Memory of the Present

Abstract

Memory of the Present Elana Gomel (bio) Carter F. Hanson. Memory and Utopian Agency in Utopian/Dystopian Literature: Memory of the Future. Routledge, 2020. xvii + 199 pp. $160 hc. Utopia is about the future; memory is about the past. This seems so self-evident that the notion that memory can play a constitutive role in utopia appears far-fetched. If utopia is a vision of an ideal future, then it has to reject the less than ideal past. In many utopian texts, historical and individual memory is treated as a danger that must be regulated, contained, or expunged. Dystopia, utopia's dark twin, is generally hostile to memory, as in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), where the repression of historical memory is necessary to maintain the oppressive regime of Ingsoc. But can utopia and memory be reconciled? In this interesting book, Carter F. Hanson makes a case that they can. If I am not entirely persuaded by his argument, I still believe it opens up a new field of inquiry. Citing cognitive research, Hanson argues that memory is intrinsic to anticipation: "the conscious imagining or subconscious wish-dreaming of a better future must also draw on memories of our pasts" (xv). Thus, he posits that "memory is fundamental to and constitutive of utopianism, and that within the more specific domain of literary utopias, memory and forgetting often function as vital and complex components of a text's utopian impulse" (xvi). Of course, arguing that memory is constitutive of utopianism is not the same thing as showing that memory is an issue in literary utopias. Hanson's book does an admirable job of the latter, situating literary utopias in the context of the "memory wars" of modernity, in which individual and collective memories are contested by emerging ideologies. The claim that memory is necessary for utopia is more problematic, however, running into the thorny thicket of definitions and historical periodization. The book is wide ranging in its scope, covering texts from Thomas More's Utopia (1516) to Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward (1888), George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed (1974), Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time (1976), Lois Lowry's The Giver (1993), M.T. Anderson's Feed (2002), and Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam trilogy (2003-2013). Not only are these texts written in different countries and in different historical periods, but they also embody incompatible views of what constitutes a perfect society. Bellamy's industrial and regimented socialism would be seen as a nightmare in Piercy's pastoral communitarianism; Le Guin's "ambiguous utopia" is saved by science, which dooms humanity in Atwood. [End Page 160] Moreover, half of the texts Hanson discusses are dystopias, presenting a future society that is considerably worse than the present. It seems that at least implicitly he adopts the view of Krishan Kumar, who argues in Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times (1987) that the two genres are structurally the same, and that dystopias offer a critique of the utopian vision based on an anti-utopian ideology. Later in the book, however, Hanson distinguishes between utopia and the utopian impulse, which is an open-ended desire for something different from the present state of the world. The problem is that all the novels he discusses are utopias and dystopias in the formal sense: texts that represent a blueprint for the future rooted in a specific ideology. The book is somewhat uneasily poised between utopia and utopianism, just as it is uneasily poised between memory as a psychological faculty and memory as a collective praxis. To adapt Donald Spence's distinction between narrative and historical truth, the book deals with memory as cultural narrative, while conflating it with the cognitive ability to retain information about the historical past. In his discussion of Thomas More's Utopia, Hanson acknowledges that social perfection requires suppression or regulation of cultural memory: "Utopia largely dispenses with history and thus with the contingencies of memory" (19). This juxtaposition of history and utopia is a frequent claim in conservative critiques of the utopian project, as in Emil Cioran's History and Utopia (1960). Indeed, Nineteen Eighty...