The full title of Le Guin's 1974 novel reads: "The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia" and turns out to be exactly what the title suggests. This science fiction novel is also a utopia, but not as “a hopeful prescription for a near-perfect future,” but as a “critique of the inadequacies of all ideals and forms of life” (Sabia 1 ). As Sabia points out, “the most thoughtful utopias of recent decades have moved from recommendation to questioning the good, and from projection to rejection of the end of history” (Sabia 1). In his book “Demand the Impossible”, Tom Moylan calls this type of utopianism “critical utopia” and specifies: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay "A central concern of critical utopia is awareness of the limits of the utopian tradition, such that these texts reject the utopia as a model. while preserving it like a dream. Furthermore, the novels focus on the conflict between the original world and the utopian society opposed to it so that the process of social change is articulated more directly. Finally, the novels focus on the continued presence of differences and imperfection within utopian society itself and thus offer more recognizable and dynamic alternatives. (quoted in science.jrank.org) This proves perfectly applicable to "The Dispossessed", in which the utopian society of Anarres is examined in opposition to the original planet of Urras. The author herself has stated that her goal in writing this novel was to examine what she considers to be the most idealistic and interesting theory of government, namely anarchy (qtd. in Benfield 1). Le Guin does this by opposing two fictional worlds, Urras and Anarres. The main character, Shevek, a citizen of Anarres, travels to the so-called "old world" of Urras, and through his experiences the reader discovers not only a deep understanding of both planets, but also an exploration of two very different planets. political regimes. Without bias, Le Guin vividly depicts two contrasting worlds: Urras, a planet resembling present-day Earth with multiple levels of government, and Anarres, an experimental separatist society that is the embodiment of communist anarchism. These two worlds are described realistically and in great detail, which, as Le Guin herself says, makes them plausible (ursulaleguin.com). On his official website, Le Guin writes: “Probably the touchstone of plausibility in imaginative fiction is coherence. Realistic fiction can be, perhaps must be, inconsistent in imitating our perceptions of reality. Fantasy, which creates a world, must be strictly consistent on its own terms, otherwise it loses all plausibility. The rules that govern the functioning of the imagined world cannot be modified over the course of history” (ursulaleguin.com). Le Guin has truly kept the worlds of his novel coherent and true to their own laws of existence and functioning. A presentation of fictional worlds as complex as the one she offers in her novel allows readers and critics to analyze the content of the novel with the seriousness of an interpretation of the real world. The plausibility of the novel further allows for serious consideration of the ideas and philosophies presented in the book, transforming this entertainment fiction into a more philosophical work. In this short essay, I will attempt to provide a basic overview of Urras and Anarres, while also highlighting the utopian critique that is at the heart of the novel. The most obvious difference between Urras andAnarres is the political and, therefore, social organization. on both planets. From the first chapter we learn that the Anarresti, as the inhabitants of Anarres are called, originated from Urras and that they moved to the Moon, today their home planet, around 200 years before the The action of the novel takes place. Urras is a planet that geographically and politically resembles the Earth we live on. There are many different countries on the planet, people have a developed sense of nationality, each country has its own language and laws, and there are often open conflicts. What all countries have in common is what the Anarresti call "propritarianism", meaning that they developed the concept of money which, in turn, prescribes a value to all the world's goods. Society functions with the idea of ​​property, which has resulted in the existence of classes and therefore the social stratification of the population. In the past, a great revolutionary named Odo preached anarchy as the only way to achieve true freedom. His philosophy was based on the idea that all men and women were equal; she professed solidarity, decentralization of power and asserted that the perfect society is one without laws, based on mutual respect, guided by people's inner idea of ​​what is moral. As Sabia says, the good social morality that Odo spoke of might involve a small number of crucial principles: “Always value particularity and autonomy, and respect the freedom of others. Understand that all people are morally equal. Help those who need it. Never intentionally harm or take advantage of others. And contribute to society by doing “the work you can do best” and by cooperating fairly when it is mutually beneficial” (3). Odo's basic theory was based on the humanist principle that "once freed from the oppression of the state, religion and capitalism, human nature would show its essential goodness in the forms of cooperation and mutual aid” (Jaeckle 17). The second main point she makes is the renunciation of the concept of ownership – everyone should work voluntarily and therefore everyone should be free to take as much as they need from all goods produced because they have contributed equally and is therefore equally deserving. The Council of World Governments gave the moon, previously used for mining, to the International Society of Odonisians "to redeem them" after they became too powerful to be controlled or subjugated (Le Guin 77). The revolutionaries were then evacuated and transported to the Moon which would later take the name of said city and become a free world. The colonists began to create the society Odo envisioned, but without her – because she, held in prison for her ideas and then died, never got to see her vision come to life (Le Guin 77). Le Guin writes: “Decentralization had been an essential element in Odo's plans for the society she did not live to see founded” (Le Guin 77). Although communication and the exchange of material and intellectual goods were crucial to Odo's idea, "there was to be no center of control, no capital, no establishment for the self-perpetuating machinery of bureaucracy and drive for domination of individuals seeking to become captains, bosses.” , heads of state” (Le Guin 78). “Rotation of positions of authority within organizations, for example, protects against abuse and corruption of power. The absence of the State does the same” (Sabia 3). Two centuries later, we see that Anarres truly followed through on Odo's vision, maintaining order and peace by following his logic: "Formake a thief, make an owner; to create crime, create laws” (Le Guin 113). As Shevek explains to his acquaintance Urrasti, no one steals from anyone because there is no one to steal from and if one needs something, one takes it from the depot; no one kills anyone because no one has a reason to kill and people are kept in order by “private conscience” and “social conscience”; the opinion of his neighbors” (Le Guin 121). “There is no other reward on Anarres,” Shevek explains, “no other law. His own pleasure and the respect of his fellow men” (Le Guin 121). As was previously mentioned, the Urrasti are a consumerist culture. It's a concept that someone likesShevek has difficulty understanding: “He tried to read an elementary economic text; It bored him to no end, it was like listening to someone endlessly recount a long, stupid dream. He could not force himself to understand how banks, etc., worked, because all the operations of capitalism were to him as meaningless as the rites of a primitive religion, as barbaric, as elaborate and as useless. (Le Guin 106) This passage, supplemented by his comment that "in the rites of the money changers, where greed, laziness and envy were supposed to motivate all the actions of men, even the terrible became commonplace" , provides a unique critique of consumer society. , as the reader is offered a view of consumerism from a radical perspective – the perspective of someone who has never before been exposed to the idea of ​​buying and selling (Le Guin 106) . The anecdote in which Shevek is taken shopping is particularly amusing in that he later refers to the mall as a "nightmare street" and the shopping experience as "confusing" (Le Guin 106). Importantly, he states that the strangest thing about the nightmare street was that "of the millions of things sold there, not one was made there" and that all the people in the mall were either buyers , or sellers and had “only one relationship of possession with things” (Le Guin). 106). Contrary to this, on Anarres "nothing was hidden", which meant not only that people kept their doors open and only had private rooms when they had a sexual partner, but that all production took place also in the open air. (Le Guin79). “The workshops and factories overlooked open squares or courtyards and their doors were open” (Le Guin 80). “No doors were locked, a few were closed. There were no costumes or advertisements. Everything was there, all the work, all the life of the city, open to eyes and hands” (Le Guin 81). However, as idyllic as it may seem, Anarres has one big flaw in its economy, and that is the fact that the land is not perfectly suited to human life. “The Eden of Anarres turned out to be dry, cold and windy, and the rest of the planet even worse. Life there had not evolved higher than fish and flowerless plants. The air was thin, like that of Urras at very high altitude. The sun burned, the wind froze, the dust settled” (Le Guin 76). This made life in Anarres full of difficulties and the work to be done to provide the essentials very difficult. The best summary of the living conditions is the fact that in drought they do not drink water. The inhabitants of Anarres spend a large part of their lives fighting for survival and accepting positions with heavy labor. The general difficulty of life on Anarres requires each citizen to have multiple obligations within and towards society. Shevek only becomes fully aware of this when he compares himself toscientists of A-Io, whose lives are devoted solely to science and when they do not. To work, they rest, while Shevek was “not only a physicist but also an associate, a father, an Odonian and finally a social reformer” (Le Guin 103). But while the Urrasti consider themselves privileged because of the university life during which their only work is mental work in a specific chosen field, Shevek does not share their opinion. He complains that there, at the University, he has nothing to do other than his intellectual work, literally nothing since even the beds are made for them, while in Anarres he feels freer because “he had not been freed from anything; but free to do everything” (Le Guin 105). This is a great example of the difference between the Urrasti and Anarresti vision of work. This topic is further developed through Shevek's conversations with Oiie, during which they both reveal culturally conditioned views on work: Oiie distinguishes between "dirty work" and other, more pleasant professions, while that Shevek is used to everyone doing an equal share of the “dirty work”. dirty work.” Shevek explains that they all participate because no one wants to do it for too long and so everyone volunteers for a shorter period. Oiie does not understand voluntary work and the absence of notions such as orders and obligations, while for Shevek it is self-evident: people do the work willingly because they are aware that it must be done. TO DO. “After all, work is done for work’s sake,” says Shevek. “It is the lasting pleasure of life.” In contrast, for Oiie, work is directly linked to profit, with money being the only motivation for work. However, due to poor conditions at Arranes, the moon never became completely self-sufficient. The only remaining communication between Anarres and Urras over the last 200 years is that of the Urrasti cargo ships which come eight times a year to Anarres to bring fossil oils, petroleum products and some delicate machine parts that Anarresti manufacture is not not able to provide, in exchange. take reserves of uranium, copper, mercury, tin, gold and copper. The Anarresti, however, consider that it is “a perpetually renewed humiliation” (Le Guin 75). The Urrasti and Anarresti have never reconciled, both harboring prejudices about their respective cultures and maintaining a negative image of the opposing culture, even going so far as to consider each other as strangers despite belonging to the same species. Another important cultural referent is language. “Modern sociolinguists support the idea that a true understanding of language use cannot be obtained when it is abstracted from its social context” (Bruhn 1). The same can be said vice versa: no society can be truly understood if it is considered separately from its language. Guided by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Anarres is a village that acquired a new language as soon as it erected its first walls. Pravic, the invented language, “intentionally embodies the principles of the new society” (quoted in Bruhn 1). One of the most telling features of the language is the aversion to possessive pronouns (Bruhn 1). Since there is no ownership, the possessive pronouns are replaced by the expression "that I use" (i.e. Sadik offers his father "the handkerchief that I use" (Le Guin 251)). At the same time, possessive pronouns exist and can be used. but are used to mean something offensive because their entire meaning is against Odonianism. For example, Rulag refers to Shevek and Bedap's group as "your trustee» to express her disgust at what she sees as Urrasti's propriitarianism. Additionally, Pravic lacks address forms: there are no words such as "sir" or "madam"; if one is inclined to use a title other than a person's name, one uses the word ammar, which reinforces solidarity – meaning both brother or sister (Bruhn 4). As for personal names, they are generated by a computer: the computer has a database of all existing names and it chooses the name of a newborn, and this name is unique. The database includes all names supported by the Pravic language and only considers names that no one else has at the time of the child's birth, making the name of a deceased person an option only after the death of the bearer of the name. . This way, each person only has one name but is perfectly identifiable by it. Pravic lacks other titles or surnames. Generally, the absence of words for concepts that Odonianism does not tolerate is another indicator of the intentional nature of language construction. “For the Anarresti, the Iotic words ‘prison,’ ‘slave,’ ‘gamble,’ ‘morals,’ and ‘business’ are as foreign as the ideas themselves” (Bruhn 5). Additionally, Pravic is designed in such a way that the same word is used to mean both “work” and “play”. "The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis fully applies here: without linguistic distinction, the Anarresti are unlikely to succeed in forming a conceptual distinction between "work" and "play", a practical and perhaps necessary arrangement for a community economy whose existence depends on the consistent diligence of its constituents” (Bruhn 6). Furthermore, Pravic is devoid of any taboo form and borrows iotic swear words, because “it is difficult to swear when sex is not dirty and blasphemy does not exist” (Le Guin 206). This directly reflects the Odonians' attitude towards sex: it is a natural phenomenon, an act practiced by all consenting adults, without any constraints or rules regarding sex or age. In comparison, “the natural language of Iotic exhibits styles, sociolects, regional dialects, gendered language issues, and taboo words” (Bruhn 7). Iotic includes titles that show varying levels of respect, it uses possessive pronouns extensively, and has a lower dialect called Niotic. Niotic is spoken by the lower class and is phonologically and syntactically different from the upper class, standard Iotic. Efor is an example of a lower class character who codes switches, depending on who and what he is talking about. “Through the inclusion of these forms, Le Guin illustrates the consistent power structure in A-Io society, as demonstrated by their need to show deference to certain people. Shevek even notes that “you can't say hello without knowing which one of you is 'superior' to the other, or without trying to prove it (p. 364)” (Bruhn 8). The dystopian element of the novel is highlighted by the fact that both cultures are fundamentally flawed and neither version of society manages to be perfectly just. This leads us to the conclusion that corruption is in fact part of human nature. The alternating chapters which are a kind of short construction novel implemented on Shevek reveal the shortcomings of Odonianism. The criticism begins with the questionable education system that strives to indoctrinate change rather than encourage students to think for themselves – ironically, independent thinking is chastised as the worst of all crimes an Odonian can be accused: selfishness. As Bedap later emphasized: “We do not educate for freedom.Education, the most important activity of the social organism, has become rigid, moralizing and authoritarian. Children learn to repeat Odo's words as if they were laws – the ultimate blasphemy! (Le Guin 135). The flaw in the system is further explored when Shevek meets Sabul, a veteran scientist who manages to sabotage Shevek's career. Bedap claims that the fact that they have no government or laws does not make them free, because it was not the laws that controlled ideas in the first place. It is not some sort of formal, centralized power that allows Saboul to be oppressive. "Public opinion! It is the power structure of which he is part and which he knows how to use. The unacknowledged, inadmissible power which governs Odonian society by stifling the individual spirit" (Le Guin 133). Therefore, even if corruption in Anarres is not as overt as its manifestations in a proprietary society, it still exists In order to continue the work he wishes to accomplish, Shevek must enter into a relationship of mutual exploitation with Sabul, which violates the. most fundamental Odonian beliefs regarding morality (Benfield 5) Cooperation on Anarres is conditional: “This happens partly because the interests are not always compatible, and partly because the Anarresti are not always ethical. (Sabia 3 claims that Anarres was flawed from the start, threatened by centralization and ultimately becoming "a fundamentally anarchist bureaucracy" (qtd. in Sabia 5). demands for community and fairness became demands for conformity and conformity (Sabia 5). “Social conscience, the opinion of others, [has become] the most powerful moral force” (qtd. in Sabia 5). Even in a theoretically ideal society, people remain human, therefore imperfect, which will resonate throughout society and make it imperfect as well. The character of Vea is introduced to further question the very concept of freedom. Vea is the representation of the modern Urrasti woman: with her exaggerated sexuality and quick wit, she is a character that speaks volumes about the Urrasti male-female dynamic. However, she reveals much more when discussing her ideas about freedom. She considers all forms of morality to be false to the extent that they are imposed on people and defines freedom as the absence of any kind of external or internal constraint. Therefore, she accuses the Anarresti of being slaves to morality who simply “put it inside” (Benfield 3). Despite his extreme view, Vea “raises the important question of internal and external restrictions on freedom” (Benfield 3). This issue is linked to the idea that public opinion can be easily manipulated and that the Anarresti are indirectly controlled and oppressed: they have the ultimate freedom of choice, but those who choose opinions or a way of life that differ from the The opinions of the masses are excluded. society and judged by others. Much of the novel's drama focuses precisely on Shevek and his family being aggressively excluded from society due to Shevek's pursuit of his own beliefs when they do not coincide with the beliefs of the majority (Sabia 6). On the other hand, as noted above, the corruption of Urrasti society is visible on a more superficial level. The great flaws of their society are that it is money-driven and its values ​​are external and materialized rather than internal and spiritual or intellectual. Moreover, everything is seen from the angle of profit, even science, which Shevek gradually realizes: they want scientific development notnot for the purpose of understanding the universe or making a radical, mutually beneficial change in communication with other worlds, but because of profit and potential supremacy. Media manipulation of reality, misogyny, violence as a response to rebellion and ongoing wars between countries are very clear and direct examples of the dysfunctional nature of Urrasti's worldview. It is important to note that the novel was written in 1974 – during the Cold War. If one tries to draw parallels between the political state of the world in which Le Guin wrote and the world she wrote about, it is easy to spot the similarities of the conflict: in the novel, A-Io can be treated as an analogy to the United States while Thu can be considered the Soviet Union. However, it is also possible to broaden the analogy and consider the whole of Urras as the Western bloc, with Thu in this case representing the emerging opposition parties while Anarres would be considered the communist Soviet Union. The novel is inspired by another real event: the student protests against the Vietnam War. In chapter 9, the Odonians of A-Io launch a protest that ends in violence but climaxes with Shevek's speech about freedom and revolution. “The revolution is our obligation: our hope for evolution. The revolution is in the individual spirit, or it is nowhere” (Le Guin 359). Shevek further asserts: “You cannot buy the Revolution. You cannot make the Revolution. You can only be the Revolution” (301). Much like the protests against the Vietnam War, the Urras protest highlights several issues, such as human rights and freedom of expression. The Anarres Wall can also be seen as a reminiscence of the Berlin Wall. From the beginning of the novel, Le Guin presents the reader with a great wall that can be seen from two different sides: on one side, it “enclosed the universe, leaving Anarres outside, free” but “looked at from the other side” . , the wall enclosed Anarres: the entire planet was inside, a large prison camp, cut off from other worlds and other men, in quarantine” (Le Guin 3). The wall proves to be a recurring motif throughout the novel, representing both the boundaries between societies and Shevek's own boundaries when present in his dreams (Benfield 2). Shevek's entire journey turns out to be aimed at destroying the walls. “Those who build walls are their own prisoners. I'm going to go and fulfill my own function in the social organism. I will deconstruct the walls” (Le Guin 331). So, Shevek acts like a missionary who wants to bring people together on both sides of the wall. The idea of ​​connection and creating a full circle is emphasized in the ending of the novel – Shevek returns to Anarres, bringing back his experience. The sunrise that greets him creates an image of hope for the future. However, the reader is left without a proper conclusion. Even though we see the optimistic Shevek for the last time, we don't know what awaits him. Shevek will dismount on another alien world, as the Anarres he left behind no longer exists: “Shevek and the union have succeeded in their goal of shaking things up. Shevek's journey and return obviously captured the imagination of many people” (Benfield 7). Benfield warns that although the arrival of an outsider, Ketho, "suggests the possibility of further changes and more contact with other societies", it is very likely that opposition to change has hardened and organized ( Benfield 7). Given the chaos and violence that met the revolutionaries in Urras, a similar reaction can be expected.