💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › kim-stanley-robinson-dystopias-now.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:54:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Dystopias Now Author: Kim Stanley Robinson Date: 11.02.2018 Language: en Topics: dystopia, utopia, dialectics Source: Retrieved on 2020-08-16 from https://communemag.com/dystopias-now/
Dystopias are the flip side of utopias. Both of them express feelings
about our shared future; utopias express our social hopes, dystopias our
social fears. There are a lot of dystopias around these days, and this
makes sense, because we have a lot of fears about the future.
Both genres have ancient lineages. Utopia goes back to Plato at least,
and from the start it had a relationship to satire, an even more ancient
form. Dystopia is very clearly a kind of satire. Archilochus, the first
satirist, was said to be able to kill people with his curses. Possibly
dystopias hope to kill the societies they depict.
For a while now I’ve been saying that science fiction works by a kind of
double action, like the glasses people wear when watching 3D movies. One
lens of science fiction’s aesthetic machinery portrays some future that
might actually come to pass; it’s a kind of proleptic realism. The other
lens presents a metaphorical vision of our current moment, like a symbol
in a poem. Together the two views combine and pop into a vision of
History, extending magically into the future.
By that definition, dystopias today seem mostly like the metaphorical
lens of the science-fictional double action. They exist to express how
this moment feels, focusing on fear as a cultural dominant. A realistic
portrayal of a future that might really happen isn’t really part of the
project—that lens of the science fiction machinery is missing. The
Hunger Games trilogy is a good example of this; its depicted future is
not plausible, not even logistically possible. That’s not what it’s
trying to do. What it does very well is to portray the feeling of the
present for young people today, heightened by exaggeration to a kind of
dream or nightmare. To the extent this is typical, dystopias can be
thought of as a kind of surrealism.
These days I tend to think of dystopias as being fashionable, perhaps
lazy, maybe even complacent, because one pleasure of reading them is
cozying into the feeling that however bad our present moment is, it’s
nowhere near as bad as the ones these poor characters are suffering
through. Vicarious thrill of comfort as we witness/imagine/experience
the heroic struggles of our afflicted protagonists—rinse and repeat. Is
this catharsis? Possibly more like indulgence, and creation of a sense
of comparative safety. A kind of late-capitalist, advanced-nation
schadenfreude about those unfortunate fictional citizens whose lives
have been trashed by our own political inaction. If this is right,
dystopia is part of our all-encompassing hopelessness.
On the other hand, there is a real feeling being expressed in them, a
real sense of fear. Some speak of a “crisis of representation” in the
world today, having to do with governments—that no one anywhere feels
properly represented by their government, no matter which style of
government it is. Dystopia is surely one expression of that feeling of
detachment and helplessness. Since nothing seems to work now, why not
blow things up and start over? This would imply that dystopia is some
kind of call for revolutionary change. There may be something to that.
At the least dystopia is saying, even if repetitiously and
unimaginatively, and perhaps salaciously, Something’s wrong. Things are
bad.
Probably it’s important to remember the looming presence of climate
change, as a kind of techno-social disaster that has already begun and
which will inundate the next couple of centuries as some kind of
overdetermining factor, no matter what we do. This period we are
entering could become the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s
history, and the first caused by human activity. In that sense the
Anthropocene is a kind of biospheric dystopia coming into being every
day, partly because of the daily activities of the bourgeois consumers
of dystopian literature and film, so that there is a nightmarish
recursive realism involved in the project: not just Things are bad, but
also We are responsible for making them bad. And it’s hard not to notice
that we’re not doing enough to make things better, so things will get
worse too. Collective political action is necessary in order to make
things better; fixing the problems will require more than personal
virtue or renunciation. The collective has to change, and yet there are
forces keeping the collective from seeing this: thus dystopia now!
It’s important to remember that utopia and dystopia aren’t the only
terms here. You need to use the Greimas rectangle and see that utopia
has an opposite, dystopia, and also a contrary, the anti-utopia. For
every concept there is both a not-concept and an anti-concept. So utopia
is the idea that the political order could be run better. Dystopia is
the not, being the idea that the political order could get worse.
Anti-utopias are the anti, saying that the idea of utopia itself is
wrong and bad, and that any attempt to try to make things better is sure
to wind up making things worse, creating an intended or unintended
totalitarian state, or some other such political disaster. 1984 and
Brave New World are frequently cited examples of these positions. In
1984 the government is actively trying to make citizens miserable; in
Brave New World, the government was first trying to make its citizens
happy, but this backfired. As Jameson points out, it is important to
oppose political attacks on the idea of utopia, as these are usually
reactionary statements on the behalf of the currently powerful, those
who enjoy a poorly-hidden utopia-for-the-few alongside a
dystopia-for-the-many. This observation provides the fourth term of the
Greimas rectangle, often mysterious, but in this case perfectly clear:
one must be anti-anti-utopian.
One way of being anti-anti-utopian is to be utopian. It’s crucial to
keep imagining that things could get better, and furthermore to imagine
how they might get better. Here no doubt one has to avoid Berlant’s
“cruel optimism,” which is perhaps thinking and saying that things will
get better without doing the work of imagining how. In avoiding that, it
may be best to recall the Romain Rolland quote so often attributed to
Gramsci, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.” Or maybe we
should just give up entirely on optimism or pessimism—we have to do this
work no matter how we feel about it. So by force of will or the sheer
default of emergency we make ourselves have utopian thoughts and ideas.
This is the necessary next step following the dystopian moment, without
which dystopia is stuck at a level of political quietism that can make
it just another tool of control and of things-as-they-are. The situation
is bad, yes, okay, enough of that; we know that already. Dystopia has
done its job, it’s old news now, perhaps it’s self-indulgence to stay
stuck in that place any more. Next thought: utopia. Realistic or not,
and perhaps especially if not.
Besides, it is realistic: things could be better. The energy flows on
this planet, and humanity’s current technological expertise, are
together such that it’s physically possible for us to construct a
worldwide civilization—meaning a political order—that provides adequate
food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and health care for all eight
billion humans, while also protecting the livelihood of all the
remaining mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, plants, and other
life-forms that we share and co-create this biosphere with. Obviously
there are complications, but these are just complications. They are not
physical limitations we can’t overcome. So, granting the complications
and difficulties, the task at hand is to imagine ways forward to that
better place.
[]
Immediately many people will object that this is too hard, too
implausible, contradictory to human nature, politically impossible,
uneconomical, and so on. Yeah yeah. Here we see the shift from cruel
optimism to stupid pessimism, or call it fashionable pessimism, or
simply cynicism. It’s very easy to object to the utopian turn by
invoking some poorly-defined but seemingly omnipresent reality
principle. Well-off people do this all the time.
Clearly we enter here the realm of the ideological; but we’ve been there
all along. Althusser’s definition of ideology, which defines it as the
imaginary relationship to our real conditions of existence, is very
useful here, as everywhere. We all have ideologies, they are a necessary
part of cognition, we would be disabled without them. So the question
becomes, which ideology? People choose, even if they do not choose under
conditions of their own making. Here, remembering that science too is an
ideology, I would suggest that science is the strongest ideology for
estimating what’s physically possible to do or not do. Science is AI, so
to speak, in that the vast artificial intelligence that is science knows
more than any individual can know—Marx called this distributed knowing
“the general intellect”—and it continually reiterates and refines what
it asserts, in an ongoing recursive project of self-improvement. A very
powerful ideology. For my purpose here, I only invoke science to assert
that the energy flows in our biosphere would provide adequately for all
living creatures on the planet today, if we were to distribute them
properly. That proper distribution would involve not just cleaner,
ultimately decarbonized technologies—these are necessary but not
sufficient. We would also have to redefine work itself to include all
the activities now called social reproduction, treating them as acts
valuable enough to be included in our economic calculations one way or
another.
An adequate life provided for all living beings is something the planet
can still do; it has sufficient resources, and the sun provides enough
energy. There is a sufficiency, in other words; adequacy for all is not
physically impossible. It won’t be easy to arrange, obviously, because
it would be a total civilizational project, involving technologies,
systems, and power dynamics; but it is possible. This description of the
situation may not remain true for too many more years, but while it
does, since we can create a sustainable civilization, we should. If
dystopia helps to scare us into working harder on that project, which
maybe it does, then fine: dystopia. But always in service to the main
project, which is utopia.
---
Kim Stanley Robinson is an American science fiction writer. He is the
author of more than twenty books, including the international
bestselling Mars trilogy, and more recently New York 2140, Aurora,
Shaman, Green Earth, and 2312, which was a New York Times bestseller
nominated for all seven of the major science fiction awards—a first for
any book. His work has been translated into 25 languages, and won a
dozen awards in five countries, including the Hugo, Nebula, Locus, and
World Fantasy awards. In 2016 he was given the Heinlein Award for
lifetime achievement in science fiction, and asteroid 72432 was named
“Kimrobinson.”