Response to "The Dispossessed"

At Jemuel's recommendation I read "The Dispossessed" by Ursula La Guin. It is lamely billed as "anarchist utopia science fiction" which mostly gives reasons not to read the book rather than actually give you any idea what it is about or if it is worth reading. It is worth reading.

There may be spoilers.

As a novel
The structure of the novel caught me off guard in that it was somewhat interesting. Science fiction in my experience is very A to B with space ships or something. Even Ray Bradbury, who I hold in high regard, wrote almost exclusively this way. La Guin structured this book so that after the first chapter (the present for the protagonist) we are without any indicator taken to the protagonist's early childhood. The next chapter continues in the present followed by the past again, but always moving forward.

The structure is still something like A to B but really it is something more like A to 1 to B to 2 to C and so forth except in theory the chapters could have been put in full chronological order and maintained a cohesive structure. The stepping back and forth to different times, once understood, was enjoyable and carefully revealed the character of the protagonist, his relationships and the settings of each time.

Purely as a writer I say it works but would hope that La Guin does not use this structure in multiple books. Certainly an artist plays with a mode or gimmick in multiple projects but if the artist never clings on to the mode for no real reason it becomes obnoxious. It would be especially offensive considering the ideals of the protagonist to be a part of novel but mechanical trick of the trade.

As a utopia
Jemuel described the anarchist society the protagonist comes from as "a realistic anarchist society." Hearing this I started the book with my magnifying glass to find clear hypocrisies, idealistic self denials and impractical solutions to the human condition (sinfulness). However I found Jemuel's description to have been quite accurate; La Guin had not intended the society to be a utopia at all. The people were sometimes jerks; life sometimes was hard; there were problems which the ideals of the society could not pretend to solve. Half of the past part of the story is the protagonist struggling to achieve an actual anarchist society in the anarchist society, to push the society to their own ideals.

The anarchist society was a moon of a earth like society (in a mode not unlike the past Cold War era). The two were meant to contrast each other and to La Guin's credit she does not deny the virtues of the hierarchical society the protagonist spends most of his time. Really she goes overboard to highlight the splendor, power and effectiveness of such a society. In contrast the anarchist society seems difficult but relaxed, sociable but overly casual, there are fewer boundaries to hold people in or protect them from the difficulties of others.

Most interesting about the anarchist society is the protagonist's general discovery that it had slowly replaced the freedom of individuals with the tyranny of social expectation. Though that tyranny is almost non-existent compared to the conventional use of the word. The big consequence of breaking social expectation is not much worse than being unpopular... rather than being shot at with machine guns from a helecopter.

Still with a surprsing few number of modifications the anarchist society could easily fit into my understanding of a realistic Christian society (though we'd have many of the same failing what with our sinful nature and all).

Christian Response
La Guin's anarchist society was most different from my understanding of a realistic Christian society in its sexual mores.

It is an obnoxious subject to disagree about because the blatant hypocrasy of almost everyone involved. It is difficult to even speak of the subject. I have encountered a chaotic blend of leanred rules, guilt and lust which leads almost everyone to strongly and irrationally defend or attack a sexual mores depending on circumstances and mood rather than any guiding principle. And the few non-Christians who are capable of navigating their sexuality without chaos are more private about it for fear of attack from the mass majority of angry people who don't really know what they believe about sex. I have heard many criticism of Christian sexual mores but rarely have I heard that the Christian sexual life is unclear.

Regardless of uselessness (and stereotype) of the Christian objection to a differen sexual standard I would be false to not explore the Christian reaction to the anarchist sexual mores. It is not the most important part of their society... but it still stands out.

The anarchist society operates in a socially constructed mode where consentual sexual activity between adults is politely kept private but beyond that has no other social standard or expectation. So people have sex when they feel like it with whoever feels like doing it. You get a room, you do your thing and its not that big of a deal. OR if you feel like it you have a lifetime partner and sex is something only shared with that partner. The partner model is shown to be the anomoly and in small ways causing friction to others but on the whole not very unusual. Still as the story progresses the protagonist does make a commitment to a partner and their relationship is indistinguishable from a successful marriage.

The Christian objection to the ideal La Guin imagines is based upon the principle that the structure and rule of Christian sexuality are made for our benefit and protection rather than to opress or supress sexuality. The criticism of La Guin's ideal is that it imagines that most of the cause of modern sexual unhappiness is socially constructed. If that were the case (and disease and preganncy were managed) in theory the only needed step would be to change the socially constructed mores: problem solved.

I'm getting tired and want to write about what the anarchist ideal does very right so I am not going to argue about it other than to say that the Christian position is that a undeniable part of sexual problems are beyond social construction.

One way La Guin's anarchism meets with Christianity is in the nature of work/play. In the anarchist society the two words work and play are the same word. In one part everyone does the kind of work/play that they feel inclined to do. So there are a lot of hobbies, of a sort. The people jsut do what they like, be it music, building, driving, physics, science or whatever. Passion focuses vocation. But then everyone takes a time doing mundane jobs which need to be done BUT they are done as an act of service to the people. One could say that they are done out of love.

This is not very different from the Christian model. I am going to be a teacher because that is what makes me come alive. I switch on when I'm in a class room. I would say God is calling me (existentially) to this path. But still there are some things I do which I "just got to do." But these supposed obligations when perceived as an act of love are transformed (if only in my mind) from a boring task to a supreme act. I get switched on when I teach but this does not compare to the high of helping someone in need.

Okay I'm going to go to sleep.

A Serious Man by the Cohen Brothers

Yeah, there are spoilers but for the most part that is permissible; I mean how much would it affect a person's appreciation of "The Big Lebowski" to know beforehand who had taken the money?
Because of the inaccessibility of the film at this time all quotations should be considered paraphrases.
Lastly, this is going to be a full blown paper, not a casual review. If you want a review here it is: if you liked most Cohen Brothers movies you'll like this one. Just be warned it is most like "Barton Fink" of all their films.

...
When I was fifteen my Mom sat her remaining children down and made us listen to "She's Leaving Home," a little noticed Beatles song on "Sgt Pepper's Lonelyhearts Club Band." Already a fringe figure in the family, my mother had little influence in the future direction of our lives. She seemed to grasp at what little hope she had and stressed how important it was that we understood that song. At sixteen I said "yeah, yeah, yeah." but did listen and in future Beatle enjoyment paid extra attention to the meaning of that song.

The Cohen Brother's latest film "A Serious Mind" is the kind of movie I would show my children if I felt that their lives were heading towards soullessness and I had little influence to use to steer them towards a meaningful life. Sadly, there is no one I think that would understand the movie as I do... unless it is my Mom. The central theme of "A Serious Man" can be found in the film when the ancient rabbi quotes the Jefferson Airplane song: "'When the truth is found to be lies/And the hope within you dies,' what... do... you... do?" The central theme of "A Serious Man" is that the neat, rational paradigm of twentieth century America has shown itself to be false and offers no hope for those who trust in it. This theme is expressed through the setting, of the 1960's, where American society came close to social collapse, the struggle of Larry Gopnik, the protagonist, who is looking for meaning in his troubles while desiring to believe in an ordered, moral, meaningful universe in the midst of life shattering problems. The theme which is mostly seen as the struggle of Larry has consequences on his whole family but it is mostly clearly shown in the danger to his son. His son seems largely indifferent to his father's troubles though he is not ignorant. At school his main concern is getting twenty dollars, at home his main concern is the reception of his television. But regardless of his ignorance and indifference it is clearly shown that the Larry's failure to find an answer will still be a storm which his son must endure.

From "Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin

Do me a favor. Read this passage from the anarchist sci-fi book "Dispossessed" and think of the description as a type of archetype, then answer the question at the end. It's not hard but I am curious.
"Since he was very young he had known that in certain ways he was unlike anyone else he knew. For a child the consciousness of such a difference is very painful, since, having done nothing yet and being incapable of doing anything, he cannot justify it. The reliable and affectionate presence of adults who are also, in their own way, different, is the only reassurance they can have; and Shevek had not had it. His father had indeed been utterly reliable and affectionate. Whatever Shevek was and whatever he did, Palat approved and was loyal. But Palat had not had this curse of difference. He was like the others, like all the others to whom community came so easy. He loved Shevek, but could not show him what freedom is, that recognition of each person's solitude which alone transcends it."

In so far as you can recognize the archetype of the "stranger in a strange land," inncoent alien loner do you identify with the character, wish to know the character or dislike the character?

Supreme Court

So the Supreme Court will be meeting soon and that always interests me. Pasted below is a brief summary of the major cases from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/05/MNR119VTSS.DTL

My reaction to the cases will follow:

Campaigns: Whether federal and state laws that ban corporate and labor union contributions to political campaigns and political parties violate freedom of speech.

Guns: Whether the Second Amendment, which the court interpreted to guarantee an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, applies to state and local governments.

Cross: Whether an 8-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Animals: Whether a federal law making it a crime to possess images of cruelty to animals violates freedom of speech.

Terrorism: Whether federal laws that make it a crime to give "material support," including legal training and medical aid, to groups designated as terrorist organizations are unconstitutionally vague or over broad.

Juveniles: Whether a state can sentence juveniles to life without the possibility of parole for crimes other than homicides, such as rape or robbery.

....

Campaign finance: In a society where voters make decisions based upon emotional sentiment rather than responsible citizenship how much money allowed directly into national campaigns is a non-issue. Big money (corporations and unions) still spends a lot of money by contributing to non-profits which let us know that Sen. Kerry was a coward, Gov.Palin is a nut job and if you vote this way the terrorists won.

I see no compelling reason to change this particular limit and no compelling reason to hold fast to it. A responsible citizen informs themselves and is resistant to propaganda voting intelligently for the good of their conscience, family and nation. Where these responsible citizens exist money has a limited influence. Where these responsible citizens are overshadowed by consumer conformist no campaign reform can save democracy.

Guns: This case is a refinement of a recent SC decision to forbid D.C. from banning all citizen gun ownership. Based on a constitutional argument gun ownership must be protected. "A well armed citizenship is the best defense from tyranny" or so the argument goes. I support some forms of limitation of gun control but agree with the precedent of the previous ruling which forbids any universal ban.

Cross: I understand two broad ways of interpreting the First Amendment's religious clause: pluralist or secular. The first says that legally all religions (*"most all" not "all all") must be tolerated in the public arena. The second says that all religions are forbidden in the public arena. My understanding of this case (and most of the similar recent cases) are from the secular interpretation. The cross cannot be allowed on publicly funded land because no religious artifact is to be allowed on any public function because allowing the statement "In God we trust" on a dollar bill is equivalent to a state religion.

I tolerate the idea of a pluralist society because I recognize the necessity for toleration in a democracy but have no respect for the secular position. If the case was challenging that the Christian symbol was given competitive edge over some other local religion I might side with the case but to say that you just can't have a religious symbol on government property I reject.

Animal: Nah, besides would it apply to PETA's anti-meat propaganda too? There would have to be strong, thoroughly reviewed almost uncontested scientific support that possession of such images resulted in further crimes. This isn't child pornography we are talking about.

Terrorism: I don't know if the laws are over-broad or vague but strongly believe that criminal laws should be specific and clear even if they involve terrorism.

Juveniles: I think that would fall under cruel and unusual punishments.