We in Utopian and Dystopian Reading Group

Aug 21, 2012 Shawn rated it really liked it

The world of ‘We’ is one of the classic dystopias. Published in 1924, I think it might even be one of the first written. Zamyatin wrote this novel in response to what he viewed as the world’s increasing leaning towards a totally mechanized, rational, dictatorial state. In this world, everything is ruled by science, by mathematical precision. Mathematical formulae and logorythms are the new dictum. Religion, spirituality, and virtually anything ‘anti-matter’ such as the spirit and the soul have b The world of ‘We’ is one of the classic dystopias. Published in 1924, I think it might even be one of the first written. Zamyatin wrote this novel in response to what he viewed as the world’s increasing leaning towards a totally mechanized, rational, dictatorial state. In this world, everything is ruled by science, by mathematical precision. Mathematical formulae and logorythms are the new dictum. Religion, spirituality, and virtually anything ‘anti-matter’ such as the spirit and the soul have been eradicated. Feelings do not exist, for those are not rational. Feelings, rather, if manifested in a ‘number’ imply an imminent threat to the state, or United State. Human nature does not exist. No love, no empathy, no compassion, no passion, no depth of feeling whatsoever. No longer do people have names or distinct personalities. The word ‘people,’ in fact, no longer exists. Instead, humans are ‘numbers’ and are identified by such. Drawing from the efficiency tables propounded by Taylorism, daily life is ruled by the clock and by strict schedules. Anyone deviating from the table is punished. Personal initiative does not exist, nor does individual will. All are one, all are ‘We.’

I won’t get in to the plot so as to avoid spoilers, but I will lay out a few common themes that I noticed in ‘We’ that occur in so many other dystopic novels. The first is the idea of a ‘green space,’ a place outside of the dystopic world where other people live and exist and these people are often described as savages and throwbacks from a bygone era. Presumably, because they number so few and because they do not possess much in the way of resources, they do not represent a threat to the ruling body. They do represent, though, in many of the author’s eyes, a genuine form of humanity, untainted by the ‘irrational rational’ found in so many other books. As such, there is an implicit longing for return to this state of nature which serves to create a utopia outside of the dystopia.

Secondly (and this is the case of many ‘modernist’ works of dystopic literature), there is a concern with man becoming dehumanized. In my view, this is due to late 19th century and early 20th century anxiety about modernization: industrialization, ideologies (especially those of the fascist, communist, and totalitarian varieties), hyper-rationalism embodied by a fanatical faith in science (Nietzsche equated this zeal with religious zeal), urbanization, sterilized mass culture produced by corporations for profit, consumerism, centralization of the state, and to some extent, secularization, or loss of spirituality. In many works such as ‘We’ the reader often finds that mankind has come under control of the pervasive, omnipotent state that manipulates him (often through Skinnerian, Pavlovian techniques torture or other forms of psychological manipulation such as lobotomization). Man is characterized as one small cog in a machine, without personality, subject to a grey, droll, mindnumbing existence. He becomes alienated, atomized. He exists for the state and the state only. So much for the liberal humanist conception of man.

Thirdly, science attempts to subjugate what we can generically call ‘human nature,’ but is rarely successful. Rebels always exist, people who still have some trace of a germ of ‘feeling’ or sentiment that the state is unable to extinguish. Sometimes this spark is still alive because one human has one foot in his remembered past that he longs for he. In dystopias taking place in the far future, usually after one final great war has destroyed the Earth as we know it, human nature still manages to be reawakened and this is usually the result of a woman reawakening ‘love’ in a man. It is interesting that so many authors use women as the inspiration for change. I am not versed in feminist thought, so I would be interested to know how others view this. But I can say that this idea seems in some ways to contradict the Victorian view of woman as hysterically emotional pieces of flesh that are a burden to men and whose place is in the home. No, in these books, the ‘emotional’ woman is superior to the hyper-rational state that is devoid of feeling and that, presumably, is headed by a man. The woman, then, acts as a liberating force for mankind and ushers in the revolution.

A fourth and fifth element is the state control of history (or, rather, denial of history) and language. History and language are tools of manipulation, of power. If history does not exist, the state is able to formulate a narrative that supports its dominance. The same goes for language. Presumably, if there is no language for ‘love,’ it cannot exist. The same goes for words such as ‘individuality,’ ‘initiative,’ ‘personal,’ and so forth.

All of the elements I have noted above appear in such novels as ‘Brave New World,’ ‘Fahrenheit 451,’ and ‘1984.’ Certainly other elements can be found (such as a rigid class structure and the negation of sexuality), but I leave those for you to explore. ‘We’ is one of the first novels to break from the ‘utopian’ tradition and as such, warrants your read. It is an easy read, free from too much jargon and philosophy (unlike 1984, which, in my opinion, is the most comprehensive and grim visions of the future). In some ways, it is a light read. But make no mistake, it’s message is not.
...more

Like · see review