In Woman on the Edge of Time, Marge Piercy presents two future societies. One is a dystopia, where an elite class of citizens lives on space platforms and possesses the power to induce the psychology of the mass population. They also alter the women, enhancing their sexual features, and valuing them solely for their appearances and physical benefits. However, our concern is primarily with the alternative utopian society that Piercy presents through the character Luciente. I mention the dystopia because it provides a contrasting model that clarifies the nature of the utopia and offers further analysis for our discussion of other authors.
In this utopian world, named Mattapoisett, many political and social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the decades of Piercy’s publication (1976), have found resolve. They have, in other words, been fulfilled in an ideal society. What sort of movements? The utopia features a world with no environmental pollution, no racial conflict, no oppression of different classes or sexual orientations, and no forms of despotism or mass materialism. Furthermore, we see no domination of the masculine point of view in philosophy and other methods of constructing meaning. Positively, the utopia functions as an agrarian society with a strong community orientation. War, however, does exist, as communities and individuals retain conflicting desires and goals in an otherwise largely peaceful world.
How might we summarize the character of Piercy’s utopia? It appears bent towards gender and class equality, with a pension for communal government and the permission of war. Let’s consider how three authors might respond to such a society. We will ask in particular whether and why Albert Camus, Kurt Vonnegut, and Betty Friedan would be happy or unhappy in such a world.
Albert Camus famously, or infamously, forwarded a worldview that drained life of meaning. In The Stranger, he presents a nihilism that views life as difficult, purposeless, and ultimately with no hopeful future. He, I think, stated that in order to discern where you derive meaning for your life, you should ask two primary questions. First, do you want to die? And second, if you do not wish to die, then why? The reasons you give for not wishing to die constitute the reasons you live, and thus the meaning of your existence. For Camus, no external person or force governs or determines meaning; rather individuals and societies determine why they wish to live. Logically, Camus’ philosophy permits any and all ethical universes.
So, would Camus be happy or unhappy in Piercy’s utopia? According to his worldview, Camus would be happy in no universe. His hopeless system of life provides no rational grounds for living and no concrete source of hope for any “ideal” society. Thus, in my judgment, he would live equally unhappily in both the dystopia and utopia presented by Piercy. With no moral code and no meaning besides inevitable death, Camus cannot and probably would not prefer a male-dominated society to a female-dominated society. Nor would he be happier in a world that features sexual obsession to a world that features an agricultural existence. Camus’ nihilism provides no ground for morality or hope, and grounds for predicting how he might feel in Piercy’s utopia.
Kurt Vonnegut held strong socialist beliefs, favored the power of the artist, and forwarded a “freethinking” humanism. He wished for the equality of classes and religions, with associations in the Unitarian church, a congregation that claims all religions lead to the same goal and usually that all people find their way to heaven. Regarding gender, I do not know that he stated strong views for equality, but he work gives me no reason to think that he favored men above women or vise versa.
Vonnegut’s views would make him a happy citizen in the utopia envisioned in Woman on the Edge of Time. His socialism, and evident work with American liberties activists, locates him with those who favor communal work and control. He would enjoy the community-driven government of Mattapoisett, where no despotic ruler controls the actions of the working class, and all people contribute to the greater goals of the society. Furthermore, his humanism, and probable atheism in spite of Unitarian associations, would mean he dislikes the war that occurs in Piercy’s world. On the other hand, he would enjoy the leveling of human powers and particularly the championing of human thought, will, and feeling that inevitably arises with atheism and reflects itself in Mattapoisett. Overall, Vonnegut would live happily.
Third and finally, Betty Friedan, a contemporary of Piercy’s, advocated for a form of feminism. She sharply critiqued the masculine-based society of the West and particularly what she saw as women’s concession to it in the form of homemaking. Rather, it seems her main problem with men was their abuse of women, in whatever manner, but especially in their irresponsibility towards wives and children. However, she also corrected those who she dubbed extreme feminists that found no common ground with men and cooperative society.
Thus, with regard to gender and social roles, Friedan would find happiness in Mattapoisett. She may not be content with agrarian existence, and it in fact may remind her of domestic duty. However, she would be glad to see men and women working along side one another. In terms of government, I do not know how she would fare. Certainly a male despot would make her unhappy, but a female despot may provoke the same response. She would absolutely hate the dystopian contrast that appears in Woman on the Edge of Time. For there her worst nightmare is realized, woman manufactured and devalued into sexual objects.
In view of all three authors, I think that Vonnegut would be most happy in Mattapoisett. Why? Because his views fit with Piercy’s utopia at more points of reference than the other authors. Friedan certain would enjoy the gender equality, but her lack of articulation regarding other political and societal issues provides less evidence for her happiness or unhappiness in a given world.
- Piercy, Marge. Woman of the Edge of Time. New York: Fawcett, 1985./li>
