Modern Dystopian Fiction and Political Thought: Narratives of World Politics

Abstract

“We live in dystopian times.” With this striking statement, Adam Stock opens his latest work, Modern Dystopian Fiction and Political Thought: Narratives of World Politics. To support this temerarious contention, Stock explores the generic conventions and themes of dystopian novels of the early to mid-twentieth century, from which readers recognize dystopia as a specific genre of fiction that has achieved a “symbolic cultural value in representing fears and anxieties about the future” (2). Hence, the study of dystopian narratives will help readers to grasp “a richer and more nuanced view of politics, as well as achieving greater understanding of this literary genre” (2).Noting the ubiquity of the word dystopia as cultural currency in contemporary society since 1868, when philosopher and member of Parliament J. S. Mills coined the term, Stock believes that we live in dystopian times—times of regressive progress in a social, political, and cultural “variety of events and trends” (204). In order to comprehend and map out dystopia as “a historically mediated and evolving concept” (3) with political content in the form of storytelling, he employs “a hodgepodge of theories and disciplinary perspectives” (5), for example, cultural studies, Marxist literary criticism, narrative and genre in narratology, the historical development of utopian studies, archive-based historical research, and close reading. This interdisciplinary methodology helps Stock to investigate and conceptualize dystopia as a hermeneutic tool in order to show how the interactions of popular culture (i.e., dystopian fiction) and world politics are interpolated in twentieth-century history, as well as “the broader political and social historical backdrop against which the development of the dystopian genre takes place” (5). Stock argues that the methodology of engaging dystopian fiction from interdisciplinary approaches engenders “dystopian narratives [as] a form of political and politicised writing” (2). In other words, the development of the narrative methods and conventions of dystopian fiction as a mode of sociopolitical critique contributes to political discourse and rhetoric in their contemporary settings. Furthermore, dystopias “express negativity without hopelessness” (12) in Stock's approach. Put differently, dystopian fiction reflects cultural fears and anxieties about the future and forewarns readers about the threats of certain ideologies in the hope of bringing about change. This hope of change for a better future is the performance of dystopian hope, or, termed by Levitas, the “education of desire” (4), whereby dystopian narratives demand that readers engage negativity in order to bring forth hope in their contemporary world. By tracing the historical context of dystopian works from 1909 to 1955, Stock argues that dystopia as a cultural as well as ideological form that responds to the issues, fears, and anxieties from this period allows us to understand the political upheavals, social crises, and cultural angst of our contemporary society. He then concludes that dystopian fiction provides a means for the examination not just of political questions and social trends of the day but also of the values and assumptions underpinning the conjecture of both the projected course of futures and the dominant forces of historical change. Taking a quote from Alex Adam, which states that “the relationship between politics and fiction is not merely one of mutual reinforcement: cultural representations are active participants in the production of political discourses,” Stock contends that dystopian literature provides a rhetorical framework for discussions about world-changing issues that readers engage with and appeal to both in everyday life and in the media (2).Stock commences his work with a thorough introduction that details the argument and lays out the eight chapters and a substantial conclusion to tie the whole work together, while encouraging readers to relate “dystopia” to contemporary narratives, for example, the pervasive popularity of young adult (YA) fiction in dystopian form. In the introduction, Stock establishes his research on dystopia as a literary genre that “is often highly conventional, easy to recognize, and yet strangely difficult to define” (5). Surprisingly, after mentioning some definitions of terms from other utopian scholars, such as world-building, imagined place, and community, he does not provide any concrete definition of dystopia for the work that he is about to explore or the criteria for choosing the dystopian primary texts that he will use. Stock immediately states that dystopia as a literary genre should be dealt with in a narrative framework to engender the ideology of the form and its historical importance as a discursive intervention in world politics (6). According to Stock, the theory of “chronotope” or “time space” by Mikhail Bakhtin is valuable to define dystopian fiction “because of the way it locks together time and space in the novel as a form of literary representation” (6). In addition, the concept of the “fuzzy set” employed by Brian Attebery allows Stock to radiate out dystopic texts as allegorical forms (6). Although Stock argues that these two theories permit readers to recognize a work as dystopian fiction, I am perplexed how the two distinguish dystopia from its intimate relatives, utopian fiction and science fiction, for I could comfortably employ these theories to apply to utopian and science-fiction literature.As a whole, this book is well constructed to help readers follow the central argument as well as the subarguments from each chapter. Stock takes great pains not only to briefly summarize the novel being discussed but also to outline and to recapitulate the argument of the chapter, either in the introduction or the conclusion section. Moreover, each chapter is an incremental analysis that builds up to the final chapter. Despite the author structuring the main argument incrementally throughout the eight chapters, these chapters could be divided into two parts following the chronological publication order of the primary texts that he employs. In the first part of the book, Stock investigates dystopian narratives from 1909 to 1932, and in the second part, he explores “(mostly) lesser-known novels from the 1930s to 1940s” (13). For example, in chapter 1 to chapter 3, belonging to part 1, Stock explores the dystopian texts “The Machine Stops,” We, and Brave New World and argues that these texts criticize political issues ambiguously due to their “expressions of a structure of feeling that attempts to map and analyse ‘social experience which is still in process’” (200). As for the dystopian fiction in the mid-1930s onward, such as Swastika Night, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Chrysalids, and other short works discussed in part 2, Stock demonstrates that dystopian authors progressively exploited allegory, myths, and the pastoral pattern to criticize fascism and the limits of liberal humanism and warn readers about the danger of fascism to Britain in both domestic politics and international relations. In the conclusion, he ties the whole argument together by reiterating his claim from the beginning of the book: the conventions and themes of dystopian literature employed as a ready referent for interpreting political events clearly demonstrate that we live in dystopian times (200). Stock then summarizes the subarguments throughout the eight chapters in three pages before exploring the legacy of the dystopian genre, which has impacted not only contemporary literature but also the research of utopian tradition. According to Stock, the pervasiveness of a variety of fiction with a blend of dystopian traits, which have become the dominant trends to reflect world politics, such as cyberpunk dystopian fiction and YA fiction, illustrates the legacies of dystopian narratives and foreshadows the important role of dystopia in politics: “Dystopia continues to haunt the future, tracking the limits and horizons of the most culturally prevalent fears and pressing anxieties. … Dystopian fiction is a culturally diffuse form that helps give shape to how we organise and order thinking about political life. We live in dystopian times” (206). In the final thought of this book, Stock reminds readers about the importance of the study and research of the dystopian genre, which helps to contribute to readers’ political life. The final sentence of this closing statement, which mirrors the introduction and the main argument of the whole book, emphatically raises awareness in readers that we live in dystopian times and implies that we could employ dystopian narratives to enrich our understanding as well as contribute to our ability to wrestle with contemporary political problems, economic anxieties, and social fears.Although he targets only a small group of audiences, particularly utopian scholars and postgraduates, who are well trained and familiar with utopian and dystopian theories, as well as social and political theories, Stock's intention of studying dystopian narratives to contribute to political discourse and social trends is genuine and valuable. The book's elaborate research on dystopia as a literary genre adds to the study of dystopian fiction by employing narrative methodologies with its innumerable references to theorists and their related theories, with a short explanation in the endnotes of each chapter. Nevertheless, this challenging work demands that readers possess a strong foundation in social and political theories. It also expects readers to patiently trail the overarching argument and the supporting arguments from the eight chapters.The inestimable insight of the author in reading dystopia closely enriches not only the sociopolitical discourse of dystopia but also the performative performance of this genre throughout history. I especially appreciate Adam Stock's innovative theory on the future-as-past in dystopian fiction. Stock terms the future-as-past as a temporal expression that manifests in the fragmented revelations of future-history between the authorial present and the principal narrated future (10). For example, the years between 1949 (when the novel was published) and 1984 (when the narrative is set) form the future-as-past in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (11). For Stock and also for me, readers need to draw a discussion between these two temporal fields in dystopian narratives. In fact, “dystopias almost never present a full and comprehensive historical narrative of how the future setting came into being. Instead, they provide just sufficient information for the reader to be able to creatively piece together a historical narrative through contextual knowledge and guesswork” (11). The future-as-past permits readers to actively employ their historical knowledge, reading experience, and guesswork to bridge the lacunae expressed by the authorial present and the principal narrated future in dystopian narratives. Using the same theory of “chronotope” from Mikhail Bakhtin, I would like to add another world—a third world or the contemporary world that readers inhabit—and make a critical judgment about the other two worlds. Readers from this third world have to acknowledge and attempt to bridge the two worlds in a dystopian narrative to their own world. From the comparison of the three worlds simultaneously occurring in the reading of dystopian fiction, readers are able to actively anticipate political theories and problems presented in the text and compare them with the existing societies where the readers are situated. Why is the representation of the future-as-past setting in dystopias essential to our understanding of this genre, sociopolitical theories, and the existing society we are in? According to Stock, being cognizant of the temporal settings of dystopian fiction permits readers to infer and research the relevant historical contexts according to the correlative periods with regard to the sociopolitical discourse of their contemporary world.Stock is in any case to be commended for his thorough analysis on the usage of allegory accompanying the temporal modes of critique (i.e., the future-as-past) in dystopian fiction from the mid-1930s onward. For example, Stock goes into detail explaining the symbolic images and the historical contexts of the four “Arch-fiends” represented in Burdekin's Swastika Night. He then argues that Burdekin employs the allegorical method to criticize and forewarn readers about fascism and its threats to the whole world. This analysis of allegory pushed me to rethink my own understanding of dystopia, especially the close reading of symbolism and images as well as the narrative structures created in dystopian fiction.Another feature I appreciate about Stock's work is his scholarly awareness of utopian tradition. For instance, he begins his work by setting boundaries around the term dystopia and how he is going to discuss it in light of literature and sociopolitical theories. Stock also addresses his limited take on dystopian novels only from Britain and encourages readers to enlarge their vision and research to dystopias from other countries. At the end of the work, he indiscriminately touches on the legacies of dystopia, which has become pervasive and popular in YA fiction. Stock believes that even though “the narrative of YA dystopias frequently focuses on a limited image of the adolescent hero figure (white, cis, straight, middle-class)” (205), these hero figures, after a challenging trial, make important and righteous decisions to change their lives and the lives of others in their society. YA dystopian narratives help “communities to bind together for the common good, no matter how radically estranged the circumstances” (205). Besides, the popularity of this dystopian narrative demonstrates that dystopia is a flexible genre that can be blended into different modes of storytelling nuances and media to “address the most pressing global issues” (205).To sum up, by bringing together political theory and literary analysis in approaching the dystopian genre, Stock offers various methodologies to expand our appreciation of dystopian literature and its significant contributions in laying out our political problems, economic anxieties, and social fears (206). Again, living in dystopian times, we need to embrace dystopia as “a form of political and politicised writing” (2) to express negativity without hopelessness in challenging our current upheavals from all sides, i.e., political, cultural, and social angles. Yes, we live in dystopian times. Yet hope still manifests.