Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I do not agree that a dystopian story must be dis-empowering. Or is there a separate term for that intermediate story spectrum between assured utopian optimism and utter helplessness?

A prayer goes:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
The power of a dystopian novel could be giving a real perspective to cut through peak delusions, adding to wisdom, courage and serenity. And vbo comments on this page:
I always was under impression that for example Serbs from Bosnia are much tougher then Serbs from Serbia. Getting to know them better trough my husband's family I was surprise to see how they are able to take everything as a fact of life and continue to live almost untouched as opposed to us Serbs from Serbia where everything unexpected seems tragic to the point that it can ruin our lives.
If this civilization is in desperate need of new mythology, it is in a bad (collective) shape indeed.
by das monde on Wed Jan 1st, 2014 at 01:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At a minimum a dystopian novel that resonates with its readers and rings true to perceived reality allows readers to realize that 'it' is not just a problem with how they see things. That alone is empowering.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it is in bad collective shape.

On the other hand, I don't mean to imply that dystopian fiction could not be a vehicle for a new mythology.

The problem with fictional dystopias is, it seems to me, the perverse attraction they exert (see my comment above). Since ATinNM mentioned Jacques Ellul, here's something that he put forward:

Jacques Ellul - Wikipédia

l'homme n'est pas du tout passionné par la liberté, comme il le prétend. La liberté n'est pas chez lui un besoin inhérent. Beaucoup plus constants et profonds sont les besoins de sécurité, de conformité, d'adaptation, de bonheur, d'économie des efforts... et il est prêt à sacrifier sa liberté pour satisfaire ces besoins. (...) L'homme a bien plus peur de la liberté authentique qu'il ne la désire.

man is not at all passionate about freedom, as he pretends. Freedom is not an inherent need for him. The needs of security, conformity, adaptation, happiness, and economy of effort are much more constant and profound... and he is ready to sacrifice his freedom to satisfy these needs. (...) Man fears true freedom more than he desires it.

Opposed (in most fictional dystopias) to the comfortable alienation in which humans can live with their basic needs satisfied, but in which freedom is suppressed by totalitarian social organisation, the usual narrative is that of the underground resistance. That doesn't seem to me to be a winning mythology at all. Most people would probably prefer not to have to make the difficult and dangerous decision of fighting for freedom.

So I suppose a fictional dystopia that would offer a new mythology would have to transcend the pattern I describe, both by showing alienation to be miserable, and proposing a new social organisation that could defeat the old one. Then it becomes a fictional utopia...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 1st, 2014 at 12:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Freedom is not the most basic human need. You scare people about their security, and they will settle for conformity. Especially when a critical resistance mass is not there. No one want to be a rare fool.

The first half of the 20th century was the classical times for resistance. But since then, elites apparently became skillful in discouraging resistance ideas.

The Achrdruid Report traces the utopia/apocalypse dichotomy deeply to the Western cultural history:

... nearly all modern thinking about the future is hobbled by our obsession with a pair of rigidly defined mythic narratives -- the myth of progress on the one hand, and the myth of apocalypse on the other [...]

Both these visions of the future, while they take secular forms nowadays much more often than not, have their roots in Christian apocalyptic theology [...] The premillennialist position was that Jesus would return and bring about the Millennium, a thousand year period when Christians would rule the world. The postmilleniallists argued instead that Christians would rule the world for a thousand years, and then Jesus would return.

The difference may seem about as relevant as the number of angels who can dance on the head of Jerry Falwell, but sweeping implications unfold from each viewpoint. If the postmillennialists are right, history is on their side, since they're destined to rule the world for a thousand years before Jesus gets here. Thus postmillennialists believe that things will get better over time until the Millennium arrived. If the premillennialists are right, on the other hand, history is on the devil's side, since it will take nothing less than the personal intervention of Jesus to give the Christians their thousand years of world rule....

He reiterates this point regularly.

The same blog makes a distinction between problems and predicaments. Not all problems have neat or satisfactory solutions, hence not all dystopias will turn to utopias.

by das monde on Wed Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series