> In The Dispossessed, she contrasts the different political systems of two neighboring worlds, not to argue which one is best, per se, but to show that in order for these systems to exist, humans need to actively participate in and reproduce them.
This is kind of a strange take. I find it difficult to imagine anyone reading The Dispossessed and not coming to the conclusion that Le Guin's loyalties lie much stronger with one side than the other.
Yeah she clearly has a favorite, but she points out flaws in both systems. I think that being critical of ones preferred system is noteworthy.
Edit: Furthermore, are the protagonists of The Dispossessed totally free in their society? No. Despite Le Guin’s apparently utopian aims in rendering functional anarchism, the protagonists chafe with society in many ways.
I actually think that this understates the degree to which LeGuin critiques the anarcho-communism of Anarres. We are presented with a society which is overtly anarchic and which finds its entire raison d'etre its its rejection of coercive power structures. But the entire thrust of the Anarres portions of the book is to demonstrate that the society is not, in fact, anarchic, that it is filthy with power and coercion, and that by pointing this out (and by being willing to work with the nations of Urras on scientific progress) the protagonists find themselves on the wrong side of that power structure.
On a recent re-read, I was particularly struck by the anecdote of a playwright who got sent to a de-facto prison for making a play critical of the local governing committee. "Gulags for political dissidents" is a pretty bad time in any case, but doing so in a society that specifically prides itself in having no prisons or police is uniquely bad.
Yeah, there is a very strong critique of the way in which neighbors on Anarres can effectively be tyrants.
Le Guin is masterful at letting no one and no thing off the hook. No character or society is ever perfect. She clearly has preferences and hopes. Any character or society which intentionally and actively constrains the liberty of another is subject to withering.
I'm currently in the midst of a read through of everything I can find of hers. Started with the Earthsea books (which I hadn't read before) and now in the midst of the Hainish cycle books (on The Telling at the moment). Many of those I had read before, but the differences in me between now and when I read them before are very apparent. I'm responding to the books in a much more emotional way, now.
Left Hand of Darkness and Dispossessed are deservedly the classics. If you've limited time, read those. "Five Ways to Forgiveness" is a very moving collection of five (funny that) novellas in the same story line.
The Telling is proving to be very interesting to me. It is very explicitly about the notions of humans creating culture by learning and telling mentioned in the original post. That is helping to illuminate many of the reasons why I've remained invested in computing and the web, despite many wrong turns.
I think you might be over-stating, not the strength of Le Guin's criticism, but the degree to which the community of Anarres fails to reject coercive power structures.
Part of what is so interesting about Anarres is that even when power is built up in institutions, it is not hierarchical power. Individuals build power primarily through their capacity for influencing others. Those who are older and more accomplished therefore have more of this kind of power, and younger people like Shevek have less. It's interesting, though, that the people of Anarres seem uniquely positioned to take note of and resist the growth of these power structures. Shevek, in whose point of view the book is largely written, constantly takes note of them, and the people of Anarres form groups dedicated to reform in response.
It's important to note that even the power built up in institutions lacks the capacity for organized violence. Even though the protagonist is "on the wrong side of" the institutional power in Anarres, nothing very bad happens to him as a result. When Shevek violates the central "law" of the land by trying to leave Anarres, no institutional power stops him, only a small spontaneous mob of protesters make the attempt. Le Guin says of them "they had no experience in being [a mob]. Members of a community, not elements of a collectivity, they were not moved by mass feeling; there were as many emotions there as there were people ... Their inexperience saved the passenger's life."
You mention the case of the playwright, Tirin. But his case is interesting because he clearly struggles to fit into an egalitarian society, and might actually be (or become) mentally ill. As Shevek's childhood friend, it was his idea to go about building a prison, and seems to take the most joy in putting someone in it. He's the most sharply critical of Anarres society, "a natural rebel", and this leads him into trouble we don't quite know the extent of. It's implied he's either gone mad, or murdered someone, or raped them. (He was merely reprimanded publicly for the play, not sent directly to the asylum.) How people like this are to be treated is clearly meant to be a confusing grey area, and Le Guin wants us to think about it from a critical perspective.
Tirin left therapy after several years (the island he goes to is explicitly intended to be therapeutic, not a prison), and Shevek ends up concluding that he actually did go crazy, as a result of being a kind of social outcast. Shevek says that "We have created crime, just as the propertarians did." But this kind of "crime" is clearly meant to be in contrast to what he later learns about criminality and class relations on Urras.
So it does seem as if Anarres has largely succeeded in curbing most institutional violence and hierarchical coercion. You're right, however, that Le Guin remains sharply critical of the unfreedom that remains. I believe this book and The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas suggest that she sees political struggle as a never-ending series of revolutionary actions towards a utopian ideal. The ideal cannot be achieved, of course, but so long as there are people who can see the ways in which their society fails, there will be people who try to do better.
Interestingly, though, this seems to further confirm the point I made in my top level comment. Le Guin does not take the detached point of view of some supposedly "anthropological perspective", seeking to understand each society from within its own assumptions. Rather, she clearly thinks that at least some of the citizens of both societies are capable of grasping the same utopian ideal, and believes that Anarres is much closer to achieving it than Urras.
Not disagreeing with any of the sibling comments - but imnho her latest series "Annals of the Western Shore": "Gifts", "Voices" and "Powers" is also worth mentioning.
If you want to get a sense of her mature utopian and anthropological thinking, then read "Always Coming Home". It's not a conventional novel but more of a series of observations on a post-apocalyptic society in California. The framing device is of an anthropological investigator from another time/place interviewing people in the society or hearing their stories and poetry (she also wrote good poetry). It even has accompanying music which she collaborated on with Todd Barton.
Depends on your speed. If you want a slow but epic burn, Left Hand of Darkness. Something faster action novella, Lathe of Heaven. And the OG Harry Potter tale, Earthsea series. It won’t be time wasted with any of these.
Her short story collections are quite accessible. If you want to dive into the Hainish cycle, _Four Ways to Forgiveness. Or for a mostly Hainish but more diverse set of stories, _The Wind's Twelve Quarters_.
On a side note, I noticed some of the best book "choices" I've made came when I was able to read a couple snippets. Just enough to get my curiosity going.
It would be cool if Amazon released some of the most highlighted passages for some of these stories. I feel like it would do more for discoverability than just recommending book titles.
Yeah, I'd like to see some improvement too. Simply asking strangers who you think may be like you feels weak.
My favourite weird recommendation was The 2020 Commission Report¹. I watched a guy miss his stop on the train home because his thoughts were so taken by it. Seemed like a good enough reason to pick it up ;)
It's pop-history of the early 20th century anthropologists with a focus on the influence of Franz Boas and the many things he spawned, and how Boas and his pupils fought against genetic determinism. Many of the 'characters' in the books appear in OP's article. Recommended companion piece!
Speaking of culture and context: it's crazy that these ideas are relatively new when they seem so obvious to me, having grown up with the idea that culture is anything but innate.
Kroeber was ultimately wrong in the sense that culture is in fact intimately tied to evolution.
Natural selection happens at the biological level and at the macro level. Have you ever thought why ecological systems are so in equilibrium with the environment? Because any system that wasn't in equilibrium was ultimately destroyed by natural selection.
Macro level systems with reproductive qualities like culture or ecology are subject to evolution.
There is nothing left to spit out. I can address some of your points but overall I will just be reiterating my original points over again from a different angle with more examples so you and others can understand.
First based off of the link above ecosystems are indeed in equilibrium.
Second even at an equilibrium things can still evolve. There is a concept called genetic drift where genes and culture changes within the bounds of natural selection. So imagine a local optima that involves a multitude of solutions that are equally optimum. Ecosystems and biological creatures who have hit this equilibrium can still evolve by oscillating among all the solutions in that local optima. The term is called genetic drift but the concept applies to topics outside of biology.
Third, natural selection is not strictly a biological concept. It has broader applications that most people are aware about on some level. Genetic programming is a popular example where the primitive s are not genes but computer instructions.
What people aren't aware about is how natural selection can apply to macro concepts and systems where the primitives aren't clear. Things like culture, civilizations and large systems and Anything that can reproduce and mutate are candidates.
There are multitudes of cultures and economies and systems of government that go through reproduction, death and mutation across huge timescales. Cultures that you see today are ones that survived from the past because they are the fittest.
Easter island involved a tribe and culture that overloaded. The culture was centered around status and over exploitation of resources resulted in that culture dying out and not being present today. All we have of that culture today is a "fossil record". Many cultures in the past have self imploded like a cancer and were naturally selected out. In the natural world you should see ecosystems that are in equilibrium because the systems in equilibrium are the only ones that can survive. Evolution at the macro scale can also have effects on the evolution of lower level biological systems as well.
Take for example the evolution of an efficient predator. Biological creatures tend towards greater efficiency but if a carnivore that is too efficient exists in an ecosystem it may kill everything and overload system. Hence most ecosystems have creatures that aren't necessarily the pinnacle of efficiency. Ecosystems where creatures are imperfect and just good enough to maintain equilibrium within the system are what you tend to see.
For humanity in my personal opinion we are currently on our way to overloading the world. Aspects of what we are culturally and biologically will eventually be culled in a selection process that will arrive in the far future.
I'm also not talking out of my ass. This stuff is really studied in academia. See below.
> Fourth. Do not tell me to "spit it out." It is rude and if you do it again you will face consequences to the extent that the rules on this site allow.
Telling me to spit it out is rude. It violates the rules. I've flagged you because you decided to challenge me on it.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
If your post doesn't die I will consider not commenting on this site because this is just a flagrant violation and is highly unfair. Either you have some insider connection or there's bias.
I don't know why are you downvoted, it's pretty much settled science. There are multiple papers on culture-gene co-evolution of individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. And individualism/collectivism is big part of any culture. It's hard to imagine something like Confucianism developing in highly individualistic western Europe.
There may be, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about macro scale natural selection seperate from biology. See below for a more detailed explanation:
Also as an Asian you need to know in my opinion Asians in China tend to be more individualistic then europeans. It's more of a I don't give a shit attitude you do my thing and I do yours. They are thinking: "Don't waste my time with some ideological individual rights garbage I'm to individualistic to care for such things."
People are rude in China and it's largely because they don't give a shit about you and are individualistic.
Another way to put it is that an individual Asian won't fight for individual rights because he's too individualistic to care about community rights or government.
It coincidentally is why in my mind you see a sort of collective phenomenon in China. Everyone acting to benefit themselves collectively benefit each other and leave a lot of room for a central government to take control because activism is a form or caring for something other than yourself.
You'll also note that corruption is rampant in China which is literally the ultimate form of individualism where you harm society to benefit yourself.
This is not true. If genes control physical features it does not make any sense to preclude genes from controlling mental features.
From evidence we see that culture is flexible among different races but by the above logic alone there must be some genetic factor that we aren't able to measure yet.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a paper that addresses this on some level.
In fact did you know that in the field of anthropology. There has never been a scientific evidence found for a human culture or civilization where women in general dominated and took the overall leadership role? When it did happen it was temporary and the baton was handed back to the males voluntarily. Many anthropologists including my female professor who taught me the concepts at UCLA believe that the prevalence of this fact across multitudes of cultures may point to a biological phenomenon rather than a cultural one.
Controversial, I know. I'm not advocating anything political here just science. Morally I feel both sexes should be judged on equal grounds but even believing this on a moral level, scientifically I cannot deny what has been observed, and much of academia feels the same way.
Do you consider statement about consensus on existence of global warming to be a "code smell" too? Do you always require list of papers when reading about it or are you capable to open google scholar and enter relevant phrase?
Developed wasn't probably right word, spread would be better. European fascism wasn't particularly collectivist. And of course there is no magic individualistic gene, it's science. Nevertheless there is sizable evidence that greater or lesser prevalence of some genes (encoding serotonin and opioid transporters) influences both tendencies of individuals and culture among the population. I have posted enough to point you at the right resources in my last post, but if you want to actually educate yourself you can start with:
The only real common factor in Communist states (excluding those in Eastern Europe outside the former Russian Empire, which is a special case) is that the states which preceded them were very weak, and usually very geographically large, so that attempts by neighbors to stop it fell apart. There were multiple attempts at communist revolutions in Western Europe, but they were suppressed by strong states.
And I don't think I buy that Western Europe _is_ highly individualistic anyway. Who would describe Germany or the Nordics in those terms? The UK and to some extend the Netherlands were very individualistic before it was cool, but both countries had extremely special geopolitical (and religious) conditions. Occam's razor suggests that those are more likely than genetic predeterminism.
This is kind of a strange take. I find it difficult to imagine anyone reading The Dispossessed and not coming to the conclusion that Le Guin's loyalties lie much stronger with one side than the other.