The Dispossessed
Looking Backward
Ursula K. Leguin
Edward Bellamy
Though written almost a century apart, both
The Dispossessed and
Looking Backward offer views of a potential utopia derived from current society. Both our protagonists, Shevek from Anarras and Julian West from 1887, are taken from one world and dropped in the other, forced to learn, through interaction, the startling differences between the worlds. The ends of portraying a possible future utopia are similar, but the shape of each respective world is shaped by very different systems, anarchy and socialism.
In
The Dispossessed Shevek is from the planet Anarres, a stellar rarity, who shares space on her orbit with a sister-plant, Urras. Shevek's progeny were the descendants of a revolutionary group of anarchists, who came close to overthrowing the feudal power structure on Urras. They were on the brink of fullout civil war when their leader Odo bartered an agreement of peace and mutual isolation if all Odonians abandoned Urras for her less hospitable sister, Anarres. Over 200 years later, Urras' population has steadily grown, eking out existence on the mostly desert planet, and managing to develop a highly complex and technological anarchist society. Their are no laws and the harshest swear words are profiteer and propertarian. Property, as such, does not exist, nor money, and the pronoun 'my' is almost never used. Life is peaceful and rewarding for the most part, though our main character Shevek finds dissatisfaction with what he sees as beauracracy happening in his own profession. He is the world's leading physicist and eventually settles in the largest city on Anarres to study and work. Here, however he meets opposition in the form of the current head of his department, whose rigidity doesn't allow Shevek to explore his ideas freely. He is given alien (from Urras and beyond) papers to read, and through them begins to piece together a truly revolutionary theory that could reshape physics entirely. Denied his freedom by his own peers, Shevek smuggles pieces of his theory onboard the rocket that comes once a month from Urras. When the replies arrive, Shevek finds that his true mental peers live on different planets. In an attempt to put some spark back into his people's anarchistic thoughts and to disseminate his own theory, Shevek does the one act that is not done, he boards the ship to Urras.
The remainder of the plot focuses on Shevek as he tries to understand and live within the capitalist culture. He taken in by one of the large governments and slowly comes to realize that he is little more than a de facto prisoner. He is allowed to see only the happy side of life; his days are filled with intelligent conversation and his nights with lush extravaganza. One day he finds a slip of paper in his jacket pocket that leads him ultimately to the headquarters of the resistance. Here he finds what he was looking for, fellow Odonians still working against the system, and also for the first time sees the other half of society that he had been carefully kept away from, the poverty, disease, and death. He becomes a tokenhead leader of their rage as they begin to riot and are shot down on all sides. He escapes by hiding and fleeing, is eventually rescued by an alien ship, and returns home with lessons learned and a deep new appreciation for his own idealistic culture.
Looking Backward presents its utopia in a reverse order. Dr. Julian West is from our world circa. 1850. He is a well-off man in living in Boston. His main concerns are his upcoming wedding and how the current labor crisis is threatening its happening. He has taken to using a doctor to induce a meditative trance, that he may rest without these worries. After one such night he awakens to find that he has slept over 100 years, from 1887 to 2000. During his slumber, the world has transformed it self from a struggling capitalist economy to a socialist utopia. The majority of the book features Dr. West conversing with Dr. Leete, his rescuer who happened upon his sleeping body (the mechanics of this miraculous preservation are dubious, but not especially important to the plot) while digging in his backyard. Through their discussions we learn of how an almost silent revolution took place half a century or more past that led to the concentration of the means of production by a central power.
In 2000, like on Urras, there is no money as such. Every person is given an equal share of the country's worth every year that they may use how they wish (the catch is that it is not carried over year to year, either use it or it returns to the federal coffers). Because of increased efficiency of the system (there is no longer competition or repetition between multiple companies striving for the same market-niche) the wealth of the nation is great an everybody has plenty of credit to live well and varied lives. War is out of fashion, as almost all other countries have seen the light and function as our own. Every person is educated until 21, and then they enter the workforce until 45. Occupations are determined first by need, and then by skill and desire to perform the task. Rank is acquired through hard work and great skill at your job, though this doesn't inspire the back-stabbing tactics of our culture because one's rank has nothing to do with income or survival. Leaders of each trade are chosen by vote of those retired from that profession (ie.: retired doctors vote on who shall lead the doctor's trade). Mr. West is continually astounded by these feats of organizational and social efficiency and eventually realizes what a blessing it is that he may live the rest of his life under these conditions.
Reading these two books side-by-side was a strange experience. First of all I hadn't known that they were both about utopias and had only got Looking Backward as a last minute gift from Emily (the Dispossessed was reccomended by Holly). Secondly I was surprised to discover how similar these alternate versions of utopia were, when there governing systems (or lack thereof) are so dissimilar. Money, it seems, is very close to the root of all evil. It struck me that both author's were very clear about that point; accumulation of money will never lead to any form of equality. Also, the labor force was similar as well though controlled differently. On Anarres, children were educated until they decided they wanted to work at something, at which point they would consult with the central computer and would be given job listings (which of cource they could follow or not as they chose). In 2000, again everyone is first fully educated and then is assigned work that best suits their aptitude (again subject to needs and availability). The point is that educated and well-compensated people will want to work, and will naturally select disparate professions based on their personal desires. In both works, war is a thing of the past, the principle here is that if everybody is equal there is nothing to fight about, and the recognition of how truly wasteful it is of human talent, efficiency, and lives. Yet, for all their similarities, the core of each respective society is different.
The problem with contrasting utopian societies is that they are utopian. Somehow the prevailing system has done away with all the trappings of reality and become ideal; under utopian circumstances the applicability of each system is hard to determine. Personally, I find anarchism the more appealing of the two. Personal freedom reigns supreme, no one tells anyone else what to do (though if enough people don't like what you're doing they're free to stop you). There is no property, to the point that a child doesn't say my mother or father but rather just mother or father, and in fact can address anyone they want to in that manner. The problem though is: would work actually get done? In a technological society work must be organized, efficient, and timely, if no one
has to do anything, will they do anything? I hate to admit, that while I believe in the ideals, the practicality escpaes me, especially in any sense related to changing our current mess into something like anarchist utopia. I have the same conflicts with socialism. The goals of equality, efficiency, and brotherhood are great, but actually getting there is a feat. I like the idea that everybody, no matter their profession, is compensated equally. The common argument against this is that no one would want to do hard work then. The solution lies though in how hard is defined. Take one of our high-paying jobs, say doctor, and compare it to a low-paying job, say janitor, and ask yourself which one you would rather do. The doctor must be highly educated, store vast quantities of information, and face intensely challenging moments. The sales clerk doesn't need much training, but this labor is tedious and physically stressing. So then, the theory goes that if the doctor were not paid more no one would do it, everyone would be a sales clerk. I just don't think this is true. First off I've met the people who are going to be doctors, and to a tee they've always wanted to be doctors not because of money but because it's what they want to do. Myself, if I could be a chemist right now and was only compensated the same as my current low-skill job, I would do it simply because that is what interests me. And that's the catch, people want to do jobs that interet them, and it shouldn't be about money but about personal satisfaction. Back to reality though, we have the transition phase which just isn't going to work, how are we going to convince the rich people to stop sitting on their hoards and to give back to the country that made them rich, and how are we going to educate the poor people we've let rot for years and years in destitution.
All in all, the point of reading these books is to find the bit of truth nesteld within, the enduring human spirit, the desire to become something better, and ideas about what humanity could be given the right circumstances. We can't ever approach paradise without having some idea of what it looks like. And, especially for those who don't aspire to find it hidden in heaven, this vision of utopia serves as the fuel which keeps us trudging along day-to-day. Though utopia may never come about in the world around us, at least it may begin to happen on a personal level within.
