Postmodern Anarchism in the Novels of Ursula K. Le Guin

16 Pages·2012·0.1 MB·English

TheAnarchistLibrary
Anti-Copyright
Postmodern Anarchism in
the Novels of Ursula K. Le
Guin
Lewis Call
LewisCall
PostmodernAnarchismintheNovelsofUrsulaK.LeGuin
2007
RetrievedonNovember2,2010fromwww.scribd.com
From“SubStance”#113,Vol.36,no.2,2007
theanarchistlibrary.org 2007

May, Todd. The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist An-
archism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press,1994.
Moylan,Tom.DemandtheImpossible:ScienceFictionandthe
Contents
UtopianImagination.NewYork:Methuen,1986.
Mullen, R. D. and Darko Suvin. Science-Fiction Studies: Se-
lectedArticlesonScienceFiction1973–1975.Boston:GreggPress,
1976. TheDebate:CriticalAwarenessofLeGuin’sAnarchism 7
Newman,Saul.FromBakunintoLacan:Anti-Authoritarianism TheNovels:LeGuin’sPostmodernAnarchism . . . 11
and the Dislocation of Power. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, WorksCited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2001.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce
Homo.Ed.WalterKaufmann.NewYork:VintageBooks,1969.
—. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New
York:PenguinBooks,1988.
Rapp,JohnA.“DaoismandAnarchismReconsidered.”Anar-
chistStudies6.2(October1998):123–151.
Suvin,Darko.MetamorphosesofScienceFiction.NewHaven,
CT:YaleUniversityPress,1979.
Watts, Alan. Tao: The Watercourse Way. New York: Penguin
Books,1986.
Widmer, Kingsley. Counterings: Utopian Dialectics in Con-
temporary Contexts. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press,
1988.

30 3
JosephD.OlanderandMartinHarryGreenberg.NewYork:Ta-
plinger,1979.116–152.
Call,Lewis.PostmodernAnarchism.Lanham,MD:Lexington
Books,2002.
Davis, Laurence and Peter Stillman, eds. The New Utopian
Politics of Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. Lanham, MD:
LexingtonBooks,2005.
Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Standard
Edition.Trans.andEd.JamesStrachey.NewYork:W.W.Nor-
tonandCompany,1989.
Heidegger, Martin. Nietzsche. Ed. David Ferrell Krell. San
Francisco:HarperSanFrancisco,1991.
Kropotkin, Peter. Ethics: Origin and Development. Montréal:
BlackRoseBooks,1992.
—.EvolutionandEnvironment.Ed.GeorgeWoodcock.Mon-
tréal:BlackRoseBooks,1995.
—. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Montréal: Black Rose
Books,1989.
Lamb, Patricia Frazer and Diana L. Veith. “Again, The Left
Hand of Darkness: Androgyny or Homophobia?” Erotic Uni-
verse: Sexuality and Fantasy Literature. Ed. Donald Palumbo.
NewYork:GreenwoodPress,1986.
221–231.LeGuin,UrsulaK.DancingattheEdgeoftheWorld.
NewYork:GrovePress,1989.
—. Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching. A Book About the Way and the
PoweroftheWay.Boston:Shambhala,1998.
—.TheDispossessed.NewYork:HarperPrism,1994.
—.TheLanguageoftheNight.Ed.SusanWood.NewYork:G.
P.Putnam’sSons,1979.
—.TheLatheofHeaven.NewYork:AvonBooks,1973.
—.TheLeftHandofDarkness.NewYork:AceBooks,1987.
Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. Boston: Beacon
Press,1974.
Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of An-
archism.London:FontanaPress,1993.
29
assertionoftheanarchisticpossibilitiesthatemergewhenwe It is easy enough to locate anarchist themes in the science
embracethecontradictoryaspectsofsequentialandsimultane- fiction of Ursula K. Le Guin. Her frequent critiques of state
oustime. power, coupled with her rejection of capitalism and her obvi-
Ursula Le Guin’s writing shows a remarkable knowledge ous fascination with alternative systems of political economy,
of — and a deep respect for — the classical anarchist tradi- are sufficient to place her within the anarchist tradition. She
tion.Itishardlysurprising,then,thathercriticsshouldfocus has, from time to time, explicitly embraced that tradition. Le
mainlyonthewaysinwhichherworkbuildsuponthattradi- Guin is, among other things, a popularizer of anarchist ideas.
tion.Yetcriticismmustdomorethanthis,forLeGuincertainly Thepoliticalphilosophyofanarchismislargelyanintellectual
does. Le Guin’s novels of the late 1960s and early 1970s of- artifact of the nineteenth century, articulated in England by
feranarchistpossibilitiesthatextendwellbeyondthehorizons William Godwin, in France by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and
of the modern. In these novels, Le Guin experiments with an- in Russia by Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin. Yet this
drogyny,subvertsrationalontologies,articulatesanarchistlan- vibrant intellectual tradition remains largely invisible to ordi-
guages,andproposesaradicalphilosophyoftime.Thethemes nary people in the early twenty-first century. By describing
of postmodern anarchism are clearly present in her work. So anarchist ideas in a way that is simultaneously faithful to the
far these themes have remained largely hidden, but it is time anarchist tradition and accessible to contemporary audiences,
tobringthemtothesurface.Modernanarchistsneednotfear Le Guin performs a very valuable service. She rescues anar-
thiscriticalproject,forthepostmodernelementsofLeGuin’s chismfromtheculturalghettotowhichithasbeenconsigned.
anarchism do not oppose that philosophy’s modern elements. She introduces the anarchist vision to an audience of science
Rather,themodernandpostmodernaspectsofLeGuin’sanar- fictionreaderswhomightneverpickupavolumeofKropotkin.
chismarepartofapermanent,ongoing,open-endeddialogue Shemovesanarchism(eversoslightly)intothemainstreamof
about the possibilities of anarchist thinking in the contempo- intellectualdiscourse.
raryera.Suchadialoguecanonlyenrichanarchisttheory. YetLeGuin,likemanywhoseanarchistviewsdevelopedin
the late 1960s and early 1970s, also seems to recognize that
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
thisisnotenough.LikeclassicalMarxism,modernanarchism
Obispo
developed within the specific political, economic and intellec-
tualenvironmentofthenineteenthcentury.Inthatcontext,it
Works Cited madeperfectsenseforanarchiststofocustheircriticalpowers
upon the twin sources of oppressive power in the age of the
Barr, Marleen S. Lost in Space: Probing Feminist Science Fic- IndustrialRevolution:capitalandthestate.Bythelatetwenti-
tionandBeyond.ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolina eth century, however, this traditional anarchism had become
Press,1993. dangerouslyoutdated.Duringthe1960sinparticular,political
Bittner,James.ApproachestotheFictionofUrsulaK.LeGuin. activiststhroughoutthewesternworldaddedcritiquesofeth-
AnnArbor,MI:UMIResearchPress,1984. nicpowerandgenderpowertothelistofanarchistconcerns.In
Brennan, John P. and Michael C. Downs. “Anarchism and theintellectualworld,MichelFoucaultidentifiedandcriticized
Utopian Tradition in The Dispossessed.” Ursula K. Le Guin. Ed. thedisciplinarypowerthatemergesinschools,hospitals,mili-
28 5
tarybarracks,psychiatricclinicsandfamilies,whileJeanBau- those‘binaryoppositions,’suchasthatbetweenthenotionof
drillard articulated a radical symbolic critique of the semiotic ‘Being’andthenotionof‘Becoming,’whichhavebeencentral
system that dominates the contemporary world. Meanwhile, totheWesternphilosophicaltraditionfromthetimeofthean-
Guy Debord and others argued that citizens of the late twen- cient Greeks, and which are rejected by Nietzsche, postmod-
tieth century lived in a world dominated by the spectacular ernism,andthe‘academicleft’”(201).Burnsattemptstorelate
massmedia,aworldinwhichconsumerismhasfounditsway Shevek’stheorytotheHegelianphilosophicalmethod,toshow
into every aspect of people’s lives, a world in which the tra- thatTheDispossessedisa“modern”ratherthana“postmodern”
ditional forms of political action (and perhaps even the politi- work, and that Shevek’s views on science “fall firmly within
calsubjectswhomightperformsuchaction)havebecomedan- theclassicalanarchisttradition” (203).Thereareserious prob-
gerously fragmented. In such a world, the anarchist critique lemswiththisapproach.Firstandforemost,thereisnodialec-
cannotaffordtoremaintrappedwithinthemodern,industrial tical reconciliation of Sequency and Simultaneity in The Dis-
modeofthinking.Anarchismmustbecomemoreflexible,more possessed. Shevek develops the ability to think both thoughts
fluid, more adaptable. In a word, it must become postmodern. together,butnotinasyntheticway.Thetwothoughtsremain
Along with Todd May and Saul Newman, I have tried to de- separateanddistinct.Ratherthanasyntheticreconciliationof
scribe the approximate contours of such a postmodern anar- thesis and antithesis, Shevek’s theory represents the perpet-
chism (see May, Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anar- ualembraceoftwotheoriesthatareandremaincontradictory.
chism;Newman,FromBakunintoLacan;andCall,Postmodern Shevek’s experience of time is thus an experience of perma-
Anarchism). nent cognitive dissonance. He is prepared to experience time
An analysis of Le Guin’s science fiction will be helpful to asbothlinearandcyclicalateverymomentofhislife,andhe
thisproject.Yes,LeGuindreamsofutopianworldsandmoons, must never allow this experience to solidify into a stagnant
freeoftheinequalitiesofcapitalismandtheinjusticesofstate synthesis.
power (just as Kropotkin did before her). More importantly, Shevek’s views on time must remain tentative, provisional,
however, Le Guin develops new forms of anarchist thinking, unresolved—inshort,postmodern.Hemustabandonthefalse
formsthatareurgentlyneededintheUnitedStatesandother certainties of reason. His rewards for doing so are substan-
post-industrial societies. The crucial foundation for this new tial. The major practical benefit of Shevek’s theory is that it
postmodernanarchismistobefoundinthreeremarkablenov- will permit the creation of the ansible, a device that will al-
elsthatLeGuinwroteinafive-yearperiodbetween1969and low instantaneous interstellar communication. Thus Shevek’s
1974. This period — which marks the culmination of both the theory creates the opportunity for an infinite proliferation of
radical social movements of the 1960s and the poststructural- discourse without resolution: a truly postmodern possibility.
ist and postmodernist movements in the intellectual world — Indeed, this is more than a mere possibility. For the universe
represents a vitally important historical moment in the anar- thatShevekmadeistheuniverseofGenlyAi’sEkumen:acom-
chist tradition. This is the moment when anarchism took its munityofworldslinkedtogetherinradicallyegalitarian,non-
“postmodern turn.” And Le Guin was instrumental in bring- hierarchicalfashionbytheansible.ThustheconclusionofThe
ing about this remarkable transformation in anarchist think- Dispossessed pointsbacktoTheLeftHandofDarkness.Thisisa
ing. In The Left Hand of Darkness (1969), Le Guin subverted beautiful statement of time’s circle, and a powerful structural
6 27
To a remarkable extent, Le Guin’s Shevek completes the the traditional binary concept of gender identity, to promote
projectoutlinedinZarathustra.Shevekembracestheprinciple an anarchy of gender. In The Lathe of Heaven (1971), she told
of eternal return embodied in the theory of Simultaneity. the story of a psychiatric patient whose dreams literally re-
Remarkably, he is also able to continue thinking of time in designedtheworld,thuscreatingthepossibilityofanontolog-
linearorSequentialtermsaswell.Hecandothisonlybecause, icalanarchy.Andinher1974masterpieceTheDispossessed,Le
asHeideggerhasargued,“theovermanistheexpresslywilled Guinmadetwomajorcontributionstothephilosophyofpost-
negation of the previous essence of man. Within metaphysics modern anarchism. She created a fictional anarchist language
man is experienced as the rational animal” (III 217). Shevek calledPravic,whichunderscorestheimportanceoflinguistics
is a scientist, but he is not a rationalist. A purely rational foranycontemporaryanarchistproject.Andshedevelopedan
sciencecouldnotproducehistemporaltheory.Toachievethis equally radical concept of time, creating the possibility of a
theory, Shevek must give up a great deal. He must abandon chronosophic anarchy. The existence of an explicitly anarchist
a restrictive rationalism, and with it the humanism that societyonthemoonofAnarreshasledmanycriticsofTheDis-
dominatedtheintellectualhistoryoftheWestuntilNietzsche possessed to focus only on the traditional anarchist themes of
(Heidegger’s “previous essence of man”). In short, to achieve thisnovel.Yetthetrulyradicallegacyofthisnovel(andofLe
his goals in physics, Shevek must take a postmodern turn. Guin’sothermajorworksfromthelate1960sandearly1970s)
ThusAndrewReynoldsisrighttoargue(albeitinasomewhat is that these works transgress the boundaries of conventional
differentcontext)that“TheDispossessed isequallytheproduct anarchist thinking to create new forms of anarchism that are
of anarchism and Nietzschean postmodernism” (Davis and entirely relevant to life in the postmodern condition. Le Guin
Stillman 88). As an Odonian, Shevek has already internalized updatestheconventionalanarchistprojectandpositionsanar-
the basic principles of modern anarchism. When he moves chismtomoveintothethirdmillennium.
beyond rationalism and humanism to grasp a radically new
concept of time, he takes his anarchism a step further. Ellen
The Debate: Critical Awareness of Le
Rigsby is quite correct to note that by embracing the cyclical
Guin’s Anarchism
concept of time, Shevek challenges the entire mainstream
intellectualtraditionofEurope;thus“Shevek’sthoughtsmove
Le Guin’s masterpiece The Dispossessed drew a tremendous
into an explicitly anarchist form” (Davis and Stillman 173).
amount of critical attention after it appeared in 1974, but the
Moreprecisely,byacceptingSimultaneityaswellasSequency,
critical reception of Le Guin’s work remained remarkably or-
Shevekbecomesapostmodernanarchist.
thodox during the late 1970s and 1980s. Critics of this period
I must therefore challenge the extensive body of literature
didacknowledgethatLeGuin’sworkwasstronglyinfluenced
that characterizes Shevek’s reconciliation of Sequency and Si-
byanarchism,buttheypersistedinreadingthatanarchismin
multaneity as an example of Le Guin’s “dialectical thinking”
purelymodernterms.ThusDavidL.Porterarguedthatbythe
(see, for example, Bittner 121). Most recently, Tony Burns has
mid-1970sLeGuinhad“movedtoamuchrichersocialcritique
arguedthatShevek“likehiscreatorisathoroughgoing‘dialec-
and explicit anarchist commitment” (Mullen and Suvin 273),
tical’thinker”(DavisandStillman199)whoseattitudetowards
while John P. Brennan and Michael C. Downs read The Dis-
time “demonstrates a tendency for him to think in terms of
26 7
possessed “as a penetrating critique of all utopian experience, does involve ethics. Because our sense of time involves our
eventhatofanarchism”(117).Atthistimecriticismgenerally abilitytoseparatecauseandeffect,meansandend”(225).Thus,
failed to recognize the postmodern aspects of Le Guin’s writ- Shevek’s attempt to articulate a General Temporal Theory is
ing. A notable exception was Fredric Jameson, apostle of the also, fundamentally, an attempt to create a viable and vibrant
postmodern. In 1975, Jameson noted in passing that the Gen- ethicaltheory.
eral Theory of Time described in The Dispossessed employs a Shevek’s objective is to bring together two apparently con-
“vocabulary of a subversive reason, which has therefore had tradictoryfieldsofphysics,knownasSequencyandSimultane-
first to pass through the false, nonreasonable and by them- ity.Sequencydealswiththelinearconceptoftime,whichhas
selves non-cognitive expressions of parareason” (Mullen and dominated the perception of history in the West. Simultane-
Suvin266).Jamesonwasoneofthefirsttorecognizethetruly ityacknowledgesandendorsesthenonlinear,includinginpar-
transgressive nature of Le Guin’s fiction, namely its ability to ticular those philosophies that see time as cyclical or recur-
call into question the forms of scientific, technical and instru- sive.Shevekdescribesthetwoconceptsoftime:“Sothentime
mental reason that have come to dominate the modern West. has two aspects. There is the arrow, the running river, with-
ButcriticismwasslowtoadoptJameson’sposition.Aslateas outwhichthereisnochange,noprogress,ordirection,orcre-
1986, Tom Moylan was arguing that the utopia of The Dispos- ation.Andthereisthecircleorthecycle,withoutwhichthere
sessed waslockedintoaseriesofbinaryoppositions,andthat is chaos, meaningless succession of instants, a world without
the text thus “expresses the continued closure of the current clocks or seasons or promises” (223). Shevek’s invocation of
social formation” (114). Remarkably, Moylan found Le Guin’s promises is interesting, for it recalls Nietzsche’s definition of
worktobeinsufficientlypostmodern. thehumanbeingasananimalwiththerighttomakepromises
It was only in the 1990s that some feminist critics began (Genealogy of Morals, second essay, section 2). Shevek even
to embrace the postmodern reading of Le Guin. In 1993, Mar- makes the Nietzschean element of his thinking explicit: “And
leen Barr argued that “reading Le Guin… sometimes involves so,whenthemysticmakesthereconnectionofhisreasonand
encountering an alliance between humanism and antihuman- hisunconscious,heseesallbecomingasonebeing,andunder-
ism,”whichresemblesChristopherButler’sversionoftheLaca- stands the eternal return” (Le Guin, The Dispossessed 222). In
nianposition(155).HereBarrhasidentifiedtheanarchyofthe thisremarkablepassage,Shevekacknowledgesthattheproject
subject thatissuchacrucialpartofthepostmodernanarchist heispursuinginthephysicalsciencesisparalleltotheproject
project. Subjectivity, for the postmodern anarchist, cannot be Nietzscheundertookinphilosophy.InThusSpokeZarathustra,
understoodsolelyinthecoherent,rationaltermsoftheEnlight- Nietzschefamouslydescribedhisworld-shakingvisionofeter-
enment. Instead, subjectivity must be viewed as perpetually nalreturn:“everythinggoes,everythingcomesback;eternally
provisional, deeply contextual, and powerfully psychological. rollsthewheelofbeing.Everythingdies,everythingblossoms
This is certainly the type of subjectivity found in Le Guin’s again; eternally runs the year of being” (217). In Zarathustra,
work,particularlyTheLatheofHeaven.Thistypeofsubjectivity Nietzsche dreamed of a being who could not only accept the
recognizes that the subject of Enlightenment discourse is im- terrifyingthoughtofeternalrecurrencebutcouldactivelyem-
plicitly statist, and acknowledges that a meaningful anarchist braceit,cherishit,celebrateit.HecalledthisbeingOverman.
8 25
and“Farigvdidn’tprovideanyswearwordswhenheinvented politics will require a radical reconceptualization of that sub-
the language, or if he did his computers didn’t understand ject.
the necessity” (234). Here one is reminded of Dr. Haber, who The recently published collection of essays on The New
proceededfromthebesthumanistintentions,butwasdoomed UtopianPoliticsofUrsulaK.LeGuin’sTheDispossessedfeatures
to failure by his rejection of the irrational. Language cannot three essays that deal specifically with Le Guin’s anarchist
be purely rational, for the humans who speak it certainly politics. Dan Sabia correctly notes that the inspiration for
are not. Language must be able to express not only logical Le Guin’s Anarres is the “anarchist communism” of Peter
concepts but also emotions, even those that might be seen Kropotkin(DavisandStillman112–113),withitsemphasison
as undesirable from the perspective of social engineering. mutual aid (114) and decentralization (120). However, Sabia
When Shevek needs to swear, he must switch to Iotic: “‘Hell!’ alsoarguesthat“notevenanarchistcommunismcanreconcile
he said aloud. Pravic was not a good swearing language. It completely the ideals of individualism and community” (125).
is hard to swear when sex is not dirty and blasphemy does For Sabia, then, Le Guin remains trapped within the basic
not exist” (258). Ironically, the success of Odonianism sets dilemma that has haunted political theory at least since
the stage for its failures. Pravic is a fair language and a just Rousseau: the problem of reconciling the specific needs of
one. It encourages egalitarian thinking and actively works the individual with the broader social needs of the commu-
against the establishment of hierarchy. Yet it remains dry nity. This is, however, a specifically modern political problem,
andsterile.Thisbringsusbacktothemessageofpostmodern whichcanberesolvedthroughtheattainmentofapostmodern
anarchism:theworldcannotbesavedthroughthearticulation perspective. In the same volume, Mark Tunick interprets Le
ofarationalrevolutionaryphilosophy,evenifthatphilosophy Guin’sprojectasHegelian(129).Tunickthusjoinsalongline
doescontainadmirableelements. of critics who have identified the form of Le Guin’s thinking
Fortunately,TheDispossessed doescontainoneelementthat as dialectical (see, for example, Donald F. Theall’s argument
is truly revolutionary in the postmodern sense, and that is in Mullen and Suvin 286–294; see also Widmer 44ff). I find
Shevek’s General Temporal Theory. Shevek is a theoretical the dialectical interpretation of Le Guin difficult to sustain,
physicist; his term for his field of study is chronosophy. This and the specifically Hegelian form of that interpretation even
gives us an important clue as to the nature and significance moreso.CertainlyanyattempttodescribeLeGuin’sthinking
of his theories. What Shevek is working on is a philosophy of as Hegelian must address the disturbingly statist nature of
time. Le Guin’s text makes it quite clear that this philosophy Hegel’s political philosophy; more urgently, the attempt to
has radical political implications. The Urrasti physicist Oiie describe Le Guin as a dialectical thinker must find a way
observes that “The politician and the physicist both deal with to account for the sustained assault on binary thinking that
thingsastheyare,withrealforces,thebasiclawsoftheworld” is such a fundamental feature of her work. Finally, Winter
(203). Naturally, Shevek rejects Oiie’s statist formulation. Elliot approaches The Dispossessed from the perspective of
And yet Shevek does accept Oiie’s basic insight: that there individualist anarchism. For Elliot, an authentic anarchism
is a politics of physics, and a physics of politics. Of course, mustalwaysbeaninteriorpersonalanarchism(suchasthatof
for an anarchist like Shevek, politics and ethics are virtually Shevek, the novel’s protagonist). By advocating individualist
coterminous. Thus Shevek acknowledges that “chronosophy anarchism in this way, Elliot is certainly going against what
24 9
we might describe (with appropriate irony) as the “main- sis;idiomavoidedthem.Littlechildrenmightsay‘mymother,’
stream”anarchisttradition—i.e.thetraditionthatemphasizes butverysoontheylearnedtosay‘themother’”(58).Similarly,
theimportanceofcommunityandcollectivesocialaction.Yet Pravic has no way to speak about property. When Anarresti
by emphasizing the autonomy of the unique individual, Elliot wish to speak of the “propertied class,” the must use the Iotic
shows that she has this much in common with mainstream language of Urras to do so, for Pravic has no equivalent term
anarchism:sheremainstrappedwithinthemodern. (42). This means that ideas regarding the accumulation of pri-
This,then,isthecurrentstateofscholarshiponthesubjectof vate wealth or class divisions based upon such accumulation
LeGuin’spoliticalphilosophy.Withafewnotableexceptions, are quite literally unthinkable in Pravic. The implications are
critics tend to read Le Guin’s narratives in dialectical and/or profound.TheAnarresticannotbecapitalist,becausetheylack
utopian terms. They understand her anarchism primarily as a thevocabularyofcapitalism.
conventionalchallengetostatepowerandcapitalism.Inshort, Pravic problematizes the easy distinctions that English
thesereadingsofLeGuinremainrelentlesslymodern.Itispar- speakers make between “work” and “play” — and rightly
ticularly striking that these modernist readings of Le Guin’s so, from an anarchist viewpoint. The idea that “work” is
anarchism remain so prevalent today, some 35 years after Le something exploitative and alienating, done from strict ne-
Guininitiatedamajorpostmodernmoveinhersciencefiction. cessity and redeemed only by leisure time, is fundamental
Clearly, the modern does not give up without a fight. Yet it to the capitalist mode of social organization. Pravic, on the
is imperative for today’s critics to move beyond their fascina- other hand, uses the same word for “work” and “play” (92).
tion with modernism, particularly if they wish to understand A separate word, the eminently descriptive kleggich, is used
the depth and significance of Le Guin’s anarchism. That anar- to describe drudgery (Ibid.). Again, one is reminded of Eros
chism cannot simply be understood as an updated version of and Civilization (see Marcuse 214ff). Andrew Reynolds is
Kropotkin’sutopiandreams.Rather,LeGuin’spostmodernan- thus quite right to suggest that the Odonians have tried “to
archismisasustainedchallengetoconventionalmodesofrad- rehabilitate work in Marcusian fashion” (Davis and Stillman
ical thinking. This is an anarchism that rejects teleologies, ex- 87).Theargumentisclear:onAnarres,meaningful,authentic,
plodestraditionalconceptsofsubjectivityingeneral(andcon- creative work is indistinguishable from play. Such work may
cepts of gender identity in particular), proposes radical new bedoneforitsownsake,andneednot(mustnot!)beinscribed
cosmologies, and embraces the anarchistic possibilities inher- withinthealienatingframeworkofamarketeconomy.
ent in the creation of new languages. It is, in short, an anar- Pravic clearly has much to recommend it. The Terran
chism for the twenty-first century, and it is time for criticism ambassador Keng speaks admiringly of the tongue: “I don’t
torecognizethis. knowyourlanguage.Iamtoldthatit’samostinterestingone,
the only rationally invented language that has become the
tongue of a great people” (339). Yet here is Pravic’s fatal flaw.
Though it is light years beyond American English in terms
of its social consciousness, its ethics, its sense of equality
and justice, Pravic is still limited by the horizons of human
rationality. Pravic was invented by an Odonian called Farigv,
10 23