the madszine

‘The use of utopian and/or dystopian elements has become a preferred mode of interrogating current systems of oppression and violence while offering visions of resistance and possible (future) alternatives,’[1] wrote Hope Jennings of Jeanette Winterson’s The Stone Gods. Its post-apocalyptic dystopian narrative is a critique of ‘our present self-destructive impulses via environmental and genocidal disasters,’[2] says Jennings. And, as critical dystopian fiction, it ‘questions its former limitations by eschewing the closed endings…that [offer] no way out of [the] present political systems and power structures,’[3] according to Baccolini. 

As such, The Stone Gods maintains its ‘utopian core’[4] with ‘ecotopian ideals’[5] that are the ‘compass’[6] of Geus’ Ecotopian Theory, and are used to articulate ‘[a] utopian dream’[7] of a redeemable and sustainable future with ecologically healthier political structures; ones which support policies ‘for working in a flexible, subtle, and gradual manner toward a generally more ecologically sound society.’[8] The importance of this ‘utopian compass’[9] lies in Karl Marx’s theory that ‘it will…turn out that the world has long dreamt of that of which it had only to have a clear idea to possess,’[10] whilst recognising that ‘the notion of a utopia rarely receives any recognition in politics.’[11] The better world for which society collectively longs is seen as unrealistic to achieve, and their utopia flounders as a ‘daydream’[12] or ‘unfeasible fantasy.’[13] Political thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama believe that true utopian thinking doesn’t fit into a society marked by ‘a lack of faith in all-encompassing ideologies and idealistic political visions.’[14] Fukuyama’s concept of utopia (as an “all-encompassing ideology”) marks utopias as ‘totalitarian in nature,’[15] and he evidences human history  (such as Stalin’s Soviet Union) to show that attempts to create ‘a perfect life’[16] end in an ‘inhuman society.’[17]

Geus’ Ecotopia, Sustainability, and Vision defines two types of utopia – “ecotopias” and “technotopias.” One major difference between them is identified as ‘whether an ideal society should…be based on satisfaction and sufficiency’[18] or ‘enjoy material abundance and luxury.’[19] Ecotopian thinkers believe that production and consumption should be controlled (by self-restraint and moderation), whilst technotopian thinkers believe that technology maintains material abundance and avoids shortages that would otherwise lead to injustice. Yet technological advances (efficiencies in production and extraction) deplete and exploit natural resources.[20] ‘Biotech has created as many problems as it has fixed,’[21] says Billie – a protagonist in The Stone Gods’ ‘somewhat technophobic’[22] dystopia – highlighting that technological progress may not be viewed as meaningful change in solving environmental crises. This is particularly true under capitalism because of its relationship to unrestrained overproduction and overconsumption. To realise profits and survive under capitalist competition, government-empowered firms produce and sell as much as possible and sustainable consumption (required to avoid environmental disaster) needs to transcend and transform current political-economic structures, a point made in Schnaiberg’s From Surplus to Scarcity.[23]

With neither Soviet nor US-style political structures historically supporting meaningful change towards a utopian perfect life, The Stone Gods warns against the ‘inherent dangers of repeating [mistakes in] histories.’[24] Simply changing or borrowing from old structures will not be transformative in environmental (or any other) terms. To transcend environmental crises, society must imagine a possible (future) alternative and Jennings theorises that the utopian desire (Geus’ compass) within The Stone Gods comes from Winterson’s ecotopian ‘vision of how we might dismantle repressive ideologies’[25] through ‘the articulation of new narratives that no longer reenact the same self-destructive cycles and repetitions of history.’[26] Yet, Frank Kermode suggests that even apocalyptic levels of self-destruction can be transformative. That ‘out of a desolate reality, [comes] renewal’[27] And Günther Anders’ apocalyptic phenomenology Transcendence of the Negative agrees saying, humanity ‘must be made to visualize nothingness’[28] in order to escape life’s frameworks. Kermode defines an apocalyptic moment as ‘all the terrors of an approaching end, but when the end comes it is not an end.’[29] And Billie shares Kermode’s belief in its power for meaningful change saying, ‘this time we will learn from our mistakes.’[30]

Mankind’s historical mistake in The Stone Gods is essentially the desire for overconsumption, causing depletion of natural resources and damaging the natural world. Billie notes, ‘we had spoiled and ruined what we had been given, and now it had been given again.’[31] Mankind will progress to a new home (Planet Blue) and yet no meaningful change has been made in political-economic structures to support new environmental policy. Billy can only hope that they will ‘begin again differently.’[32] Yet governments, and government-sanctioned private sectors and mega-corporations, shirk the responsibility to take ‘radical measures’[33] towards sustainability. Such negligent inaction is ecocide, where ‘humans…spoil and ruin their natural habitats, and by extension their own chances for survival.’[34] So too is deliberate human action around taming nature’s unpredictability. Winterson represents both the deliberate and the negligent with a colonising party sent to Planet Blue. Instructed to make the planet easier for humans to inhabit, the party ‘[eradicates] its present inhabitants.’[35] And,  through their own errors, they trigger a ‘mini ice age’[36] and ‘seem set to destroy the place before it [has] even begun.’[37] The apocalyptic warning of humanity failing to learn from its mistakes is clear – if humanity waits for the world to end before they change there will be nothing left to save. 

Although the rhetoric of surviving the apocalypse as a symbol of transcendence works well in speculative science fiction, as Winterson indicates through Billie’s refusal to accept that ‘they have reached the end of everything,’[38] the apocalypse solution doesn’t work when applied to ecocriticism. ‘The real moral and political challenge of ecology,’[39] observes Greg Garrard, ‘may lie in accepting that the world is not about to end.’[40] Even humans (as a species) are not about to end, though civilisation as we know it might. But life finds a way, and ‘only if we imagine that the planet has a future…are we likely to take responsibility for it.’[41] Rather than attempt to create the ‘unfeasible fantasy’[42] of an idealised, ‘perfect, pollution-free eco-society,’[43] Geus’ Ecotopian Theory suggests that, an ecological utopia should be sustainable not only in terms of consumption but also in the political achievability of its ecotopian ideas and vision. Like any sustainable utopia, an ecotopia should be dynamic, evolving incrementally with the environmental crises and political limitations that it is attempting to transcend.


Conclusion for all 3 Mini-Essays
What connects Burdekin’s Swastika Night, The Stugatskys’ Roadside Picnic and Winterson’s The Stone Gods is hope for a better future. The protagonists (Alfred, Red, and Billie) all actively seek meaningful change towards these imagined futures, and such utopian impulses are theorised in Bloch’s Principle of Hope to illuminate what is missing (and is still yet possible) and point the way (reminiscent of Geus’ incrementally guiding “utopian compass”) towards meaningful transformation of our material world. Utopia is the ‘forward dream’[44] with hope as an impetus to become something new, something better. 
Furthermore, these protagonists all seek meaningful change from the ‘unfreedoms’[45] of totalitarian political structures (or the indirectly-political structures of government-sanctioned corporations – which, as Chomsky says, ‘are totalitarian institutions.’[46] The utopian hope is to transcend these societally self-destructive systems, decentralise power, and create a free and fair society. 
Each work explores knowledge and education as key to the nature of their utopian society, transcending totalitarian restrictions. In Swastika Night, knowledge (the Book of Truth) symbolises the hope that drives Alfred to educate the next generation – transcending censorship and promoting freedom of thought. For Red, knowledge and education come through learning Arthur’s last wish for a better future and proclaiming that hopeful message in Roadside Picnic’s last line. Finally, Billie’s knowledge in The Stone Gods comes with understanding that humanity made mistakes on Orbus; and she educates by admitting this in her press conference and implicitly sharing the message that Planet Blue provides an opportunity to create different socio-political structures based on satisfaction and sufficiency to support the sustainable nature of ecologically utopian consumption.
So, knowledge and education (of the truth), allows humanity the freedom of thought to transcend the mistakes of history that cause dystopian “unfreedoms” as restrictive political structures try to retain control of their limited definitions of utopia. Imagining and (hoping) for a better future provides impetus for utopian action, but (as Jameson argues) progress from historical ages does not necessarily equate to lasting meaningful change. In all three works, the dystopian scenario is already a progression from their past. Yet the rise of the Nazi party, fear of alien artefacts polluting the Earth, and rapid technological advancements (biotechnology and robo-sapiens) increase centralisation of power, restrict freedoms and increase inequalities and exploitation (of workers or the natural world).
Therefore, the paradox of utopia is that to make meaningful change towards a utopian future, the possibility of it must first be imagined. Humans must freely think beyond today to envision the infinite choices embedded in future realities. However, these hopeful certainties of utopian thinking ultimately bind its possibilities and will be superseded. History’s mistakes show us that an inflexible and limited definition of utopia inevitably leads to a totalitarian dystopian society. However, that is not a reason to repress utopian impulses and give up on meaningful change. Instead, society should ensure that when it defines what’s utopian today, flexibility is inbuilt so it can adapt to an ever-changing world, and the dreams and desires of the future. 

Footnotes
[1] Jennings, Hope, ‘“A Repeating World”: Redeeming the Past and Future in the Utopian Dystopia of Jeanette Winterson’s The Stone Gods’ Interdisciplinary Humanities, 27 (2), 2010, p.132

[2] Jennings, p.132

[3] Jennings, p.132

[4] Jennings, p.132

[5] Geus, Marius de, ‘Ecotopia, Sustainability and Vision,’ Organisation & Environment, 15 (2), 2002, p.191

[6] Geus, p.191

[7] Jennings, p.133

[8] Geus, p.191

[9] Geus, p.191

[10] ‘Marx to Ruge – Letters from the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher 1843’ The Marxist Archive, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm#:~:text=It%20will%20then%20become%20evident,the%20thoughts%20of%20the%20past.

[11] Geus, p.187

[12] Geus, p.187

[13] Geus, p.187

[14] Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and The Last Man, (New York: Avon Books, 1993)

[15] Geus, p.187

[16] Geus, p.187

[17] Geus, p.187

[18] Geus, p.189

[19] Geus, p.189

[20] Krautkraemer, Jeffrey A, ‘Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity: The State of the Debate,’ RFF, 2005

[21] Winterson, Jeanette, The Stone Gods (UK: Penguin, 2008) p.24

[22] Jennings, p.133

[23] Schnaiberg, Allan, From Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980)

[24] Jennings, p.133

[25] Jennings, p.133

[26] Jennings, p.133

[27] Kermode, Frank, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theories of Fiction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) p.11

[28] Alvis, Jason, ‘Transcendence of the Negative: Gunther Anders’ Apocalyptic Phenomenology,’ Religions, 8 (4), 2017

[29] Kermode, p.11

[30] Winterson, p.16

[31] Winterson, p.8

[32] Winterson, p.17

[33] Geus, p.193

[34] Jennings, p.135

[35] Winterson, p.20

[36] Winterson, p.20

[37] Winterson, p.20

[38] Winterson, p.23

[39] Garrad, Greg, Ecocriticism (London: Routledge, 2004) p.22

[40] Garrad, p.22

[41] Garrad, p.22

[42] Geus, p.187

[43] Geus, p.191

[44] Bloch, ‘Principle of Hope Introduction’

[45] Marcuse, p.3

[46] Chomsky, Noam, Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World, (New York: AK Press, 1997) p.14