you put out). I had been meaning to read The Dispossessed for some time but it was this read along what eventually turned potency into action.
I loved the book. It, along with these posts and people's comments, has stirred up in me many thoughts and questions.
I would like to share two that stood out to me.
First, the threats to individual initiative and their inevitability. As you pointed out, the last chapters of the book show how Anarresti society has ended up stifling individual agency. How this happens without a formal hierarchy is a whole other, fascinating topic. Although it's less surprising, we also see individuality repressed in Urras, albeit in a different way: people are simply elements of the State or they are constrained by economic factors or they are coerced by military force.
I read this as Le Guin showing us how fragile individual agency can be, regardless of the political system in place. I wonder if, however, she is also implying that an anarchist society like Anarres is still much better suited to allow for individual initiative - as long as its members stay vigilant and courageous, and environmental crises are reduced to a minimum.
Secondly, suffering as the basis of brotherhood. Shevek mentions this explicitly before leaving the Regional Institute earlier in the book. The topic comes up repeatedly, more or less subtly. That suffering is inevitable for all of us strikes me as both a bleak truth and a hopeful message. Maybe it's less political than other themes explored in the book, but it really stuck with me. I almost see it as a way of looking at the world with certain compassion. Where in Le Guin's philosophy is this coming from and how does it tie to the broader political and social themes?
Of course, there are many other thought-provoking points in the book: language, relationships, science as a common or private good, and the interplay between environmental and social wellbeing. They will surely linger in my head for a while.
PS: what are we to make of the slightly Deus Ex Machina intervention of the Hainish / Terrans to allow Shevek to return home?
I don't interpret so much as a deus ex machina. We know they are in A-Io, and we can see how this goes: Shevek seeks asylum, broadcasts his equations, and now there's no point in keeping him on the planet. The Urassti governments are probably happy to see him leave.
I do think, overall, Le Guin is sympathetic to anarchists in a way she is not toward capitalists. Just speculating, I think she might say that while the anarchic society may suffer from problems in implementation, it is beautiful in spirit, while the propertarian societies are ugly in spirit and in implementation.
This book always makes me meditate on individual initiative and where I place it in my overall system of values.
This book also made me think about individual initiative, but left me wondering what sort of society allows it to flourish best. A minor quibble, perhaps but people like Sabul and the structures that enable them are not unique to anarchy -- person experience in our corporate structures taught me that.
The other thing I'd like to say here is that propertarian society may be ugly in spirit and implementation, they are physically very attractive: Keng thought so ("It is the world that comes as close as any could to Paradise") and Shevek's great comparison of Urras to a beautiful box. At least with Anarres you see what you get.
"I wonder if, however, she is also implying that an anarchist society like Anarres is still much better suited to allow for individual initiative..."
To me LeGuin implied both forms of government were ill-suited for truly innovative thinkers. Here I'm thinking about Shevek's problems with Sabul as he's trying to get his work published, as well as Tirin's plight.
Similarly, what I also thought was also implied was that fine arts -- or really, the fine artist -- wasn't appreciated on Anarres but craftsmanship and the craftsman were. On Urras they were appreciated as long as there was a buyer or patron (I need to go back to the book to get more details; sorry, I'm traveling and don't have it with me).
I share your view that this is the best science fiction, though it is her second-best work. Nothing compares to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" for its spare power, eschewing everything and just driving a hammer into our ethical conscience.
Finished, a bit late, but still got to the end. This book has already become a favorite and I can't wait to read it again.
Tirin's journey is heartbreaking, would it have been better on Urras? Perhaps, he'd be able to produce his play and gain recognition, but at what cost, what would he have to sacrifice that he doesn't have to on Anarres?
I haven’t read all the posts. Has there been any discussion of the title? What all does “dispossessed” refer to? And how might that frame a reading of the book? Refers to multiple things, to be sure. The Anarresti have dispossessed themselves of their home planet and of most possessions; they denounce the “propertarians” and the need for/naturalness of property. But the book also more than suggests that they have dispossessed themselves, to some degree, of really important things: creativity, the work that one might want to do rather than the work that needs to be done, family bonds, of “difference,” and kinds of freedom.
PS: Here’s a link to a YouTube video in which Kim Stanley Robinson (one of my favorite science fiction writers—loved the generation starship novel “Aurora”; also “2312,” and that baggy monster of a novel “Ministry for the Future”) talks briefly about the difference between his leftism and Le Guin’s, about the anarchism of “The Dispossessed” and how anarchism can mean “no ruler” or “no rules.” There’s a difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atf7wvPmhjo
Thank you for this read-along, which prompted me to finally move The Dispossessed from my "need to read" list to my "read it once" list. Now it's on my "need to re-read" list.
I am at work so I don’t have my copy on me to pull the exact quotes, but reading this so soon after The Human Condition I was very struck by how Shevek’s account of what loyalty or promise does in terms of time (which is of course germane in his discussion of the ansible) exactly mimics Arendt’s accounting of what a promise or a contract does in her work on action — ie a way of linking the past, present and future with each other. I was really moved by both accounts of loyalty and promise as fundamentally temporal phenomenons instead of abstract or moral ones.
I felt that themes from The Human Condition kept popping up too!
I have an edition of More’s “Utopia” (published by Verso, 2016) that includes four essays by Le Guin as a kind of afterword (the intro is by China Miéville). Two of these are explicitly about utopias. Here is an excerpt from one of those, “A Non-Euclidean View of California as a Cold Place to Be”:
“Utopia is the application of man’s reason and his will to the myth (of the Golden Age), man’s effort to work out imaginatively what happens—or might happen—when the primal longings embodied in the myth confront the principle of reality. In this effort man no longer dreams of a divine state in some remote time: he assumes the role of creator. // Now, the Golden Age, or Dream Time, is remote only from the rational mind. It is not accessible to Euclidean reason; but on the evidence of all myth and mysticism, and the assurance of every participatory religion, it is, to those with the gift or discipline to perceive it, right here, right now. Whereas it is of the very essence of the rational or Jovian utopia that is it _not_ here and _not_ now. It is made by the reaction of will and reason against, away from, the here-and-now, and it is, as More said in naming it, nowhere. It is pure structure without content; pure model; goal. That is its virtue. Utopia is uninhabitable. As soon as we reach it, it ceases to be utopia.”
In a new note to this essay, Le Guin asks, “Is it possible to write a utopia, now, that isn’t in the old science-fiction mode, a mere technofix?” and seems to offer her later novel “Always Coming Home” as an attempt at that. “The society there described, aware of its shaky foundations, is less assertive, more introverted than the classic utopian societies, more yin than yang. It draws its inspiration from Lao Tzu as much as from Thomas More. Still, it is an early attempt to carry the great utopian project More began into a new world, beyond the conventions and limitations of the old.”
"It was our purpose all along—our Syndicate, this journey of mine—to shake up things, to stir
up, to break some habits, to make people ask questions." This theme has been on my mind lately: the questioning of institutions when they have drifted away from their original values, and whether we have a responsibility to shake things up and make people ask questions. We don't see the aftermath of this to see what Le Guin felt, but I got to think strong societies can survive these stirrings-up.
Very telling that the first line of the book reads: "There was a wall."
I like especially the next para, "Like all walls it was ambiguous, two-faced. What was inside it and what was outside it depended upon which side of it you were on."
The (former?) Odonians let bureaucratic inertia take over and build a wall around themselves. The mob mentality we see at the end, where they cast Shevek (and his family, like real rabid witch-hunters) out of the walls. But it depends - was Shevek walled into a social prison, or was he walled out from society? It's of course sort of both as some people took pleasure in gawking at and humiliating Sadik, keeping her around just to torture (prison) whereas Shevek and Takver are just ignored (cast out).
**changing gears, thought experiment based on a point in the essay**
You make a point here about the battle stories from the drought "There’s a kind of pride to them that’s premised on shared pain." This goes back to some of Shevek's remarks at the end of Chapter 2. There's a heated debate on suffering and mutual aid meant to prevent suffering, what did Odo want etc. And it ends with this exchange:
"What have you left, then? Isolation and despair! You're denying brotherhood, Shevek!" the tall girl cried.
"No-no, I'm not. I'm trying to say what I think brotherhood really is. It begins-it begins in shared pain."
"Then where does it end?"
"I don't know. I don't know yet."
The battle stories are the human connection that might have been lost at the expense of the bureaucracy (i.e. nobody reminisces about all the greatness of divlab!) and form the basis for re-igniting Odonianism. It takes time for that to happen but we have to assume that Shevek's return (and perhaps the counsel of a Hain whose culture has done just about everything except anarchism) are the spark. There's no indication they'll start from ground zero, but rather take what Anarres is when they land. It's sort of Hegelian:
Odonianism + Emergency = Divlab Bureaucracy (the bureaucracy thinks itself Odonian of course, as it's benefiting everybody not just non-laboring shareholders)
Divlab Bureaucracy + Odonian Revivalism = ?
This is where Odonianism can thus REALLY begin, according to Shevek, with shared pain. Not just naive idealism. Where it ends remains to be seen.
First of all, I want to thank Jared for the read along (and for all the content you put out). I had been meaning to read The Dispossessed for some time but it was this read along what eventually turned potency into action.
I loved the book. It, along with these posts and people's comments, has stirred up in me many thoughts and questions.
I would like to share two that stood out to me.
First, the threats to individual initiative and their inevitability. As you pointed out, the last chapters of the book show how Anarresti society has ended up stifling individual agency. How this happens without a formal hierarchy is a whole other, fascinating topic. Although it's less surprising, we also see individuality repressed in Urras, albeit in a different way: people are simply elements of the State or they are constrained by economic factors or they are coerced by military force.
I read this as Le Guin showing us how fragile individual agency can be, regardless of the political system in place. I wonder if, however, she is also implying that an anarchist society like Anarres is still much better suited to allow for individual initiative - as long as its members stay vigilant and courageous, and environmental crises are reduced to a minimum.
Secondly, suffering as the basis of brotherhood. Shevek mentions this explicitly before leaving the Regional Institute earlier in the book. The topic comes up repeatedly, more or less subtly. That suffering is inevitable for all of us strikes me as both a bleak truth and a hopeful message. Maybe it's less political than other themes explored in the book, but it really stuck with me. I almost see it as a way of looking at the world with certain compassion. Where in Le Guin's philosophy is this coming from and how does it tie to the broader political and social themes?
Of course, there are many other thought-provoking points in the book: language, relationships, science as a common or private good, and the interplay between environmental and social wellbeing. They will surely linger in my head for a while.
PS: what are we to make of the slightly Deus Ex Machina intervention of the Hainish / Terrans to allow Shevek to return home?
I don't interpret so much as a deus ex machina. We know they are in A-Io, and we can see how this goes: Shevek seeks asylum, broadcasts his equations, and now there's no point in keeping him on the planet. The Urassti governments are probably happy to see him leave.
I do think, overall, Le Guin is sympathetic to anarchists in a way she is not toward capitalists. Just speculating, I think she might say that while the anarchic society may suffer from problems in implementation, it is beautiful in spirit, while the propertarian societies are ugly in spirit and in implementation.
This book always makes me meditate on individual initiative and where I place it in my overall system of values.
This book also made me think about individual initiative, but left me wondering what sort of society allows it to flourish best. A minor quibble, perhaps but people like Sabul and the structures that enable them are not unique to anarchy -- person experience in our corporate structures taught me that.
The other thing I'd like to say here is that propertarian society may be ugly in spirit and implementation, they are physically very attractive: Keng thought so ("It is the world that comes as close as any could to Paradise") and Shevek's great comparison of Urras to a beautiful box. At least with Anarres you see what you get.
"I wonder if, however, she is also implying that an anarchist society like Anarres is still much better suited to allow for individual initiative..."
To me LeGuin implied both forms of government were ill-suited for truly innovative thinkers. Here I'm thinking about Shevek's problems with Sabul as he's trying to get his work published, as well as Tirin's plight.
Similarly, what I also thought was also implied was that fine arts -- or really, the fine artist -- wasn't appreciated on Anarres but craftsmanship and the craftsman were. On Urras they were appreciated as long as there was a buyer or patron (I need to go back to the book to get more details; sorry, I'm traveling and don't have it with me).
> The Urassti governments are probably happy to see him leave
This is a very good point. They probably don’t really want him.
It’s interesting to compare spirit vs reality of both anarchy and capitalism. I hadn’t thought of it that way!
I wonder how the type of society we live in influences our value system regarding individual initiative. Definitely a lot of meditate on.
Thanks again Jared, this was great!
I share your view that this is the best science fiction, though it is her second-best work. Nothing compares to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" for its spare power, eschewing everything and just driving a hammer into our ethical conscience.
The name of a period with very little rain is "drought". "Draught" is the UK spelling of "draft".
Fixed!
Finished, a bit late, but still got to the end. This book has already become a favorite and I can't wait to read it again.
Tirin's journey is heartbreaking, would it have been better on Urras? Perhaps, he'd be able to produce his play and gain recognition, but at what cost, what would he have to sacrifice that he doesn't have to on Anarres?
I haven’t read all the posts. Has there been any discussion of the title? What all does “dispossessed” refer to? And how might that frame a reading of the book? Refers to multiple things, to be sure. The Anarresti have dispossessed themselves of their home planet and of most possessions; they denounce the “propertarians” and the need for/naturalness of property. But the book also more than suggests that they have dispossessed themselves, to some degree, of really important things: creativity, the work that one might want to do rather than the work that needs to be done, family bonds, of “difference,” and kinds of freedom.
PS: Here’s a link to a YouTube video in which Kim Stanley Robinson (one of my favorite science fiction writers—loved the generation starship novel “Aurora”; also “2312,” and that baggy monster of a novel “Ministry for the Future”) talks briefly about the difference between his leftism and Le Guin’s, about the anarchism of “The Dispossessed” and how anarchism can mean “no ruler” or “no rules.” There’s a difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atf7wvPmhjo
Really enjoyed the read along :)