Ursula Le Guin’s novel The Dispossessed is often assessed through an ecocritical lens and read as a utopian novel. David Landis Barnhill performs an ecocritical reading of the novel, asserting that it is “utopian and environmentally oriented” (Barnhill 7). Barnhill asserts that Uras and Anarres, while presenting certain utopian ideals, ultimately fail to completely achieve them. Hence, they are critical utopias (8). He hence reads The Dispossessed as a commentary on bioregional thought and a critique of how people in the current world can work towards ecological ideals (13). Other critics like Daniel P. Jaeckle focus on Le Guin’s depiction of anarchy in Anarresti society. Jaeckle’s writings on The Dispossessed fixate on anarchy as a fictional thought experiment exposed to “more challenges than most anarchist writers have been willing to contemplate” (Jaeckle 20). According to Jaeckle, complementarity in anarchy is central to understanding the novel, where the wholly incompatible General Temporal Theory and Anarresti anarchism are contrasted:
In the novel, the two most prominent slices of reality that require complementary interpretations are Shevek’s General Temporal Theory and his vision of anarchism on Anarres. Just as he sees Sequency and Simultaneity as complementary, so he sees individual freedom and social responsibility as the complementary manifestations of anarchy. Moreover, Shevek can comprehend anarchy in a complementary way only because his view is based on the theory of time that he has developed. Fully to understand the novel’s idea of anarchy, therefore, one must go through the General Temporal Theory.
(Jaeckle 4)
Shevek’s journey to create his General Temporal Theory is crucial in understanding the limitations of Anarresti anarchism. As he develops the theory, authorities on Anarres begin to stifle voices around him. Le Guin hence asserts that there is a power structure which controls ideas on Anarres.
We concur with Jaeckle that Shevek’s General Temporal Theory is key to understanding Le Guin’s criticisms in the novel. As such, this essay will draw heavily from the writings of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper to examine Shevek’s scientific approach. We will examine Le Guin’s depiction of scientific progress through Shevek’s attempts to prove his General Temporal Theory. I will argue that Shevek’s attempts to create a rival theory to the current scientific paradigm expose the power structures which govern Anarres. In doing so, Le Guin critiques anarchism in its unequal distribution of freedom.
Before examining Shevek’s scientific method, it is important for us to establish the importance of anarchism to Anarresti society. If we view Anarres as a thought experiment for anarchy as Jaeckle suggests, Le Guin asserts that Anarres’ brand of anarchism is the best possible solution for their planet’s given circumstances.
Her plans, however, had been based on the generous ground of Urras. On arid Anarres, the communities had to scatter widely in search of resources, and few of them could be self-supporting, no matter how they cut back their notions of what is needed for support. They cut back very hard indeed, but to a minimum beneath which they would not go; they would not regress to pre-urban, pre-technological tribalism. They knew that their anarchism was the product of a very high civilization, of a complex diversified culture, of a stable economy and a highly industrialized technology that could maintain high production and rapid transportation of goods.
(Le Guin 168)
Anarres is defined by great resource scarcity. In comparison to Urras, which is described with adjectives such as “generous”, “rich” and “extravagant” (171), Anarres is “barren, arid, and inchoate” (116), a hostile planet where life “had not evolved higher than fish and flowerless plants” (164). Urras’ ecology is much better suited to sustain human life. “arren” and “arid” suggest that Anarres lacks water, which is essential to support human life, while “inchoate” suggests a lack of developed plant life suitable for agriculture. The Anarresti would surely struggle to procure supplies, shelter, and resources.
Le Guin further highlights the harsh environmental conditions on Anarres with her depictions of their eco-sustainable habits. When examining an Urrasti toilet, Shevek notes that “the bathtub must hold sixty liters, and the stool used at least five liters in flushing No need to economize; no drought” (116). Unlike Urras, which is full of water, Anarres’ resource scarcity pushed them to “cut back very hard”, reducing their use of water. The Anarresti even filter their organic waste at “seaside communities” to reuse it for farming crops. Their refusal to waste any resource highlights the great resource scarcity. They cannot afford extravagant methods like the Urrasti due to their lack of resources. Later in the novel, Takver explains that the Anarresti are dependent on the ocean for sustenance. Animal life had failed to evolve to breathe on land (323). As such, the Anarresti were forced to conform to the planet’s “narrow ecology”, fishing sustainably to avoid a catastrophic overfishing disaster and cultivating crops using organic waste (324). The Anarresti’s emphasis on sustainable fishing stresses their food scarcity problem. They must adopt both eco-sustainable and anarchistic mindsets, the first to prevent wasting resources and the second to ensure a distribution of resources which would allow for mutual survival.
In response to the Anarres’ harsh conditions, the Anarresti adopt an anarchistic mindset: to possess nothing, to submit to no authority and hence be free. Anarres’ anarchism is born out of necessity. There are too few resources available to the general population to allow people to possess things. Their only hope for survival is to band together, “work in solidarity with his fellows” (613) and value the collective good over the individual.
Shevek’s research on his General Temporal Theory embodies the Anarresti way of anarchism and constant revolution by challenging the current Sequency Theory. At the beginning of the novel, there are two theories on time, the theory of Simultaneity and the theory of Sequency. The latter, which asserts that time “flows” in a linear fashion, is accepted as the predominant theory (384). However, Shevek challenges the existing order by developing Gvarab’s theory of Simultaneity. Simultaneity contends that time exists not in the past, present and future, but an “eternal present” (390). Shevek seeks to create a unified theory of time by reconciling both theories, leading to the creation of the General Temporal Theory.
Shevek’s development of a coherent, unified theory closely mirrors Popper’s ideas on how scientific progress is achieved. Popper argues that all scientific theories and laws are conjectural (Popper 10), that is to say, they cannot be proven to be true. As such, scientists should treat scientific theories as hypotheses which are subject to constant testing through the critical method (17). Popper’s ideas are a refutation of induction, which is a method of creating scientific conclusions through observations. Le Guin depicts this in The Dispossessed when the politician Dearri attempts to discredit Shevek’s work on Simultaneity. He asserts that Shevek’s Simultaneity Theory is false as “time passes” (384). Dearri’s statement is an example of inductive reasoning. He draws his conclusion on the linearity of time through his observations, a “positive instance” (21) upon which lies the validity of his argument. According to Popper, however, it is impossible for a scientific theory to be the absolute true. All theories are conjectural due to future empirical evidence which may contradict them (13). Like Popper, Shevek values “negative instances” rather than positive ones, which lead to him developing an alternative theory of time: “ deals with all that changes, but it cannot explain why things also endure.” (386) Shevek identifies the Sequency Theory’s inadequacy in explaining the “circle of time”, leading to him developing a new theory which does so.
Shevek’s conjectural scientific approach complies with anarchistic philosophy. We define anarchism as a philosophy which states that “the putative authority of the State is illegitimate, and therefore ought to be, ignored, resisted or undermined” (Krieger 1). While Sequency Theory is “currently respectable” in Anarresti physics, it holds no legitimate authority for Shevek. He rejects and “resists” the respected Theory of Sequency by developing a Simultaneity Theory which contradicts it. As Popper writes:
Any new theory will not only have to succeed where its refuted predecessor succeeded, but it will also have to succeed where its predecessor failed ; that is, where it was refuted. If the new theory succeeds in both, it will at any rate be more successful and therefore “better” than the old one.
(Popper 15)
Shevek claims that Anarresti society is a “permanent” and “ongoing” revolution (307). Popper’s falsification principle works in the same way as science. Where Anarresti anarchism seeks to dispute any form of authority, Shevek’s sceptical scientific approach disputes the validity of Sequency Theory. Shevek overthrows the Sequency Theory by creating his unified General Temporal Theory. He combines the proven aspects of the former theory while incorporating new ideas from Simultaneity Theory. Le Guin writes: “The idea is like grass grows better for being stepped on” (128). The phrase “stepped on” is a metaphor for Popper’s falsification. The Sequency Theory undergoes falsification as the scientists seek out “negative instances or counter-examples” to refute the theory. This approach is inherently anarchistic, as Shevek strives to dispute the current authority of the Sequency Theory and replace it with his General Temporal Theory. Doing so would imply a continuous revolution as future scientists attempt to disprove the General Temporal Theory and create their own theory, causing scientific advancement. Hence, Shevek’s “critical method” adheres to Anarresti anarchism. We observe from Popper’s writings that falsification drives scientific growth as scientists seek to disprove old theories and replace them with new ones. Anarres’ culture and society are uniquely suited to allow for falsification, as their anarchistic ideology encourages a constant revolution of ideas and provides the freedom to challenge old ideas.
In theory, freedom is complementary to Anarresti anarchism. However, it is different in practice. Le Guin’s depiction is closer to anarcho-syndicalism than communitarian anarchism. Anarres, while having no government in theory, has a central governing power in the form of the Production and Distribution Committee (PDC). In contrast to the Odonian principles of being free from state rule, Le Guin depicts the PDC restricting Anarresti freedoms. It punishes Tirin by sentencing him to many years of hard labour for staging an anti-Odonian play to uphold the dominant ideology of anarchism. Sabul, who is insinuated to have connections with the PDC and science syndicates, constantly discredits and hampers Shevek’s development of the Simultaneity Theory. He sees Shevek’s theory as a potential rival to the authority of the Sequency Theory. In addition, the PDC distributes resources in an inequitable manner many times throughout the novel. This Orwellian inequity highlights the inequality on Anarres: all Anarresti are free, but some Anarresti are freer than others, for they receive more resources, more “means to freedom” (Sen 51).
Sabul constantly impedes Shevek’s scientific progress, denying him the freedom to work on a new theory of time. Bedap, Shevek’s friend, theorises that Sabul is part of an authoritarian power structure on Anarres, having “supporters in the science syndicates and the PDC” (286). This accusation rightfully confuses Shevek: the existence of any power structure is antithetical to anarchy. However, Le Guin implies that it is true. She alludes to Sabul having a possessive nature. Before heading to Abbenay, Mitis cautions Shevek that he will be “ man” (104). Mitis’ use of the possessive apostrophe is particularly telling, as the Anarresti language, Pravic, does not contain possessive pronouns. Yet Le Guin implies that Sabul desires to possess Shevek, despite possessions being irreconcilable with Anarresti anarchism. Later, Shevek speculates that Sabul “wanted to keep the new Urrasti physics private—to own it, as a property, a source of power over his colleagues on Anarres” (192). Sabul is greatly concerned with reputation, personal gain, and status. At the beginning of the novel, Sabul even takes credit for Shevek’s work and prevents him from communicating with scientists on Urras (123) so he cannot develop his Simultaneity Theory. Although Anarresti society privileges the community over the individual, Sabul gets away with his selfish behaviour because of his connections with the central governing authority, the PDC. This refusal to put the community before the self impedes Shevek’s research as Sabul restricts him from teaching and working (288). We observe that Sabul is part of an authoritarian power structure which betrays the principles of anarchism. Shevek fails to receive the freedom that is supposed to be afforded to him with anarchy. Instead, his work is hindered and he is unable to finish his work on Simultaneity Theory.
In “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research”, Thomas Kuhn proposes the idea of the scientific paradigm, “an accepted achievement in the sense that it is received by a group whose members no longer try to rival it or to create alternates for it” (Kuhn 7). These paradigms are a framework of shared assumptions and principles through which scientists view the world (2). According to Kuhn, science texts encourage students to accept these paradigms as dogma. Unlike Popper, who posits that scientific progress is achieved through continuous falsification, Kuhn argues that theories are evaluated based on their relation to the existing scientific paradigm (20). Kuhn’s depiction of dogmatism is markedly less anarchistic than Popper’s. Where Popper privileges scepticism of existing theories and “negative instances”, Kuhn’s paradigms claim absolute authority until a “paradigm shift” replaces it (20).
Ironically, many Anarresti exhibit Kuhn’s dogmatism. At Vea’s party, Dearri states that the “arrow of time” is an “obvious fact”, to which Shevek replies that “in physics one is careful about what one calls ‘facts’.” (384) Granted, Dearri is not a scientist, but he is presumably educated by scientific texts which teach him to view the world through the lens of the paradigm. Dearri’s use of the word “fact” alludes to his absolute belief in the Sequency Theory, alluding to Kuhn’s dogmatism. In contrast, Shevek’s reluctance to use the word when discussing physics implies that theories are never absolutely true. Le Guin recalls Popper’s argument that all scientific theories are conjectural and hence hypothetical.
Sabul displays a similar dogmatism when he dismisses Simultaneity Theory, referring to it as “trash” and “crap” (182). Rather than falsify or debate the validity of the Simultaneity Theory, Sabul chooses to discredit it using derogatory metaphors. In essence, he attempts to put down any opposition to the prevailing scientific dogma “y refusing to think, refusing to change” (288). It is only fitting that Sabul, who is deeply egoistic and possessive, subscribes to the prevailing scientific dogma. These characters who uphold the dogma and discredit rival theories not only betray the principles of anarchy but deny Shevek the scientific freedom to explore and develop alternate and “better” theories.
Shevek’s attempts to challenge the prevalent scientific authority provide us with several useful observations about Anarresti society. First, we observe the hypocrisy of many Anarresti. Despite championing an anarchist mindset which disregards any absolute authority, attempts to challenge the scientific paradigm are rebuffed by people in positions of power like Sabul. Secondly, we see that there is an underlying Anarresti power structure which defends its authority over the governing of the planet. The PDC is a de facto bureaucracy and hence holds power over Anarres. When Tirin stages an anti-Odonian play, the PDC leverages its authority by assigning him to hard labour, driving him insane (297). Ironically, the PDC uses authority to uphold its belief that there should be no authority. In doing so, the anarcho-syndicalists on Anarres directly restrict Shevek’s freedom of thought and Tirin’s freedom of speech. The former prevents scientific progress. The latter prevents criticism against authority, which is ironically the core tenet of anarchism.
Joana Caetano correctly notes the PDC’s inequitable food distribution: during Anarres’ famine, Takver was given more food allowances as a mother because of her unique responsibility to stop the famine. In contrast, a woman was forced to kill her child “because she had no milk” (Caetano 9). In theory, the PDC would “all share, all half-eat or half-starve together” (441), but instead more resources are allocated to Takver because she is of a higher class. We view food as a “means to freedom (such as primary goods or resources, which help one to achieve more freedom)” (Sen 51). According to economist Amartya Sen, freedom comes with “the real opportunity that we have to accomplish what we value” (40). Privileging certain individuals with greater means of freedom than others necessarily means that some individuals will have more opportunities to achieve their aspirations than others. In Caetano’s example, Takver’s child has the freedom to grow to adulthood, whereas the woman’s child does not have the opportunity at all. In Shevek’s case, his superior, Sabul, has a much greater degree of freedom than him. He has the authority to control Shevek’s communications with Uras, simply because he is his senior with connections to the PDC and science syndicate. In this sense, the existence of any authority that is in charge of distributing resources – the means to freedom – necessitates inequity. It negates the principles of anarchism and consequently the complementary freedom that comes with it.
In conclusion, we see that Le Guin uses Shevek’s journey to create a General Temporal Theory to critique anarchism. In theory, anarchism allows cooperation and aid between the Anarresti. By refuting any putative authority, it encourages Popperian scepticism when Shevek refutes the prevalent Sequency Theory and develops a unified General Temporal Theory. In practice, however, Shevek is constantly hindered by his colleagues’ adherence to scientific dogma. Sabul ironically subscribes to the scientific authority of the Sequency Theory and constantly discredits any alternate theories. In doing so, Le Guin exposes the hypocrisy of the underlying Anarresti power structure. The PDC is a de facto bureaucracy which allocates resources inequitably. Consequently, certain individuals have more freedom than others and hence more opportunities. Hence, we see that Le Guin critiques anarchism’s failure to provide freedom through Shevek’s scientific developments.
2978 words
Works Cited
Barnhill, David Landis, and Ezra Zeitler. “Critical Utopianism and Bioregional Ecocriticism.” The Bioregional Imagination: Literature, Ecology, and Place, edited by TOM LYNCH et al., University of Georgia Press, 2012, pp. 212–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nnf7.17. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.
Caetano, Joana, et al. “‘Refectories and Dining Rooms as ‘Social Structural Joints’ : on Space, Gender and Class in Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed.’” Utopian Foodways: Critical Essays, 2019.
Jaeckle, Daniel P. “Embodied Anarchy in Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed.” Utopian Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 2009, pp. 75–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20719930. Accessed 13 Nov. 2022.
Krieger, Joel. The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World. : Oxford University Press, . Oxford Reference. Date Accessed 13 Nov. 2022 Kuhn, Thomas S. “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research.” In Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and Wolf K. von Wright, 1965, pp. 347-69. Le Guin, Ursula K. The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia. . New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Popper, Karl. “Conjectural Knowledge: My Solution of the Problem of Induction.” Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 57, 1971, pp. 69-94. Sen, Amartya. Inequality Reexamined / Amartya Sen Russell Sage Foundation ; Harvard University Press New York : Cambridge, Mass 1992 14th April 2023 Shoutout to the prof who read out the entire SA section to class. Thanks for giving everyone trauma!