‘Fear, good servants, bad lords’: fear of the other in Ursula K. Le guin’s the left hand of darkness

Abstract

Ursula K. Le Guin’s renowned novel The Left Hand of Darkness offers a profound exploration of the multifaceted fears of the other through its futuristic setting and imaginative narrative. Building on Simon C. Estok’s argument that various forms of fear like misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia and ecophobia are inherently linked, originating from ‘maladaptive, reflexive, and somewhat unconscious condition that is based in affect’, this study delved into Genly Ai’s struggle with misogyny and homophobia, the fear exhibited by Orgoreyn politicians towards other individuals, and the xenophobia portrayed by characters such as Argarven and Tibe, the Terrans’ ecophobia. This academic exploration aimed to unravel strategies for confronting the fear of the other in constructive ways. By employing a thematic analysis of the fiction, the study advocated for the adoption of a ‘leap of faith’ as a means to foster harmonious relationship with the human other, whether at the level of the individual or the community. Additionally, the study emphasized the importance of cultivating reverence for nonhuman nature as a pivotal component in alleviating ecophobia. The study acknowledged the importance to transform the fear of the other from a divisive force into a bridge for communication and compassion, discouraging its use as a source of conquest and animosity.

Keywords:

• The other
• fear
• ecophobia
• xenophobia
• homophobia
• misogyny
• leap of faith

Reviewing Editor:

• Oliver Nyambi, University of the Free State, South Africa

Subjects:

• Philosophy of Literature
• Literature & Philosophy
• Science Fiction
• American & Canadian Literature
• 20th Century Literature
• Women’s Literature

Introduction

‘I think back in the caveman days, our ancestors would huddle around the fire at night, and wolves would be howling in the dark just beyond the light. And one person would start talking. And he would tell a story, so we wouldn’t be so scared in the dark.’ (Genius, 2016, 1:10:18) This is a line spoken by Maxwell Perkins, a successful editor who discovers great authors such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, in the biographical drama film Genius (Logan & Grandage, 2016). It clearly speaks to the origin of all human stories, or of human literature, which is to fight against fear. Humans expressed their fear of disease, death and natural disaster in myth, epic, and romance in ancient times. Fast forward to the modern era, and a new chapter unfolds wherein human fears find expression in the avant-garde corridors of science fiction. Our contemporary anxieties take shape in the fear of artificial intelligence, intercultural clashes, geopolitical tensions and so on. Although these fears may seem different, at their core, they embrace the same fabric: the fear of the unknown and uncontrollable other.

The concept of ‘the other,’ which is formed in relation to the ‘self,’ refers to all individuals and entities external to one’s own identity (Zhang, 2011). This notion is particularly prominent in science fiction, a genre that has been recognized as a legitimate cultural discourse through its utilization of the other and an underlying capacity to explore alternative perspectives (Le Guin, 1975; Bystrov & Kamnev, 2020; Campbell, 2019; Hermann, 2018; Kerslake, 2007; Kosmina, 2017). Notably, following the second-wave feminist movement and environmental movements in the 1960s, the exploration of the other gained new perspectives, such as gender and ecocritical perspectives. These perspectives broadened the scope of the other to encompass women, nonhuman beings, racially diverse individuals, the impoverished, and even homosexuals (Byrne, 2021, p. 192). As we gradually recognize the agency of nonhuman entities in the Anthropocene era, the question of the other has become increasingly urgent. Against this backdrop, this study aims to revisit Ursula K. Le Guin’s renowned feminist science fiction novel The Left Hand of Darkness for its extensive and profound exploration of the other and its portrayal of the pervasive fear held by the self towards the other.

Ursula K. Le Guin has garnered recognition for her significant contributions to feminist science fiction literature. Among her most eminent feminist science fiction works is The Left Hand of Darkness. This novel, which was penned against the backdrop of the second feminist movement and the burgeoning environmental movement in the 1960s, chronicles the journey of a Terran envoy named Genly Ai from Ekumen to the androgynous-populated planet of Gethen. The androgynous physical attribute of the Gethenians profoundly impacts their culture, posing a significant barrier to understanding for Ai. This extraterrestrial encounter serves as a metaphorical mirror reflecting the prejudices and preconceptions held by Earth men towards others, essentially their fear of the unknown. Drawing from theoretical frameworks including Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s (1985) homosocial desire triangle theory and Simon C. Esrok’s ecocritical theory on ecophobia, this study asserts that the given fiction serves as a powerful critique of the fear, division and subjugation of the woman other, the nature other, the homosexual other and the national other in the patriarchal society. Or rather, based on these two theories, this study will mainly focus on howmisogyny, homophobia, ecophobia and xenophobia interconnected, creating a broader landscape of societal fears. Nevertheless, the study did not merely limit itself to exploring diverse manifestations of the fear of the other; instead, it ventured further by revealing strategies for harmonious coexistence with the other through the adoption of Søren Kierkegaard’s ‘leap of faith’. The ultimate aim was to redirect people’s focus towards transforming the fear of the other from a divisive force into a bridge for communication and compassion, while discouraging its utilization as a catalyst for conquest and animosity.

The discussion of different manifestation of fearing the other in the fiction is significant in the literary sense for its offering a deeper understanding of The Left Hand of Darkness from an ecocritical and queer perspective. Consequently, this study contributes to a wider discourse on gender, nature, and power dynamics. Moreover, the practical significance of this study is evident in its potential to deepen people’s understanding of the connection between the various forms of fear towards the other. These fears as we see are maladaptive, reflexive in affect to the other which later are amplified to aggression, oppression and subjugation of the other. Such understanding is crucial at a time when our life-world is colonized by fear, giving rise to a culture steeped in it. As Svendsen aptly notes, fear is exploited politically and ‘this culture of fear has undermined our freedom’ (Svendsen, 2007/2008, p. 7),—the freedom to initiate the repair of our affective connection to the other, and foster trust and respect among each other.

Literature review

Science fiction is acknowledged as a legitimate cultural discourse by its portrayal of the other and the use of a fundamental ability to the other (Bystrov & Kamnev, 2020; Campbell, 2019; Hermann, 2018; Kerslake, 2007; Kosmina, 2017; Vergara, 2023). Since the emergence of the second-wave feminist movement, feminist science fiction has gained popularity, incorporating a feminist perspective into the genre. Early critiques of feminist science fiction primarily focused on analyzing elements such as androgyny (Annas, 1978; Faya, 1997), utopia (Donawerth, 1990; Mellor, 1982) and dystopia (Gilarek, 2012) to reveal how the otherization, subjugation and oppression of women are eliminated, and how the writer’s feminist ideals such as gender equality, women’s self autonomy and subjectivity is achieved. Later with intersection of feminism and eco-critinicism, post-colonialism and queer theory, the criticism of feminist science fictions gradually noticed the twin oppressions of women and nature, the marginalization of the homosexual, the link between war and environment destruction perpetuated by patriarchal power and ideologies (Vakoch, 2021). Nevertheless, there’s a notable lack of study delving into the intersection of different layers of fear of the other which cause the patriarchal ideology in feminist science fictions.

This article aims to address the gap in critical attention towards intersection of different layers of fear of the other by examining a prominent feminist science fiction work, Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Notably, this fiction stands out prominently for its examination of different layers of fear of the other within feminist science fiction. Given the novel’s renowned examination of androgyny in the genre (Reid, 2009), many studies have focused on the effects of androgyny on the cultural and political construction of Gethen society (Say, 2021; Chang, 2020; Göç, 2018). Nevertheless, building on the existing scholarship, this study by adopting Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s theory proposes that androgyny serves as a mirror which reflects the Terrans’ misogyny and homophobia. In addition, though environment plays a significant role in the fiction (Hamilton, 2023; Pineda, 2023; Pradeek et al., 2024) of mirroring the Terran envoy’s ecophobia and reshaping his maladaptive mindset, there’s a little scholarship available on this aspect. Last but not least, this study built on the existing scholarship of the fiction, elaborated on the mutual independence of misogyny, homophobia, ecophobia, xenophobia embodied in the fiction.

To illustrate the theme of fear of the other in The Left Hand of Darkness, this paper is structured into two parts. The first part begins with the examination of the different manifestations of fear of the other experienced by the hero Genly Ai, the politicians of Orgoreyn, and the King Argaven and Tibe of Karhide. Subsequently, the article will reveal the enlightenment of dealing with fear of the other through the analysis of Estraven’s and Gethenians’ way of living.

Research questions

The marked lack of scholarly perspective on layers of fear of the other on Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness justifies revisiting that classic text. The present study examined the fear of different others embodied in the fiction, namely, woman other, individual other, national other and ecological other. It identified the representations of layers of fear of the other, and revealed the envisioned way of getting along with the other depicted in the fiction. The objective of the present study, thus, is informed by the following questions:

1. What are the representations of layers of fear of the other in the fiction?

2. What is the envisioned way of getting along with the other in the fiction?

Conceptual framework and methodology

Simon C. Estok’s ecophobia theory

Simon C. Estok’s theory served as a foundation and framework for examining various forms of fear towards the other in our study. Estok (2009) argued that ecocriticism lacks words to describe prejudice and bias against nature, and it needs to develop theories to understand the disdain and fear humans have towards nature’s agency (p. 207). Therefore, Estok proposed that ‘ecophobia’ could be used to describe ‘an irrational and groundless hatred of the natural world’ (Estok, 2009, p. 208). He further contends that ecocriticism should establish connections with other theories, because it must acknowledge that exerting control over the natural environment entails ecophobia, just as the use of African slaves signifies racism, as rape implies misogyny, as ‘fag-bashing’ implies homophobia, and as animal exploitation signifies speciesism. Or briefly, ‘ecophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, speciesism are thoroughly interwoven with each other and must eventually be looked at together’ (Estok, 2009, pp. 207-8). Besides, Estok pointed out that Wai Chee Dimock’s (2008) study suggested that xenophobia and racism and ecophobia are ‘more than simply isomorphically similar and are, in fact, mutually interdependent’ (Estok, 2020, p. 35). These fears all come from humans’ ‘maladaptive, reflexive, and somewhat unconscious condition that is based in affect’ (p. xii). Nevertheless, we have amplified our reaction and aggression toward the other and have caused a lot of social and environmental problems. Humans need to recondition their affective connections to the other so that the problems could be solved.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick’s desire triangle theory

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s theory was used to answer part of the first research question: what are the representation of fear of the woman other and the homosexual other in The Left Hand of Darkness, specifically speaking, how homophobia and misogyny are presented in the fiction? Sedgwick’s ‘male homosocial desire’, ‘homophobia’ and ‘misogyny’ are three-dimensional integration. Sedgwick (1985) noted that in order to preserve the subjectivity and superiority of men, they need to reduce women to the other and consider the latter as the object of desire, and this is where ‘misogyny’ arises. At the same time, in order to ensure the subjectivity of men, it is also necessary to avoid being regarded as an object of desire by male homosexuality, which disturbs the internal order in the men’s group, and so ‘homophobia’ arises along with it.

Male homosocial desire

‘Homosocial’ is a word which describes social bonds between persons of the same sex. ‘Desire’ is analogous to the psychoanalytic use of ‘libido’. That means desire is ‘not for a particular affective state or emotion, but for the affective or social force, the glue, even when its manifestation is hostility or hatred or something less emotively charged, that shapes an important relationship.’ (Sedgewick, 1985, p. 2) To be brief, ‘male homosocial desire’ could be interpreted as a bond between men who are not sexually involved. In the study, male homosocial desire was used to analyze the protagonist Genly Ai’s initial rejection of befriending the androgynous Estraven, so that the homophobic mindset of the Terran envoy would be revealed.

Misogyny

It refers to fear, hating, or prejudice against females. While most scholarship agrees that misogyny involves a blatant hatred for females (Johnson, 2000; Flood et al., 2007; Richardson-Self, 2018), the traditional definition of ‘hatred of women’ is considered simplistic. Harry Berger notes the gynophobia, or fear sense in misogyny. Berger argues that two types of gynephobia are grouped together under misogyny. ‘There is a gynephobia of gender and a gynephobia of sex: the former is fear of effeminization, fear of the woman within the man, and the latter is fear of impotence, emasculation, or infantilization fear of the women outside the man’ (Berger, 2000, p. 34). Ultimantely, misogyny is seen as ‘a systematic facet of social power relations’ particular to patriarchal social environments. (Manne, 2017, p. 47) Sedgewick further explains that misogyny not only oppresses the so-called feminine in men, but also women (Sedgewick, 1985, p. 20). This study analyzed the misogyny of male protagonist, aiming to uncover the representation of Genly Ai’s fear of the so-called femininity.

Homophobia

It refers to men’s fear of the ‘homosexuality’ that lurks within their group, which is also a fear that they might be treated as a sexual object, i.e. lose their subject status in sex.

In this research, the desire triangle theory was utilized to analyze the reason why the male protagonist Genly Ai of the fiction Left Hand of Darkness rejects to accept the androgynous Estraven as his friend, so that the latent misogynous and homophobia psyche of the patriarchy society could be revealed.

Androgyny

This study referenced androgyny in both a biological and metaphorical context. In the biological sense, androgyny denotes individuals possessing fully developed sexual organs of both sexes, commonly referred to as hermaphrodites. This definition was employed to discuss the native citizens of the Gethen planet, who possess ambisexual characteristics or, alternatively, lack a fixed sexual identity. In a metaphorical sense, androgyny signifies the union of femininity and masculinity. In the fictional context, the physical androgyny of the Gethen serves as a symbol of their non-dualistic, androgynous mindset. This concept was utilized to examine the male protagonist’s misogyny and homophobia.

Søren kierkegaard’s ‘leap of faith’

Søren Kierkegaard introduced the concept of the ‘leap of faith’ as a central theme in his philosophy of existentialism. In essence, the ‘leap of faith’ refers to the act of making a decision to believe in something that cannot be rationally proven or fully understood. It involves a decisive commitment to a belief or a course of action despite uncertainty or the absence of evidence. For Kierkegaard, faith involves a passionate, subjective commitment to one’s beliefs, even in the face of doubt and skepticism. It’s not about blindly accepting dogma or doctrine but rather about embracing the paradox of uncertainty and making a personal, existential choice to believe. This concept was employed in the analysis of Estraven’s ideology regarding his interactions with the extraterrestrial Genly Ai.

Discussion

Genly Ai’s misogyny and homophobia

In the fiction, Ai’s fear of becoming friend with Estraven (an androgyny Gethean) has a lot to do with Ai’s misogyny and homophobia. During the second day of their journey across the Ice, Ai and Estraven encountered a particularly challenging trek through the Fire-Hill. Despite their exhaustion, the greatest obstacle they faced was managing their sexual urges, given Estraven’s current state of kemmer. Kemmer is the unique reproductive and sexual cycle of the androgynous inhabitants of the planet Gethen, which lasts for 4-6 days every month. In this cycle, Gethenians through touch will become either male or female, depending on the hormonal secretion and sexual drive during their interactions with other Gethenian partner. Currently, Ai perceives Estraven’s face ‘as soft, as vulnerable, as remote as the face of a woman’ (Le Guin, 2003, p. 248). Ai concedes that he has witnessed what he had previously been afraid of acknowledging, and had deliberately avoided recognizing in Estraven: his is both a man and a woman (p. 248). Ai’s underlying fear is further elucidated in his subsequent self-reflection. ‘What is a friend, ina world where any friend may be a lover at a new phase of the moon? […] no friend to Therem Harth, or any other of his race. Neither man now 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’ (p. 213). Ai’s unwillingness of befriending Estraven and seemingly disdain of the androgynes actually comes from his deep-seated maladaptive and fear of them. Sedgewick’s theory of the desire triangle offers a suitable framework to elucidate the precise nature of Ai’s fears.

Sedgewick begins his book Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (1985) by quoting Heidi Hartmann’s definition of patriarchy that ‘relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women’ (Sedgewick, 1985, p. 3). Sedgewick agrees with Hartmann that while there may be hierarchies among men in social relationships, they collectively contribute to the subjugation of women. Or rather, there exists a male bond/homosocial desire characterized by the subjugation of women. Sedgewick asserts that ‘the routing of homosocial desire through women is clearly presented as compulsory’ (p. 47). In Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s analysis, ‘male homosocial desire,’ ‘homophobia,’ and ‘misogyny’ are interconnected. To maintain men’s subjectivity and superiority, women are reduced to the other and objectified, leading to misogyny.

Additionally, to uphold men’s subjectivity, they must avoid being seen as objects of desire by other men, leading to homophobia, which disrupts the internal dynamics of male groups.

Considering Sedgwick’s theory, Ai’s reluctance to befriend the androgynes becomes clearer. In a society where sexual differences are absent, the boundary between love and friendship blurs. Therefore, Ai’s fear of befriending the androgynes essentially demonstrates his fear of experiencing love with them. Coming from a patriarchal society, Ai fears that loving another man would challenge his heterosexual identity, undermining his sense of masculinity. Additionally, his long-held misogyny prevents him from forming friendships with women, as patriarchal norms often dictate unequal power dynamics between men and women. Women are commonly seen as objects of desire, rather than equals or friends to men. Therefore, Ai, shaped by a patriarchal dualistic mindset, is unable to see the androgynous inhabitants of Gethen as they truly are, but rather as either men or women. Ai said two years he had been on the Gethen planet, nevertheless, he still couldn’t see the inhabitants here as androgynes.’ I tried to, but my efforts took the form of self-consciously seeing a Gethenian first as a man, then as a woman, forcing him into those categories so irrelevant to his nature and so essential to my own’ (p. 12). Furthermore, the androgyny on Gethen also represents a third gender and the queers, who should be feared for and marginalized by the Ai, characterized by hegemonic masculinity in the patriarchal society. Therefore, he sees what he is.

Ai is entrenched in sexism and misogyny, leading him to suppress his feminine side. This is also presented in Estraven’s depiction of Ai’s reluctance to cry. After a treacherous journey across the ice on the planet Gethen, ‘Ai was exhausted and enraged. He looked ready to cry, but did not. […] Even when he was very ill and weak, the first days of our escape, he hid his face from me when he wept’ (p. 229). Ai is reluctant to show vulnerability through tears. He suppressed his fragile, emotional other inside himself. Nevertheless, Ai found ‘Most Karhiders cry easily, being no more ashamed of tear than of laughter’ (p. 106). Karhiders are free and relaxed to express themselves.

In the fiction, when Ai experiences a profound sense of hopelessness after two years away from home. With the onset of a third harsh winter on Gethen, he still couldn’t see any hope of completing his mission. In a moment of solitude, reflecting upon his miserable situation, he said to himself ‘Poor Genly, shall we cry?’ (p. 133) The use of ‘we’ when he contemplates crying suggests an internal dialogue, highlighting the internal conflict between his masculine and feminine aspects. Ai is talking to another half of self, the feminine part of himself, the other within himself. After Estraven’s death, Ai discovered in Estraven’s notes recording his/her bewilderment as they crossed the Goblin Ice Field, about why Ai, his companion was ashamed to cry. Ai answered years later, ‘I could have told him even then that it was not shame so much as fear’ (p. 285). Therefore, for Ai, it is rather fear than shame that prevents him from fully embracing his emotional self traditionally associated with the feminine. This fearis deeply rooted in societal expectations and norms that stifle the acknowledgment of the full range of human emotions including crying. Fear of the feminine side of him orthe misogyny in his unconscious is his shadow. Ai, after crossing the Ice and knowingthe importance of shadow, eventually acknowledges that it is natural to weep, to accept the emotional and fragile side of himself. On the surface, the fiction tells a story of interstellar travel. Nevertheless, on a deeper level, it is a story of the Earthman Ai discovering his feminine other. Ai shares the same pronunciation of ‘I’, so the story underscores the theme of self-discovery and transformation of everyone on earth. It calls on humankind to do as Ai confronts his/her misogyny, shadow, and fear of the other within himself. By transcending the fear, one can embrace his androgynous nature.

Fear of other individual

Previous section discussed on Ai’s misogyny and homophobia, this section other individuals’ fear will be analyzed. In the fiction, Orgoreyns’ fear of the other individual is portrayed. Orgoreyn is portrayed as a highly organized and centralized government that prioritizes order and conformity. It stands in contrast to the more decentralized and ambiguous political structures of Karhide.

The government of Orgoreyn is described as having a bureaucratic and centralized structure. It is characterized by its authoritarian control over the lives of its citizens. ‘The government can check out not only act but thought’ (p. 154) of its people. Besides, the government has complete control of communications. This could be seen in Orgoreyn’s reaction toward Ai’s arrival. Upon Ai’s arrival in Orgoreyn, the politicians concealed the news of the alien ambassador’s arrival, fearing that Ai might be a spy from Karhide and that his visit could be a deceitful scheme. ‘Not one word about the Envoy has been spoken on the Central Bureau radio’ (p. 154). Though Shusgis took Ai around the city openly, the general populace remains ignorant of his presence. In Estraven’s words, ‘this openness hides the fact that he is hidden’ (p. 154). Therefore, it becomes evident that the government’s domination is rooted in secrecy, deception, and the exercise of authoritarian control over its citizens. Such governance is even worse when it is coupled with the cultivation of fear among the populace.

People’s fear of each other is particularly stimulated by the close surveillance of the Sarf Bureau, one branch of the Internal Administration. Sarf bureau will have inspectors as their agents to monitor people’s words and actions. This causes fear and distrust among people. It is clearly presented in Estraven’s comments on Orgoreyn politician’s reaction to the coming of the Ekumen envoy.

‘Not fear of the alien, the unearthly, not here. These Orgota have not the wits nor size of spirit to fear what is truly and immensely strange. They cannot even see it. They look at the man from another world and see what? a spy from Karhide, a pervert, an agent, a sorry little political Unit like themselves.’ (p. 161)

This passage indicates in the eyes of Estraven, the reliable narrator, the Orgoreyns are not intelligent enough to fear Ekumen, the alien. They fear the spy, the other individual. Therefore, in the end, it is not surprising that Estraven’s friends in Orgota, Yegey and Obsle all mutinied and sells Ai out when the political tides turn. People are full of suspicion, deception and eventually full of fear towards each other.

The situation in Orgota, particularly the way the citizens react to each other is much like what Jean-Paul Sartre has depicted in his play No Exit (Sartre, 1947). The play is about three imprisoned ghosts, waiting to go to hell. During their agonizing wait, the three ghosts continue to deceive and torment one another. At last, it dawns on them that they don’t need to anticipate descending into hell because they’re already there. The ghosts come to understand that hell isn’t a fiery mountain but rather the torment of being in the company of others. Eventually, Sartre voiced his renowned statement, ‘Hell is other people’ (p. 61). Le Guin’s portrayal of Orgoreyn invites readers to reflect on the dangers of such a situation where society is overwhelmed by fear of the other and the way to cope with it.

Ruling a country through xenophobia

In addition to the fear of individual discussed in the last section, the manifestation of the other often extends beyond the individual level toencompass the collective, often embodied in the form of a country, resulting in what is known as xenophobia. Xenophobia is rooted in ‘universal fears of the unfamiliar, and also in specific historical traditions and regulations regarding the place devoted to outsiders within host societies’ (Sanchez-Mazas & Licata, 2015, p. 802). The Karhide rulers strategically manipulated the tool of common fear among their subjects directed towards the neighboring country Orgoreyn to maintain their dominance over Karhide. The ensuing discussion will delve into the roles of Agarvan and Tibe, providing a focused examination of how they incite xenophobia.

King Argaven of Karhide rejected Genly Ai’s invitation to join Ekumen because Argaven was deeply fearful of the Ekumen’s potential influence and the changes it might bring to Karhide. Essentially, Argaven’s fear of the other—Ekumen in this context is a fear of the unknown, a fear of change, and a fear of losing control over the existing societal structures. Argaven said to Ai during their first meeting, he does fear Ai together with the Ekumen.

‘I do fear you, Envoy. I fear those who sent you. I fear liars, and I fear tricksters, and worst I fear the bitter truth. And so I rule my country well. Because only fear rules men. Nothing else works. Nothing else lasts long enough. You are what you say you are, yet you’rea joke, a hoax. There’s nothing in between the stars but void and terror and darkness, and youcome out of that all alone trying to frighten me. But I am already afraid, and I am the king. Fear is king!

Now take your traps and tricks and go, there’s no more needs saying. I have ordered that you be given the freedom of Karhide.’ (p. 40)

In the passage, King Argaven asserts that ‘Fear is king’ and ‘only fear rules men’, indicating his belief that fear is a crucial tool for governing and controlling society. Argaven exploited the presence of an extraterrestrial envoy, Genly Ai, as a potential external threat to his people. By doing so, he could deliberately evoke fear among his subjects toward the extraterrestrial other. This fear could be served as a means for Argaven to further legitimize his rule over Karhide.

On the other hand, Tibe, the cousin of King Argaven, later ascending to the prime minister of Karhide prefers to rule the country through poeple’s hatred and fear toward the other country on the Gethen—Orgoreyn. Tibe is not interested in solving the Sinoth Valley dispute with Orgoreyn in a diplomatic way, instead he intends to intensify the conflict and extend it to war, thereby consolidating his rule over the country. Besides, Tibe ‘has a model to work from, the Sarf’ (p. 84).

Sarf, explained by an Orgoreyn politician Shusgis is ‘One of the Permanent Bureaus of the Internal Administration. Looks out after false registries, unauthorized travel, job-substitutions, forgeries, that sort of thing—trash. That’s what Sarf means in gutter-Orgota, trash, it’s a nickname’ (p. 144). Shusgis’ clarification provides readers with insight into the official duties of Sarf and the prevalent disdain people hold for it. The presence and activities of Sarf agencies create a widespread culture of surveillance, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty, unease, mistrust, and fear among the people in Orgoreyn. Tibe’s way of ruling a country is much like what Big Brother’s way depicted in George Orwell’s dystopian science fiction 1984 (Orwell, 2000). Big Brother serves as the emblematic figurehead of a dictatorial regime. He presides over a totalitarian government that maintains control through ceaseless fear induced by continuous surveillance via telescreens installed in the homes of its subjects.

Though Argaven or Tibe diverge in terms of whether to make the fear of the extraterrestrial Ekumen or the terrestrial Orgoreyn as the tool, they converge in their conviction that fear is a potent tool for ruling a nation, for cultivating nationalism. And fear and nationalism are always camouflaged with another name ‘patriotism’. Estraven has an insightful comment on it. ‘I don’t mean love, when I say patriotism. I mean fear. The fear of the other. And its expressions are political, not poetical: hate, rivalry, aggression. It grows in us, that fear. It grows in us year by year. We’ve followed our road too far’ (p. 19). This fear-driven patriotism, as understood by Estraven, is not about love but rather the fear of the other. It manifests politically in the forms of hate, rivalry, and aggression, fostering an environment where the other is viewed as a threat. This fear, carefully nurtured over time, has the potential to shape the destiny of a nation and its people, leading down a road where division, conflict and even war become the norm. Ultimately, it reinforces the notion that in the realm of politics, ‘Fear is king!’—a stark reminder of the immense influence that fear can exert when harnessed as a tool to rule a country, to form a political self to a political other.

Xenophobia is also evident in the Terran’s experiment on Gethen. In Chapter Seven, ‘The Question of Sex’, Terran investigator Ong Tot Oppong’s field notes from decades ago write that since the Gethen planet is Terran’s colony, she speculated that the Gethenians come from the accident of Terran’s genetic experiments. Their existence is unlikely to be a product of natural selection, as their ambisexuality is perceived to offer ‘little or no adaptive value’ (p. 89). According to Estok, domestic landscapes are more ‘mapped, predictable, and sustaining than foreign landscapes’. Meanwhile, ‘foreign landscapes are viewed as a site and origin of danger, an object of xenophobia and disdain, and a source of pollution’ (Estok, 2020, p. 122). Therefore, the Terrans conduct their experiments on the foreign Gethen planet rather than on their own planet Earth. This disregard for the autonomy and natural evolution of the Gethenians indicates a lack of respect for landscapes different from their own, underscoring their xenophobic attitudes.

‘Leap of faith’ and mindspeech to cope the fear of the other

Despite the multiple layers of fear of the other depicted in the fiction, it is essential to recognize that fear of the other does not constitute the entirety of the narrative. Instead, this study asserts that the core of the story lies in how to confront it. Estraven’s articulation in the fiction: ‘Fear, good servants, bad lords’ (p. 228) serves as a reflection of Le Guin’s perspective on fear. It encapsulates Le Guin’s stance, suggesting that when fear of the other overwhelms and dominates a Subject, fear becomes a ‘bad master’, just like the domination experienced by characters like Ai, Orgoreyn politicians, Argaven, and Tibe, each grappling with various forms of fear. However, due amount of fear can serve as a constructive and motivating force for a Subject. In the fiction, Estraven exemplifies a positive role in dealing with the fear of the other. Rather than allowing fear to dictate his actions, he confronts it with a ‘leap of faith’ grounded in cosmopolitanism. Furthermore, the mindspeech in the fiction also serves as a metaphorical way of confronting the fear of the other.

The concept of ‘leap of faith’ is a central and distinctive element of the philosophical thought of Søren Kierkegaard, a 19th-century Danish philosopher. Kierkegaard, often considered the father of existentialism, explored the nature of faith, subjectivity, and the human experience. The ‘leap of faith’ represents a subjective commitment that transcends rational certainty. In Kierkegaard’s seminal work, Fear and Trembling (Kierkegaard, 1994), the ‘leap of faith’ is intricately linked to the biblical narrative of Abraham who is unwavering in his faith in God, and carries out God’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac. Kierkegaard uses this biblical story to emphasize the individual’s transcendence of reason and passionate engagement with religious truths and the divine.

In The Left Hand of Darkness, while Ai, Argaven, and the politicians in Orgoreyn are seized with fear for others, Estraven is depicted as the only character who has gotten rid of it with a ‘leap of faith’. This could be seen in Estraven’s explanation to the Orgoreyn council members why they can trust Ai and Ai is not a threat to them.

‘He (Genly Ai) brings from his people offers of communication, trade, treaty, and alliance, nothing else. He came alone, without arms or defense, with nothing but a communicating device, and his ship, which he allowed us to examine completely. He is not to be feared, I think.’ (p. 86)

‘I’ve been with the Envoy, I’ve seen his ship that crossed the void, and I know that he is truly and exactly a messenger from elsewhere than this earth. As to the honesty of his message and the truth of his descriptions of that elsewhere, there is no knowing; one can only judge as one would judge any man; if he were one of us I should call him an honest man.’ (p. 87)

From these words, we can see facing the extraterrestrial other—the Ekumen and the envoy Ai, Estraven displays a ‘leap of faith’ to the unknown. Despite a careful examination of the envoy’s spaceship coming from another planet, Estraven still couldn’t be sure of the honesty of the extraterrestrial message. Therefore, what the message to Estraven is similar to what God to Abraham. Abraham has faith in God, but Estraven have faith in universal goodness.

Estraven’s faith is strengthened after listening to the recording tape of Ai’s speech in Orgoreyn. Estraven believes that Ai ‘speaks a shrewd and magnanimous people, a people who have woven together into one wisdom a profound, old, terrible, and unimaginably various experience of life’ (p. 157). This profound respect for the wisdom of Ai’s people becomes a driving force behind Estraven’s unwavering commitment to aiding Ai in his mission. Estraven expresses explicitly his determination to join in Ai’s cause, stating ‘I have made it my life’s business to know—’ (p. 161) This resolute decision and strong faith to know the other sustained him through the desolate, piercing ice fields, sustained him to endure the shameful charge of treason till the end of his life.

Estraven is accused of treason because his way of handling a border dispute with the neighboring country Orgoreyn is seen as too conciliatory. Nevertheless, Estraven has a different understanding of patriotism. Estraven said:

‘I don’t mean love, when I say patriotism. I mean fear. The fear of the other. And its expressions are political, not poetical: hate, rivalry, aggression. It grows in us, that fear. It grows in us year by year. We’ve followed our road too far. And you, who come from a world that outgrew nations centuries ago, who hardly know what I’m talking about, who show us the new road—’ (p. 19)

Seen from the passage, Estraven’s patriotism, rather than being confined to a narrow allegiance to a specific nation or nationalism, instead revealing itself as cosmopolitanism. He maintains that patriotism the Gethenians understand does not originate from love but fear of the other. The fear has accumulated so much that Estraven thought it is time for them to get away with it. His way of achieving the goal is to avail the power of the extraterrestrial civilization. Estraven, through ‘leap of faith’, holds the conviction that Ekumen civilization has transcended fear of the other, abandoned racial and ideological prejudice and built a world civilization of diversity, unity and love.

Besides Estraven’s ‘leap of faith’, another way of getting rid of fear of the other is conveyed through the metaphorical meaning of mindspeech. Mindspeech in the fiction is a telepathic communication skill trained among Ekuminicals. It is ‘voluntarily sent and received’ (p. 68), a kind of language that ‘has no lie’ (p. 199). Estraven acknowledged the inherent limitations of language that contributed to the misunderstandings between himself and Ai. Particularly, the linguistic demerits became evident to Estraven when, despite his explicit warning Ai against trusting the Orgota leaders, Ai still chose to disregard this advice. Ai harbored suspicions regarding Estraven’s motivations, and eventually the plot of the fiction culminated in Ai’s arrest and subsequent sending to a remote and harsh work camp. These events set the stage for their consequential perilous 80-day Gobrin ice trek. Therefore, Estraven asked Ai to teach him mindspeech so that they could evade the misunderstanding and explain his motivation for helping Ai explicitly. Estraven said to Ai, ‘you’re unable, or unwilling, to believe in the fact that I believe in you. […] 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’ (p. 199). Later Ai successfully reaches Estraven in mindspeech, and ‘intimacy of mind’ is established between them (p. 255). The mindspeech is a symbol of the idealized sincere inter-subjective communication, through which misunderstanding, suspicion and even fear for the other will be eliminated.

Ecophobia and respect for nature

Besides the ‘leap of faith’ to cope the fear of the human other, the way to cope fear of the nature other (ecophobia) is also embodied in the fiction. But before revealing the way to cope with the fear, the manifestation of ecophobia will be presented. Ecophobia, coined by George F. Will, signifies ‘the fear that the planet is increasingly inhospitable’ (Will, 1988). Simon C. Estok expands on this, arguing that ecophobia extends beyond a simple fear or irrational hatred of nature; it also includes human indifference towards nature as well. Estok’s more compelling statement is that misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and other forms of fear are interconnected with ecophobia, which all come from maladaptation to the other’s agency. Estok emphasizes that recognizing ecophobia’s role is crucial in efforts to encourage behavior change for environmental sustainability (Estok, 2020, p. 12). This section delves into how ecophobia is depicted in the fiction.

Through the portrayal of Gethen’s harsh and inhospitable climate in The Left Hand of Darkness, the Terrans’ fear of the environment is mirrored. Two years of staying on the Gethen planet, Ai still cannot accustom to the environment and curses, ‘damned planet, […] months and months of unrelenting cold, sleet, ice, wind, rain, snow, cold, cold inside, cold outside, cold to the bone and the marrow of the bone’ (p. 133). Ai believes the winter is terrible. He said ‘Gethen has a bright winter, bitter, terrible, and bright’ (p. 214). In addition to the relentless cold pervasive in their daily lives, the formidable environment of the Gobrin Ice poses additional challenges for Ai. The description of volcanoes, the pervasive scent of sulphur emanating from fumaroles, and the frequent occurrence of blizzards are all representations of Ai’s ecophobia. Last but not least, Ai’s ecophobia is also presented in his unwillingness to befriend the androgynes who though are products of genetic experiment failure but also evolved from the unpredictability of the natural world.

Besides Ai, the female investigator Ong Tot Oppong, one of the first Ekumenical landing party on Gethen also expressed the ecophobic sentiment. She maintains that the Gethen climate on Gethen is ‘a crueler enemy’ (p. 96) compared with humans for its inhabitants. Oppong writes in her note that the weather on Gethen is ‘so relentless, so near the limit of tolerability even to them with all their cold-adaptations, that perhaps they use up their fighting spirit fighting the cold’ (p. 96). Both Ai’s and Oppong’s depictions of the climate project the Terrans’ ecophobia.

Nevertheless, contrary to the Terrans’ ecophobia and viewing climate on Gethen as enemy, the Gethenians adapt to and respect nature. The Gethenians exhibit a harmonious coexistence with nature. In an instance during Ai’s journey to Orgoreyn, a driver recounts an accident he witnessed years ago when a truck fell off a precipice. The driver said what was remarkable ‘was the slowness with which it fell. It seemed to take all afternoon floating down into the abyss, and he had been very glad to see it at last vanish, with no sound at all, into a forty-foot snowdrift at the bottom’ (p. 51). The description of the disappearance of the truck into a forty-foot snowdrift at the bottom without a sound could evoke a sense of the sublime, where nature’s vastness and silence command a certain kind of respect or even fear. It’s as if nature operates on its own terms, indifferent to the urgency or agency of human endeavors. Nevertheless, the driver’s happiness at the truck’s vanishing implies a positive outlook on the encounter with the natural world, emphasizing a connection or reunion rather than ecophobia.

Another instance of Gethenians’ respect for nature could be seen in Le Guin’s depiction of the architecture in Rer, an ancient city, built before Karhiders used powered vehicles. The houses in the city are built in the valley so that they can resist the impact of blizzards and keep warm on the cold planet. They are massive and waterproof so that they can adapt to the melting snow weather when the empty spaces between houses will become canals or lakes. Furthermore, the disordered arrangement of houses, described as being ‘in a profuse prodigious confusion’ (p. 53), serves as a tangible manifestation of the Gethenians’ reverence for nature, a sentimentechoed in the words of the esteemed Spanish architect Antoni Gaudi. He said, ‘The straight line belongs to men, the curved one to God’. These chaotic arrangements of the houses suggest an architectural ethos that appreciates the inherent disorder of nature.

The reverence for nature among the ancient Karhiders persists into their contemporary times. Though they have invented electric engines, radios, power looms, power vehicles, and farm machinery, invented advanced energy-saving central heating systems based on steam or electricity, Karhiders don’t install heating systems in their homes, even though their house is relatively as cold as outside. An intriguing description of the cold climate is presented during a scene where Ai and Estraven consume hot beer at Estraven’s residence. Ai mentioned that they have to use a commonplace device on the table to crack the ice hat that has formed between sips or drafts to access the beer beneath the ice. This description underscores the Karhiders’ everyday adaptations to the frigid environment. They choose to live in harmony with nature rather than seeing it as something to be conquered. This attitude reflects an understanding of ecological balance and sustainability, as well as a sense of awe for the natural world. The Karhiders have found a way to live within both the world’s carrying capacity and their suffertibility of the environment. Essentially, the Terrans’ ecophobia and perception of nature as enemy is an amplification of their fear towards the other and a result of their dualistic mindset in the patriarchal society. On the contrary, the Gethenians’ unique androgynous physiology fosters their non-dualistic mindset that emphasizes the non-divisive nature of relationships with others. Consequently, within Gethenian culture, women are men; nature and men all have agency, and deserve to be respected.

Conclusion

This article adopting Sedgewick’s desire triangle theory and Estok’s ecocrtitical thought explored various kinds of fear of the other in The Left Hand of Darkness mainly, namely Genly Ai’s struggle with misogyny and homophobia, Orgoreyns’ fear of other individuals, the incited xenophobia by Argarven and Tibe, and the Terrans’ ecophobia. These fears all demonstrate humanity’s difficulty in adapting to the agency and otherness of those perceived as different. However, the study didn’t just highlight the interconnectedness of these fears. By embracing Kierkegaard’s ‘leap of faith’, it advocated for fostering harmonious relationship with the human others. In addition, the study also emphasized the importance of cultivating reverence for nonhuman nature to alleviate humans’ ecophobia and reduce antagonism between human and nature.

The way we perceive the other influences our interactions with them. In the face of fear, when we grasp the truth encapsulated in the adage ‘Fear, good servants, bad lords,’ we embark on a transformative journey. Fear, when recognized as a servant, becomes a bridge rather than a tyrant of divide and hatred. Be mindful of our fears and vigilant to them. Don’t amplify our aggression that could be provoked by fears, so we can achieve a greater sense of overall well-being. Liberation ourselves from fear of the other through communication, love, hope, and respect, we will keep peace with ourselves, as well as with the world. In all, The Left Hand of Darkness invites us to confront our fears. It challenges us to embrace diversity, cultivate empathy, and encourages us to redefine our relationship with the ‘other’ and, essentially, with ourselves and with the world.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Suzana Haji Muhammad

Suzana Haji Muhammad is a senior lecturer in School of Humanities at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Her research mainly focuses on modern American literature, feminism and ecocriticism.

Sujuan Li

Sujuan Li is a PhD candidate at Universiti Sains Malaysia and a lecturer of English Department at the Hebei Minzu Normal University in China. Her research mainly focuses on literary studies, especially science fiction studies, feminism and ecocriticism.