Cynthia Cleveland

Utopias Blended

Utopian fictions are quite often thought of as boring texts. After all, the idea of the utopia is the perfect world, and if the world were perfect there would be no conflict. And conflict, above all else, is the necessary action that we need to engage in a good bit of storytelling. Texts such as Thomas More’s Utopia are educational, yes, but lack the necessary conflict that creates a strong connection between the story and the reader. Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Anthem by Ayn Rand are both considered utopias, and yet they possess slightly more entertainment value because they are disrupted utopias, with a secret dystopia lying in wait. There is the conflict necessary to elevate a story beyond simply the means of educating into the territory of entertaining. Conversely, there is The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin and Oryx and Crake and The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, which combine elements of utopia and dystopia to create a more complex and overall entertaining stories. This prompts the reader to consider then, are utopias truly boring? The answer to that question is immensely complex, since we come to understand that no utopia is truly a utopia. We learn that there is conflict everywhere we look and an inevitable necessity to creating something worth reading or even caring about. More specifically, a utopia is never just a utopia, it must combine elements of other genres to make the reader care and invest their time into the world spread before them.

Thomas More’s Utopia is presented to the reader via the Socratic dialogue, which educates, but overall does not hold a great deal of entertainment value required to prompt the reader to fully invest in its dialogue. At no point is the reader fully immersed into the story, rather we hear it from a third-party observer. Overall, it is the closest one may come to observing a truly utopian story. However, the composition and method of exchange of the text makes it easy for the audience to become alienated from the ideologies that lie within. Simply put, it does not entertain the masses and rather could be considered a niche read. Herland and Anthem elevate this genre to something more palatable by combining elements of dystopia to the existing utopia in order to create conflict. Without conflict, it simply reads as More’s Utopia in which we get the general facts and daily life of the Utopians, but we don’t see how they interact. It makes the story less relatable.

          Relatability is necessary to belief in the fiction that one reads; otherwise it’s just a story. The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin is easily relatable and delves into several genres to make its point. The novel itself is easily considered to be primarily dystopian, though there are utopian ideals present. The novel itself is subtitled An Ambiguous Utopia, which implies that although we see this world as dystopic, it is in fact utopic. The Anarresti live in a society in which true equality has been reached and each person is free to do as they wish, so long as it does not breach the social contract they have established with one another. Of course, the reader quickly realizes that this is not a true utopia because of the environment in which they live—resources are scarce, and starvation is a real concern. In this way, we come to understand that a utopia doesn’t necessarily have to be a real place, but it can be a state of mind. Margaret Atwood’s chapter “Ustopia” from her book Dire Cartographies shares this sentiment as she points out that utopias may be hidden within dystopias, as evidenced by the “antique glass paperweight and a little woodland glade beside a stream.” in George Orwell’s 1984 (86). It is imbued with the meaning prescribed to it, to put it more simply.

          This idea then shows that it is precisely this meaning that we prescribe to such things that make a utopia or a dystopia more relatable, and consequently more portable. The utopia of The Dispossessed lies within Shevek and his romantic quest to bring the worlds, Urras and Anarres, into a communal space. Of course, this story simply wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining without the element of the romance genre to bind the reader to the main character, who possesses those utopian ideals. It is precisely his internal conflict that drives the story forward and makes the reader care about unity and solidarity of the species. Shevek diverges from the expectations of the society in which he is part of, but also is repulsed by the society he is alien to. However, throughout the novel one becomes acquainted with his reasoning that, if combined, and if they were able to exist peacefully, there is the possibility of a true utopia. Thus, the utopia within this story lies within Shevek and his romantic quest for unity.

          This idea that utopia is a state of mind is also echoed in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, in which the reader is hard pressed to find utopia in the physical sense. Rather, the utopia exists within the mind of Offred, whose utopia is contained in the memory of her husband and her child. Though, this novel does not offer the reader a romantic quest, as Offred is overwhelmingly powerless against the forces which oppress her, it is most certainly speculative fiction. The narrator takes the back seat and gives the reader a mostly passive observance of her daily life, intermittently interrupted by memories of the world before. The comparisons drawn between these two lives, that of the narrator, who is never directly named, and that of Offred, cements its place in speculative fiction. Without knowing the world before, the reader is wholly unable to take a firm stance on the world they are being shown. What makes this speculative fiction by definition is its ability to construct full and believable characters, which are grounded in a world we know that has, quite believably, descended into tyrannical and extremist rule. The descent of the United States into Gilead follows a logical series of events that could very well happen in our world. This is precisely what makes the novel so effective: the possibility that something like this could occur, and the humanist perspective of Offred and her life before. 

          Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood runs in a similar vein of speculative fiction, but also delves into science fiction to offer a differing perspective on the world at large. In this, the tyrannical rule of the land isn’t a religious faction, but pharmaceutical corporations. The world is being degraded by genetic modifications, and obsession with immortality and self-correction via medications. The society that Jimmy lives within is so alienated from the concept of what makes them human that child pornography, and snuff sites are common entertainment—even commercialized for profit. This obsessive need for perfection and immortality that drives his society is dehumanizing and becomes the downfall of the human race. All of this enabled by the corporations who essentially run the world without consequence. Like Offred, Jimmy/Snowman is mostly a passive observer, who is only given agency after the world has ended, and we get his reflections of the events that caused the flood. Through this telling of the tale, through Snowman’s reflections, we come to understand that his utopia lies in words. During the times that he is alone, he is constantly meditating on words at random. What makes this story a utopia overall however is the possibility that the author introduces at the end. Snowman is a man of words, that is his utopia, and for most of his life he has been unable to relate to others because of his artificial society, so the possibility of other humans after he has been alone for so long becomes the possibility of a utopia in his mind. One in which he would not be alone and would have someone with which to share his words.

          All of these novels combine several different genres of fiction to create believable and relatable worlds. A utopia without a blending of genres essentially removes its ability to draw a reader in and more readily absorb the ideals that the piece is attempting to convey. That doesn’t make them any less informative, but it certainly makes them less attractive. The Dispossessed offers the reader a romantic quest to find meaning and unity in imperfect worlds, through a man who sees the hypocrisy in it all, which mimics many of our own sentiments as human beings. The Handmaid’s Tale confronts us with the possibility of overreaction and moral relativity when confronted with the possible extinction of the human race, all while endearing us to a particular character’s perspective. Oryx and Crake does this as well but offers a differing perspective on our connection with one another as human beings, and how dangerously close we are to dissolving that. They are entertaining while also accomplishing the task of being thought provoking and engaging the reader in a dialogue.

Utopias and Western Civilization: An Idea by Any Other Name

The idea of a utopia has always had a certain appeal to me. I have often wondered what it would be like to live life simply; only working for what you need, never having to feel overworked and living in relative peace within a bonded community. Of course, this is all a wonderful dream, as it is much easier to write about a utopia than it is to physically create one. Over past few months we have discussed many attempts to actualize a utopia, but most of them have failed. It is clear that western culture has a fascination with the idea of utopias, but also possess a staunch abhorrence to some of its founding ideals, i.e. communism and socialism, as they are known in our society. It seems then that we are at a crossroads of desire: to live in a free and equal society, but without systems of tyrannical power—such as has never before existed successfully.

History has certainly provided us with many examples of why such ideals are threatening to us. North Korea, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, etc. have all taught us that such ideals lead to tyrannical leaders who commit awful acts of human atrocities. Thus, these types of ideals are viewed negatively. My second research post discussed North Korea specifically as being a utopia of sorts, which by definition, it is, but not to the outside perspective. This type of utopia is similar to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale in which the Commander states “what is better for some is not better for all.” This particular insight into such a society is particularly enlightening because of the truth that rings within. Although this society is functioning on the principles of basic socialism, it is not beneficial to everyone. And of course, historically this has been the case; there have always been issues of factions, classes, all of which favor the rich over the poor. North Korea is certainly a utopia to someone, but the question is to whom? Otherwise, it would seem reasonably impossible that such a society would exist at all if there were no beneficiaries. This perhaps is where the real fear stems from, the perceived inevitable inequity.

 On a smaller scale, intentional communities, have had some success with those who are free-spirited enough to take the journey. Although, these little slices of heaven aren’t without their drawbacks. The idea that “it doesn’t work” in this case is largely due to the fact that these utopias are attempting to operate outside of the world of capitalism, but that is impossible due to their location. They are often located with capitalist-centric societies and are therefore subject to those principles whether they identify with them or not. Class discussions on this topic were particularly interesting, because of that factor. Location matters. Part of those discussions centered around how those communities made it work and what went wrong. All of these communities shared a common downfall: simple economics. Basically, they still had to pay for the land they were occupying and for the resources they could not provide for themselves. Despite all attempts at self-sufficiency, it all came back to money. Contrast this to the hidden world of Herland and one can see that the reason this society is able to function is because they are completely isolated and unknown. The land belongs to them and there is no outside government to which they are beholden.

However, simple economics isn’t the only reason these mini utopias have failed, it has also been exactly what we’ve always feared would happen: the rule of tyranny. Though, these types of communities are rare, their existence is often a subject of fascination and the subsequent stories circulated around them inspire fear and distaste. As I mentioned in my first research post, the Rajneesh Purham that was established in Oregon was exactly that. What started as a religious commune that prided itself on complete and total freedom and acceptance, quickly escalated into a militia fighting against the economic ruin that I discussed afflicts so many intentional communities. Originally it began as an attempt to incorporate their town as a way to offset the economic hardships pressed upon the community, but it quickly took a wrong turn once the Rajneeshees poisoned over 700 people in a nearby town with Salmonella in an attempt to force their agenda. This is the type of community that people fear and hold much more easily in their memory. It serves as a very real example of what could go wrong, and thus contaminates that image of an attainable utopia.

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood is a good example of how these types of communities can go wrong. Crake has a very real, often harsh and cold, understanding of what is wrong with the world, and precisely how that must be remedied. Crake becomes a tyrannical figure in this way, because he takes matters into his own hands to create a utopia, for the common good, whether we like it or not. The difference here is that Crake created a whole new species of people in order to do it, a species that can live in harmony with its environment and creates virtually zero negative impact. It was all for the common good, and surely had good intentions, but it left some of the most fundamental principles by the wayside: the importance of the people and the community.

As I have discussed, historically utopias have been failures in practice, both on small and large scales. Those that do exist are threatened, or if thriving, we see them under the repressive regimes of socialism and capitalism. Thus, to us in practice it carries a certain negative connotation and prompts the idea that “it doesn’t work”, because so far, it hasn’t. However, those smaller intentional communities that still exist are virtually unknown by modern society, such as Twin Oaks, while those who have been catastrophic failures, such as the Rajneesh Purham, are more well known. We have a tendency to propagate fear in that way, which outweighs the examples of good that are present, such as the Twin Oaks commune. However, these intentional communities are hard-pressed to find any long-term foothold within our society primarily due to economic reasons, which means that realistically we would have to find an undiscovered island or start re-thinking our system. And part of that re-thinking would have to involve our fear of socialist and communist ideals.

Apathy and Utopias

The last few utopian novels we have read have all had a common and unifying theme: love. Or if we were to put it more concretely within the genre of the utopian/dystopian fictions we would recognize it more as nature versus nurture. Either way you define this theme, each novel presents us with this duality of love and apathy. Many of the essays I found primarily engage with Oryx and Crake, which is able to stand alone in terms of this theme, but it is a common trait within the utopian and dystopian genre. Love is always the element that is able to bend the will and hearts of others, so it is interesting to examine a society that seems so out of touch with that basic intrinsic instinct; but the benefit is that the lack thereof is effective in addressing common problems within our own society.

          Oryx and Crake presents the reader with exactly this scenario concerning the absence of love and a tendency towards apathy regarding other human beings. Joseph Bernard’s essay “The ‘U’ in Utopia” addresses this idea directly by comparing the character of Snowman to characters of Herland and Ecotopia. In Snowman’s world, his childhood is bereft of love and as a result he is unable to form long-term meaningful relationships, with the exception of Crake, who finds himself in a similar position. What this tells us about Atwood’s world is how important love and human connection are to a thriving society. Much as Bernard points out that it is only through community, or the acceptance of a community, one is able to find love. For Snowman, that is Crake and Oryx, though Snowman finds scant reciprocation. Even Oryx, whom Snowman cares for deeply, seems aloof and apathetic, often citing that the past is irrelevant. However, simply living in the moment is disaffecting in itself, since it implies that it is the only thing that matters in a world rife with tragedy and questionable morals.

          However, it is not only through these relationships that Snowman shakily forms that shows us how dangerously close this world is to entire disaffection, but the way of the world itself. Jessica Myers’s essay “The Human Element” does well in addressing the external elements that perpetuate such a state of mind. Myers returns to Atwood’s concept of “Ustopia” to give the reader further guidance within the arena of the mind, because it “addresses the problem of human selfishness.” This idea of human selfishness is important to this theme of love that runs throughout the many novels we have read, which is evidenced by the vast number of pharmaceuticals and the “flood” that wipes out the entire human race. All of the destruction that is brought upon the human race comes from a place of selfishness and extreme insecurity. People seem to have little connection to one another, which is evidenced by the unethical scientific experiments they perform on people without regard to their safety or mortality. So, for the sake of vanity and the possibility of immortality, people destroy themselves from within, with corporations all too happy to absorb the profits.

          In a world that is missing love, then what matters? Lori Wheeler’s essay “Oryx and Crake: Disproving Utopia” demonstrates the necessity of creating such a duality in Atwood’s world and characters by labeling it as a literature of ideas that is able to embody the utopian and dystopian genres. I think this analysis is pretty spot on since, as Wheeler points out, Atwood gives us the perspective of the Utopia and the Dystopia by creating a duality of characters, i.e. Jimmy/Snowman, Glenn/Crake, etc. that is able to give us the perspective of each. We see the Utopia, that is Crake’s creation of a new species of people that is ecologically friendly and peaceful. The dystopia is the world they live in, and unfortunately, the world that Snowman is left to inhabit, where he is an outsider. Snowman has no love and no one to love. He has no community and no attachment to the world anymore. Above all, this tells us that life is not life without love and connection. This is where Atwood’s novel presses into the literature of ideas, in that we can create a perfect world that functions flawlessly, but without love and connection none of it matters.

          Atwood’s novel emphasizes heavily how important love and connection are in our world and in relation to one another. The world that Atwood has created is disaffected and selfish. People are going bankrupt for the false hopes of youth and immortality, subjecting themselves to harmful research. Jimmy and Glenn are byproducts of a world that holds few ethical lines. Crake’s creations are a reaction to the apathy of the world around him; apathy towards others, apathy towards the environment. The Crakers themselves seem to be apathetic beings by design, but they at least have a community where love is possible and even begins to shine through towards the end. This novel blends several genres to achieve a literature of ideas that center on the focus of love and connection, which is sadly something we struggle with today. It becomes speculative because it possesses the possibility of engaging in such depths of apathy that we very could start to see each other as just an ‘other’ which has nothing to do with ourselves. This is hardly uncommon in our modern society as technology has made it easier to dehumanize one another, and that is where the danger lies.