Shadows to Walk  William Marcellino 203

Shadows to Walk: Ursula Le Guin’s

Transgressions in Utopia
William Marcellino

Feminist Utopian Fiction fiction comes from utopian writer and feminist
theorist Sally Miller Gearhart. As Gearhart de-
fines it, feminist utopian fiction:
Feminist utopian fiction is a theoretical re- a. contrasts the present world with an envisioned ide-
alized society (separated from the present by time or
sponse to patriarchy (Gearhart, Peel). In this space), b. offers a comprehensive critique of present
sense, utopian fiction is a critical response to an values/conditions, c. sees men or male institutions as a
major cause of present social ills, and d. presents
unsatisfactory present condition, with feminist women not only as at least the equals of men but also
utopian fiction in particular addressing patriarchal the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions.
(qtd. in Silbergleid 161)
problems in its critique, imagining some kind of
place where these problems are solved, or condi- Feminist utopian writers (who are often also
tions at least improved. Patriarchy is cultural, so- theorists: e.g., Gearhart, Joanna Russ, Ursula LeG-
cial and political systems that are characterized by uin) who share assumptions seeing ‘‘men or male
dominant male power and dominant male focus institutions as a major cause of present social ills’’
(Peel). Dominant male power refers to ‘‘men’s have tended to solve problems of patriarchy in one
systematic power over women . . . control over of two ways: separation and countercolonization.
women’s bodies, their economic resources, their Works like Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland
access to knowledge, their energies, their words’’ (1915) and Gearhart’s The Wanderground (1984)
as well as indirect forms of power such as dispa- envision separation as the only viable solution to
rate access to money and power (Peel 54–55). intransigent male barbarity. In those works, once
Dominant male focus is the privileging of male women can get away from men and experience
norms, positing the male experience as the sole female singularity, societal ills across the entire
one or the one most worthy of notice—male sin- spectrum can be solved. Places like Herland are
gularity and centrality, respectively (Peel 57). not just better than our present world—once men
Feminist utopian works critique dominant are removed from the equation, separatist utopias
male power and focus and offer some kind of are paradisal. Wanderground is also a separatist
imagined, idealized society that is not character- work that theorizes about female centrality—men
ized by male power and focus. How feminist as a gender must be excluded, but men who adopt
utopian writers solve problems of patriarchy—the female norms—the homosexual ‘‘Gentles’’ who
shape of their imagined, utopian places—reflects embrace female centrality—have a place.1
an underlying feminist theory. For example, one Another theoretical response to patriarchy has
widely applicable conception of feminist utopian been ‘‘countercolonial’’ utopian writing. Counter-

Bill Marcellino is a former US Marine officer and current doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University in the rhetoric program,
researching how the US military makes and makes use of language.
The Journal of American Culture, 32:3
r 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
204 The Journal of American Culture  Volume 32, Number 3  September 2009

colonial utopian fiction hinges on a reversal of A comparison of the feminist theoretical un-
dominant male power with dominant female derpinnings of different utopian fiction writers re-
power, positing an ideal world where women are veals that counter colonial and separatist feminist
able to dominate men or inflict retaliatory vio- utopian fictions reinscribe the very oppressions
lence on them, as in Joanna Russ’ The Female they critique. Therefore, LeGuin’s interdependence
Man (TFM) (1975) or Suzy McKee Charnas’ theory deserves special consideration by feminists
(1994) ‘‘Riding Women’’ series. In discussing these who seek to avoid replicating oppressions.
sorts of countercolonial responses, feminist rheto-
ric scholar Ellen Peel suggests that such theoriz-
ing may not be meant to be taken at face value— Interdependency
that it is meant to be thought-provoking rather
than prescriptive:
Ursula Le Guin casts a long shadow in science
Both The Silent City and The Furies (the last novel in
Charnas’ series) even present all-female societies aim-
fiction. Over thirty-nine years she has won almost
ing to conquer and enslave all-male ones . . . . various every award possible in the genre (along with
societies, each with its own types of power and focus multiple mainstream literary awards) and has
are also described in The Female Man, by Joanna Russ
and Daughters of Elysium, by Joan Slonczewski . . . done something that no other writer has: been
both books are pragmatic in guiding implied readers honored with three pairs of Hugo and Nebula
through stages of questions about whether alternatives
such as violence or an all-female society may be nec- awards. The Nebula award is the popular reader’s
essary in striving for feminist ideals. (12) award, a sort of Golden Globe, and the Hugo
Award is the writer’s award, a kind of Oscar for
Peel argues that violent, countercolonial works best novel. In 1968, in a male-dominated subgenre
do not really endorse violent countercolonization. focused on technology science fiction (space ships
However, countercolonial works like TFM are and ray-guns) Le Guin was the first female writer
part of a body of feminist utopian fiction that to be recognized critically and popularly with the
devotes considerable narrative space and energy Hugo and Nebula.
to raping, conquering and enslaving men. Peel It would be difficult to overstate the impor-
herself talks about ‘‘the righteous violence of a tance of Le Guin’s work, not only within science
Joanna Russ novel’’2—regardless of whether such fiction, but also in feminist and Marxist/anarchist
theorizing is meant to be taken prescriptively, its theory and criticism. Marxist theorist and critic
basis is turning the tables on men and reversing Frederic Jameson maintains that Le Guin ‘‘is one
power roles (30). of the most important contemporary American
This background of separatist and counter- writers . . . her novel The Left Hand of Darkness
colonial theorizing puts Ursula Le Guin’s theoriz- (1969) made a fundamental contribution to fem-
ing, centered on interdependence and difference, inism and gender studies, just as her electrifying
in bas-relief. By privileging neither female nor political intervention, The Dispossessed (1974), did
male norms, by diagramming in her narrative to the political debates of the 1970’s’’ (13). Jame-
differing but interdependent female and male son is referring to the popular impact Le Guin’s
strengths, and by criticizing and praising (nu- writing had—in 1969 Le Guin introduced to her
anced criticism) both female and male political audience of almost exclusively young, male read-
approaches, Le Guin stakes out a third feminist ers the idea that gender and sex were not identical.
utopian approach, distinct from separatists and Similarly, in the middle of a Cold War that char-
countercolonist approaches. There is a divide acterized Marxist thought as the ultimate other,
within feminist utopian fiction: dualist modalities the enemy, she was able to write articulately, pas-
that are concerned with valuation (that fit the sionately, but most of all persuasively about
Gearhart criteria), and integrated modalities con- shared anarchist and Marxist principles like eco-
cerned with balance (Le Guin’s approach). nomic collectivism and disalienation.
 Shadows to Walk  William Marcellino 205

Writing about her own feminist utopian fiction the anarchists of Anarres. The story alternates by
years later in ‘‘Is Gender Necessary (Redux)’’3 Le chapter from the current events on Urras to flash-
Guin sums up her theoretical basis: backs on Anarres, and what emerges is a picture
Our curse is alienation, the separation of yang from of two worlds that have radically different sys-
yin [and the moralization of yang as good, of yin as tems of political economy, both flawed, and lack-
bad]. Instead of a search for balance and integration,
there is a struggle for dominance. Divisions are insisted ing what the other has. Urras has wealth, plenty,
upon, interdependence is denied. The dualism of di- and a level of human dignity that arises when hu-
vision that destroys us, the dualism of superior/infe-
rior, ruler/ruled, owner/owned, user/used, might give mans move beyond subsistence living, but it also
way to what seems to me, from here, a much healthier, has repressive government, inequality for women,
sounder, more promising modality of integration and
integrity. (16)
and suffering for a permanent underclass. Anarres
has broad freedom, equality without reference to
Using Le Guin’s wording then, separatist fic- gender or class distinctions, and has disalienated
tions are dualist responses in which ‘‘divisions are work in the Marxist sense. Anarres also has pe-
insisted upon, interdependence is denied’’; valori- riodic starvation, subsistence demands that tear
zation of division moralizes yin now as good, and families apart, and, behind the surface freedoms of
yang as bad. Similarly, countercolonial responses an anarchist society where no one is ‘‘made’’ to do
are concerned with ‘‘a struggle for dominance,’’ anything, an invisible structure for social control
hinging on ‘‘the dualism of superior/inferior, and power dominance just as confining as any-
ruler/ruled, owner/owned, user/used,’’ moraliz- thing on properterian Urras. The narrative goes
ing yin as good and yang as bad. back and forth praising and then criticizing a
Le Guin’s theorizing is explicit in that passage, feminine and then masculine world chapter by
but it is her fiction that gives her the bully pulpit chapter, and then ending not on either gender’s
to speak persuasively. How then do we locate her terrain, but instead in terrain that can be consid-
persuasive message in her utopian fiction—her ered to be gender interdependent, implying inter-
theory of feminism? Philosopher John Hospers, dependency through the chapter structure.
writing about how artists express truth, said that Themes of feminine and masculine interdepen-
we may find an artist’s beliefs by ‘‘observing dence also characterize LeGuin’s vastly popular
carefully which passages contain the greatest pas- The Left Hand of Darkness (LHoD) (2004).
sion and intensity, which themes are most often LHoD tries to imagine a place without war: a
reiterated, how the plot is made to evolve, which world where the human inhabitants are ambisex-
characters are treated with the most sympathy, ual, alternately male and female in sex over the
and so on’’ (qtd. in Peel 20). We can locate some course of their lives. With no ‘‘women’’ to be the
of Le Guin’s theoretical beliefs by looking at victims of male aggression, there is no war (LeG-
the most intense, passionate scenes and themes in uin). An example of masculine and feminine in-
her utopian fiction—those ones that reiterate Le terdependence in LHoD comes during the
Guin’s search for ‘‘a much healthier, sounder, ‘‘glacier-crossing’’ scene, where a native ambisex-
more promising modality of integration and in- ual Gethen (Estraven) who is helping the Terran
tegrity.’’ envoy, Genly Ai. Estraven goes into kemmer
The Dispossessed (TD) is set in the Tau Ceti during the journey (temporarily female) and ‘‘her’’
system, which has two inhabited worlds: Urras, feminine capacity, coupled with Genly masculin-
an earthlike planet dominated by a prosperous ity, is what allows them to succeed at their daunt-
capitalist nation comparable to the United States ing task. Estraven divides up the food in a way
during the Cold War, and Anarres, its moon. that favors Genly—Genly is bigger, stronger,
Anarres is an ‘‘anarchist’’ society of refugees from needs more food, and is not schooled in priva-
Urras, followers of the female philosopher Odo, a tion as Estraven is. Estraven’s impulse to give
sort of Zen Marx whose teaching led to the ul- saves Genly from starvation over the glacial trek.
timate split between ‘‘properterians’’ of Urras and But at the same time, Genly’s physical strength
206 The Journal of American Culture  Volume 32, Number 3  September 2009

and masculine drive saves them as well—there is women and men—for instance, a patriarchal or
one scene where Estraven, tied to the sledge, feminist power relation’’ (42). By gendering ter-
plunges off a crevasse, blind in the diffuse white- rain Le Guin is able to walk the implied reader
ness of the snow and ice. Only Genly’s brute through different ideas about and constructions of
strength saves them, as he literally manhandles the gender and gender relations. In a country that re-
sledge and Estraven to safety. LeGuin hammers flects patriarchy, Le Guin illustrates in a visceral
home the need for gender interdependence in this sense the injustice of patriarchy in a very subtle
scene in an individual sense, as she has in the and persuasive way that declaration cannot
broader political level—LeGuin’s treatment of the achieve. Likewise, on a planet which is gendered
personal and political does not disconnect them, as female, the implied reader may be walked
but does allow her to address them as distinct but through world that allows for more justice—per-
related. haps in the sense that communalism is practiced
This scene of personal gender interdependence or that women have voices and autonomy—which
is critical to understanding the book’s title. Est- allows the real reader to ‘‘try on’’ this new posi-
raven fell because of the unremitting whiteness of tion closer to feminism (and anarchism, which is
the ice, saying later, ‘‘It’s queer that the daylight’s associated with feminism in Le Guin).
not enough. We need the shadows, in order to In LHoD, there are three major sets of terrain:
walk’’ (Le Guin, LHoD 267). This is the import of Karhide, the monarchist state where the book
the book’s title: that we need both light and dark starts and ends, Orgoreyn, which is a militaristic
to see. A Gethan lay in LHoD explicitly asserts Soviet-style nation, and the Gobrin Ice Sheet, a
this interdependence: ‘‘Light is the left hand of vast glacier stretch that the main characters must
darkness/and darkness the right hand of light./ cross to get back to Karhide after escaping Or-
Two are one, life and death, lying/together like goreyn. Each of these places is gendered. Peel says
lovers in kemmer,/like hands joined together, like that
the end and the way’’ (Le Guin, LHoD 233). Just Karhide’s female connotations [stem] from its values
as we need light and dark to see, each gender and way of life, which resemble those that Western
societies conventionally associate with women,
needs the other to function: to give birth, to sur- through both stereotypes and female-associated gen-
vive physically against the vagaries of the planet der . . . . these traits are epitomized in the area farthest
from the male Orgoreyn, in Karhide’s old land, where
through interdependency, to be healthy politi- flourishes the Handarra religion . . . . The Handarrata
cally. Gethen’ ambisexuality is a biological way resembles the nation’s anarchic political life and
. . . . strongly evokes female associated gender traits
expression of the cultural and political ambisex- and stereotypical femininity. (123–24)
uality that LeGuin’s metapolity the Ekumen4 has
achieved and Gethen must embrace if it wishes to Orgoreyn, on the other hand, is seen through
avoid war. Ultimately their journey is a success— the eyes of the Terran envoy as orderly and ra-
Estraven and Genly make it alive across the ice, tional—that is to say, masculine—or as Peel puts
Genly summons his starship from orbit, and the it, ‘‘bringing to mind the conventions of mascu-
jingoes on both sides who worked towards war linity and male associated gender: order and rea-
are replaced by political factions ready to talk, son, light and straightforwardness’’ (124).
listen, and learn how to cooperate. Significantly, the privileging or unprivileging of
Le Guin also uses gendered terrain to break these gendered terrains reflects the views of the
down gender separation and show interdepen- narrator, who at the beginning of the book has
dence. Feminist rhetoric scholar Ellen Peel holds patriarchal gender assumptions. Later in the nar-
that in feminist utopian writing, ‘‘geography rep- rative as the repressive and militaristic aspects of
resents the sexes: a female place is a figure for masculine Orgoreyn emerge, and as Karhide is
women, a male place is a figure for men, and, most valorized, such privileging is reversed. However,
importantly, the relationship between the two this gendered terrain is not a good/bad dualism.
places is a figure for the relationship between Just as Orgoreyn is deadly to Genly Ai—he is
 Shadows to Walk  William Marcellino 207

imprisoned in a Gulag and tortured with drugs the work is the need to recognize self in other,
close to the point of death—Karhide deadly to summed up by Le Guin as ‘‘Not We and They;
Estraven because ‘‘he’’ is under an execution ban. not I and It, but I and Thou’’5 (LHoD 259).
Neither feminine Karhide nor masculine Orgoreyn
is sufficient by itself. This fact becomes clear later
on the Gobrin Ice Sheet, a vast glacier that Genly Criticism
and Estraven must cross. It is on this ice sheet that
the narrative gives the strongest and most moving
passages supporting interdependency between Given the argument that LeGuin’s feminist
sexes, for indeed the glacier is a third term in theory deserves special attention from feminists,
gender oppositions. There, Estraven and Genly feminist criticism of LeGuin’s writing as insuffi-
are in ‘‘a place of both darkness and light, having ciently feminist or as nonutopian should be ad-
left the countries were only one or the other dressed. An important assumption in this paper is
dominates,’’ dark being symbolic of the feminine that feminist utopian science fiction is rhetori-
and light the masculine in LHoD (Peel, 133). cal—in critiquing current conditions and imagin-
By walking the implied reader through gende- ing a better place in feminist terms, feminist
red terrain, Le Guin is able to engage in a rhe- utopian science fiction is an argument against pa-
torical process of challenging gender-essentialist triarchy and in favor of a more desirable society in
assumptions and persuading real readers. Peel feminist terms. Peel defines ‘‘feminist literature as
points out that the process of persuasion involves literature that encourages feminism in its readers,
belief-bridging, moving by steps from one posi- literature whose implicit or explicit goals include
tion to another via acceptable shared values or feminist persuasion’’ (16). From this perspective,
beliefs. The implied reader of LHoD, for example one can evaluate a work of feminist utopian fic-
(young, male science fiction reader with patriar- tion in terms of how persuasive it is. Effective
chal beliefs), is a close match to the narrator of feminist utopian fiction engages real readers and
most of the story, and as Genly travels across moves them towards the implied author’s6 femi-
gendered terrain and his assumptions about gen- nist convictions. There is an important distinction
der are ‘‘re-mapped,’’ the real reader may also be in the critical reception to Le Guin’s theorizing
persuaded, and move closer to a feminist position. between criticism predicated on adherence to a
As Peel describes it, theoretical assumption about gender and sex (for
By the time Genly has made four trips—to female
example, ‘‘the male gender is destructive’’) and
Karhide, to male Orgoreyn, to the Gobrin Ice-Sheet, criticism that looks for persuasive effect on real
and back to Karhide—his beliefs have changed pro- readers.
foundly, for he has reluctantly transformed his focus.
By the end of the novel, the Karhide/Orgoreyn op- It’s important to acknowledge that while Le
position has been deconstructed and, along with it, the Guin and Russ provide contrasting examples of
female/male opposition. Meanwhile, belief-bridging
invites readers towards the particular descriptions and feminist utopian theory, their positions as literary
evaluations at each stage. Moving from stage to stage critics are much closer. Le Guin wrote her pio-
draws implied readers into a process of pragmatic
feminism. (123) neering work conscious of feminism, but not (in
her later estimation) as a feminist (Le Guin,
Instead of engaging solely in criticism of one ‘‘Gender’’ 8). She would return to her own work
gender, or theorizing countercolonization to deal again and again over the years as a feminist critic
with gender conflict, Le Guin articulates a model who refined her feminism. The most relevant of
of gender harmony through mutual support and those critical essays to the issues posed here is her
dialogue, in stark contrast to the theory of writers 1976/1987 ‘‘Is Gender Necessary? (Redux).’’ Le
like Joanna Russ and Sally Miller Gearhart. Guin addresses criticism of her own work, gen-
LHoD theorizes about gender interdependence erally agreeing with her critics. In 1987 she revised
and gender rapprochement. The central theme of the essay, keeping the original text but adding her
208 The Journal of American Culture  Volume 32, Number 3  September 2009

revisions in parenthetical comments. LeGuin in of her own narrative choices in LHoD. She repu-
1987 finds her 1969 work insufficiently feminist diates her choice to refer to Gethans by masculine
(8), and nonutopian (16). It is fascinating to see pronouns in the revised version of the ‘‘Is Gender
Le Guin disavow some of the very elements of Necessary? Redux’’ essay, saying she wished ‘‘I
her early work that made it so widely resonant, had realized how the pronouns I used shaped,
for example, the broadly constructed implied directed, controlled my own thinking’’ (15). She
reader that Peel highlights as rhetorically effec- also questions her own moral courage in choosing
tive because it was able to engage real readers who to have a male protagonist in LHoD.
were not yet feminists. Years later Le Guin would Men were inclined to be satisfied with the book which
regard that broadly constructed implied reader, allowed them a safe trip into androgyny and back,
not as a valid rhetorical choice, but as a feminist from a conventionally male viewpoint. But many
women wanted to go further, to dare more, to explore
failure that reinscribes patriarchy. Le Guin the androgyny from a woman’s point of view as well as a
later critic finds herself problematic. man’s . . . I think women were justified in asking more
courage of me and a more rigorous thinking-through
The most common criticism of Le Guin is that of implications. (16)
her works are insufficiently feminist, even patri-
archal. Particularly problematic to many feminists Le Guin the critic agrees with Russ that LHoD
is that LHoD does not have any women per se in is not utopian: ‘‘Is the book a Utopia? It seems to
it—how can a feminist utopian work not have me that it is quite clearly not; it poses no prac-
women? This critique is summed up by bioeth- ticable alternative to contemporary society, since
icist Kathy Rudy7: ‘‘If ‘women’ are constructed it is based on an imaginary, radical change in hu-
and defined by their unique ability to bear live man anatomy’’ (16). Feminists like Russ and the
children, such beings are absent from LeGuin’s later LeGuin have decided to hold LHoD to a
novel. That is, there is no separate group of in- standard that is not applied to other feminist uto-
dividuals who are marked by their ability to pro- pian fictions: practicability. Russ, for example,
duce live children . . . . all people are both men and considers both Wanderground and her own TFM
women’’ (32). Joanna Russ, whose approach to feminist utopian fiction, even though neither
feminist utopian fiction strongly opposed Le offers practical solutions. Wanderground’s prem-
Guin’s, echoes this critique, saying that LHoD ise is that the Earth magically fights back against
‘‘has no women in it at all’’ (qtd. in Rudy 32). Russ men in ‘‘The Revolt of the Mother’’ to deny men
has even gone so far as to claim that LHoD is not functioning technology or erections outside of
a utopian work in her essay ‘‘Speculations: The urban areas, while women develop powerful psy-
Subjunctivity of Science Fiction,’’8 where she ar- cho and telekinetic abilities to include telepathy
gues that science fiction as a genre cannot be and flight—hardly a practicable solution to patri-
conveniently and safely tucked away as allegory archy. TFM’s utopia is Whileaway, whose dirty
or utopian fiction (18). But in a later essay in the secret is revealed at the end of the book: centuries
same collection, ‘‘Recent Feminist Utopias,’’ Russ ago the women of Whileaway purchased a gen-
includes TD, Wanderground, and TFM as utopian dercidal bioweapon and exterminated the male
fiction, whereas LHoD is not, in Russ’s opinion half of the human species. Hopefully this strategy
either feminist or utopian (18). Even those critics is not meant to be a practicable solution to pa-
who accept LHoD as feminist utopian fiction are triarchy. So why is there a special standard, a
prone to criticize it as structurally flawed. Tim higher level of scrutiny and ambivalence over Le
Libretti (who disagrees with such an assessment) Guin’s work, and in particular about the status
sums up the complaint: ‘‘Because the novel fea- of LHoD? The most popular and influential
tures a male protagonist it necessarily replicates American feminist utopian fiction is highly prob-
the standard male quest narrative and thus repro- lematic to a group of feminist critics—why?
duces patriarchal ideology’’ (306). Le Guin herself The answer hinges on feminism being con-
years later would come back as a very harsh critic structed along lines of female centrality or singu-
 Shadows to Walk  William Marcellino 209

larity. A comment from Joanna Russ concerning must be challenged—to be a humanist does not
TD is illuminating. Russ approves of TD, in that preclude being a feminist.
it presents a society ‘‘that [is] conceived by the Feminist utopian fiction is rhetorical—in cri-
author as better in explicitly feminist terms and tiquing current conditions and imagining a better
for explicitly feminist reasons’’ (134). She goes on place in feminist terms, feminist utopian fiction is
however with an interesting qualifier: ‘‘In only . . . an argument against patriarchy and in favor of a
The Dispossessed, is feminism per se not the au- more desirable society in feminist terms. Because
thor’s primary concern; it is secondary to Le feminist literature is ‘‘literature that encourages
Guin’s communitarian anarchism’’ (134). One feminism in its readers, literature whose implicit
might agree with Russ’ criticism that feminism or explicit goals include feminist persuasion,’’ one
per se is not Le Guin’s primary concern in TD can evaluate a work of feminist utopian fiction in
but disagree that TD’s focus is on communitarian terms of how persuasive it is. Effective feminist
anarchism. Anarchism is criticized in TD, is prob- utopian fiction engages real readers and moves
lematic, and insufficient in itself. The author’s them toward the implied author’s10 feminist con-
primary concern in TD (or LHoD) is not femi- victions. Using this rhetorical litmus test for a
nism or communalism—it is humanism. In ad- feminist work moves criticism away from
dressing why Le Guin’s theory has been so whether individual characters in the text are
problematic for many critics, Marxist Tony Burns women or hold feminist viewpoints, to the per-
points out that Le Guin’s writings show someone suasive process between the text and the real
who has ‘‘been strongly influenced by the philos- reader. As a rhetorician, Peel believes that ‘‘the
ophy of Taoism9 . . . someone who is a moral re- more closely a real reader fits the profile of a text’s
alist and a humanist, who holds views currently implied reader, the more likely it is that the real
unfashionable amongst those who have been in- reader will be persuaded as the implied author
fluenced by the philosophies of postmodernism intends’’ (27). Peel believes that effective rhetoric
and post-structuralism’’ (140). Le Guin is a Taoist hinges on this idea of matching. Given Le Guin’s
humanist concerned with how we can become 1960s and 1970s audience (overwhelmingly male
disalienated and stop insisting on divisions and science-fiction readers) the utility of her narrative
function within a mode of interdependency. In choices makes perfect sense: the implied reader in
this sense, Le Guin’s feminism and anarchism both LHoD and TD has a good chance of match-
both spring from the same source: her Taoist hu- ing, and thus effectively persuading, real readers.
manism. This non-Western grounding creates ten- Her pragmatic choices in structuring her narrative
sion between her theory and other feminist are thus sensible, and don’t obviate the feminism
theorists and critics for whom feminism is female of these texts. Pragmatism11 is a valid mode for
singularity or centrality—Le Guin has human such a wide-ranging and diverse movement as
centrality at the core of her feminist works. Burns, feminism: it requires a willingness to move in
while primarily concerned with the tension be- steps, experiment, engage in self-critique, and ac-
tween Le Guin’s humanism and classical Marx- cept compromise. As Peel points out:
ism, also notes that, ‘‘Some feminist writers have
questioned the theoretical assumptions upon Pragmatic feminism offers an especially revealing lens
for looking at the three authors discussed in this vol-
which Le Guin bases her own commitment to ume, because the problematic—in some cases even
feminism: in particular, her endorsement of the troubled—relation they had with feminism. Doris
Lessing has frequently [condemned] the whole move-
principle of essentialist humanism and her insis- ment, Ursula K. Le Guin developed her feminism
tence that it is not possible for us to relate largely after writing the Left Hand of Darkness, and
Monique Wittig has excoriated other prominent
ethically to anything which is entirely ‘other’ than French feminists. [I argue] that feminism pervades
ourselves’’ (144). Such criticism of LHoD and TD each of the three novels but takes an exploratory
form—as one might expect from authors with such
as insufficiently feminist because of the use of a complex beliefs—and so requires an analytical model,
male narrator or use of a quest-narrative structure such as pragmatism, it is adequate to its nuances. (11)
210 The Journal of American Culture  Volume 32, Number 3  September 2009

To the degree that some feminist critics do not Wanderground, or countercolonial theory works
share Le Guin’s humanist basis for their feminism, like TFM?
it is understandable that they have found her the- The answer is that works like Herland and
ory problematic. To the degree that they have re- TFM are effective as critiques of patriarchy but
jected Le Guin’s work as neither feminist nor are not acceptable as theoretical bases for specu-
utopian, such criticism represents a small, resis- lating on solutions to patriarchy. At their root
tant reading against the grain of most scholarship level, separatist and counter colonial-feminist uto-
concerning Le Guin, and reflects a values differ- pian theories valorize women and female central-
ence, not a lack of valid feminist theorizing in ity or singularity, and demonize men. One
LHoD and TD. element of this dualism is guilt or blame assess-
ment. The Gearhart definition of feminist utopian
fiction is very specific in that it ‘‘sees men or male
institutions as a major cause of present social
Conclusions ills,’’ and Gearhart’s separatist theorizing is pred-
icated on this assessment of blame. Russ endorses
separatist theory, observing that feminist ‘‘au-
This work has outlined Le Guin’s interdepen- thors are not subtle in their reasons for creating
dency theory, the various critical reactions to her separatist utopias: if men are kept out of the so-
theorizing, and the theoretical context for her cieties, it is because men are dangerous. They
work within feminist utopian traditions that cen- also hog the good things of this world’’ (140).
ter on separatism and countercolonization. Be- Russ rejects as insufficient any feminist utopian
cause Le Guin’s theoretical approach begins with work in which there is ‘‘either the assignment of
Taoist humanism, her theory has been in tension blame to biology or the assignment of blame to
with critics and other theorists who have differ- both sexes equally’’ (135). Given the assumption
ent starting points. The question still remains: that men are fundamentally dangerous hogs who
why has this most problematic of feminist uto- are to blame for social ills, it makes sense for
pian authors has been so much more effective and separatist and countercolonial theorists to adopt
resonant with readers than other theorists? The the solution Rudy identifies: ‘‘many feminist
issue isn’t authorial skill. Both TFM and LHoD utopian novels solved the problems associated
are well-written science fiction—Le Guin and with misogyny and reproduction by eliminating
Russ are astute observers of human nature, and so men,’’ either showing isolated female societies
however fantastic the settings and situations, both like Herland, or post-male societies where men
works have an air of authenticity about them have been exterminated, as in TFM (25). The
with regard to human interactions within the solution to patriarchal oppressions in these
text. Russ is a sharp and incisive writer and has works is as follows: get rid of men. LeGuin’s
the ability to highlight and critique volumes of gender interdependence is outside this tradition,
unspoken gender assumptions and rules within instead challenging the reader to imagine cre-
our society with a few keen lines of prose. There ative solutions to gender oppression that still al-
is clarity to Russ’s observations—she’s able to lows for gender existence. Removing what Russ
expose and hold up encoded, hidden patriarchal terms ‘‘the poisonous binary’’ of gender is not
expectations and norms in the society she ob- rethinking gender constructions but rather en-
serves. However good a writer she is though, gaging in an unethical sort of wishful thinking.
Russ’s TFM has been published in just five edi- In discussing Russ’ theory, Robin Silbergleid
tions since the original publication; LHoD has points out that by positing a world wiped clean
been reprinted twenty-three times just in English. of men,
Why are we drawn to Le Guin’s theorizing but Russ avoids the equality versus difference argument by
not to separatist theorizing like Herland and insisting on separatism and even the extermination of
 Shadows to Walk  William Marcellino 211

men. A closer examination reveals, however, that a world of many male novelists and of patriarchal so-
complete denial of sexual difference stunts rather than ciety, their promotion of counter-hegemonic feminist
advances her theory of citizenship. Instead of recog- practices only reifies a separation between men and
nizing the importance of embodiment in theories of women. Men, women, and society are treated as sep-
citizenship, Russ establishes a situation in which ev- arate and not interdependent constructs. Furthermore,
eryone possesses civil rights because no pronounced in this reading, even if they claim to apply to both
cultural differences exist. (170) sexes, matriarchal practices that seem to spring from an
innate ability that women possess only mirror patri-
archal oppression, but in drag. (196)
Silbergleid contrasts Russ’s ‘‘call for a sex war’’
to feminist utopian fiction that does not hinge on Separatist theory is also committed to this
separation (165). LeGuin’s utopian works do not construction of self versus other. Wanderground
remove cultural or gender differences, or posit has a wonderfully clear sentence that sums up
separation, but generally posit interdependence such separatist theory. Jacqua (a Hill Woman) re-
wherein differences enhance and mutually sup- flects on men: ‘‘‘It is too simple,’ she recited du-
port. One cannot see with just daylight—one tifully to herself, ‘to condemn them all or to praise
must have shadows to walk as well. all of us. But for the sake of earth and all she
For all their worth as critiques of patriarchy, holds, that simplicity must be our creed’’’ (Gear-
works like Wanderground and TFM ultimately hart 2). Too simple perhaps, yet condemnation of
undo themselves in ethical consistency. LeGuin’s other, and praise of self are still the separatist an-
theory in LHoD and TD is consensus within in a swer. Wanderground ends with an impassioned
context of difference—how does self bridge to prayer to the earth that the Hill Women might be
other in harmony? Separatist and countercolonial allowed to help men (referred to as The Slayers in
feminist utopian thought experiments instead the prayer) die and end the human race if men will
erase or conquer other. Consider the two sexual not forsake masculinity and become feminine.
relationships in TFM. There is a delicate, tender Wanderground is fundamentally an us vs. them
coming-of-age lesbian relationship between a work that seeks, to paraphrase Le Guin, ‘‘the
young earth girl and Janet. Despite the trans- separation of yang from yin and the moralization
gressive nature of their age difference, their loving of yin as good, of yang as bad.’’ Because critiques
and respectful bridging to each other in intimacy of patriarchy are justified by the unfairness and
is valorized. The other sex scene in TFM, more injustice of characterizing women as an other who
explicit, takes the opposite approach. Jael, the as- may be oppressed, separatist and countercolonial
sassin in TFM, keeps a brainless male sexual an- works that construct men as an other to be op-
droid named ‘‘Davy’’ grown from chimpanzee pressed undermine themselves by reinscribing the
DNA that allows her to have sex with and dom- very oppressions they critique.
inate a male body without encountering mascu- Herland provides a good example of how fem-
line gender. Silbergleid points out that ‘‘in one of inist utopian fiction that comes from a dualistic
the only developed sex scenes in the novel, Jael theory base undermines itself and reinscribes the
dominates—physically and emotionally—her cy- very sorts of oppression it seeks to counter. Her-
borg companion Davy, boasting afterwards: ‘I’d land is a groundbreaking work, keenly critical of
had him. Davy was mine’’’ (1997, 165). Unlike patriarchy, and was an important part of the fem-
LeGuin’s quest to reach beyond ‘‘otherness’’ and inist dialogue that helped debunk the essentiali-
accept both other and self, Russ typifies a zing of women at the start of the twentieth
countercolonial response to obviate or colonize century. Herland reverses the centering that con-
other. structs women as other, by making the men who
Replacing male hegemony with female hege- venture into Herland the deviation from the norm
mony is still hegemony. As Pamela Lieske points (the other) and thereby exposing the injustice
out while critiquing Russ’ feminist theorizing: of patriarchy. But even as Herland exposes this
[If] feminist science fiction offers healthy alternatives
unjust othering based on sex, it engages in othe-
to the more sexist, violent, and empirically-driven ring on a racial basis. Herland is an Aryan nation,
212 The Journal of American Culture  Volume 32, Number 3  September 2009

racially pure and contrasted with the primitive typified by Russ’ TFM, and to a lesser degree
savages who live below them in the low-lands. separatist utopian works like Herland can be
In trying to deconstruct a male/female dualism, seen as patriarchy and colonialism ‘‘in drag,’’ and
Gilman constructs an Aryan/savage dualism. Alys this perspective may help explain why those
Eve Weinbaum12observes: works have not resonated with readers the way
Gilman extricates herself from a form of heterosexu- LeGuin’s have. Works like Herland and TFM are
ality that amounts to miscegenation within the raciali- important, valid works that address and articu-
zed gender and sexual logics of her augment; however
she simultaneously consolidates the racial nation—in late gender oppression and gender silencing, but
this case the ‘‘Aryan’’ nation of Herland . . . . the up- they do not go far enough and theorize about
shot is the resistive culture that Gilman attempts to
model by ‘‘queering’’ Herland reinscribes the ideal of solutions to gender differences in a way that al-
(white) racial ‘‘purity.’’ And in the end, this realization lows for other. Separatist fiction addresses we
should give feminists pause. It reminds us that a truly
libratory feminism must always be linked to an anti-
and them by removing difference, removing
racism capable of imagining female sexuality and so- them so that all that is left is we: the harmony
ciality outside of the rubric of racialized kinship and
the confines of racial nationalism. (2004, 105)
of homogeneity. Gendercide or counter-colonial
works maintain we and they by flipping a binary,
It is not an accident that Gilman winds up re- by countercolonizing and reconstructing the op-
inscribing oppression, in this case along racial pressed into oppressors. LeGuin’s approach is
lines. Writers like Gearhart and Russ also end up radically different, alluding to theologian Martin
theorizing on forms of oppression, in their case Buber when Genly says in LHoD: ‘‘Not We and
seeking Lieske’s ‘‘patriarchy in drag’’ matriarchy. They; not I and It, but I and Thou’’—not men
Because their theory starts from a dualistic base, it over women, or women over men, but women
lends itself to dualisms of good and bad—Le and men hand in hand, left and right hand work-
Guin’s: ‘‘dualism of division that destroys us, the ing together (259).
dualism of superior/inferior, ruler/ruled, owner/ Ursula Le Guin’s feminist utopian fiction de-
owned, user/used.’’ serves renewed attention from feminists. Le
Without an explicit call for action or blueprint Guin’s radical approach to feminist utopian fic-
for change, utopian fiction is rhetorical in nature, tion and theory reminds us that we live in a world
as the very act of positing ‘‘better’’ has the in- where it is not possible to remove difference
herent power of moving real readers to action. A without genocide, and we cannot overcome op-
utopian work, even if the setting is highly fan- pression by flipping the binary between the op-
tastic and divorced from reality, is still relevant pressed and the oppressors. Separatist or
to us because it move us to find solutions that gendercidal fantasies do not fully satisfy us
work in our real world. Given that we are moved because we know they are the wrong path; we
to seek change, feminist utopian fiction chal- know without proof or logic that other and self
lenges us to ask what road we will walk. Utopian must approach each other and connect, not
works that rethink or reconfigure existing sys- separate. And we can know this, Le Guin affirms,
tems seeking more equity, satisfaction and abun- even when we cannot prove how we know.
dance for citizen/members may be more In this way, feminists like Le Guin challenge
satisfying to real readers than utopian works logocentric ideas that privilege reason and empir-
that merely substitute one set of oppressions for icism by showing that there are other epistemo-
another, because such win/win works address the logical approaches, more ways of knowing, like
question of how to bridge the gap between self intuition, pragmatism, and gnosis. LHoD and TD
and other. Works that center on reproducing op- resonate with us because we know—we know
pression may even be construed as dystopian. without proof or logic—that other and self are
Choosing between two systems that marginalize inseparable, ‘‘lying/together like lovers in kem-
or silence other is not a good choice. From this mer,/like hands joined together, like the end and
perspective, the sort of feminist utopian fiction the way.’’
 Shadows to Walk  William Marcellino 213

Notes Works Cited

Burns, Tony. ‘‘Marxism and Science Fiction: A Celebration of the

1. The Gentles are separatist homosexual men who eschews vi- Works of Ursula K. Le Guin.’’ Capital & Class 84. 2004. Aca-
olence, male power, and who dress and act like women. They are demic Search Premier. EBSCO. Gardner-Webb University. 12
male in sex, but by virtue of their mirroring of the Hill Women, are Nov. 2006 hhttp://www.nclive.orgi.
female in gender.
Gearhart, Sally M. The Wanderground. Watertown: Persephone
2. One might argue that TFM is separatist, as Whileaway is an Press, 1979.
Amazonian utopia, but as the work’s narrative energy is fueled by
‘‘righteous violence’’ and posits gendercide, I characterize it as Jameson, Frederic. Archeologies of the Future. London: Verso, 2005.
countercolonial. Le Guin, Ursula. The Dispossessed. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
3. In the 1987 variant of the essay, plain text is from the original ———. ‘‘Is Gender Necessary? Redux.’’ Dancing at the Edge of the
1976 version, and bracketed italics text is a 1987 addition. World. New York: Grove Press, 1989.
4. The Ekumen is a loose, 83-world collective covering diverse ———. The Left Hand of Darkness. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004.
planets and societies that share one thing: a political system that
emphasizes consensus and mutual altruism and eschews any type of Libretti, Tim. ‘‘Dispossession and Disalienation: The Fulfillment of
coercion or force. Life in Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed.’’ Contemporary Justice
Review 7 (2004). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Gardner-
5. The lesson the protagonist of LHoD draws out is an allusion Webb University. 3 Mar. 2006 hhttp://www.nclive.orgi.
by Le Guin to Martin Buber’s ‘‘I and Thou’’ vice ‘‘I and It’’ theology
in Ich und Du. Lieske, Pamela. ‘‘Feminism, Past and Present.’’ College Literature 25
(1998). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Gardner-Webb Uni-
6. Reader response theorist Wayne Booth identifies the authorial versity. 13 Mar. 2006 hhttp://www.nclive.orgi.
agent implied by a text, distinct from the actual, historical author, as
the implied author. Peel, Ellen. Politics, Persuasion & Pragmatism: A Rhetoric of Fe-
mininst Utopian Fiction. Columbus: OSU, 2002.
7. Rudy was examining how Le Guin and another feminist uto-
pian writer, Marge Percy, were able to theorize about reproduction Rudy, Kathy. ‘‘Ethics, Reproduction, Utopia: Gender and Child-
issues in a nonpatriarchal society without eliminating men, i.e. non- bearing in Woman on the Edge of Time and The Left Hand of
separatist or nongendercidal utopian works. Darkness.’’ NWSA Journal 9 (2004). Academic Search Premier.
EBSCO. Gardner-Webb University. 3 Mar. 2006 hhttp://
8. Russ points out that LHoD is not prescriptive. www.nclive.orgi.
9. A philosophy embracing balance, the harmonious unity of Russ, Joanna. The Female Man. New York: Bantam, 1975.
opposites, counterintuitive action through inaction, and the Three
Jewels: compassion, moderation, and humility. ———. ‘‘Recent Feminist Utopias.’’ To Write Like a Woman. Bloom-
ington: Indiana UP, 1995. 133-48, 15-25.
10. Reader response theorist Wayne Booth identifies the autho-
rial agent implied by a text, distinct from the actual, historical author, ———. ‘‘Speculations: The Subjunctivity of Science Fiction.’’ To Write
as the implied author. Like a Woman. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. 133-48.

11. ‘‘Pragmatism’’ in the specific American philosophical sense Silbergleid, Robin. ‘‘Women, Utopia, and Narrative: Toward a Post-
of seeking not certainty in truth, but useful, functional belief modern Feminist Citizenship.’’ Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist
that can be put into action, ready to be modified or corrected over Philosophy 12 (1997). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Gard-
time. ner-Webb University. 3 March 2006 hhttp://www.nclive.orgi.

12. Weinbaum was writing about the cross-Atlantic discourses Weinbaum, Alys Eve. Wayward Reproductions: Genealogies of Race
on human reproduction, racial formation, and racial nationalism in and Nation in Transatlantic Modern Thought. Durham: Duke
modern thought. UP, 2004.