Anarchism in The Dispossessed and The Player of Games
Ursula Le Guin’s masterpiece, The Dispossessed, and Iain Bank’s, The Player of Games, are both science fiction novels that exemplify themes of anarchism. Anarchism is based upon the idea that individuals are responsible for their own behavior; hierarchal authority is detrimental to the maximum human potential (Jaeckle). The Dispossessed displays an ideal model for anarchism through the functions of the planet Anarres. Le Guin’s masterpiece The Dispossessed drew an incredible amount of critical concentration after it came into view in 1974. Le Guin signals both disbelief regarding the simplifications of Cold War confidence in capitalist democratic systems and yet her anarchist utopia is still an ambiguous confident model from strong social dynamics. Bank’s novel, The Player of Games, is part of the series The Culture. The series is a space opera on a magnificent level. The Player of Games is set in a galaxy spanning, far future anarchist culture; the novel features strong, authentic characters, difficult ethical dilemmas, and recurrent dark humor. One of the most important aspects of the Culture is the fact that laws do not exist thus indicating it is a form of anarchy. Both Ursula Le Guin and Iain Banks imply that anarchism is the best social option through the comparison of an anarchist society to another society in their novels; Le Guin compares the anarchist society of Anarres to the capitalist society of Urras while Banks compares the anarchist society of the Culture to the society the Empire of Azad.
Le Guin creates a traditional anarchist society on the planet Anarres. Many of her ideas are drawn from Bakunin and Kropotkin; Le Guin desires a society without the three ...
... middle of paper ...
...ast in the way the societies function. Azad is an empire; for most in the society it is unfair and demanding (Lammi). The elite rule the people of Azad. The Culture society strives for perfection. In The Dispossessed, Anarres is the protagonist society like the Culture. Both Bank’s and Le Guin provide the negatives of the anarchist societies; however, they also make it clear that in comparison to their counterpart societies the anarchist society is preferable. Through the characters of Shevek and Jernau, they depict why the anarchist societies would be preferable since life in Azad and Urras is not remotely appealing. The characters experience ethical struggles and oppression, which makes the preference obvious. Ursula Le Guin and Iain Banks promoted anarchist societies by making those societies the preferable choice in comparison to definite dystopian societies.
“The Cloak of Anarchy”; Larry Niven’s science fiction short story involves a futuristic, dystopian world, where one man’s social experiment goes very wrong. In “the Cloak of Anarchy”, Niven has developed a short story into a vehicle which is an effective commentary, on a variety of social and political topics. When many writers avoid controversial subjects; Larry Niven remains imaginative and thought provoking, by including potentially controversial societal situations and includes political views.
...es of individuals can be used to explore a broader social wrong, in this case the injustice of a totalitarian government. Both authors use their protagonists to depict how a dictatorial state can destroy all sense of individuality, Orwell by presenting Winston in his fight against “The Party” and Niccol by depicting Vincent in his battle against society. Both authors also use individuals, who must isolate themselves in order to survive to expose how an unjust authoritative government can manufacture isolation. Orwell and Niccol also present conflicting views on the possibility of individual rebellion in an oppressive society, reflected by the success of Vincent and failure of Winston. In their prophetic dystopian texts both George Orwell and Andrew Niccol use the experiences of their protagonists to explore the broad social wrong of a totalitarian government.
Andrea Smith’s “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy” introduces an alternative framework for the organization of women and people of color (Smith 67). Such framework is non-singular, contrasting the previous which have proven to be limiting to these groups (Smith 67). Through the discussion of the three pillars which are separate, but interrelated and heteropatriarchy within society Smith provides a helpful starting point for organizers to break from systems of oppression and ultimately deconstruct White supremacy (Smith 73).
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
In the early 20th century, the Progressive Era would dominate for nearbly two decades in the United States and its system. This Progressive Era would be a result of Anarchism. Anarchy actions would take over in the U.S. ,and Anarchism would arrive in the nation, in 1901 during the attempted assassination of President McKinley. Little did they know the assassin’s name would be Leon Czolgosz, who investigators would later discover that Czolgosz would be apart of anarchism. Anarchy propagated the idea that governments and laws only served to restrict the freedom of individuals, and prevented them from practicing their own liberty; therefore this anarchists would act with violence in order to reform or shape the system differently. “Anarchist violence had claimed the pro-business president of the U.S. Worse, anarchism represented only the tip of
“Society is used in the service of hierarchy,” says Derrida; however, according to von Ludwig[1] , it is not so much society that is used in the service of hierarchy, but rather the futility, and thus the meaninglessness, of society. Therefore, if Sartreist absurdity holds, the works of Pynchon are empowering.
Horan, Thomas. A. "Revolutions from the Waist Downwards: Desire as Rebellion In Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, George Orwell's 1984, and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World." Extrapolation 48.2 (2007): 314-39. Literature Resources from Gale, Inc. Web. The Web.
“I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (Rand 979). The last lines of John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged declare the fundamental principle of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Her ideology plays an integral role in her literary pieces, functioning as the motor driving the actions, goals, and beliefs of the protagonists. From the first strains of Objectivism established during her childhood in Russia, Ayn Rand would develop and cultivate her ideas further in each novel, culminating in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Anthem share the theme of Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead and Anthem would join the masterpiece as staples of the Objectivist and Libertarian ideologies (Smith 384). Nothing could pose a greater contrast when presented in juxtaposition with Rand’s doctrine than the Communism of her childhood. Ayn Rand’s experiences living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic led her to create Objectivism; through her fictional works, she showcases her philosophy which is centered on the struggle of the individual versus the collective by emphasizing different aspects in each of her novels.
Consider how the natural development of narrative techniques in George Orwell’s 1984 creates a theme of individualism verses state. What was the point in writing such an obvious theme, since a dystopia is the prime example of an imperfect world? He uses extremely well-developed techniques to demonstrate the dystopian society. Specifically, Orwell uses symbols as well as the setting to thoroughly contribute to the idea of a totalitarian state in his dystopian society; the ideas are in symbolic objects, themes, and characters. Orwell clearly suggests that are flaws in the world that he has created, and, more importantly, Orwell the possibility of the characteristics becoming reality.
...ed with a moral or political obligation to the sacrifice of his own interests for the sake of greater social good, utilizes the same ‘common good’ as the tyrant. Both justify and execute, with a clear conscience, horrors that would never be considered for one’s own sake, but are more than worthy for the cause of the masses. Collectivism, in its raw, implemental form, results not only in mass delusion, but in the deconstruction of society by the tainted individuals in power portraying their goals as that of the masses. In reality, the masses suffer, while the authorities exist in a state of self-induced gluttony; an apparition that resembles progress, but actually symbolizes progress’s murder. By following the stories of these men, Ayn Rand provides a basis for how collectivism, even when masked by the guise of justice, results in nothing but the death of humanity.
A utopian society represents a perfect, idealistic civilization, while a dystopian society describes an unpleasant environment for the individuals living within it. George Orwell’s 1984 portrays many characteristics of a dystopian society. Very similarly, Veronica Roth’s Divergent tells the story of a government that forcefully separates and controls its citizens. 1984 and Divergent both share the presence of harsh regulation and control from their respective governments. Orwell and Roth’s novels compare Ministries and Factions, conformity and obedience, Proles and the Factionless, and government regulation, in a similar, yet negative way.
This dream of forming and maintaining a utopian society was immortalized in two novels dealing with the same basic ideas, 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Both of these novels deal with the lives of main characters that inadvertently become subversives in a totalitarian government. These two books differ greatly however with the manner in which the government controls the population and the strictness of the measures taken to maintain this stability. This essay with compare and contrast the message and tone of each novel as well as consider whether the utopia is a positive or negative one.
The books Brave New World by Aldus Huxley and Anthem by Ayn Rand are both valuable twentieth-century contributions to literature. Both books explore the presence of natural law in man and propose a warning for what could happen when man's sense of right and wrong is taken from him. In this essay, I hope to show how these seemingly unrelated novels both expound upon a single, very profound, idea.
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
The root of the word anarchism comes from the Greek word anarchos, which means without ruler. The main philosophy behind anarchism is that people can reside in an unregulated community with no real authority and maintain a sustainable life. Anarchists see government and capitalism as an institution that creates liberty for the rich and enslavement of the masses. Emma Goldman best describes anarchism as: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary. With anarchism there is a belief that once all government is abolished by the people that everyone will come together in a community of mutual aid and understanding without laws or authority to direct.