“It’s Queer that Daylight’s not Enough”: Interdependence Counters Othering in Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness

By Jamie Spallino

In partial fulfillment of the degree Bachelor of Arts with Honors in English Wittenberg University

29 March 2021

Spallino 1

What defines otherness? The word implies an assumed normalcy, though that assumption often goes unacknowledged. In the face of difference from their perception of normality, people have a variety of reactions, from acceptance to curiosity to fear. A perceived difference often becomes the foundation for interpersonal and intercultural conflict because it is used to justify hierarchies and negative treatment. For example, seeing men and women as fundamentally different leads to the othering and preferential treatment that characterize sexism. Thus, othering in response to difference is an individual choice, but it has societal-level consequences that must be addressed.

American author Ursula K. Le Guin explores the theme of othering through speculative fiction about encountering new civilizations, initially viewing them as hostile due to their differences, and exploring ways of reconciling their otherness. Her first three novels, published in 1966-67 as the Hainish trilogy, establish these themes: each protagonist experiences an archetypal journey combining physical travel with personal, social, and cultural development that counters their instincts to other the unfamiliar civilizations.

The Left Hand of Darkness, the next novel in the Hainish Cycle, catapulted Le Guin into the spotlight in 1969. Le Guin’s first novel on themes of gender and sexuality, Left Hand is widely considered the first feminist science fiction novel, a genre that counters popular male- centric science fiction tropes and challenges their othering of women. In the novel, human protagonist Genly Ai must learn to navigate being othered by the inhabitants of Gethen—a planet of aliens with fluctuating physical sex characteristics—which leads him to question his own othering of the Gethenians. He rejects social interactions that lack the governing force of gender, a decision that undermines his mission to unite two Gethenian nations on the brink of war and convince them to join the Ekumen, or League of Known Worlds. It is only when he forms a Spallino 2 personal friendship and love with a Gethenian—which forces him to accept their differences— that he succeeds in his political endeavors. Thus, the novel proposes relationships and interdependence as counters to othering, allowing readers to imagine interpersonal connections based on relationality.

Because it addresses cultural anxieties surrounding gender and proposes interdependence as a new method of interpersonal relationship, Left Hand has fascinated readers and critics alike for over half a century. Though much has changed since its publication, the novel’s commentary on gendered social structures and hierarchies also applies to modern societal backlash against third-wave feminism. Gendered themes are often addressed in the literary criticism through investigation of the literal and symbolic binary opposites present in the novel, including light/darkness, male/female, and personal/political. One such gendered lens that I utilize is the libidinal economy proposed by feminist theorist Helene Cixous, whose work is not commonly applied to Left Hand. Though critics often base their analyses on dualism, they typically find few results because they seek meaning in each individual pole. I challenge the illusion of independently functioning binary poles through post-structural linguistic theory, arguing that neither pole could exist without its partner. Instead, I build upon the small body of work by critics who study relationality between the binary poles, applying interdependence to both the binaries and the characters in the novel. Through this original application of theories, I argue that the illusion of independence causes othering in Left Hand and that the novel counters this pattern by stimulating growth toward a reflective mindset accepting of interdependence.

Spallino 3

Genly’s Character Development in the Novel

To analyze Le Guin’s proposal and use of interdependence in the novel, I first establish my use of Cixous’s gendered economies, which resonate throughout the novel despite removing gender as a governing force. Because Left Hand does not escape the dualistic hierarchies that characterize gendered interaction, Genly has made little progress as Ekumenical Envoy toward convincing the national governments to join the alliance. A large part of his difficulty comes from a communication barrier: all Gethenian communication is moderated by principles of prestige called shifgrethor, which Genly refuses to learn or participate in. He chooses his masculine pride, which is impaired by shifgrethor, over the efficacy of his mission, even with his strongest advocate, Karhidish Prime Minister Therem Harth rem ir Estraven. When Genly’s audience with Karhidish King Argaven sours into suspicion based on popular accusations that

Estraven is a traitor, Genly uses the accusations against Estraven to reinforce his own strong negative biases against the Gethenians, and Estraven in particular, and chooses to flee the country rather than face them.

My second chapter highlights a subsequent scene in which competition and the illusion of independence—reinforced by shifgrethor as well as Genly’s masculinity—are intentionally invoked, deconstructed, and balanced within their rightful binary contexts. Genly experiences it at Arikoster Fastness, a commune outside of the two polarized nations which centers around

Gethen’s ancient religious tradition. Finally free of political demands, he witnesses the famous

Foretelling ritual, which can answer almost any question. To understand its mechanisms, I describe this Foretelling ritual using structural linguistics, post-structural linguistics, and deconstruction. Genly suspects that the Foretelling is based on guesswork, but his psychic powers allow him insight into the group’s cultivated binary interactions, a perception which Spallino 4 sheds light on the question’s certain answer. Genly asks whether Gethen will become a member of the Ekumen in the next five years and receives the simple answer “yes.” This experience, steeped in feminine deconstructive energy and the mystical power of balance, provides a new model for Genly. His travels then take him to Orgoreyn, where he becomes a political pawn and ultimately a prisoner of the state at the Pulefen Voluntary Farm. Prime Minister Estraven, now exiled from Karhide for his supposed treason, breaks Genly out of Pulefen Farm and encourages him to return to Karhide, which he believes is now ready to join the Ekumen. This preparedness is mirrored by Genly’s own increasing potential to form a relationship with Estraven.

The third chapter delineates Genly’s own developmental journey as he travels across glacial ice with Estraven. During that journey, Genly finally learns to see past Estraven’s fluctuating sex to his patient, determined, trustworthy character. As his perspective transforms from masculine othering to productive fluidity, Genly describes their relationship as a mystical love, referencing Martin Buber’s “I–Thou” relationship and the Taoist yin–yang symbol. Genly shares the Ekumen’s technique of telepathic mindspeech to reciprocate the trust Estraven places in him and his mission. These mystical and paranormal experiences characterize his newfound acceptance of interdependence, which prepare him for relationality when he encounters another individual in that mindset. At the end of the journey, Estraven cements the relationship by sacrificing himself to separate his supposed traitor status from Genly’s mission, and the novel ends with Karhide welcoming a delegation from the Ekumen.

Because the novel centers around Genly’s development as demonstrated through his navigation of the gendered economies, I argue that it intends to challenge certain readers, as well.

My final chapter addresses the form and style of the novel, which exaggerate Genly’s changes in perspective. He and Le Guin, the text’s fictive and real-world authors, encourage readers’ Spallino 5 participation and growth. Ultimately, I argue that the productive fluidity and mystical, if impermanent, transcendence metaphorically demonstrate the real, transformational power of acknowledging interdependence and using it to counter the destructive effects of othering.

Spallino 6

Chapter I: Gendered Economies without Gender

Though there is no gender binary on Gethen, Le Guin uses symbols and relationships that

Genly interprets as gendered because they are metaphorically associated with genders on Earth.

For this analysis, I draw from cultural connotations as well as feminist theory by Helene Cixous about gendered ways of interpersonally relating. Each of these analyses demonstrates that the familiar aspects of gendered existence presented in Left Hand are decontextualized and thus defamiliarized. For example, Le Guin famously loves to acknowledge that King Argaven is pregnant because it disrupts readers’ expectations of both monarchy and pregnancy. When readers recognize social structures typically used for othering in a new context, they are invited to question their gendered or hierarchical assumptions and how social structures could reflect community rather than difference.

Feminization of Gethen

As Genly and the readers are introduced to the alien planet Gethen, they first notice the drastic differences between human and Gethenian bodies. This immediate difference foregrounds the possibility for othering, especially as it reflects existing gendered hierarchies. Gethen’s inhabitants have no permanent physical sex characteristics, instead experiencing physical changes during their monthly periods of fertility and latency. The process is described by another

Ekumenical visitor as follows:

The sexual cycle averages 26 to 28 days (they tend to speak of it as 26 days,

approximating it to the lunar cycle). For 21 or 22 days the individual is somer, sexually

inactive, latent. On about the 18th day, hormonal changes are initiated by the pituitary

control and on the 22nd or 23rd day the individual enters kemmer, estrus. In this first Spallino 7

phase of kemmer (Karh, secher) he remains completely androgynous. […] Normal

individuals have no predisposition to either sexual role in kemmer; they do not know

whether they will be the male or the female, and have no choice in the matter. (74-75)

Because the typically gendered responsibility of bearing children is equally possible for every

Gethenian, the state provides protections for pregnancy and childrearing—institutions which are often associated with feminist causes. Additionally, with its variability and lunar mythology, the somer/kemmer cycle is reminiscent of the menstrual cycle, invoking cultural reactions of unease, mystery, and shame. Thus, Gethenian androgyny is symbolically linked with femininity in the eyes of Genly, the Ekumen, and readers on Earth. The feminization of Gethen provides the backdrop for Genly’s immediate othering of the Gethenians, whom he views as lesser because they do not live up to his standards of masculinity.

Each of the main institutions in Left Hand is defamiliarized and feminized by a related plot device. The famed politician Estraven would be interpreted as masculine by contemporary audiences, yet he takes on feminine character traits and physical characteristics: Estraven goes into kemmer with female sex characteristics while journeying with Genly. Similarly, the nations of Karhide and Orgoreyn present masculine competitiveness in their growing nationalism, but that is undermined by their history of slow technological progress and no all-out wars. Le Guin writes that she intended to create a balance between symbolic masculinity and femininity in her portrayal of Gethen: “On Gethen, the two polarities we perceive through our cultural conditioning as male and female are neither, and are in balance” (“Redux” 164-165). This intentional feminization of characters and cultures serves to destabilize Genly’s initial patriarchal assumptions, priming him for the subversion of those expectations.

Spallino 8

A Masculine Economy at Work

In addition to recognizably feminized characters and settings, Gethenian culture has social norms that function based on assumed independence and othering, just as culture on Earth does. To analyze this subtext, I look to the theories of feminist writer and critic Helene Cixous.

She describes traditionally gendered methods of interpersonal relation through what she terms libidinal economies. Based in a Freudian understanding of ego defined by lack or the fear of loss, she defines the feminine economy as the gift economy; for simplicity purposes, I use femininity as synonymous with the gift economy. This femaleness is free of lack and thus unafraid of giving. Thus, the feminine gift economy is “an endless circulation of desire from one body to another, above and across sexual difference, outside those relations of power and regeneration constituted by the family” (“Castration” 53). Someone practicing the gift economy gives and receives without valuation, experiencing neither action as a threat to themself. To Cixous, this relationship echoes a maternal instinct which gives to and sustains a child without loss: “a love that rejoices in the exchange that multiplies” (“Laugh” 893). In context with others embodying this feminine mindset, femininity is associated with infinity, gifts that inspire others to give. This economy appears in the novel as an individual mindset presented by characters like Estraven who seek an alternative to othering.

Cixous also names a corresponding masculine economy called the debt economy. In keeping with the Freudian understanding of a male ego founded in a fear of lack, the debt economy is ruled by fear: “the moment you receive something you are effectively ‘open’ to the other […] inequality is always interpreted by the masculine as a difference of strength, and thus as a threat” (“Castration” 48). Any gift places the receiver in debt, meaning that their independence and power are decreased by the future requirement to respond in kind and advance Spallino 9 someone else’s cause. Similarly, unsolicited aid to another places the giver in a position to lose their own power over that other. To avoid either of these outcomes, an individual must maintain rigid interpersonal boundaries. Thus, for those operating within the debt economy, competition and independence reign, and interpersonal connections are suspicious and avoided at all costs. A debt economy perspective is often maintained by grouping people by their differences and othering them to maintain distance and independence.

These standards of individuality, threat, and dominance echo the characteristics of toxic masculinity, a maladaptive cultural construction of maleness. I use those similarities to assume that a pure expression of the debt economy is synonymous with toxic masculinity. For simplicity purposes, I use the term masculinity throughout this essay to refer to these two forms of unmitigated independence, competitiveness, and fear unless I state otherwise. However, Le

Guin’s portrayal of masculinity in Left Hand implies that not all masculinity is toxic or correlated with the debt economy. In fact, the negative outcomes found at each libidinal economy’s extreme can be mitigated by accepting the presence and tenets of the other economy—demonstrating the importance of interdependence and androgyny.

Cixous’ debt economy—familiar to readers because of its masculine connotations, independence, and othering—is ubiquitous on Gethen in both personal and political dealings between Gethenians. Just as gender governs interactions between humans on Earth, the

Gethenian construct shifgrethor governs social relationships and norms. In essays about Left

Hand, Le Guin describes shifgrethor as “a conflict without physical violence, involving one- upmanship, the saving and losing of face—conflict ritualized, stylized, controlled” (“Redux”

162). Terms like “violence” and “conflict” invoke competition and dominance elements of the masculine debt economy. Spallino 10

However, whereas masculinity manifests in outright violence, the othering and hostility expressed through shifgrethor take a subtler form. Shifgrethor prevents direct advice or questions, the sharing-based forms of communication that encourage collaboration and could easily be involved in the gift economy. Instead, Genly notices “the evasions and challenges and rhetorical subtleties used in conversation by those whose main aim in life was the achievement and maintenance of the shifgrethor relationship,” calling it a “perpetual conversational duel” (LH

26). The construct applies not only to people but also to nations: Genly notes that “shifgrethor can be played on the level of ethics” (LH 88). National shifgrethor can increase or decrease a country’s reputation or prestige due to its moral or political actions. Each of these functions places the players in direct comparison and competition. Thus, though shifgrethor is genderless because its creators have no concept of gender, it results in the same othering, division, and lack of communication that characterize unmitigated masculinity.

Between Gethenians, communications based in shifgrethor resemble a duel or a dance, requiring both parties to nimbly infer meanings and parry with implications of their own. One example of this wordplay occurs when Genly and Estraven take shelter in a Karhidish town after their long journey across the Gobrin Ice. At this point in the novel, Estraven is considered a traitor and an outlaw in Karhide and Genly is wanted in Orgoreyn, so they must convince the townspeople that they mean no harm without exposing their identities. Estraven speaks delicately with the town’s representative:

When after a day or two they got around to asking, discreetly and indirectly, with due

regard to shifgrethor, why we had chosen to spend a winter rambling on the Gobrin Ice,

he [Estraven] replied at once, “Silence is not what I should choose, yet it suits me better

than a lie.” Spallino 11

“It’s well known that honorable men come to be outlawed, yet their shadow does

not shrink,” said the hot-shop cook, who ranked next to the village chief in consequence,

and whose shop was a sort of living-room for the whole Domain in winter.

“One person may be outlawed in Karhide, another in Orgoreyn,” said Estraven.

“True; and one by his clan, another by the king in Ehrenrang [Karhide’s capital].”

“The king shortens no man’s shadow, though he may try,” Estraven remarked,

and the cook looked satisfied. If Estraven’s own clan had cast him out he would be a

suspect character, but the king’s strictures were unimportant. As for me [Genly],

evidently a foreigner and so the one outlawed by Orgoreyn, that was if anything to my

credit. (229)

From the outset, Estraven establishes his honest intentions, encouraging the cook to trust him without prying into his affairs. The cook implicitly agrees not to ask Estraven’s identity, but he does further investigate his trustworthiness through indirect speech, which “can communicate the act by […] stating that the condition is fulfilled” (Myers 308). By speaking as though Genly and

Estraven are honorable, he allows Estraven to agree but does not require him to cross the rigid boundary between them by giving any compromising details. Because Estraven can confirm that his shadow, or reputation, is not injured because the shame comes from the king, the cook’s peace of mind is secure. As with all instances of successful shifgrethor-based conversation, this interaction is effective because “the participants implicitly understand the rules for conveying indirect speech acts and have access to a certain informational context” (Myers 309). Through shifgrethor, they make assumptions and establish trust without straying from the debt economy.

Spallino 12

Genly’s Reaction to Shifgrethor

Genly invests much effort into maintaining his masculinity and separation in order to other the Gethenians in the early parts of the novel, so readers might expect him to leap into the shifgrethor competition. However, his reaction to this manifestation of the debt economy is an unusual one: he describes himself as “an inept and undefended alien” who “would not understand” matters of shifgrethor (LH 11). He repeatedly makes this claim, though it undermines his own portrayal of himself as a virile, knowledgeable, successful man, because he

“senses that even the shifgrethor relationship is sexually based, having […] more to do with feminine notions of self-respect than masculine notions of honor” (Barrow 87). Thus, shifgrethor performs androgyny as a masculine construct expressing feminine characteristics, which explains

Genly’s negative reaction to it. When he feels overwhelmed by the subtle layers of implication in conversations with Gethenian politicians, he resorts to belittling their conversational style and separating himself from it. Because both masculinity and shifgrethor are dominance-based constructs, their competitive nature causes them to see another system of defining worth as a threat. When they encounter each other, they categorize each other as simply that: another other to be scorned and devalued.

To perceive his own masculinity as victorious over the system he is othering, Genly refuses to participate in shifgrethor at all. For example, when King Argaven speaks obliquely during Genly’s audience, Genly complains “that I was not dueling with Argaven, but trying to communicate with him” (LH 26). Genly’s goal from his masculine perspective is, of course, to convince Argaven to his own side, not to equitably communicate in a gift economy style.

However, with this framing the failure becomes Argaven’s for refusing to communicate, rather than Genly’s for losing the duel. Genly “judges the indirection and the information as if they Spallino 13 were duplicitous” (Myers 310), which allows him to scorn and devalue the entire system of shifgrethor and communication. That allows him to mitigate his perceived shifgrethor losses by simply refusing to participate. However, because Genly takes such care to destabilize and other shifgrethor, he unwittingly demonstrates that he does, in fact, feel threatened by its social power on Gethen.

Genly similarly refuses to understand shifgrethor with Estraven, his strongest advocate in

Karhide, which demonstrates his initial commitment to the debt economy. Estraven attempts to warn Genly multiple times of the king’s shifting favor, a change that upsets Genly’s position in the court because his supporter’s power is waning. Genly asks Estraven prodding questions to prompt direct speech, but Estraven refuses to move past his standards of honor and politeness to provide direct advice, so Genly also maintains his stance without compromise. As in the conversation with King Argaven, “it is not so much Estraven’s use of indirection which confuses the Envoy (though that is the Envoy’s claim), but rather Genly’s own refusal to co-operate in interpreting Estraven’s indirect speech” (Myers 310). Though Genly shares the social context and political information which would allow him to understand Estraven’s warnings, Genly excuses his willful ignorance by othering Estraven.

Genly blames what he terms Estraven’s “effeminate deviousness” (LH 11) for their inability to communicate. This comment, which conflates femininity with scheming, implies that, whether the judgment is made by gender or shifgrethor, Estraven is a failure. Because

Estraven does not compete in a recognizable way and does not outright speak his mind, Genly justifies his dismissal of Estraven: “Thus Ai guards against fusion with the Gethenians, and particularly with Estraven, by clinging to a strictly gendered identity; he regards whatever constitutes otherness in the androgyne—that which differentiates Estraven from him—as female” Spallino 14

(Fayad 71). This feminization of shifgrethor and the Gethenians who use it allows Genly to maintain the rigid boundaries that characterize his debt economy perspective by forcing his perception of gendered othering onto the Gethenians. He continues through much of the novel in this obstinate, masculine, willful ignorance of Estraven’s motives, though they are clear to a sympathetic listener or reader.

Despite their ambisexuality, Gethenians operate under the masculine debt economy with their standards of shifgrethor, a system which allows them to other both individuals and nations.

Genly’s presence only exacerbates that alienation by mingling it with gendered hierarchies; thus, he spends two years in Karhide without making any progress as Ekumenical Envoy due to the several manifestations of the debt economy that promote othering. After Estraven is publicly declared a traitor, Genly flees Karhide. His travels take him to a space where othering is not the norm, a place that builds the foundation for the interdependent mindset that Genly will soon develop.

Spallino 15

Chapter II: Productive Play in Foretelling

The personal and political othering rampant in its debt economy demonstrate that these social problems are not necessarily related to gender. However, Le Guin’s goal in writing Left

Hand did not stop at recreating societal issues—she also wanted to demonstrate ways of existing within difference without othering. Thus, Genly’s travels take him to a place that progresses his developmental journey and builds the foundation for his interdependent mindset. Located outside of the two rival Gethenian nations, Arikoster Fastness is a commune based in the traditions of the ancient Handdara religion. There, Genly witnesses the Handdarata Foretelling ritual, which consciously cultivates difference in the interest of unlocking knowledge. He encounters the unfamiliar gift economy and experiences not only binary poles but also their productive interactions, an episode that foreshadows his character development later in the novel.

The Handdarata tradition manifests the gift economy through its notorious elusiveness.

Genly describes what little he has been able to discover about it: “The Handdara is a religion without institution, without hierarchy, without vows, without creed; I am still unable to say whether it has a God or not” (LH 45). This lack of formal substance creates room for unpolarized interactions that encompass multiple binary poles. Despite this institutional balance, people outside the faith typically recognize the Handdarata for their cultivation of darkness. A darkness- focused institution governed by the debt economy would encourage that darkness by excluding light. However, the famous Foretelling ritual results in light, so the Handdarata darkness is not a method of preventing light but of allowing space for light to arrive. Rather than emphasizing the individual states of dark or light, the Handdara faith centers around their interaction and balance.

This non-dualistic philosophy also affects the Handdara perspective on binary opposites.

Estraven, who studied with the Handdarata in his youth, explains their perspective on dualism: Spallino 16

“To be an atheist is to maintain God. His existence or his nonexistence, it amounts to much the same, on the plane of proof. Thus proof is a word not often used among the Handdarata, who have chosen not to treat God as a fact, subject either to proof or to belief: and they have broken the circle, and go free” (LH 126). Rather than creating opposition by taking a direct stance against certain beliefs, the Handdarata work to create their own systems outside of binary oppositions. Therefore, the Handdara faith is elusive from the outside because it chooses to include many dualisms and accept the resulting paradoxes.

This emphasis on inclusion rather than strict boundaries prevents the Handdarata from having a debt economy mindset; they enact the gift economy instead. When two binary poles coexist, the debt economy prioritizes one over the other; Cixous explains that on Earth “it is all ordered around hierarchical oppositions that come back to the man/woman opposition, an opposition that can only be sustained by means of a difference posed by cultural discourse as

‘natural’” (“Castration” 44). Gethen normalizes the hierarchical perspective, as well, even without the lens of gender. In contrast, the gift economy enacts no hierarchy. It does not need an illusion of independence to sustain itself, so it can combine binaries without the need to raise one pole above the other. The Handdarata, valuing light and darkness equally, allow both halves of the binary to coexist and communicate—manifesting the gift economy. Escaping the standards of shifgrethor that drive the rest of Gethen, “the Handdarata cultivate restricted amounts of light, of certainty, for the sake of darkness, of ignorance and therefore freedom” (Lake 159). As they are not bound to either side of a binary, they are free to explore the fluid space that encompasses both poles, as well as the space between them. This gift economy mindset provides an unprecedented experience for Genly and his masculinity.

Spallino 17

Deconstructing Binaries with Post-Structural Linguistics

In Left Hand, the blending of binaries through androgyny and the Handdara tradition accords with the tenets of structural and post-structural linguistic theories. A structural linguist conceptualizes language as symbolic signifiers, or words, representing signifieds, or objects and ideas. Within this framework, language’s meaning arises from cultural and historical contexts, rather than the signifieds themselves. Because those contexts can change over time, meaning is not permanent but fluid. This potential for variable meaning denies a link between signifiers and signifieds: instead of relating to traits inherent to themselves or their signifieds, signifiers are arbitrarily assigned to the signifieds they represent.

Meaning is thus attributed not to signifieds but to the contrast between one signifier and another. This emphasis on difference—reminiscent of the debt economy—means that each signifier “must be described in terms of its outside boundaries, rather than by its contents,” defined negatively rather than positively (Marshall 22). Thus, instead of describing an exact signified, each signifier points to at least one other signifier against which it is defined. The meaning is not located in any one word; rather, it is deferred along an endless chain of signifiers.

If one word changes meaning due to historical or cultural shifts, the entire chain of signifiers must also change accordingly. Therefore, though a masculine mindset seeks inherent meaning by separating each word from the others, that meaning is denied by the feminine relationality between words.

In the case of a binary opposition, the debt economy seeks to counter this relationality by defining the signifier at each pole as not being its perceived opposite. The female, for example, can be defined as everything that is not male. Additionally, within the masculine mindset each duality contains an implied hierarchy, valuing one term over the other. However, though binary Spallino 18 poles are typically portrayed as incompatible, “the ‘either’ and the ‘or’ of structuralism’s binary logic are not mutually exclusive. Rather the one element of each of these oppositions necessarily includes the opposing element” (Marshall 44). The definitions depend on each other, so our conceptions of the ideas themselves are interdependent as well—meaning that the feminine reasserts itself over masculine attempts for certainty.

Because of opposites’ interdependence, philosopher Jacques Derrida claims that each pole of a binary, rather than being independently defined, contains a trace of its opposite.

Through his process of deconstruction, Derrida “read[s] a text so closely that the author’s conceptual distinctions on which the text relies are shown to fail on account of the inconsistent and paradoxical use made of these very concepts” which are intended to be binary opposites

(Sarup 34). He intends this process to demonstrate that there is no final meaning. The process of deconstruction is thus inherently a manifestation of the gift economy because it destroys the masculine boundaries between words and meanings.

In analyzing the results of deconstruction, Derrida concludes “that the two terms of an opposition are merely accomplices of each other” (Sarup 45), creating meaning not by their own virtue but by their interdependence. If one pole’s meaning changes, its opposite experiences a corresponding shift, so meaning comes not from the male or female binary poles, for example, but from the fluidity that arises when their interdefinition is recognized and emphasized. The process of deconstruction must therefore run counter to othering because it deconstructs the perceived differences on which othering is based. Instead, the feminine process of deconstruction rejects the boundaries between ideas, thus rejecting the debt economy as well.

In the context of the Handdarata Foretelling, binaries are not separated and othered but are purposely invoked so that deconstruction can occur. In fact, some of the characters involved Spallino 19 are subject to societal scorn or hierarchies, but this fact is treasured because it creates stronger differences between the characters. This difference between the many binary poles involved in the ritual creates feminine deconstruction. In part because of that deconstruction, Foretelling accurately predicts the future. This mystical experience introduces Genly to the gift economy and demonstrates to him reactions to difference that do not include othering.

The Foretelling Characters

For the feminine deconstructive energy to arrive in the Foretelling, people representing various binary poles are placed into immediate context with each other so their interactions are clearly visible and can be harnessed. The Foretelling group traditionally consists of two Zanies; five Fastness Indwellers, one currently in the first phase of kemmer; one Pervert in a hormonally induced state of permanent physical sex characteristics; and one Weaver, who leads the group.

Each member is valued as a signifier, a member of the category they represent within the ritual, but they attain their true signification from their interdefining relationships to others in the ritual.

Valued for their insanity, the Zanies communicate not with words but through their bodies, hands tapping on the floor and laughs crooning creepily in the air. Known as “time- dividers” (LH 51), they are one pole of the sane/insane binary. The other pole is represented by the Indwellers, who ground themselves in time and space through sensual awareness in a meditative practice they call “untrance” (LH 47). The term untrance is reminiscent of Derrida’s theory that all binary oppositions contain traces of each other within them. By including this trace in her created term, Le Guin implies “that the very definition of each depends on the other”

(Peel 35). While the Zanies are in a timeless trance, the Indwellers maintain grounded sanity Spallino 20 defined in opposition to it, creating a balance within the group and allowing space for many non- polarized positions between the extremes.

The Zanies also invoke female hysteria, a symbolic subtext that disrupts sane expectations and exceeds the sanity binary. Speaking through their bodies, the Zanies “don’t rush into meaning, but are straightaway at the threshold of feeling,” as Cixous writes of women

(“Castration” 54). They disrupt masculine drives toward certainty and meaning because they function as signifiers yet defy easy classification and resist signification. In the face of this disruption, “the man doesn’t hear the body” and refuses to understand its unfixed meanings, so he responds with unease and disdain for people who refuse to function within masculine rules

(“Castration” 49). Genly follows that pattern with the Zanies: he applies masculine logic, diagnosing them and wondering which Karhidish treatments could help them. When he asks a young Indweller whether they can be cured of their insanity, however, the Indweller seems horrified, asking, “Would you cure a singer of his voice?” (LH 52) In Foretelling, the Zanies are valued for their feminine insanity, which allows them ways of speaking and knowing that are inaccessible to Genly’s then-masculine mind. This valuation serves as another expression of the gift economy because it deconstructs the negative ideas about hysteria that characterize Genly’s interpretations of the Zanies.

Within the Foretelling group, the symbolic gender binary is completed by the Pervert.

When someone maintains permanent physical sex characteristics through biological difference or hormonal treatments, Gethenians call them a pervert. A stark contrast with the timeless hysteria of the feminized Zanies, the Pervert is the only fixed signifier in a fluid space. In structural linguistics theory, the single fixed sign is referred to as “Logos,” “God,” or “the phallus.” In that context, the fixed sign is considered the most important, the sign that relationally defines all Spallino 21 other signs. However, the symbolically masculine Pervert is not central but marginalized in

Gethenian society. The Pervert’s place as the only fixed signifier is further undermined because the concept of perversion implies normality against which it is defined; thus, it is also relational.

Despite the Gethenian tendency to scorn and other perversion, the Handdara include the Pervert in Foretelling, perhaps the only space where his difference is valued rather than derided.

Though the young Indweller conveys some of the typical Gethenian embarrassment toward perversion, he pridefully considers the Pervert in Genly’s Foretelling “better” than others because he’s “natural” rather than “artificially arouse[d]” (LH 52). The Pervert’s masculine and essentialized identity strengthens the tensions that it is meant to create because his inborn sexuality is even more permanent than a hormonally induced one. That distinction draws this

Pervert closer to the signified he represents, which makes him more esteemed, at least in the context of the Foretelling. This perception goes against post-structural linguistic theory, which claims that there is no “natural” or perfect definition that signifiers represent. The Pervert’s masculine essentialization manifests several binaries in the Foretelling group: his body is starkly different from the asexual somer state of the Indwellers, invoking a physical sex/androgyny binary. The permanence of his physical sex characteristics contrasts with the potential for change that typical Gethenians experience. His male presence also triggers the Indweller in kemmer to develop female sex characteristics, invoking a physical male/female sex binary. Thus, the

Pervert’s presence creates dualities involving permanent physical sex, the impermanent experience of physical sex, and the fluid, asexual, androgynous somer state of the other

Indwellers.

The Zanies, Indwellers, and Pervert create a symbolically complex Foretelling group by each participating in multiple binary oppositions. From a perspective based in othering and the Spallino 22 strict boundaries of the debt economy, these binary poles should exist independently. However, the Handdara manifest the gift economy in their work, so they invite the binary poles to interact with one another. This allows interdefinition to be easily seen and provides ample opportunity for feminine deconstructive energy as elucidated by structural and post-structural linguistics.

Thus, the binary libidinal economies are also both at play in the Foretelling. As all the binary poles contextualize each other, their strict boundaries deconstruct, leaving room for an ultimately productive fluidity.

The Foretelling Process as Deconstruction

The Foretelling ritual is known for its designated feminine space outside of Gethen’s masculine norms of shifgrethor and nationalism. It invokes dualities, which invite the feminine energy associated with the gift economy and deconstruction—fluid, free, and giving. These mechanisms take place on a super-linguistic plane of psychic communication, making it an uncapturable, unsignifiable experience. The novel provides insight into this wordless experience because Genly’s own psychic communication abilities allow him to witness the Foretelling process. He can thus experience how the intersection of a masculine desire for answers with feminine deconstruction has mystical results—learning firsthand the benefits of an androgynous experience that balances binary opposites.

Genly’s participation in the psychic Foretelling is unintentional, but it serves his development by forcing him to experience feminine deconstruction firsthand. Through this first step on his developmental journey from toxic masculinity to interdependence, “from notions of masculine domination, Genly is being led to feminine participation” (Barrow 89). However, this participation is not initially an easy process for him. He describes “emphatic and paraverbal Spallino 23 forces at work […] rising out of the perversion and frustration of sex, out of an insanity that distorts time, and out of an appalling discipline of total concentration and apprehension of immediate reality” (LH 54). He feels that each binary pole is overwhelming, which drives him to seek a balanced middle ground. Through this experience, he learns that the interacting binaries themselves create the mysterious forces acting in the Foretelling ritual.

From that initial interaction between binary opposites, Genly watches the psychic tensions between them amplify over the course of the Foretelling. Because each pole signifies at least partly through the denial of its opposite, “meaning is continually moving along a chain of signifiers” (Sarup 33). For meaning to appear, the binary poles must not seem othered and independent, as the debt economy would have them do; instead their interdependence must be acknowledged for their meaning to be seen. This deconstruction of binary oppositions is not productive in itself; it simply serves as a tool to harness the energy from binary tensions. As the ritual progresses, Genly experiences what the Weaver—that is, the leader of the group—later describes: “The energy builds up and builds up in us, always sent back and back, redoubling the impulse every time, until it breaks through and the light is in me, around me, I am the light” (LH

55). As the binaries are deconstructed, the fluid space between them becomes increasingly powerful. Eventually, that energy becomes so strong that it breaks the deconstructive pattern and creates something new instead. The Weaver internalizes it, becoming a conduit for the energy to be interpreted into an answer.

To someone who could only see the darkened room, the Handdara seemingly surround themselves in darkness because it gives them the answers they seek, completely othering the light. However, Genly sees the Weaver internalizing an explosion of energy as light, which leads him to the answer he seeks. This light explains the Handdara cultivation of darkness—yet Spallino 24 another binary opposition, arising from the interactions of the many other binaries the group invokes. When light appears out of the darkness during Foretelling, “dark and light images seem to function not at all as individual metaphors but only in contrast to each other,” such that the

“chiaroscuro itself bears meaning” (Peel 34). That meaning, in a Foretelling, provides otherwise inaccessible knowledge. The supernatural ability to tell the future arises directly from the presence of both binary poles in context with one another. Acting within the binary tensions, feminine deconstruction dismantles masculine significations, creating space for new meaning to be perceived.

Deconstructive Play Produces Mystical Results

Though Foretelling includes and cultivates feminine deconstruction, it does not other the debt economy in favor of the gift economy; its deconstruction is not an end unto itself. The ritual takes place not for religious purposes or to manifest the gift economy, but because someone outside the Fastness enters to ask a question—and the ritual produces an answer. Deconstructing dualistic differences, the feminine economy functions within the constraints of this masculine system, harnessed to answer a question. Rather than function solely through deconstruction or othering, the two libidinal economies must work in harmony to complete the Foretelling and provide a mystical glimpse into otherwise unanswerable mysteries.

Genly arrives at Arikoster Fastness with masculine skepticism, expecting hedging answers or romanticized guesswork from the feminine process. To test this theory, he asks a yes or no question: “Will this world Gethen be a member of the Ekumen of Known Worlds, five years from now?” (LH 51) He theorizes that the binary answer can be proven correct or incorrect over time, which will allow him to assess the Foretelling’s accuracy. Contrary to his dubious Spallino 25 expectations, through the psychic bond of the Foretelling, he sees the Weaver “as a woman armed in light and burning in a fire, crying out, ‘Yes—'” (LH 55). He is amazed with the answer’s simplicity, which he senses as absolute truth, unhindered by riddles or supposition. This certainty forces him to admit that his assumptions about Foretelling were wrong, another step that brings him closer to breaking out of unmitigated masculinity.

To Genly’s knowledge, the ability to accurately predict the future is unique to Gethen. He notes that the Ekumen has “NAFAL ships and instantaneous transmission and mindspeech, but we haven’t yet tamed hunch to run in harness; for that trick we must go to Gethen” (LH 55). His phrasing evinces his still-masculine perspective toward the deconstructive process because he implies that the chaotic feminine energy must be “tamed” by the Foretelling process. To him, the

Foretelling is still “a question of submitting feminine disorder, its laughter, its inability to take the drumbeats seriously” to masculine circumstances that demand certainty (“Castration” 43).

Though this perspective still prioritizes the masculine interrogative, Genly has learned to value the feminine ritual that provides those answers—a big step toward accepting femininity. He sees that the binaries’ cultivated, intentional deconstruction and intersection—instead of othering, which is uniquely possible due to the Gethenian experience without a gender binary—appear to create the opportunity for the unprecedented ability to Foretell the future. Thus, he sees power in valuing both economies rather than prioritizing one over the other, though he does not implement the gift economy in his own mind yet.

Despite Genly’s emphasis on the masculine answers provided by the Foretelling ritual, the inherent caveats within those answers serve to balance the economies and prevent othering or hierarchies. The search for an answer conflicts with the deconstructive pattern because it represents the masculine economy: “from the moment a question is put, as soon as a reply is Spallino 26 sought, we are already caught up in masculine interrogation” (“Castration” 45). This desire for certainty intrudes on the fluidity and play available through unmitigated feminine deconstruction.

However, this masculine interrogation is prevented from entirely overtaking the gift economy because the Handdara undervalue its certainty. The Weaver explains that the Handdara

“perfected and practice Foretelling […] to exhibit the perfect uselessness of knowing the answer to the wrong question” (LH 57). The answers are certain, but their applications are open to interpretation, which decreases the debt economy’s perceived power. With this return to the unsignifiable, the economies are balanced. In Genly’s case, the Foretelling reveals that his mission will succeed, but he has no idea when Gethen will join the Ekumen, how that success will be accomplished, or whether he will be involved in that process at all. Though he can be confident that the Ekumen’s goal will be accomplished, he must accept the uncertainties that come with this knowledge.

Thus, the Foretelling derives its power from the economies’ intersection, which produces new knowledge. When the deconstructive femininity meets the interrogatory masculinity, the

Weaver can channel the tensions for a previously inaccessible answer as though it has been there all along, waiting for the proper circumstances to emerge. This connotation marks another departure from post-structural linguistics, in which there are no certain signifieds behind any signifier chain. Though that theory decries overarching or permanent meaning as “a fiction”

(Sarup 37), the religious nature of Foretelling transcends those rules. Thus, through the

Foretelling, Le Guin poses her own theory about the nature of knowledge: it is androgynous, arising when the masculine and feminine interact with each other. The power to create knowledge transcends both binaries and hierarchies; meaning ultimately arises not from any one Spallino 27 part but from the whole. The power to transcend allows characters and readers alike to supersede the binary system for a mystical experience.

For Genly, the mystical, androgynous transcendence of the Foretelling scene is an entirely new experience that primes him for the next steps on his journey to interdependence.

Firstly, this scene marks his first true openness to the gift economy and its feminine deconstruction. Before this point, he has depended on the debt economy and its strict boundaries to other the Gethenians, a tactic he uses to protect himself from failing at social interactions governed by shifgrethor. The Foretelling, by forcing him to psychically experience deconstruction in action, prepares Genly to accept the gift economy and later enact it for himself.

Similarly, the Foretelling is the first time Genly experiences a Gethenian as a woman without prejudice. He sees the Weaver as a woman, which he must acknowledge to accept the resulting prediction. This growing ability to understand Gethenian androgyny will be essential for Genly’s later development and diplomacy.

The Foretelling also primes Genly for success because he experiences binary interactions firsthand. When he sees that the gift economy can deconstruct rigid masculine boundaries, he can understand its use as a tool to counter the othering reinforced by strong differences. Finally, he sees that binary poles’ interactions lead not only to fluidity but to production. Thus, though he is not immediately changed, the Foretelling challenges him to see and acknowledge binary oppositions, understand that they are not permanently differentiated, and predict the transformational, mystical results that occur from their interactions. As Genly continues his travels on Gethen, this knowledge proves critical.

Spallino 28

Chapter III: Genly’s Transformation on the Gobrin Ice

The Foretelling confirms that Gethen will join the Ekumen, meaning that Genly can continue his diplomatic mission in confidence and security; thus, he has more mental capacity to navigate the personal challenges of binary oppositions and Gethenian androgyny. He continually defaults to othering the Gethenians as his journey continues, taking him from Arikoster Fastness to Karhide’s rival country Orgoreyn. Though he finds some political favor with the Orgota leaders, Genly is ultimately exiled from the country and carted off to a state-sponsored internment camp called Pulefen Voluntary Farm.

The opportunity for Genly to explore ways of relating without othering presents itself when Estraven rescues him from Pulefen Voluntary Farm. Constantly monitoring the political landscape to further Genly’s mission as Envoy, Estraven deems that King Argaven of Karhide is now ready to officially join the Ekumen and plans to deliver Genly back to Karhide. To achieve this, they need to cross the majority of Orgoreyn, which will be difficult because the prison break has made them both wanted outlaws. Instead of this dangerous route, they choose to face the wrath of nature and map a route across the glacial Gobrin Ice. Genly and Estraven are the only two people brave or foolish enough to traverse the Ice in the middle of winter, so their journey provides months of solitude in which Genly finally learns to accept—rather than other—Estraven and the Gethenians.

Gendered Economies at Work on the Ice

Though Genly is primed for change by his experiences with the Foretelling, that preparation is still subconscious at the beginning of his journey with Estraven. Outwardly, he retains the debt-focused mindset that characterizes him throughout the novel’s beginning. This Spallino 29 perspective leads him to react negatively when Estraven professes the gift economy, but Genly’s inability to survive on the Ice alone leads him to revise his opinion and integrate some elements of the gift economy into his own actions.

In a conversation with Estraven, for example, Genly demonstrates a masculine mindset as he explains the Ekumen’s choice to send a single Envoy: “One alien is a curiosity, two are an invasion” (LH 174). The immediate jump from benign interest to interplanetary war belies his stark masculine mindset because it implies rigid borders that elicit fear when they are threatened or penetrated. If the boundaries were crossed, Genly seems to assume that the planet would lose something in the resulting communication. Because of this power dynamic, Genly assumes that comparison with a larger entity reduces the planet’s worth, causing it to feel threatened by the mere possibility of that connection. This thought process echoes the masculine construct of shifgrethor, in which mistakes and offenses ‘shorten one’s shadow’ and result in decreased honor. In addition to that fear of loss, receiving knowledge and support from the Ekumen would create debt, a position a masculine-minded world would avoid at all costs. A lone Envoy could not enforce either direction of cultural exchange, so the Ekumen’s policy minimizes these perceived risks. A more feminine perspective would welcome the opportunity for exchange and growth, but Genly’s masculine mindset only allows him to see debts and threats.

The nature of the Ekumen is only portrayed in the novel through Genly’s presentation of its character and actions, so some critics suspect that it is a masculine institution itself. Because it is a large organization pressuring individual planets to become members, it is reminiscent of “an expansionist, intergalactic power” (Khader 116). The implied hierarchy, with the Ekumen as dominant, implies that the lone planet must thus be feminine and submissive. Genly spouts these colonialist undertones without concern for their implications, such that some critics feel that Spallino 30

“Genly’s complicity with the Ekumen’s imperial gaze ends up reproducing colonialist modes of knowledge, without clearing a space for the production of a counter-colonialist subjectivity”

(Khader 115). Readers never experience the Ekumen outside of Genly’s perspective, so it is impossible to objectively judge whether it lives up to these accusations of colonization. This portrayal could also be a result of Genly’s perceptions, which filter all information about the

Ekumen; if his stance on the Ekumen shifts along with his masculine mindset, then perhaps this threat-based depiction is more reflective of Genly than the Ekumen itself.

Genly’s masculinity initially defines itself against the feminine—and the androgynous, which he categorizes as non-masculine. Thus, his embodiment of the debt economy juxtaposes with Estraven’s androgyny to become two poles of a binary. For example, when Estraven talks about patriotism, he professes a gift economy perspective:

How does one hate a country, or love one? […] I lack the trick of it. I know people, I

know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn

falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a

boundary to all of that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to

apply? What is love of one’s country; is it hate of one’s uncountry? […] I love the hills of

the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And

beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope. (176)

This speech denies the rigid boundaries that characterize the debt economy. Rather than fearing loss through international competition, Estraven opens himself to the entire land. This radically accepting viewpoint is part of what encouraged Karhidish politicians to label Estraven as a traitor, claiming that he did not love his country because he did not set boundaries between it and

Orgoreyn. Spallino 31

Genly also reacts negatively to Estraven’s non-nationalistic sentiments. Because

Estraven’s views are so different than his own, Genly “with his masculine goal-directedness is suspicious of Estraven for not being as narrow-minded as the others” (Barrow 91). Genly, who is loyal to the Ekumen above all else, cannot understand Estraven’s apparent lack of dedication to his country, though the difference is more in the communication and style of loyalty rather than its existence. Sensing the contrast between Estraven’s belief and his own, Genly seizes the opportunity to solidify his views. He mentally berates Estraven, finding “in this attitude something feminine, a refusal of the abstract, the ideal, a submissiveness to the given, which rather displeased me” (LH 176). As he highlights traits from Estraven’s gift economy, Genly defines his own debt economy as the absence of those characteristics, othering the traits to demonstrate their difference from his own. Thus, the gift economy’s presence within a debt system creates mutual, relational definition in the tension between the two, even as Genly’s disgust reinforces the illusion of his masculinity’s independence.

Despite Genly’s best efforts to maintain masculine dominance, the glacial journey forces him into a submissive position due to his compromised health and abilities. Genly already feels indebted to Estraven because Estraven rescued him from Pulefen Voluntary farm, a connection which is uncomfortable for Genly. The conditions on the Ice exacerbate the situation: Estraven is more knowledgeable of the terrain and route, more experienced with pulling sledges, and more physically and mentally capable of withstanding the brutally cold conditions they encounter.

Though the journey’s slow start allows Genly to regain some of his health, he is soon slowed by his body’s maladaptation to Gethen. Because he cannot properly digest the meat Estraven traps for them, Genly becomes physically ill. He perceives each of these conditions as pushing him down the competitive hierarchy and diminishing his power and independence. Spallino 32

To maintain the illusion of his independence, Genly refuses Estraven’s attempts to care for him and help him. “Galled by his patronizing,” Genly negatively depicts Estraven’s stature and physical abilities as feminine (LH 181). This comparison highlights the interdefinition of male and female: because Genly sees himself as taller and stronger, his self-definition depends on the shorter, weaker traits which he classifies as feminine. However, rather than acknowledging this relationality, he invokes masculine ideals to reinstate his superiority and maintain an illusion of independence. Thus, Genly thinks of himself pulling the sledge with

Estraven as “a stallion in harness with a mule” (LH 181). Because mules are sterile crossbreeds with low societal value, this comparison reveals Genly’s attitude toward Estraven’s androgyny, showing that he believes the coexistence of masculine and feminine traits is unnatural. With that mindset, Genly’s allegedly pure masculinity gives him a higher status than Estraven, despite the ways that his masculinity is defined through juxtaposition with Estraven’s femininity and androgyny. Due to Genly’s endorsement of the debt economy, he resents his dependence on

Estraven and imagines unnecessary interpersonal competition to ameliorate the negative effects on his masculinity.

However, the perceived competition does not actually change Genly’s dependence, so he is forced to choose between the debt economy’s standards and his own self-worth. If he remains in the debt economy mindset, Genly must view himself as lacking masculine traits like independence and strength—thus, he is failing to live up to those standards. To avoid seeing himself as a failure, Genly must revise the perspective he uses to judge success. Thus, when he again encounters the gift economy through Estraven, Genly is prepared to accept its standards.

He reasons that Estraven “had not meant to patronize. […] He, after all, had no standards of manliness, of virility, to complicate his pride. On the other hand, if he could lower all his Spallino 33 standards of shifgrethor, as I realized he had done with me, perhaps I could dispense with the more competitive elements of my masculine self-respect” (LH 181-182). As previously discussed, shifgrethor is Gethen’s manifestation of the power- and hierarchy-based masculine debt economy, just as gendered interactions are for Genly. Thus, Estraven’s dismissal of shifgrethor demonstrates to Genly the value of another, more feminine relationship structure.

In a corresponding choice, Genly dismisses the toxic masculinity that prevents him from accepting Estraven’s help. His decision opens him to debt. In this transformational moment,

Genly consciously chooses not to be threatened by the interdependence necessary for his and

Estraven’s survival on the Ice. Though Genly’s choice may have been an act of self-preservation rather than an intentional shift in dogma, it represents a pivotal moment in his development.

Once he becomes open to femininity, androgyny, and the gift economy, Genly can release othering and the illusion of independence, both of which have previously prevented his political and social success. As they continue their journey on the Ice, Genly and Estraven act out the gift economy, explore exchange, and mutually interdefine.

Genly Develops a Gift Economy Perspective

After his mental transformation, Genly reconsiders many of the opinions he had previously held because of their grounding in the debt economy, which evinces the power of stepping away from the habit of othering. As he narrates the subsequent events, he deliberately demonstrates how the gift economy now affects his thought processes.

For example, Genly revises his opinion of the Ekumen based on its single-Envoy policy, considering not only possible threats but also possible exchange. When he reflects on his previous thoughts, Genly echoes ideas of threat mitigation: “I thought it was for your sake that I Spallino 34 came alone, so obviously alone, so vulnerable, that I could in myself post no threat, change no balance: not an invasion, but a mere messenger-boy” (LH 218). These ideas about why a planet would feel threatened by the Ekumen acknowledge the implied power dynamics and the risks of further tipping that balance should the Ekumen pose a real threat. Thus, Genly is self-aware enough to accept his previous perspective and the masculine implications they created. Despite

Genly’s increased awareness of these implications, he does not rescind the masculine point.

Instead, he adds to it, stating that “there’s more to it than that […] Alone, the relationship I finally make, if I make one, is not impersonal and not only political” (LH 218). In addition to a diplomat, Genly now imagines the Envoy as a member of an interpersonal relationship. This addition reflects the community encouraged by the gift economy. Thus, Genly has not only developed a gift economy perspective but also learned to integrate it with his masculine ideals, meaning that he now embodies more androgynous thought.

Genly’s revised perspective on the Ekumen portrays it as more open to interpenetration, which assuages suspicion about its intentions. In light of this fact, some critics even venture to claim that the Ekumen “comes perhaps as close as any political system can to a viable reconciliation of unity and diversity. […] And it does this only by stressing what Genly learns in the course of the novel—the I–Thou relationship on the individual level must be ontologically prior and more valued than any unification on a larger scale” (Bickman 45). To put it more simply, the Ekumen sent Genly alone expecting him to form interpersonal relationships, which would then facilitate their political goals. The specific characteristics of the I–Thou relationship, drawn from theologian Martin Buber, will be discussed in a later section; for now, suffice to say that its transformative power through individual communion is the Ekumen’s intent. It is therefore safe to assume that “all interaction between the cultures occurs by design on an Spallino 35 individual rather than world level, which allows Genly Ai to stand in for Ekumen culture as a whole” (Stephan 7). As the Ekumen’s design encourages Genly to develop an androgynous perspective, the Ekumen itself must also represent androgyny, combining a masculine quest for knowledge with feminine interpersonal communication and relationships.

In addition to reflecting on the Ekumen’s purpose, Genly’s experience with the gift economy causes him to approach his mission with an androgynous mindset. He acknowledges that the exchange between Gethen and the Ekumen also affects him as the Envoy: “Alone, I cannot change your world. But I can be changed by it. Alone, I must listen as well as speak” (LH

218). As a speaker, Genly can impart knowledge in a masculine way that maintains boundaries between himself and others. By listening, he opens himself to receive.

The Ekumen’s goal of exchanging culture and information opens Genly to debt, and his openness to this exchange demonstrates that he is no longer relying solely on the debt economy to frame his decisions. Instead, he combines it with the gift economy, demonstrating his newfound ability to balance both mindsets and recognize their interdependence. This interdependence is a new reaction to difference, one that provides interaction rather than the hatred and separation enforced by othering. As Genly learns to operate under this new mindset, he applies it to his interactions with Estraven, who has demonstrated his openness and androgyny from the outset. Le Guin demonstrates her favor for this mentality by rewarding the two protagonists with a mystical relationship and paranormal telepathy, cementing the theory that she proposes androgynous interdependence as an alternative to cultural othering.

Spallino 36

Mysticism Arises when Dualities Intersect

Genly’s androgynous perspective represents a dramatic step forward in his character development as he not only stops rejecting femininity but also incorporates it into his own actions. As his journey on the Gobrin Ice continues, readers see that Genly’s transformation affects his interactions with Estraven as well as his own thoughts. This change allows him to accept the interdependence required for their survival and build a loving relationship with

Estraven. Just as the tension between binaries in the Foretelling results in mystical experiences,

Genly and Estraven’s shared androgyny leads to results out of the normal realm of possibility, represented by symbols from multiple mystic traditions.

From his transformed perspective, Genly reflects on the friendship he has built through relying on Estraven. That relationship, he says, “is individual, it is personal, it is both more and less than political. Not We and They; not I and It; but I and Thou. Not political, not pragmatic, but mystical” (LH 218). Like his combination of masculine and feminine economies, Genly’s new assessment of this relationship encompasses a binary: personal and political. He and

Estraven came together out of political necessity to further Genly’s mission as Ekumenical

Envoy, and their relationship remains a tool for that diplomatic cause. However, their solitude requires them to acknowledge their interdependence, which creates a personal connection. In the intersection of these binaries, Genly senses that the relationship has transcended the binary system entirely and become something mystical.

Genly’s phrase “I and Thou” refers to a text of the same name by philosopher Martin

Buber. According to Buber, interpersonal interaction is almost always transactional, a self- centered relationship he terms I–It. In this relationship, the ‘I’ focuses on what they can gain or experience, which “is ‘in [them]’ and not between [them] and the world” (5). Because this Spallino 37 relationship enforces rigid interpersonal boundaries and calculated transactions, it mirrors an unmitigated expression of the debt economy. Though there is nothing necessarily wrong with the

I–It relationship, it does not challenge either subject or cause a change in them.

Genly’s narration evinces this mystical transformation when he finally understands

Estraven’s ambisexuality without judgment. When he previously considers a friendship with

Estraven, Genly expresses apprehension centered around what he perceives as inconsistent gender: “What is a friend, in a world where any friend may be a lover at a new phase of the moon? […] Neither man nor woman, neither and both, cyclic, lunar, metamorphosing under the hand’s touch, changelings in the human cradle, they were no flesh of mine, no friends: no love between us” (LH 177). Because Estraven’s gendered and sexual manifestations are inconsistent,

Genly resists investing his energies because he fears losing parts of himself, as well. Seeing only the parts of Estraven that would be available or unavailable to him, Genly manifests an I–It relationship.

For an individual to be transformed, an alternative relationship is necessary: I–Thou.

Where I–It is defined by one person’s experience, I–Thou embodies relationality. “I–Thou can only be spoken with the whole being,” meaning that the ‘I’ must acknowledge the wholeness of both participants in this relationship (Buber 3). Though I–It can be considered analogous to the debt economy, I–Thou is more closely related to the androgynous mindset because it requires each party to accept their entire self, including both masculine and feminine qualities. I–Thou also necessitates that both participants acknowledge and accept their differences. When these differences are embraced, Buber theorizes that “in each Thou we address the eternal Thou” (6).

To Buber, this quality makes the relationship mystical; it includes religious elements but also transcends religion by acknowledging interpersonal divinity. This newfound love for the other is Spallino 38 what ultimately transforms the subject. By using the phrase “I and Thou,” Genly invokes this type of acceptance, relationality, and mysticism in his friendship with Estraven and asserts that he has been changed by it.

The moment that Genly allows himself to love Estraven occurs while—and because—

Estraven is in kemmer. Genly sees him first as a person, so he is forced to confront his assumptions about how physical sex characteristics affect someone when he realizes that kemmer has not changed Estraven. This new experience reveals to Genly the ways that he has constructed gender in his representations of the Gethenians: “Ai does more than classify the androgynes using categories that are not applicable; he unconsciously participates in the production of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ identities” (Fayad 62). Realizing that the traits he finds negatively feminine are not essentialized or related to physical sex characteristics but to

Estraven’s personality, Genly must revise those assumptions because he finds Estraven dependable and trustworthy. Thus, he learns to stop associating character traits with a physical or mental state, which allows him to accept Estraven even in a changed physical form.

After learning not to gender characteristics or traits, Genly must reconsider the negative assumptions he has made about Estraven’s character. Especially because Genly depends on

Estraven for survival, “his salvation at Estraven’s hands has stripped away the rationalization that attributes perfidy to Estraven’s femaleness. He has had to relinquish his concept of Estraven as an aggressive male like himself and with similar needs to prove his maleness” (Myers 314).

Once he is thus prepared to see character instead of gender, Genly understands that the definitions of femininity and masculinity must come from their interdependence, as posited by structural linguistics. He accepts his part in defining Estraven’s gender, and Estraven’s part in

Genly’s own masculinity. Spallino 39

Like the Foretelling, Genly and Estraven’s relationship harnesses the tensions between gift and debt, male and female, permanent and fluid to produce knowledge. Estraven’s temporary female sex characteristics contrast with Genly’s permanent male ones, a reproduction of the gender binary that highlights the relationality and interdependence at work in their relationship.

Genly illustrates these effects in his reflective narration: “it was from the difference between us, not from the affinities and the likenesses, but from the difference that love came: and it was itself the bridge, the only bridge, across what divided us” (LH 210). His newfound ability to accept difference and its positive effects demonstrates that, just as it does in Foretelling, the intersection of both poles of a duality creates space for a mystical experience. In this case, the mysticism takes the form of a loving I–Thou relationship. Genly evinces that relationship through his revelation about Estraven’s gender:

And I saw then again, and for good, what I had always been afraid to see, and had

pretended not to see in him: that he was a woman as well as a man. Any need to explain

the sources of that fear vanished with the fear; what I was left with was, at last,

acceptance of him as he was […] For he was the only one who had entirely accepted me

as a human being: who had liked me personally and given me entire personal loyalty, and

who therefore had demanded of me an equal degree of recognition, of acceptance. (209)

Genly no longer fears the relationality between himself and Estraven, no longer seeing him as alien. This change demonstrates Genly’s personal alteration, which allows him to be transformed as the ‘I’ in I–Thou. He also understands that Estraven, with his understanding of relationality primed from birth by the kemmer cycle, has been prepared from the beginning to trust and love

Genly. However, Genly needed to release the illusion of independence and accept his own dependence on others for definition, as well as Estraven’s, before he could reciprocate the I– Spallino 40

Thou relationship. Once he can sustain that cognitive tension between dualities, Genly enters a mystical relationship with Estraven, ultimately calling their mutual understanding love.

Genly and Estraven’s love persists until the end of Estraven’s life; even after Estraven is gone, Genly maintains the transformed, fluid mindset that Estraven teaches him. That permanent transformation is consistent with Buber’s definition of I–Thou, but the love’s timeline is not.

Buber asserts that “genuine contemplation is over a short time […] and love itself cannot persist in direct relation” (17). To him, an I–Thou relationship is momentary, fleeting. However, when

Genly uses the phrase I–Thou, he discusses not a single moment but an entire relationship.

Therefore, Genly—acting as the author of the report—does not perfectly represent Buber’s I–

Thou relationship but chooses to revise it, leading to new implications.

To understand this revised love relationship, I–Thou must be placed in context with the other relational pattern Genly introduces: the Taoist yin–yang symbol. While I–Thou represents temporary relationality, the static yin–yang symbol evokes a permanent balance, a “wholeness

[that] derives from a creative tension between dualities” (Hayles qtd. in Barrow 86). He draws it for Estraven, saying, “Light, dark. Fear, courage. Cold, warmth. Female, male. It is yourself,

Therem. Both and one” (LH 224). Genly’s newfound ability to embrace this list of differences and allow them to coexist is a hallmark of both I–Thou and yin–yang. In both forms of mysticism, a greater understanding arises from the relationality between the interacting parts, resulting not only in coexistence but interdependence. In fact, the multitude of “opposites yoked together expresses precisely the deep meaning that the image pattern points to” (Barbour 166); the intersection and interaction don’t simply create meaning—they are the meaning. I–Thou and yin–yang are thus different perspectives on the same experience: I–Thou focuses on the Spallino 41 individual’s experience of relationality, while yin–yang shows the outsider’s view of two opposing forces in perfect harmony because of their duality.

These two allusions to mysticism reflect the novel’s narrative structure: Genly is narrating his experiences as though they are happening, but his report to the Ekumen is written after the mission is completed. He sees Estraven in the moment as a holy or divine other, which is represented by the references to I–Thou. In his later reflections, Genly can see that he and

Estraven are, in fact, two balanced parts of one whole, mirroring the yin–yang symbol. In either expression, the relationship remains a mystical, transformative one characterized by an androgynous perspective in the intersection of binaries. This relationship represents one of the rewards Le Guin represents for an interdependent perspective, as opposed to one grounded in othering. The other, while not necessarily realistic, serves as the emotional center of the novel, both cementing and complicating Genly’s relationship with Estraven.

Mindspeech as the Paranormal Product

In addition to mystical transcendence outside of the binary system, Le Guin’s novel posits that fluid play in the intersection of binaries leads to a product beyond the realm of normal feasibility. In Foretelling, this product is an accurate prediction, characterized by certainty beyond guesswork or abstraction. This product is an appropriate extension of the Foretelling process because it tells the future, though not always the aspect the asker expects. Because Genly and Estraven’s relationship operates in a similarly mystical intersection of binaries, it also creates a product beyond normal possibility. Their focus on survival leads them to interdependence, so the deepening transparency and love between them lead to an interpersonal product: psychic conversation, or mindspeech. Spallino 42

Genly learned mindspeech in his training with the Ekumen; it is one of the skills passed between planets through the Ekumen’s cultural exchange. According to Genly, some planets are unable to learn mindspeech because they have yet to develop the required levels of cultural and psychic maturity. An additional prerequisite for mindspeech is that one must first receive mindspeech from someone else to establish “telepathic potentiality” (LH 213). Though he analyzes that Gethenians have sufficient cultural advancement to mindspeak, Genly alone can give them access to it, and he would need to personally give it to each of them. Thus, there are two necessary precursors to mindspeech: cultural maturity and personal connection. These prerequisites demonstrate the novel’s overall theme that “the I–Thou relationship on the individual level must be ontologically prior and more valued than any unification on a larger scale” (Bickman 45). A mystical love that accepts differences, such as an I–Thou relationship, is an essential forerunner to a culture that is mature and productive rather than focused on maintaining boundaries and othering. Genly’s initial prejudice prevents him from sharing this power with Gethenians, maintaining the strict, masculine boundaries separating them from himself.

Though Genly resists giving up his position as the sole owner of mindspeech, he has mentioned the ability to Estraven. Estraven asks to learn mindspeech because lies cannot be told mind-to-mind, saying, “Teach me your mindspeech […] your language that has no lies in it.

Teach me that, and then ask me why I did what I’ve done” (LH 166). This commitment to honest, transparent communication sharply contrasts with Genly’s persistent refusal to understand shifgrethor-based actions, even after Estraven saves him from Pulefen Farm. It demonstrates Estraven’s gift economy mindset because he wants to use mindspeech to increase the support he gives to Genly’s cause. It also elucidates the changes in him since the beginning Spallino 43 of the novel because he is willing to sacrifice the rules of shifgrethor to counter Genly’s resistance through direct, open psychic conversation. Unfortunately, he makes the offer too early in the journey; Genly has not yet mitigated his masculine perspective, so he ignores Estraven’s offer completely. Genly still believes that he cannot share any of his knowledge with Estraven because that could create a debt or give Estraven an advantage. As Genly others Estraven to maintain their separation, the manifestation of Genly’s masculinity again prevents their relationship from blooming.

After Genly becomes more open to fluidity and balance between the economies, though, he returns to the idea of sharing mindspeech with Estraven. He views it not as an obligation but as a natural outgrowth of their relationship: “Mindspeech was the only thing I had to give

Estraven. […] I was not paying my debt to him. Such debts remain owing. Estraven and I had simply arrived at the point where we shared whatever we had that was worth sharing” (LH 208).

Genly’s emphasis on sharing all he has with Estraven demonstrates his gift economy mindset. He has finally discovered “the possibility of a giving that doesn’t take away, but gives”

(“Castration” 51), so he searches himself for anything he can give to his companion, knowing that he will not lose anything in doing so. In addition to enacting his new feminine mindset,

Genly retains elements of the masculine economy because he has not entirely given up on interpreting interactions as transactional. He feels indebted to Estraven for saving his life and believes that his debt will never be paid. Instead of feeling threatened, he demonstrates his growth by accepting an extended debt. With this statement, Genly proves that his thoughts can encompass both economies at once and move fluidly between them from one thought to the next; thus, the interdependence and presence of both binaries within their mystical relationship prepares space for and invites the production of mindspeech. The mystical love between Genly Spallino 44 and Estraven produces the intimacy necessary for them to telepathically connect, and after several attempts, Genly senses Estraven’s mind, feels a connection, and mindspeaks to him. This connection serves as the climactic moment for both their relationship and the novel.

Mindspeech marks a milestone in Genly and Estraven’s relationship and provides them with a deeper connection, but it does not multiply their closeness as exponentially as Genly expects. Though Genly is speaking in his mind, Estraven hears his words in the voice of his long-dead brother, Arek. Estraven’s relationship with Arek is never explicitly explained in the novel, but it is implied that they vowed kemmering together, which is taboo between brothers in

Gethenian culture. Thus, hearing Arek’s voice in his mind makes mindspeech a painful experience for Estraven, one that causes him to shift into the debt economy by putting up boundaries between himself and Genly. Genly explains that “what the intimacy of mind established between us was a bond, indeed but an obscure and austere one, not so much admitting further light (as I had expected it to) as showing the extent of the darkness” (LH 214-

215). The emotional complexity of mindspeech for Estraven highlights what remains unknown about his past, leading Genly to feel left in the dark.

The contradiction between mystical expectations about paranormal products and their actual effects echoes the Weaver’s statement that Foretelling answers questions to demonstrate the futility of knowing those answers without context. Though Genly and Estraven are intimately connected in the present, their friendship does not extend to sharing details about their pasts, so knowing how to mindspeak without understanding how it affects Estraven is ultimately not as revelatory as Genly had hoped. However, the connection between them remains strong, perhaps even for that reason: “for a healthy relationship between individuals, darkness must always Spallino 45 remain” (Lake 157). Though Genly and Estraven accept each other entirely, they also leave healthy space that allows their relationship to flourish.

Despite the complications, “the individual communion between Ai and Estraven becomes the emotional center of the book, displacing the achievement of the political goal that was Ai’s sole purpose at the beginning” (Stone-Blackburn 250). From the beginning of the novel, Genly refuses to understand Gethenian sexuality or culture, scorning and othering them to maintain his fragile, masculine boundaries. His condescending attitude reveals his belief that he can be diplomatically successful without liking or respecting the Gethenians. However, success in his mission as Envoy only comes after Genly escapes from that mindset characterized by othering.

As Genly is transformed by interdependence with Estraven, as symbolized by mystical love and mindspeech, “the heroes’ love enables them to aid Gethen in opening itself to interdependence with other planets” (Peel 38). This exercise in openness proves that the illusion of independence stands in the way of all advancement, whether it is a seemingly straightforward political endeavor or a relationship built on mutual trust and love. Because neither truly exists alone, both libidinal economies must be acknowledged and invited—rather than othered—for any relationship to successfully develop.

Through Genly’s personal development on the Gobrin Ice, Le Guin demonstrates in action the theory she lays out in the Foretelling scene: When binary opposites are invited to interact, potential is created for transformation and fluid productivity. Genly is permanently transformed through his mystical transcendence of the binary system, demonstrating the importance of interdependence on an individual level. In addition to that change, Gethen and the

Ekumen will both be transformed by the cultural exchange made possible by their union. Le

Guin, writing to address contemporary cultural concerns, advocates for not only individual Spallino 46 changes but societal-level transformations, which will affect individuals even if they are not personally transformed. Based on the personal and political changes that the Ekumen elicits on

Gethen, she posits in Left Hand an optimistic, interdependent future for Earth. Spallino 47

Chapter IV: The Reader’s Journey

Left Hand captures and resonates with audiences because it addresses cultural movements such as feminism. Published in 1969, it arrived in the midst of second-wave feminism, addressing concerns about social roles and gender equality that challenged American society.

Expressing discontent at being relegated to domestic work, women called for increased job opportunities, social rights, and pay equality. Each of these efforts fought for equality but also, paradoxically, emphasized the contemporary differences and othering between genders. While each feminist advancement marked a drastic improvement over strict gender roles, challenges to social norms were not easily accepted. Contemporary reactions othered second-wave feminism, resulting in backlash against women’s rights, a context reflected in Left Hand.

However, feminist readers commonly express frustration that Le Guin does not allow readers to freely experience a revolutionary androgynous culture: “Gethen would have looked different to us if Genly Ai had been a woman, but instead we see this androgynous society through the eyes of a biological and culturally conditioned male” (Annas qtd. in Barrow 83).

Genly’s restrictively gendered lens filters the imagined bliss of ungendered society, grounding it in the same problems experienced by contemporary society on Earth. This choice of protagonist can be seen as enforcing gendered experiences on the androgynous Gethenians, which defeats the purpose of imagining ambisexual aliens. Why write or read a novel that reinforces othering in new situations rather than providing solutions to it? In later reflections on the novel, Le Guin acknowledges the pitfalls of her choice: “Men were inclined to be satisfied with the book, which allowed them a safe trip into androgyny and back, from a conventionally male viewpoint”

(“Redux” 171). Though these complaints are valid, I argue that readers can still implement and learn from Le Guin’s proposed solution to othering. In fact, the novel simulates Genly’s Spallino 48 transformation, drawing readers into an understandable perspective which allows them to not only read but share his intellectual evolution.

Within the genre of 1960s science fiction, a majority of authors and readers were male, and Le Guin would certainly have been aware of that since she had already published in the genre. Thus, she “posits typically biased heterosexual males as her main audience” (Barrow 84) and invites these readers to personally encounter androgyny in the novel. Genly’s conventionally misogynist attitudes in the beginning of the novel are grating to feminist readers, but they create a self-insert character for conventionally sexist men. Le Guin writes that “men are often more willing to identify as they read with poor, confused, defensive Genly, the Earthman, and therefore to participate in his painful and gradual discovery of love” (“Redux” 171). Thus, she intentionally structures the novel to begin with Genly’s misogyny, draw male readers in, and encourage them to undergo changes along with Genly.

The novel’s premise achieves the same purpose because it is written as Genly’s report describing his experiences to the Ekumen and his homeworld, Terra, which is reminiscent of

Earth. This framing metaphorically distances readers because it creates an imagined audience within the novel separate from the readers themselves. However, Genly purposely crafts his report for readers unfamiliar with androgyny who likely enter the text with the same biases he once did—just like contemporary science fiction readers. He claims from the first line that his purpose is the overarching story he means to convey, rather than the specific details: “I’ll make my report as if I told a story, for I was taught as a child on my homeworld that Truth is a matter of the imagination. The soundest fact may fail or prevail in the style of its telling” (LH 1). His story is not intended to give the cold, hard facts but to engage the reader’s imagination and Spallino 49 encourage them to envision themselves in his place. Each male reader, initially as prone to othering as Genly, is invited to join his journey—and his transformation.

As the novel is viewed as a tool to that end, the postmodern structure of the novel comes into perspective as an element of Genly’s contrived strategy to prime readers for openness and transformation. The chapters, instead of proceeding straight through Genly’s experiences, alternate between portions of his story and other materials, including Estraven’s diary, Gethenian myths and hearth tales, and an appendix on the Gethenian calendar. Each of the interrupting chapters comments on elements of Gethenian society involved in the former or latter narrative chapter, forcing the reader to synthesize disparate ideas in order to fully understand the culture and customs at play. Because “the cognitive effect of this radical narrative strategy is disorienting, destabilizing […] the discourse of Left Hand can never become totalizing or totalitarian” (Call 91). Though the entire novel is structured by Genly, it invites a variety of other discourses and interpretations. This intertextuality, similar to the collaborative meaning-making in Foretelling and mindspeech, models the diverse perspective that the transformed Genly promotes with his writing. Thus, the text appears to have an agency or life of its own. Readers must engage and involve themselves in interpreting the text, which breaks down any rigid, masculine boundaries they may create.

The included texts themselves are also important to the moral Genly hopes to convey.

Rather than include these texts as appendices or within the story itself, Genly uses them to disrupt the reader’s immersion in the plot and force them to focus on the androgynous culture that they are vicariously experiencing. For example, the second chapter is a hearth tale called

“The Place inside the Blizzard” which sets up the themes of brotherhood, love, and loyalty that mirror events throughout the novel’s plot. Just as the incorporation of difference is important in Spallino 50

Foretelling and as a weapon against othering, the novel’s structure encourages readers to build a unity that accepts differences and seeks the common threads between disparate ideas. Though none of the myth chapters affects the novel’s plot, their inclusion creates a reading experience focused on richness and growth. Readers must also accept some agency over this reading experience, though they cannot control the narrative due to its own lifelike structure. Thus, to fully appreciate the novel, they must balance the libidinal economies and learn to be interdependent.

In addition to drawing attention to the novel’s intentional structure, the transformed

Genly inserts occasional sections of his current perspective as he reflects on the past events.

These paragraphs often stand out from the rest of the novel because in them Genly seems particularly enlightened and seems to be writing as a memoirist rather than recreating his thoughts at the time. The intrusions of his hindsight perspective become increasingly common, especially when he begins his climactic transformation on the Gobrin Ice. Early on that journey, he draws the reader’s attention to himself as author: “I ought to be keeping a journal for the

Ekumenical files; but I never could stick to it without a voice-writer” (LH 185). Without that technology, he must not be taking notes during the journey at all, meaning that all of his written thoughts are projected onto these past events by the future, transformed Genly. This blatant reminder of Genly’s authorship primes readers to put extra weight on the subsequent passages, especially as he confers his learned wisdom.

One example of this hindsight perspective is the passage when Genly references the I–

Thou relationship, which he almost certainly would not have recognized at the time. The reading experience exaggerates Genly’s growth by including his later reflections to further emphasize the new knowledge and its impact. From that point forward, “in Genly’s last three chapters, the Spallino 51 hindsight perspective becomes more common, as his recognition, his coming to knowledge, becomes clearer” (Barrow 87). Each time he writes in this memoir voice, Genly models for readers the new thought patterns that he intends for them to assume. If they have invested themselves in his character from the outset, readers are likely to absorb this changed perspective, especially through repeated exposure. Thus, just as Genly learns to balance and move fluidly between the libidinal economies, readers ideally also learn to navigate relationships with an acknowledgement of their interdependence—stepping away from othering. Though Left Hand does not act out feminist ideals, it targets readers who likely need those perspectives the most and stimulates their growth from othering, misogyny, unmitigated debt, and the illusion of independence into an open, interdependent relationality. Spallino 52

Conclusion

In The Left Hand of Darkness, Le Guin proposes that the key to countering difference- based othering is abolishing the illusion of independence and accepting the reality of fluid interdependence that defines all relationships. She creates binary images that draw in readers who sympathize with rigid, debt-centric boundaries between apparent opposites. Then, she juxtaposes those binaries to deconstruct the illusions of independence and hierarchy between the poles. Not only does Le Guin propose this theory in the Foretelling scene, but she also depicts it in action when Genly himself experiences this fluidity. He is forced to accept traces of femininity both in himself and in Estraven, which allows him to depend on Estraven and survive their journey on the Gobrin Ice. As Genly’s character develops, the narrative structure and style invite readers to accompany him on his journey from unmitigated masculinity to mystical relationality, with the ultimate goal of catalyzing a similar change in their own lives.

When Le Guin wrote the novel, she imagined that those readers would be misogynist men who responded to second-wave feminism with sexist othering. However, her proposed solution of conscious interdependence is just as relevant to any contemporary or current difference. For example, third-wave feminism, the LGBTQ+ rights movement, and the Black

Lives Matter movement all experience hatred from outside groups due to their perceived difference from mainstream culture or ideals. To counter the othering these and other marginalized groups experience, strategies for reducing outsiders’ tendencies to other are critical.

Because Left Hand encourages self-reflection and interrogation of personal thought patterns, it provides an essential tool for people to counter their internalized biases and beliefs. This type of reflective work is not limited to any one group of people or ideas, which explains the novel’s astounding and lasting impact. As more people attain a fluid, interdependent mindset, they will Spallino 53 be prepared to encounter similar others, have relational experiences, and emerge transformed.

Though one individual’s transformation does not alter a society, their perspectives on interpersonal relationships affect the societal structures they build, maintain, and deconstruct.

With enough individual changes, a society can eventually shift to stop defaulting to othering and instead learn to depend on and help each other—a sustainable path to keep moving forward.

Spallino 54

Works Cited

Barbour, Douglas. “Wholeness and Balance in the Hainish Novels of Ursula K. Le Guin.”

Science Fiction Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, 1974, pp. 164-173. JSTOR,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4238858. Accessed 13 July 2020.

Barrow, Craig, and Diana Barrow. “‘The Left Hand of Darkness’: Feminism for Men.” Mosaic:

An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, 1987, pp. 83-96. JSTOR,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24777705. Accessed 5 March 2021.

Bickman, Martin. “Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness: Form and Content.” Science Fiction

Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 1977, pp. 42-47. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4239066.

Accessed 17 July 2020.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Ronald Gregor Smith, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1942.

Call, Lewis. “Postmodern Anarchism in the Novels of Ursula K. Le Guin.” SubStance, vol. 36,

no. 2, 2007, pp. 87-105. Project MUSE, doi: 10.1353/sub.2007.0028. Accessed 12 June

2020.

Cixous, Helene. “Castration or Decapitation?” Translated by Annette Kuhn, Signs, vol. 7, no. 1,

1981, pp. 41-55. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173505. Accessed 2 October

2020.

---. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Translated by Keith Cohen and Paula Cohen, Signs, vol. 1, no.

4, 1976, pp. 875-893. JSTOR, https://jstor.org/stable/3173239. Accessed 26 August 2020.

Fayad, Mona. “Aliens, Androgynes, and Anthropology: Le Guin’s Critique of Representation in

The Left Hand of Darkness.” Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, vol. 30, no.

3, 1997, pp. 59-73. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.com/stable/44029822. Accessed 3 July

2020. Spallino 55

Khader, Jamil. “Race Matters: People of Color, Ideology, and the Politics of Erasure and

Reversal in Ursula Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness and Mary Doria Russell’s The

Sparrow.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 16, no. 2, 2005, pp. 110-127. JSTOR,

https://www.jstor.com/stable/43308765. Accessed 12 June 2020.

Lake, David J. “Le Guin’s Twofold Vision: Contrary Image-Sets in The Left Hand of Darkness.”

Science Fiction Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, 1981, pp. 156-164. JSTOR,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4239406. Accessed 3 July 2020.

Le Guin, Ursula K. The Left Hand of Darkness, with introduction by Neil Gaiman, Penguin,

2016. Originally published in America by Ace Books, 1969.

---. “Is Gender Necessary? Redux.” The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science

Fiction, edited by Ursula K. Le Guin and Susan Wood, HarperCollins, New York, 1992,

pp. 155-172.

Marshall, Brenda K. Teaching the Postmodern: Fiction and Theory. Routledge, 1992.

Myers, Victoria. “Conversational Technique in Ursula Le Guin: A Speech-Act Analysis.”

Science Fiction Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, 1983, pp. 306-316. JSTOR,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4239569. Accessed 3 July 2020.

Peel, Ellen. “Reading Piebald Patterns in Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness.” Women of Other

Worlds: Excursions through Science Fiction and Feminism, edited by Helen Merrick and

Tess Williams, University of Western Australia Press, 1999, pp. 31-40.

Stone-Blackburn, Susan. “Adult Telepathy: Babel-17 and The Left Hand of Darkness.”

Extrapolation: A Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy, vol. 30, no. 3, 1989, pp. 243-

253. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.3828/extr.1989.30.3.243. Accessed 3 July 2020. Spallino 56

Sarup, Madan. An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. University of

Georgia Press, 1989.

Stephan, Matthias. “The Transcultural Site: Interpersonal Encounters with Otherness in Lessing,

Le Guin and Battlestar Galactica.” Otherness: Essays & Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2012.

Centre for Studies in Otherness, https://www.otherness.dk/fileadmin/www.

othernessandthearts.org/Publications/Journal_Otherness/Otherness_3.1new/Stephan.pdf.

Accessed 12 June 2020.