All in all, Zamyatin’s We set out to satire the sentiment of his day, while rejecting the ideology of the Bolsheviks. Zamyatin interpreted the growing sentiment of dehumanization and incorporated that into a dystopian world at the pinnacle of scientific mastery. While the world Zamyatin displays to the reader demonstrates the drawbacks of a controlled society, it also reveals the struggle of the human spirit to overcome them, and to persevere in the shadow of conformity and law, which is another attribute of social science fiction.
Aftermath of We
Zamyatin’s work went on to influence writers for the next ninety years, right up to the present day. Many writers who give their characters numbers for names, for instance, don’t realize what piece of history they’re drawing upon, and simply imitate what the last writer has done. A sense of urgency fueled the author’s work. Zamyatin was arrested twice and was at the forefront of censorship; he wrote knowing the consequences and fear that came with it, another thing today’s writers may not actually face.
The books that We goes on to influence are numerous. But the two books most important to mention are Ayn Rand’s Anthem and George Orwell’s 1984.
George Orwell’s 1984
Without a doubt, George Orwell’s novel 1984 is one of the primary examples of dystopian literature today. Many of Orwell’s terms have become a part of everyday language—like Big Brother and Newspeak—and whether or not someone has read the book, they have a general idea of what the words mean. What they may not know is that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning against the growing dictatorship of Stalin in Soviet Russia. He saw the role England played in combating Stalinism, as well as the growing trends of Capitalism, and he wove them together into a narrative taking place in the immediate future, a dystopia where the people of Oceana (Soviet Union) are controlled by the dictatorship of Big Brother, a symbol modeled after the branded image of Stalin that appeared on public buildings.
Orwell wrote the book in 1948, and simply inversed the digits to get 1984. He set the book in the not-too-distant future in order to rouse people of his time to the real and possible dangers surrounding them. He believed people had the power to create change; the book, then, would serve as a motivation to create that change.[22]
One of the most interesting aspects of 1984 is the idea that there is a continued war taking place with an enemy that becomes an ally, and an ally that becomes an enemy. Orwell’s inspiration for the three super powers that never defeat each other came from James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution. Although a critic of Burnham’s, Orwell was inspired by the idea of a state of permanent war, with limited aims between combatants who can’t destroy each other, but who instead engage in a struggle for territory and possessions.[23] The goal of the war is to use products of industry without raising the standard of living, as an increase in wealth would destroy the fabric of society and introduce a class system. Additionally, society could no longer be kept in poverty by restricting production since this usually brought about opposition; war, then, is a means of destroying the products of labor.[24] Yet, each state appears to have the objective of conquering the world, while ridding the world of free thought. While there are skirmishes, none of the states is willing to cross boundaries and risk loss. The world that Orwell paints, then, suggests that war as a continuous feature of society (consistent with the Marxist/Communist ideology that revolution needs to be constant) ceases to be dangerous; it becomes commonplace.[25]
Over the course of the book, as history is erased and rewritten, the main character, Winston Smith, is faced with the shapelessness of his life. He begins a metamorphosis, which the reader understands to involve questioning the existence of the free human spirit. He is taught, though recurring signs, that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. The reader assumes this absurd logic could never really be realized, but as Winston gradually succumbs to the tedious destruction of his free spirit, his love, and his mental capacity, it doesn’t seem so absurd.
The incorporation of doublethink makes Orwell’s message even more real. Doublethink is described as: “to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneous two opinions which cancel each other out ...”[26] Doublespeak is a type of mental cheating that satisfies the person by convincing them that reality has not been violated.[27] Today’s readers can easily relate to the idea of doublethink. Knowing that it is possible to be fooled, to hold contradictory thoughts, to be led and misled, adds to the eerily prophetic warning of 1984.
1984 is often interpreted as having an anti-capitalism message. It is evident that the war is fought to expunge the products of labor, but in the society Orwell lived in governments and corporations would have supported the selling of military goods, and thus could make a profit from the waging of war—a system that still exists today. Orwell may have been pointing this out as a way of showing one detrimental aspect of capitalism, but Winston’s non-conformity speaks clearly to the individualism that is part of the ideology of capitalism.
Orwell and Truth
Another theme pervading 1984 is the important message of truth. Orwell plays on the notion that a truth can become a non-truth. This has been discussed above in connection with doublespeak, but the symbolism of truth was meant to represent Stalin’s interpretation of truth and his treatment of truth, most specifically in the thirties with the Great Terror.[28] Orwell raises the question of truth actually is in many ways throughout the book, as with the changing of enemy and ally in the end, or the history that Winston alters, or even the love he thinks he possesses and loses. The character of O’Brien is in one sense his salvation, then in another his rebuker, and then in the end his redeemer. Which archetype is O’Brien is reality? Orwell uses these elements to show the uncertain nature of truth, and more specifically the biased nature of Stalin’s truth.
Even today, Orwell’s 1984 serves as an example of what can happen if power is usurped by one party or state or dictator. Orwell predicted the continued predations of Stalinist Russia, and what could happen if all sense of humanity was wiped out. His message is a stark reminder that democracy, as an alternative to collectivism, allows for the people to have an important voice.
Ayn Rand’s Anthem
A few years before Orwell’s 1984 another writer had a similar interest in showing what the future might hold for the world. In 1946 Ayn Rand published her novel Anthem, portraying a dystopian world in which one man asserts his individuality against the tide of the collective. Rand wrote the book in 1937, the same year Zamyatin died.[29] The narrator of Anthem writes, “We are known as Equality 7-2521,” from a City run by the World Council.[30] The protagonist expresses his individuality, sneaks into an abandoned underground railroad, and invents a light source that will ultimately change society. He bravely takes his invention to the Council, but is rejected, and is forced to flee or risk imprisonment. Additionally, the main character falls in love, another individual human quality that sets him apart. He leaves to start a new world with a new lover, each intent on realizing their individual qualities.
Ayn Rand grew up in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. She has many of the same ideas Zamyatin did during this time and became known as an advocate of capitalism, which may have been her answer to collectivism. The idea for Anthem originated in the early 1920s as a play when she was a teenager. In her words: “It was to be a play about the collective society of the future in which they lost the word ‘I.’ They were all calling each other ‘we’ and it was worked out as much more of a story ...”[31] She viewed Russia as depraved and she was not surprised that it took up Communist ideology, but maintained that she “got out and found a civilized country.”[32] Rand’s dystopia is another warning against world organizations that would accumulate power over the individual.
Anthem portrays individualism as capitalistic, with the main character developing a product that can be marketed and sold to benefit people (the same premise that underlies her later
work Atlas Shrugged). Rand’s capitalism is one that benefits the people and exists for the people, which isn’t the same as Orwell’s capitalism, one that generates profits through war at the expense of the people.
Comparisons between We, Anthem, and 1984
One of the differences between Anthem and 1984 is that Winston succumbs to collective power, which eliminates his individualism. He accepts Big Brother, and even loves him. Rand, meanwhile, was determined to show that even in the bleakest hour the human spirit can survive. Her dystopia is reminiscent of Zamyatin’s: both expound on the idea of human reason in the wake of scientific discovery. In Anthem this occurs when the main character invents a device to improve society, while in We the main character was an inventor and is responsible for the welfare of the space ship. Anthem and We both end with their main characters discovering an unknown place, and finding freedom in the wilderness; they also have love waiting for them.
And by the end of Anthem the main character no longer refers to himself by his assigned number, another similarity to We. Rand ends by saying that the people were whipped to their knees by the word “We,” which seconds the sentiment of Zamyatin’s book.
All three books, meanwhile, attempt to show the drawbacks of the collective state. Rand and Zamyatin having lived through the Russian revolution, while Orwell wrote about the degeneration of that revolution into what became Stalinism.
Other Important Dystopias
When we look at We, Anthem, and 1984, we can draw a straight line through the world’s climate, the social circumstances, and the written work. We can also make a triangle to show how one book (We) directly influenced the other two. In the realm of social science fiction there are plenty of other books that attempt to show the shape of things to come. Let’s look at a few. (This list is in no way meant to be complete.) The important thing is to notice how the climate and issues facing society, over the years, shows up in each novel.
1930-1940s
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Humans are engineered to be passive and useful to the ruling class. Novel addresses reproduction, misuse of technology, and the dangers of totalitarianism, among other things.
It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis. Written amid the growing threat of war and totalitarianism, Lewis warned that a democratic government could easily be manipulated and controlled by those with money, power, and influence. The title meant that what was happening in Germany at the time could happen in America.
1950s
Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut revisits the themes of automation in the context of capitalism. Here again is the view of a mechanized society, with little human labor. Vonnegut reminds us of the individual’s importance, the need for society to maintain skilled in labor, and the human desire to work a good day for an honest wage. Written with the American working class in mind.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. This novel tackles the issue of censorship and free speech. Written in the wake of the German book burning under Hitler’s regime.
1960s
Logan’s Run by William F. Nolan and George C. Johnson. Also made into a movie, this novel addresses a variety of social issues, like aging and consumption within a controlled society, and living with a false sense of utopia.
Dr. Bloodmoney by Philip K. Dick. Dick deals with the drawbacks of nuclear arms and warfare during the Cold War era.
Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle. Addresses the societal concerns of evolution. Boulle may have based his work on the growing research on primates.
1970s-1990s
The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. Atwood deals with a woman’s right to control her own body and reproduction.
The Giver by Lois Lowry. One of the first dystopian books for children, Lowry presents a controlled society that has lost its ability to remember the past, a society that eliminates problem children for the good of all.
2000 to the present
The Unit by Ninni Holmqvist. A modern story that addresses the issue of harvesting parts from people from people who are considered to be of low importance in society in order to let those who are important survive.
City of Ember by Jeanne DuPrau. Show a future society that lives underground, until technology (electricity) fails, forcing them to return to the surface.
Feed by M. T. Anderson. Addresses the misuse of technology, marketing, and advertising, through an Internet-like feed to which everyone is connected.
The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Deals with bioengineering and the environmental damage that leads to a future wasteland with people eating one another.
Social Science Fiction and the Future
Writers will continue to address the issues facing them every day, giving voice to the warnings that often go unheard. The current trend in dystopian fiction takes us into the area of teen fiction, where it’s thriving. But is it still shedding light on societal concerns? Catastrophe fiction is also going strong, as writers continue to portray Earth’s doom due to environmental carelessness. While the last ten years has seen a plethora of future scenarios, many that echo the worlds created in the 1920s, they don’t seem to draw directly from a historic source. The U. S. leads the world in dystopian writers, yet democracy and free speech are present and thriving. What are American writers pointing a finger at? For whom are they speaking? What anti-utopia are they witnessing in the world? And, more importantly, where is the path to a hopeful future? It’s one thing to show what the world can be—essentially what it is today veiled in a what-if scenario—but how do you fix it? How can we change the course of the shape of things to come?
In closing, social science fiction has grown up through worldwide war and technological advancements and changes, even through the rise and fall of governments. It will continue to grow and evolve as long as writers are willing to boldly address social issues. It is my hope that writers will veer away from catastrophe doomsdays, away from a future where human flesh is on the menu, and rather begin to show a truly brave world, one where compassion and acceptance of differences prospers.
A Pushcart Prize nominee, Hunter Liguore earned a MFA in Creative Writing from Lesley University. Her “anomalous” work has appeared in Bellevue Literary Review, The Writer’s Chronicle, The Irish Pages, New Plains Review, Mason Road, The MacGuffin, Strange Horizons, SLAB Literary, Rio Grande Review, r.kv.r.y Quarterly and more. Her short story collection, Red Barn People, is now available.
Her website can be visited at: http://skytalewriter.com/
Bibliography
Atkins, John. George Orwell. (London: John Calder Press) 1954.
Booker, M. Keith. Dystopian Impulse in Modern Literature: Fiction as social criticism. (Connecticut: Greenwood Press) 1994.
Brown, Edward James. Brave New World: 1984 and We, an essay on Anti-Utopia. (Ann Arbor: Ardis Press) 1976.
Carden, Patricia. Utopia and Anti-Utopia: Aleksei Gastev and Evgeny Zamyatin. Russian Review, Vol. 46, No. 1. (Jan., 1987) pp. 1-18.
Chapple, Richard, and L. Soviet Fiction in the Soviet Satire: Or Can’t Anyone around Here Write? The South Central Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 4, Studies by Members of the SCMLA. (Winter, 1977) pp. 140-142.
Flink, James, J. The Automobile Age. (Cambridge: MIT Press), 1988. Pp. vii-456.
Ginsburg, Mirra. A Soviet Heretic: Essays by Yevgeny Zamyatin. (Chicago: Univ of Chicago Pres) 1970.
Malia, Martin. The Soviet Tragedy: a history of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991. (New York: Free Press) 1994.
Orwell, George. 1984. (New York: Penguin), 1977.
Parrinder, Patrick. H. G Wells and the Fiction of Catastrophe. Cardwell, Richard A., and Coveney, Peter, Ed. Renaissance and Modern Studies: Visions of Dystopia. Vol XXVIII. (Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press) 1984.
Rand, Ayn. Anthem. (New York: Penguin) 1995.
Resch, Robert Paul. Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Boundary 2, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1997) pp. 137-176.
Suvin, Darko. H. G. Wells and M
odern Science Fiction. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press) 1977.
Zamyatin, Yevgeny; Randall, Natasha, translator. We. (New York: Modern Library) 2006.
Endnotes
Zamyatin, Yevgeny; Randall, Natasha, transl., We. (New York: Modern Library, 2006) vi-xv.
Zamyatin, vii.
Parrinder, Patrick. H. G Wells and the Fiction of Catastrophe. Cardwell, Richard A., & Coveney, Peter, Ed. Renaissance and Modern Studies: Visions of Dystopia. Vol XXVIII. Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press, 1984) 40-41.
Flink, James, J., The Automobile Age. (Cambridge: MIT Press,1988) 43.
Flink, 115, 119.
Flink, 115.
International Speculative Fiction #5 Page 9