多麗絲．萊辛《希卡斯塔》中的潛態宇宙觀

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系博士論文 Doctoral Dissertation Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 多麗絲．萊辛《希卡斯塔》中的潛態宇宙觀. The Virtual Cosmic Vision in Doris Lessing’s Re: Colonised Planet 5, Shikasta. 指導教授: 邱漢平博士 Advisor: Dr. Hanping Chiu 研究生: 鄭如玉 Advisee: Ju-Yu Cheng. 中華民國一百零二年七月 July, 2013.

(2) 多麗絲．萊辛《希卡斯塔》中的潛態宇宙觀. 中文摘要. 在《希卡斯塔》(Shikasta)這本屬於首部「外太空」（outer-space）科幻系列的小說中，諾貝爾文學獎得主多麗斯．萊辛（Doris Lessing）意圖呈現一個存在矛盾又共生共存的混沌宇宙演化過程，她以雙重觀點(dual vision)勾勒出寓言式的兩種地球面貌，並套用烏托邦/反烏托邦的主題呈現:一方面以近距離、局部觀點描繪受個人主義的宰治的希卡斯塔/地球 (Shikasta)日趨墮落的物種與實際社會政治環境;另一方面則以殖民主星球加諾波斯(Canopus)的遠距離觀點看待希卡斯塔/地球，藉由宇宙共感與演化所構成的宇宙潛態轉變來看待希卡斯塔/地球(Shikasta)的時空變化。萊辛旨在發現一個能超越二元對立的新興烏托邦宇宙(潛態混沌宇宙)。矛盾的是，這個新興宇宙竟從一個銀河殖民的關係開始。我們該如何從殖民關係中解讀這兩種觀看希卡斯塔(地球) (Shikasta)的觀點？萊辛又如何調和兩種看似相互矛盾的關係：一個是墮落的社會政治光景，另一個是宇宙進化。殖民系統又如何啓動宇宙進化？這個二元的殖民系統又如何在內部矛盾中自我超越？特別是當萊辛呈現出殖民兩造關係時，她意圖超越當代地理政治困境而描繪出的代表宇宙進化力量的潛態烏托邦常常招來「退化」，甚至是「背叛」的評價。為了反駁這樣的誤解及替萊辛如此精妙的遠見辯解，我的論文致力於闡明這幅有著自相矛盾複雜性的動態錦織畫。這個矛盾首先就出現在萊辛所描繪的共生殖民關係中。我的論文想琢磨的是，她如何以雙重觀點(dual vision)勾勒出一個多元共生的動態混沌宇宙。萊辛的雙重觀點(dual vision)意欲揭示能量之間的流動而不是二元對立的展演。萊辛一生投入政治活動、精神分裂議題與蘇菲主義(Sufism)，她明白以單一觀點捍衛信念的徒然，因為單一觀點必陷入二元對立(dichotomy)的泥沼。這得來不易的覺醒在《希卡斯塔》(Shikasta)這部作品中於焉成型。潛態宇宙演化的達成並不在於消除實存的社會政治條件，而是如萊辛般將矛盾而分歧的社會政治元素廣納入內，呈現出其潛在多樣性。在小說中，萊辛豐富化喬荷(Johor)這位潛態的銀河使者，突變的倖存者、擴張的城市與持續演化的文檔式(archival)宇宙記憶的 i.

(3) 目的在於創造出一個持續演化的混沌宇宙。混沌宇宙中交織著相生相剋力量之間的互動:加諾波斯(Canopus)與希卡斯塔(地球) (Shikasta)之間、殖民主與被殖民者之間、遠觀與近觀之間、宇宙進化與社會政治的墮落之間、和希卡斯塔個人化而侷限於地球的內在空間與加諾波斯客觀而廣大的外太空視野之間的相互流動。本論文將借用德勒茲對於「潛態」的看法，包括他的個體化、知感、情動 (情感)、渾沌宇宙與非個人記憶理論，旨在闡明萊辛在《希卡斯塔》(Shikasta)中藉由雙重觀點的擺盪呈現出一多元共生的潛態混沌宇宙：本文處理在潛態與實存兩端所涵蓋的身份、空間與時間種種擺盪如何激盪出一擺脫二元對立之多元共生混沌宇宙。本論文的主體分成三個章節。核心論述的主旨，在討論當主體、空間與記憶都被加諾波斯(Canopus) 星球的宇宙殖民計劃所制約時，萊辛所企圖呈現的潛態混沌宇宙如何暫時超越各種實存的存有或政治社會框架、鬆綁主體、空間與記憶的枷鎖並重新界定了宇宙演化的軌跡。第一章主要探討本小說主角喬荷(Johor)身為銀河系使者與其種族間矛盾的關係: 為何喬荷(Johor)能既服從又背離其隸屬殖民星球所制定的宇宙計劃，並且，他如何能穿梭在不同世界與真實的不同面向中，並居中調和鼎鼐。在論文中，我將闡明雙重觀點(dual vision)如何搖擺在潛態的宇宙演化與實存的殖民計劃之間並激盪出多樣性:這樣的擺盪呈現在潛態的殖民星球使者喬荷(Johor)與實存的喬治(George)(喬荷在地球上的化身)之間並發散成萬花筒般的多元變化。喬荷(Johor)的多重身份使得個體與帝國間的矛盾關係變得可能。作為一個宇宙潛態的代言人，喬荷(Johor)能超越實存個體的限制，揭露宇宙演化的各種可能性。本章節將借用德勒茲關於個體化的理論來理解喬荷(Johor)如何超脫其種族的限制，並引導希卡斯塔人以及他的族人參與宇宙的進化，進而詮釋萊辛如何以潛態的宇宙能量(SOWF)修正以加諾波人(Canopeans)為中心的宇宙計劃，並藉由如此的修正，促成一場宇宙演化革命。在第二章中，我試著探索小說中萊辛並置古老城市與浩劫後未來城市的意圖：一個是古老而僵化的殖民系統，另一個是新興直覺演化式的新設計，這兩股勢力形成一特殊雙重觀點使得潛態與實際間的共生變得可能。一個是殖民主計劃要實 ii.

(4) 現的遠古幾何城市，另一個則是潛態化的浩劫後城市，萊辛試圖解釋這兩股勢力如何幫助形成在希卡斯塔(地球) (Shikasta)上倖存者與城市之間無法區辨的關係，這樣的關係使得兩者能進而與宇宙力量(SOWF)產生連結。事實上，城市與倖存者之間界線的消融有助於形成一種海納岩石、植物、猩猩、巨人、希卡斯塔人 (Shikastans)、加諾波人（Canopeans）等概念的新的「我們」(We)。我將引用德勒茲(Deleuze)與瓜特里（Guattari）對於知感、情動 (情感)、渾沌宇宙的看法去理解倖存者與城市之間的微妙關係，並且藉著城市演化的觀念，闡明萊辛的潛態宇宙觀，最終揭示啟動潛態渾沌宇宙進化的關鍵元素: 全新的「我們」 (We) 。第三章旨在探討萊辛如何將兩種與記憶相關的矛盾敘述揉合。其一牽涉到詳細的心理記憶，其二則是客觀的宏觀記憶。小說中，在主角喬荷(Johor)對於記錄希卡斯塔(Shikasta)的正當性質疑後，藉著猩猩、巨人與另一宇宙能量(Lock) 的幫忙，他才能夠探索並改變看似客觀的回憶，因而同時參與了宇宙記憶的演化過程。在我的論文中，德勒茲對於柏格森的記憶概念挪用有助於解讀記憶的雙重觀點：實證的個人記憶與不存於大腦的潛態記憶。以喬荷(Johor)的多重身份為例，藉由不同的化身與綿延的潛態生命，喬荷(Johor)以暫時性顛覆時間限制的手段介入宇宙記憶的文檔母體，使他得以與共存的過往宇宙記憶互動，並進而參與了潛態渾沌宇宙的演化過程。. 關鍵詞: 萊辛、德勒茲、潛態混沌宇宙、宇宙演化. iii.

(5) The Virtual Cosmic Vision in Doris Lessing’s Re: Colonised Planet 5, Shikasta. Abstract. Doris Lessing’s first outer-space novel, Re: Colonised Planet 5, Shikasta, depicts a paradoxical, symbiotic chaosmos of cosmic evolution. With dual vision, she paints allegorical pictures of Earth from two perspectives. One is the “short, partial views” of Shikasta’s (Earth’s) actual degenerating beings and socio-political milieu, dominated by individualism. The other, seen from the colonizing planet Canopus, is the “long view” of Shikasta’s (Earth’s) virtual transformation via cosmic symbiosis and evolution. Lessing purports to discover a new utopian cosmos that transcends discrete identities and dichotomies and thus evolve. Paradoxically, this new cosmos develops from a galactic colonial relationship. If Lessing envisions a world apart from socio-political conditioning, why does she portray the galactic Empire of Canopus, and, ironically, make it responsible for cosmic evolution? How do we decode the dual vision of Earth rendered through this colonial relationship? How can/does Lessing reconcile the two seemingly contradictory strands: one, the degenerating socio-political condition, the other, cosmic evolution. Her departure from the contemporary dilemma of geopolitics through delineation of a virtual utopia of cosmic evolution is often criticized as regressive and even treacherous, especially since she renders a colonial relationship. In defense of the cunning visionary, my dissertation explains the paradoxical, yet symbiotic colonial relationship as a dual vision, which comprises much of Shikasta’s visionary complexity and supports Lessing’s philosophy of a dynamic cosmos. Her two contradictory but complementary perspectives, represented by that between utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta, reveal, not a display of fixed dichotomous identities or concepts, but a vast symbiotic transaction of manifold dichotomous forces—all in unceasing states of becoming-one another. Lessing’s dual vision iv.

(6) becomes a kaleidoscopic vision of multiplicity. Lessing’s lifelong passionate involvements, successively, in political affairs, schizophrenia, and Sufism push her to realize the futility of fighting for any belief from only one perspective—because discrete identities and conflicting dichotomies remain. This hard-won awareness crystalizes in Shikasta. Virtual cosmic evolution is accomplished, not because of the elimination of actual socio-political embeddedness, but because of Lessing’s incorporation of imcompossible, divergent socio-political elements. In depicting the virtual galactic messenger (Johor), the mutating Survivors, the expanding cities, and the evolving archival cosmic memory, Lessing creates an evolving chaosmos that turns the dichotomy into a multiplicity and the potential of a reciprocal cross-fertilization between utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta, between the colonizer and the colonized, between the long view and the partial view, between cosmic evolution and socio-political embeddedness, between Shikastans’ personal, earthbound, inner space vision and Canopus’s impersonal, cosmic, outer-space vision. Deleuze’s theory of the virtual, which includes his ideas of individuation, becoming, percept, affect, chaosmos, and memory, helps explain the emergence of a virtual chaosmos, triggered by Lessing’s two contradictory perspectives, utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta. In Shikasta, the two perspectives are revealed as the virtual and the actual regarding identity, space, and time and illuminate how the utopian/dystopian cosmos can be transformed into a chaosmos of multiplicity, where the infinite speed and recomposition replace the per-established harmony. In Chapter One, I examine how Johor can simultaneously follow and precede the cosmic Master Plan set up for the functioning of the Empire of Canopus. The conflict between the utopian aspiration of Canopus and the dystopian degeneration of Shikasta is revealed through Johor’s oscillation between the actual cosmic plan and virtual cosmic forces (the Lock and SOWF) as well as between the actual manifestation of Johor as George Sherban, conditioned by the geopolitical situation and Johor, who tilts toward the virtual because of his connection with the virtual cosmic forces so that v.

(7) he can revise the cosmic plan and thereby trigger cosmic evolution. Through Johor’s multiple identities, the paradoxical relationship between the individual and the empire can be manifested and the emergence of a virtual chaosmos is made possible. Deleuze’s theory of individuation informs my explanation of Johor’s contribution to the chaosmos of cosmic evolution. My Chapter Two explores Lessing’s juxtaposition of the ancient dystopian cities and the future post-catastrophic utopian cities, of old static colonial design and of new intuitive evolutionary design. Her dual vision makes possible virtual symbiosis of the two forces, not in spite of, but because the link to the cosmic force is always interrupted by conditioning of colonial, geopolitical “realities.” The two forces, the actualization of the ancient geometric cities via the colonial Master Plan and the virtualization of the post-catastrophic cities, help form an indiscernible relationship between the Survivors and the cities. The dissolving of boundaries between the cities and the Survivors facilitates the formation of a new virtual “we” that encompasses different beings such as stones, plants, apes, Giants, Shikastans, and even Canopeans and trigger the emergence of a virtual chaosmos of multiplicity. Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts of percept, affect, and chaosmos help explain the imperceptible relationship between the Survivors and the cities, highlight the divergences of the evolving cities, illuminate Lessing’s turning the dual vision into a multiplicity, and reveal the formation of a new virtual “we,” a key element of the virtual chaosmos of symbiotic evolution. My Chapter Three examines Lessing’s creation and conjoining of two contradictory narratives regarding memory. One involves detailed, psychological memory, and the other, impersonal, macroscopic memory. After Johor is skeptical of the legitimacy of his personal records of Shikasta, he, aided by the ape, the Giants, and the cosmic force Lock, is able to explore and even transform impersonal memory, thus symbiotically revising cosmic evolution. Deleuze’s appropriation of the Bergsonian concept of memory aids in decoding the dual vision of memory: the empirical, personal memory and the ontological memory that preserves itself vi.

(8) elsewhere than the brain. The “virtual” Johor provisionally subverts temporal limitations so as to facilitate intervention into the Archival cosmic memory matrix, where the virtual co-existence of the cosmos’ past allows him to interact with the cosmic memory. His intervention in the cosmic memory through his multiple reincarnations and long virtual life helps generate the virtual chaosmos of multiplicity.. Key Words: Lessing, Deleuze, virtual Chaosmos, cosmic evolution. vii.

(9) Acknowledgements. The long process of research and writing has revealed an important message to me: I am loved and supported by so many people! Thanks to them, my dream is being fulfilled. Father, I made it! I express unreserved gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Hanping Chiu, who has never given up on me. This is a miracle because my writing has left a lot to be desired. He has led me into Deleuze’s difficult but fascinating theoretical world, encouraged me to participate in important conferences and camps and to publish papers, and supported me in writing my thesis over all these years. He has expanded my horizons by inviting me to join the panel he organized at the First International Deleuze Studies Conference at Cardiff University in 2008, followed by the Second at Cologne University in 2009. He has trained me to think originally and creatively. Although I remain in the labyrinth, trying to find my way out, I am now gifted with Ariadne’s ball of thread. Professor Chiu has aided me in cultivating my love of literature, especially Deleuzian thought, and encouraged me to persist, no matter what. I also express deep gratitude to Professor Wei-yun Yang, who has played the role of guru to me academically and spiritually. She has helped me cultivate a panoramic view of life, with a wide-spectrum state of mind, and led me into the encyclopedic universe of Doris Lessing, whose themes include communism, psychology, science, spiritualism, and mysticism. Professor Yang’s unswerving faith in me has been my lighthouse, guiding me through the dark, turbulent nights. As well, I express my heartfelt appreciation to Professors Chaoyang Liao, Han-yu Huan, Jiann-guang Lin, and Wan-shuan Lin for their warm spiritual support and for their inspiring questions and suggestions during my final oral defense. Their invaluable commentaries have provided unique perspectives and prevented my adoption of Deleuzian philosophy from becoming a methodological straightjacket. I am enormously grateful to Professor Chaoyang Liao’s spiritual and academic support. viii.

(10) He always gives me constructive comments and warm encouragement. Too, the fertile instruction provided by Professors Yu-cheng Lee, Hsiu-chuan Lee, Chen Chun-yen, and Frank Stevenson during my years of study at National Taiwan Normal University, and by Professors Patricia Haseltine, Pi-hua Ni, and E-chou Wu during my years of study at Providence University has intensified and deepened my interest in literature. Special thanks also to Professor Patricia Haseltine, who has been like a mother to me, guiding me whenever I encounter difficulties, and to Chairman Sun-chieh Liang, who has encouraged me to continue studying science fiction. Heartfelt thanks go to Professor Dick Harrington for editing my dissertation drafts and supporting me academically and spiritually all the way! My work would not have been as authentic and clear in expression had it not been for his unfailing commitment to my success. I also thank my partners in the “Theory Study Group,” many of whom are already established scholars, for their insightful discussion of key issues in Deleuze’s oeuvre. For sustaining encouragement and kind friendship, I am indebted to Yu-Chi Chiang, Bing-yong Chung, Sincere, Saul, Bolang, Niki, Joanne, Yi-jung Lin, Chen-hsiang Chiu, Yi-ren Chang, Rui-hua Tseng, Vince Shieh, and Mu-han, a lovely, helpful teaching assistant in the English Department, for helping me in administrative affairs. A particular acknowledgement goes out to Gordon for his unfailing support in the long process of my thesis writing. I much appreciate my colleagues’ warm support in my writing process, namely Shan and Karen, for helping me carry my burden, and I especially thank my best friend, Hui-ling, for her generous assistance and constant faith in me. As a full-time teacher in a cram school, I have continued for all these years to persist in exercising my passion for literature and theory. True, teaching does rob me of time to crystallize my thought. Mine is a bittersweet process, supporting my family while also pursuing my professional dream. The abiding love of Father, Mother, and my siblings, Vincent, Jane, and Samuel, ix.

(11) strengthen my determination and enrich my life. I offer special thanks to Vincent, whose spiritual support propels me to leave the Waste Land in search of psychic integration and wholeness. We are brought together, not defeated, by hardship in life. Through hardship, I realize how lucky I am to be cared for and assisted by so many loving people. I dedicate my thesis to my father, the hero of my life. Left with only four fingers, he never gave up fighting and transforming his sorrow into impetus. When I look at his painting, I am transfixed by the strength and determination of his life force. When I feel disoriented, his courage to overcome all difficulties inspires me. Although he is no longer with us physically, his spirit will live on in each member of our family. Father, without you, I would have been unable to fulfill my dream.. x.

(12) Table of Contents Chinese Abstract. i. English Abstract. iv. Acknowledgements. Viii. Table of Contents. xi. Introduction. 1. Chapter One. The Paradoxical Relationship Between the Individual and the Species. Chapter Two. The Survivors’ Becoming-City, the Cosmic Force SOWF, and the New Assemblage:. The Affective Relationship of the Survivors, the Cities, and SOWF. 41. 84. Chapter Three The Virtual Cosmic Memory: The Encounter Between the Virtual Past and the. Actual Present. 133. Conclusion. 176. Works Cited. 191. Other Works Consulted. 196. xi.

(13) Introduction. It was clear I had made—or found—a new world for myself, a realm where the petty fates of planets, let alone individuals, are only aspects of cosmic evolution expressed in the rivalries and interactions of great galactic Empires: Canopus, Sirius, and their enemy, the Empire Puttiora, with its criminal planet Shammat. (Shikasta 2). Early in Shikasta, to provide the reader with an “outer-space view,” a “long view,” Doris Lessing reveals that the Canopean galactic messenger (Johor) can oscillate forward and backward in time and access the archived history of the colonized planet Shikasta for millions of years, including its relation to its colonizing planet Canopus. At heart, Shikasta delineates how a God-like, “benevolent” galactic empire Canopus oversees the fate of Shikasta. The virtually immortal Canopeans supervise and record the history of Shikasta from its Golden Age (Shikasta’s prehistory), through its fall in the “Century of Destruction” (Earth's 20th century, when the Chinese occupy Europe and World War III breaks out), and on to its visionary, post-catastrophic future. It is the story of a paradise lost and, not regained per se, but organically reconceived and reconstructed, not rationally, but intuitively, in the complex flow of cosmic symbiosis, imperceptibility, and evolution. As Gayle Greene asserts, in Doris Lessing: The Poetics of Change, Lessing complements this “long view” with “the near, the partial views” (159-160), the “inner-space vision” focusing on the inner growth and development of certain individual Shikastans as seen in the multiple archival records of Rachel, Benjamin, and Lynda. Understanding the paradoxical interplay of the cosmic, impersonal, “outer-space vision”—of Shikasta vis-à-vis Canopus—and the personal, earthbound, “inner-space vision”—of individual 1.

(14) beings—is critical for understanding this visionary novel. Shikasta is paradoxical. On the one hand, its partial view of Earth, embedded in the contemporary socio-political milieu in which individualism is dominant, reveals the fallen state of Earth and of contemporary human beings. On the other hand, “the long view” of Earth, expressed in Lessing’s manifesto, reveals a new cosmos “where the petty fates of planets, let alone individuals, are only aspects of cosmic evolution” (Shikasta 2). Its trajectory and composition are revolutionary, embodying the possibility of surpassing discrete identities, boundaries, and dichotomies. This dual vision of Earth is rendered through a cosmic colonial relationship. How do we decode the dual vision of Earth rendered through this colonial relationship? How can/does Lessing reconcile the two seemingly contradictory strands: one the degenerating socio-political condition, the other cosmic evolution? Indeed, the conflict implies obstacles to implementing either the transcendental, ideal, utopian cosmic plan or the vision of a more immanent, dynamic cosmic evolution, in which the cosmos is “subject to sudden reversals, upheavals, changes, cataclysms, with joy never anything but the song of substance under pressure forced into new forms and shapes” (Shikasta 4). Lessing purports to discover a new utopian cosomos that transcends discrete identities and dichotomies and evolves. In Politipedia: A Compendium of Useful and Curious Facts about British Politics, Nick Inman claims that Shikasta “passes from utopia to dystopia to utopia again” (Nick 333). At the same time, this new utopian cosmos is portrayed via a galactic colonial relationship. If Lessing envisions a world apart from socio-political conditioning, why does she portray the galactic Empire of Canopus, and, ironically, make it responsible for cosmic evolution? How can a cosmic colonial system trigger cosmic evolution? Why and how would this dichotomous colonial system aid in 2.

(15) its own surpassing? And why does Lessing seem to betray her anti-colonial stance? In defense of the cunning visionary, my dissertation explains her tapestry of oxymoronic complexity. Her departure from the contemporary dilemma of geopolitics through delineation of a virtual utopia of cosmic evolution is often criticized as regressive and even treacherous, especially since the medium she employs to render utopia is a cosmic colonial relationship. Differing from those critics, I defend Lessing by reinterpreting her paradoxical, complex political ideas as rendered in this novel as a synthesis of all of her thought. Following her early period of passionate involvements in political affairs, Lessing discovers R.D. Laing and for a time explores madness as a refuge from oppression. Eventually, identity and psychology give way to Sufism and the possibility of transcendence, followed by the realization that it is futile to fight for any belief from only one perspective—because discrete identities and conflicting dichotomies remain. This hard-won awareness crystallizes in Shikasta. Dichotomies—between the colonizer and the colonized, between the long view and the partial view, between cosmic evolution and socio-political embeddedness, between the fallen world (Shikasta) and the utopian society (Canopus)—are reconceived with dual vision, which embraces dichotomies and their conflicts, allows them to pass into each other and interact in a symbiotic whole, thereby propelling cosmic evolution. The paradox, this new symbiotic colonial relationship, this dual vision, which comprises much of Shikasta’s complexity, brings about the movement of the dynamic cosmos, a utopian cosmos based on “movement” rather than an “ideal” state or set of identities. Lessing’s dual vision reveals a transaction of forces rather than a display of fixed dichotomous identities or concepts. Interaction of the Canopean perspective and the Shikastan perspective constitutes the transaction of cosmic evolution which points to a 3.

(16) dynamic utopia. Actually, the paradise of Canopus and Rohanda1 and the fall of Shikasta are interrelated because catastrophe and hope, utopia and dystopia, are complementary forces. Paradise exists only in the presence of lost paradise. For Lessing, utopia or paradise is never static but always dynamic. The whole is never complete but always in motion. The dual vision explicates the conflict between entropic collectivism and anarchic individualism in the “I-We” dilemma of utopian thinking. Decoding the relationship between Canopus, representing the long view of the earth, and Shikasta, embodying the partial view of the earth, reveals the rich complexity of Lessing’s dynamic utopia. The dilemma of utopian writing is recurrent in Lessing’s works such as The Memoirs of a Survivor, Briefing for the Descent into Hell, Marriage Between Zone Three, Four, and Five, and The Making of the Representative in Planet 8, but gains further depth and complexity in Shikasta. In Identity in Doris Lessing’s Space, David Waterman points out that utopian aspiration is a major concern in Lessing’s novels, which are “rather less related to Orwell and Huxley than to Thomas More and Plato” (Von Schwarzkopf 107). Waterman proposes the adherence to the utopia ideal of the collective identity and the intuitive understanding of the inherent laws and harmonies in Shikasta. He claims that “If the people of Shikasta are to return to a utopian state, they must develop a collective mind from the ruins of their civilization--not just any collective mind, but that prescribed by Canopus” (Waterman 36). I agree to the concept of the utopian aspiration, but disagree over the points about the total embracing of the collective identity or the submission to the wholeness because oblivion of individual freedom for the operation of the collective often leads to entropic dystopia. Contrarily, misuse of individual freedom often leads to. 1. Rohanda is Shikasta in its Golden Time. Rohanda is renamed Shikasta after its fall. 4.

(17) anarchy, which is not far from dystopia. One of the important issues in utopian writing is how to reconcile the opposite poles. Is it possible to find a utopia that is based on the dilemma of either falling into stasis or turning into anarchy and at the same time transcends the same dilemma? I argue that in Shikasta, through two contradictory but complementary strands, the utopian aspiration of Canopus and the dystopian depiction of Shikasta, Lessing does find a way to reconcile the conflict between the two drives in utopian thinking, entropic collectivism and anarchic individualism. Lessing’s motif is different from the traditional utopian/dystopian motif in that her major character, Johor the galactic messenger, is androgynous and almost immortal, her cities are expanding, and her memories are evolving in accordance with Johor’s revision. Most special is that Johor does not intervene in the fate of Shikasta in the form of only a galactic messenger but also in the form of a Shikastan incarnation, George Sherban. Canopus believes that the best way to save the planet is not through coercion and omnipotent intervention but through influencing the minds on the planet microscopically. That is why the galactic messenger is always asked to incarnate into the corporeal form of the targeted planet and lead a symbiotic life with the inhabitants. The small, gradual way is the best way. Tension between the long view and the partial view, between the colonizers and the colonized, between the cosmic Master Plan and divergences from it, between Johor the virtual loyal colonizing galactic messenger and his alter ego, the actual George Sherban, a citizen of Shikasta—all such tensions must ultimately be resolved if Lessing’s vision is to be realized. The genre of science fiction makes possible such a resolution, for she can depict and surpass both local and galactic tensions with utopian artistry. Lessing explains that in the wide expanse of science fiction she was able to explore formal and thematic concerns differently; or, as she puts it, “I found a new world for myself,” where fates of planets and individuals are considered the expression of cosmic evolution (Shikasta 2). 5.

(18) Science fiction (space fiction)2, especially the subgenre of utopian science fiction, provides Lessing with a literary device to express the temporal movement that can figure the movement of dual vision and the spatial movement that can render the whole of cosmic evolution. The leap to outer space enables Lessing to delineate an ethic and an aesthetic that embody new concepts of identity, space, and memory in a virtual utopian cosmos where discrete identities, boundaries, and dichotomies dissolve in interactions of becoming. Science fiction (space fiction) enables Lessing to paint trans-individuals and trans-organic cosmic forces such as Substance-of-We-Feeling (SOWF) and the Lock, the messengers’ shuffling between different spatial-temporal coordinates, and virtually immortal life. Departing from “dogmatic pictures” of identity, space, and time, she realizes, with sci-fi artistry, Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophical vision of the virtual penetrating the actual. If her main concern in earlier work is conflict between the individual and the collective,3 then her outer-space series goes beyond such dichotomies and portrays a virtual cosmic evolution in which actual political oppositions—indeed all oppositions—enrich the complexity of the virtual cosmos as a dynamic whole rather than impede cosmic evolution. Why do I assert that Shikasta is a brilliant illustration of utopian writing? I propose. 2. Lessing terms her outer space novels space fiction. The confrontation of the individual with the collective is a recurring theme in Lessing’s novels. In “The Small Personal Voice,” Lessing describes the major theme in her series Children of Violence: “I was at pains to state the theme very clearly: that this is a study of the individual conscience in its relations with the collective” (14). Right from her first novel, The Grass is Singing, Lessing’s main concern has been the conflict between the individual and the collective in the context of colonialism. Realizing the futility of relying on external political means to solve conflicts between the individual and the collective, Lessing explores inner space and delineates the fragmentary state of subjectivity in her masterpiece, The Golden Notebook, and the inner space fiction such as Briefing For a Descent into Hell, The Summer before the Dark, and The Memoirs of a Survivor, in which the external tumults are paralleled by the inner state of madness. Overall in her earlier novels, Lessing depicts how the characters daringly confront the oppressive force of the collective and struggle with the crisis of their subjectivity in the form of madness or schizophrenia. 3. 6.

(19) that Johor’s special role of observer, comparing and critiquing the two societies he travels, triggers the dialogue between two branches of utopian writing: the critical utopia and the critical dystopia.4 And the expansion of the spatial cartography, the cities, and the temporal configuration, the Archive, fuel the comparison and contrast between the degenerating dystopian and the inspiring utopia. Nevertheless, what Lessing attempts to create is not the replication of a pre-established utopian cosmos but a unique cosmos, where the divergent and incompossible elements, instead of being eradicated for the purpose of upholding Canopus’ cosmic Master Plan, are incorporated and reconceived in the system and where the infinite speed and recomposition replace the cosmos of 4. There are four branches of utopian writing: utopia, dystopia, critical utopia, and critical dystopia. Started by Thomas More’s Utopia, traditional utopian writing expresses the desire to search for a utopia, where the social system is based on an ideal political blueprint. Darko Suvin’s explanation of the crucial elements of utopian writing delineates the characteristics of traditional utopia. He proposes that a utopia must possess four characteristics. First, it must be a rounded, isolated locus. Second, the utopian society must be fully introduced in a panoramic way. Third, it is normally based on a formal hierarchic system. Fourth, an implicit or explicit dramatic strategy is employed to highlight the discrepancy between the utopian society and the real world (Metamorphoses of Science Fiction 50-51). Utopian writing is criticized by its self-imposing enclosure and the suppression of divergences owing to the total embracement of the ideologies set by the society. In response to the potential danger of a utopian society, dystopia is posed as a means of warning, which aims to propel human beings to change their behavior. Four representative works serve as the paradigm for dystopian writing: We (1924), by Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884–1937); Brave New World (1932), by Aldous Huxley (1894–1963); and Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair; 1903–1950). In Demand the Impossible, Tom Moylan coins the term “critical utopia” to describe the blooming of utopian writings in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Moylan delineates the characteristics of a critical utopia: A central concern in the critical utopia is the awareness of the limitations of the utopian tradition, so that these texts reject utopia as a blueprint while preserving it as a dream. Furthermore, the novels dwell on the conflict between the originary world and the utopian society opposed to it so that the process of social change is more directly articulated. Finally, the novels focus on the continuing presence of difference and imperfection within the utopian society itself and thus render more recognizable and dynamic alternatives. (Moylan 10–11) How is the recognition of the limitations of the utopian tradition being achieved? It is achieved by self-reflexivity of the observer. Nevertheless, in Utopia and Machines: from Utopian Literature to the Posthuman, Nai-nu Yang proposes that the critical utopia is still enclosed in a boundary in order to keep a critical distance to itself in a system of autopoeisis (89). It is not until the proposal of the critical dystopia that the boundary can be transgressed. In Dark horizons: Science Fiction and the Dystopian Imagination, Baccolini and Moylan argue that traditional dystopias convey utopian hope outside their pages and it is perceptible only if we as readers can grasp the urgent message of warning revealed in the writings and thereby gain the chance to escape from the bleak vista of its pessimistic future. Nevertheless, Baccolini and Moylan further propose that hope is provided within the text in the critical dystopia. In the face of the enclosure caused by a dystopian society, the novel offers a “horizon of hope” within the text (Baccolini and Moylan 7). 7.

(20) per-established harmony. I argue that Lessing’s Shikasta aims to reconcile the conflict between entropic collectivism and anarchic individualism, exemplifying many of the characteristics of the critical utopia and the critical dystopia. My reading does not focus on the details of the different branches of utopia, but on how a dynamic utopia can at the same time follow and transcend the “I-We” dilemma, the dilemma between individualism and collectivism in Shikasta. The degenerative colonized planet, Shikasta, represents the dystopian tendency of falling into anarchic individualism while the promising colonizing planet, Canopus, symbolizes the utopian tendency of falling into entropic collectivism. “The near, the partial views” (159-160), the “inner-space vision” focusing on the inner growth and development of certain individual Shikastans, is in danger of falling into the trap of individualism; on the other hand, the cosmic, impersonal, “outer-space vision”—of Shikasta vis-à-vis Canopus—requires the individuals, for the purpose of triggering cosmic evolution, to submit willingly to the cosmic whole, which, if not implemented carefully, always falls into the trap of collectivism. Lessing experiments with a new cosmic colonial relationship between Canopus and Shikasta in the hope of creating a new cosmos (chaosmos) that can escape from the dilemma of entropy and anarchy. The colonial relationship, on the surface, entails the dichotomous relationship between Shikasta and Canopus and, seen from the virtual perspective, reveals the cross-fertilization between them, so that the dichotomy is transformed into a multiplicity, utopia/dystopia into a chaosmos. Lessing employs science fiction’s important utopia/dystopia motif to illustrate the limitations of traditional utopian thinking, revealed in the novel as the limitations of the cosmic colonial relationship. The cosmic Master Plan that aims to proceed with pre-established harmony is rejected as an “ideal” blueprint, while its vision as a dream is preserved. Lessing appropriates the utopia-dystopia motif in 8.

(21) the hope of creating a chaosmos of multiplicity that escapes from the “I-We” dilemma of customary utopian thinking. In the following, I will take a closer look at the novel through the perspective of utopia/dystopia and explore how the totalizing, idealized utopian tendency results in divergences, with the potential to crack open the ideal enclosure and lead to a new way of envisioning utopia. Most importantly, Johor’s poignant journeys of self-critical scrutiny and the spatio-temporal deterritorialization serve as the catalyst to transform the enclosed society and point to a dynamic utopia, a utopia based on movement. The process from enclosure to expansion or movement in Shikasta reminds us of the utopian dilemma. In order to achieve the utopian ideal, the undesirable dissidences are erased; however, the discordances are necessary parts of the individual and the society. If utopia is destined to be poisoned and turned into an entropic state and if dystopia is doomed to be ruled by anarchy and chaos, then what can be imagined and what can be done? Lessing is intrigued by this question and pursues the potential dynamics behind the question itself. Though Canopus is a benevolent colonizing empire, it still constrains human possibilities by Bond and Necessity. The dilemma is critical in Utopian/Dystopian reading. In Reader in a Strange Land, Peter Ruppert proposes, The crucial paradox, of course, is that if utopia retains its boundaries, if it continues to exclude conflict, contradictions, and history, then it runs the risk of congealing into Zamyatin’s entropic paradise, Huxley's world of mindless pleasure, or even Orwell's fascist dictatorship; and if utopia tears down its boundaries and opens its gates to history, change, and process, then it loses its very identity and becomes indistinguishable from the social reality it tries to displace. (122) Ruppert here points out the paradox in any utopian thinking, which is caught between the 9.

(22) ideal and the fascist. To borrow Deleuze’s terminology, we can say that the possessive attitude toward self-imposing enclosure is similar to Deleuze’s idea of territorialziation; conversely, the collapse of the boundary, which leads to anarchy, resembles Deleuze’s concept of deterritorialization. The problem lies in the priority of the two terms. The process from territorialziation to deterritorialization should be continued with reterritorialization. This oscillation between territorialization and deterritorialization provides the utopian dream with vitality. Deleuze and Guattari, in What is Philosophy, claim that “utopia is what links philosophy with its own epoch, with European capitalism, but also already with the Greek city” (99). Utopia, according to Samuel Butler, refers “not only to no-where but also to no-here” (100), destined to be closely entwined with the present political milieu. Deleuze alerts us to the danger of falling into the trap of authoritarian utopias or utopias of transcendence since they will lead to entropy of the society, stifling its inner dynamic movement. He proposes that we should distinguish between two kinds of utopia: “authoritarian utopias or utopias of transcendence and immanent, revolutionary, libertarian utopias” (100). While utopias of transcendence seek political fulfillment, Deleuze warns us not to consider utopias of immanence as only dreams that will never be fulfilled: To say that revolution is itself utopia of immanence is not to say that it is a dream, something that is not realized or that is only realized by betraying itself. On the contrary, it is to posit revolution as a plane of immanence, infinite movement and absolute survey, but to the extent that these features connect up with what is real here and now in the struggle against capitalism, relaunching new struggles whenever the earlier one is betrayed. (What is Philosophy 100) Deleuze’s concept of utopia of immanence designates the conjunction with contemporary 10.

(23) social-political situations, such as capitalism. Utopia’s infinite movement and absolute survey on the plane of immanence not only deterritorialize but also reterritorialize the utopian forces. In Critical Utopias, Bill Ashcroft points out the connection between imperialism and utopia in Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophical thought regarding the Greek city state and the world market. He proposes that “we can begin to think about the relationship between imperialism and utopia by considering Deleuze and Guattari’s interesting contention that philosophical thought has truly flourished in two specific historical epochs: the Greek city state and the world market” (3). The political and economic expansion of the Greek city and the world market triggers not only utopian aspiration but also the inevitable form of imperialism in the two cases. According to Ashcroft, These in turn correspond to two versions of utopia: product or blue-print utopia corresponds as a mode of thought to the politically constructed immanence of the agora, where the thrust of utopian thought is to arrive at collective agreement about ‘the Good’ or ‘Justice’, ‘the ideal society’ and so on. Process utopianism, on the other hand, corresponds to the deterritorialization and decoding characteristic of the world market, where agreeing on content is less important than identifying multiple forces of production of the new that are active in a given socio-historical milieu. (3) The “blueprint utopia” aims to establish a world of pre-established harmony, where the target is to “arrive at a collective agreement about the ‘the Good’ or ‘Justice’, ‘the ideal society’” (Ashcroft 3). The drive of the utopian dream is territorialized by collective consensus. In contrast to the blueprint utopia, “process utopianism” is imbued with kinetic energy in itself since its target is to deterritorialize and decode characteristics of the world market, capitalism in this case. What matters is not the agreement of a 11.

(24) pre-established form but the engendering of the “multiple forces of production of the new” that triggers the infinite movement of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. The two forms of utopia demonstrate “a paradox in the conflict between the irrepressible desire for utopia itself and utopia’s apparent fulfillment of desire” (Ashcroft 2). How to reconcile the desire for utopia and utopia’s fulfillment of desire in a form that will lead to entropy is an important issue and dilemma in Lessing’s search for an immanent, virtual utopia. In Shikasta, Canopus’ aspiration of establishing an immanent utopia on Shikasta, which can trigger cosmic evolution, ends up turning it into an entropic, fallen dystopia, in which the inhabitants are stifled not only by individualism but also by collectivism. Lessing’s mission, paralleling Johor’s trajectory of mediating between the two contradictory poles, the desperate dystopia (Shikasta) and the promising utopia (Canopus), is to see the inescapable connection between imperialism or colonialism and utopia and, most importantly, discover from its own dilemma a way to reconcile or at least see the cross-fertilization between the two terms instead of being conditioned by its dichotomous logic. The cross-fertilization between Shikasta and Canopus imparts to us one important message: utopia and dystopia are not two separate categories but entwined in an infinite process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Shikasta as a dystopia in the beginning is moving to its crystallization as a utopia while Canopus as a utopia is discovering its entropic tendency to stifle and territorialize cosmic forces via the cosmic Master Plan. The transactions and deterritorialization of cosmic forces work in a way that transcends the “I-We” dilemma of the cosmic colonial relationship and transforms its dichotomous pairs of utopia and dystopia, long view and near view, outer-space vision and inner-space vision, into a multiplicity that envisions neither the fall nor the fulfillment of utopia but a virtual chaosmos, turning it into the propelling force rather than an obstacle. 12.

(25) Deleuze’s theory of the virtual, which includes his ideas of individuation, becoming, percept, affect, chaosmos, and memory, helps explain the emergence of a virtual chaosmos, triggered by Lessing’s two contradictory perspectives, utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta. In Shikasta, the two perspectives are revealed as oscillation between Johor’s (the Canopean galactic messenger’s) virtualization and his counterpart, George’s (Johor’s alter-ego’s) actualization, as well as oscillation between the post-catastrophic expanding cities, which co-evolve with the mutating, divergent Survivors, and the ancient, geometric cities, which follow the pre-established colonial cosmic Master Plan, and between virtual past memory, which triggers the utopian aspiration, and Johor’s actual present memory, which is embedded in the socio-political milieu. In Shikasta, Lessing’s depiction of the dynamism of the two societies, utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta is revealed via the oscillation between the virtual and the actual regarding identity, space, and time.. Table 0.1. Utopia/dystopia motif: utopia (Canopus) and dystopia (Shikasta). Johor's virtualization and the actualiaztiobn of his counterpart, George. virtual post-catastrophic expanding cities and actual ancient cities based on colonial Master Plan. virtual, impersonal past and actual, psychological present. One revelation is that Johor’s travels between Canopus and Shikasta enable him to 13.

(26) observe, with the utopian dilemma in mind, the colonial dilemma both from the perspective of a colonizer and from that of the colonized. He simultaneously adheres to and precedes/revises the cosmic Master Plan for the functioning of the Canopean Empire. His travels between utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta enable him, as well, to perceive the dynamic movement of the virtual chaosmos of symbiotic evolution. A second revelation regards Lessing’s juxtaposition of the ancient geometric cities and the post-catastrophic evolving cities on Shikasta. What do the two images of cities represent and what is the significance of the expansion or evolution of the Survivors’ cities? The ancient geometric cities are actualized in their precise fulfillment of the cosmic colonial Master Plan, the blueprint of the utopia, whereas the post-catastrophic cities are virtualizing themselves via their indiscernible relationship with the Survivors and the cosmic force Substsance-of-We-Feeling (SOWF). These two types of cities reveal the dynamic movement between the utopia and the dystopia, via the dissolution of spatial contours, which makes possible the emergence of a virtual chaosmos. The Survivors pass into the cities in the process of becoming-city, link with the cosmic force, SOWF, intuitively and organically build artful, accommodating structures, in divergence from the Canopean colonizers’ design, and thereby propel cosmic evolution. The dissolving of boundaries enables a new assemblage, “We,” to be born. A third revelation is that Lessing creates and conjoins two contradictory narratives regarding memory. One involves detailed, psychological memory, recording mainly the fallen dystopia, Shikasta, and the other involves impersonal, macroscopic memory, recording the aspiring utopia, Canopus. After Johor is skeptical of the legitimacy of his personal records of Shikasta, he, aided by the ape, the Giants, and the cosmic force (the Lock), is able to explore and even transform impersonal memory, thus symbiotically revising cosmic evolution. 14.

(27) Illuminated by Deleuze’s theory of the virtual, Lessing’s appropriation of utopian writing, incorporating the long view and the short view, is indeed a fertile literary tool for creating thought-provoking allegory. Canopus’ galactic messengers, archival cosmic memory, and access to the cosmic force, plus Shikasta’s Survivors and cities in need of rebuilding—together, they dance a virtual cosmic dance and, for the wellbeing of all, generate a virtual chaosmos of symbiotic cosmic evolution. Lessing challenges stasis, be it social, political, or psychic, throughout her life. She yearns to debunk the rigidity and hegemony of a static whole, whether it is represented as an Empire or as a psychoanalytical authority or as God. What Lessing endorses is a dynamic cosmos undergoing continual adjustment and readjustment: “This is a catastrophic universe, always; and subject to sudden reversals” (Shikasta 4). The transgression of the boundaries and the refusal to abide by teleology subvert the concept of wholeness. What Lessing has in mind is not a static utopia but a utopia on the move. It is a chaosmos of cosmic evolution. Nevertheless, cosmic evolution is not accomplished in a vacuum, where actual socio-political affairs are eradicated. Lessing’s depiction of a virtual chaosmos incorporates both the virtual and the actual. Virtual cosmic evolution is accomplished, not because of the elimination of actual socio-political embeddedness, but because of Lessing’s incorporation of the incompossible, divergent socio-political elements. In Shikasta, through depicting the virtual galactic messenger (Johor), the mutating Survivors, the expanding city, and the evolving archival cosmic memory, Lessing shows us the evolving chaosmos and the potential of a reciprocal cross-fertilization between dystopian Shikasta and utopian Canopus, between Shikastans’ personal, earthbound, inner space vision and Canopus’s impersonal, cosmic, outer-space vision. Lessing’s new vision of cosmic evolution, as rendered in Shikasta in particular and 15.

(28) the outer-space series in general, is thus very different from her anti-colonial and anti-totalitarian stance in her earlier novels. Right from The Grass is Singing, her first novel, Lessing has tackled political dilemmas and polemics in order to change the global phenomenon of inequality or totalitarianism. However, from Shikasta onward, she portrays a utopian cosmos in which the colonized is subsumed under the colonizer, the galactic Empire, and its cosmic Master Plan. Many readers have balked at this seemingly drastic change in political stance and style, disappointed that, starting with Shikasta, Lessing no longer primarily explores the possibilities of individual freedom or escape through psychological subtlety and complexity of schizophrenic characters but, instead, portrays a cosmos in which planets as well as individuals should follow the god-like cosmic force. Mona Knapp observes the transition and posits that “Shikasta requires its figures to bow to authority, as Rachel, Ben, and hundreds of disciples blindly obey George, and as Canopean emissaries obediently carry out their orders. In short, this and the following volumes of Canopus depict totalitarian systems but neglect to question the premises on which they operate” (Doris Lessing 139). Many critics, reading Lessing’s claim in Shikasta, allege that she supports monarchy and benevolent dictatorship. Although Lessing still attacks the colonizing force by exposing how the colonized are manipulated and exploited, it cannot be denied that, in Shikasta, the ideal relationship between the two planets, Canopus and Shikasta, is depicted as a hierarchical, colonial structure. The submission to the cosmic force, represented by Canopus, is always in the Canopean cosmic plan because the colonized, the individual, is expected to follow autonomously such totalitarian forces as the cosmic Master Plan and Necessity (Cosmic Necessity), which guarantee the harmony and survival of the whole galaxy. Regarding Lessing’s later works, her “outer-space” series, critics’ accusations of colonialism/totalitarianism are actually well founded. Indeed, she does spotlight the 16.

(29) colonizing power/totalitarian force rather than the colonized or the individual. While Lessing’s earlier novels endorse anti-colonialism, in Shikasta, her appropriation of the utopian motif enables her to follow and transcend the “I-We” dilemma, the dilemma between individualism and collectivism or between the colonized and the colonizer in Shikasta. While individual differences do provide a way out of the dominant politico-social systems in Lessing’s earlier novels, in Shikasta, individualism is rendered as a kind of disease. Not that she now portrays individualism as pure evil, but, rather, for her, individual differences can no longer provide escape from social or political domination. Lessing’s virtual Chaosmos surpasses the politically antagonistic relationship between the individual and the collective or that between the colonized and the colonizer. Now each term in the antagonistic relationship becomes a dynamic part in the dynamic whole.. The Virtual Chaosmos in Shikasta. Lessing’s concept of the utopia is not a static one that subsumes everything under a unity; instead, she invents a new cosmos where the interactions between the colonizer planet Canopus and the colonized planet Shikasta, between the long view of cosmic evolution and the partial view of socio-political embeddedness, between the utopian inspiration and the entropic dystopia, invigorate and transform the whole cosmos, which in turn revitalizes and renovates various beings in the cosmos. Various beings and existences interconnect and cooperate in triggering the comic evolution of a virtuala chaosmos. In Shikasta, Johor explains this interconnectedness: “We are all creatures of the stars and their forces, they make us, we make them, we are part of a dance from which we by no means and not ever may consider ourselves separate” (28). What Kassim 17.

(30) designates as “we” epitomizes the whole, covering the interrelationship between different planets and different beings. Deleuze’s idea of the “virtual” can help us understand how a chaosmos is always in movement and involves the interrelationship among various beings. According to Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus, the “plane of organization” always tries to plug the lines of flight or re-stratify the movements of de-territorialization while the “plane of immanence” is constantly striving to extricate itself from the plane of organization (270). The plane of immanence cuts across or intersects multiple forms with different dimensions and brings into coexistence the heterogeneous elements it cuts across. It seems that the plane of organization is detrimental so that it should be avoided, and conversely the plane of immanence liberates us from the plane of organization. However, if we pay more attention to Deleuze and Guattari’s subtle handling of the two planes, we can see the danger of prioritizing either side of the dichotomy since total immersion in the plane of immanence might lead to “a pure plane of abolition or death” (270), while relentless rush to the plane of organization will probably result in lethargy. To modify the tendency to go to extremes, they propose an eclectic way to deal with the two planes. After elucidating the characteristics and complexity of the two planes, they ask whether it is necessary to operate in a minimum of strata so as to extract materials, affects, and assemblages (A Thousand Plateaus 270). The tension and reciprocity among the actual, transcendental, colonial plan(e) and the virtual, immanent cosmic forces, the Lock and SOWF, in Shikasta can be explained with Deleuze’s topography of the world: vacillation between the plane of organization, related to utopias of transcendence, and the plane of immanence, related to utopias of immanence, maps out the interminable trajectory of return and flight. Significantly, it is never a one-way movement but, rather, an incessant cyclical movement. The movement 18.

(31) from the striated plane of development to the smooth plane of consistency is free flowing rather than fixed. This oscillation explains the movement between the actual and the virtual regarding identity, space, and time in Shikasta. The dynamic structure cannot be orchestrated into an orderly, comprehensible, static picture, but, rather, a vividly dynamic cosmic choreography dazzling us with its mercurial metamorphosis and infinite potential. Since Lessing and Deleuze are aware of limitations in grasping the vitality of the virtual, their endeavors to portray it deserve a close examination. My dissertation shows how Deleuze’s theory of the virtual illuminates Lessing’s virtual chaosmos of symbiotic evolution, triggered by the dynamic movement between utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta discussed above.. Purpose of the Study. To date, there has been relatively little research conducted on Lessing’s Shikasta compared to the voluminous criticism of Lessing’s previous works, especially her masterpiece, The Golden Notebook. Her attempt to escape from the contemporary dilemma of geopolitics through delineation of a virtual chaosmos of symbiotic evolution is downplayed by many critics as a regressive, treacherous act. In my reading, what Lessing reveals through her visionary leap into outer-space fiction is the creation of a virtual chaosmos that evolves along with the galactic messenger, the Survivors, the cities, the cosmic forces (SOWF and the Lock), and the cosmic Archive. Lessing depicts the possibility of a new, virtual world beyond our material world: “Look, look, quick!—behind the seethe and scramble and eating that is one truth, and behind the ordinary tree-in-autumn that is the other—a third, a tree of a fine, high, shimmering light, like shaped sunlight. A world, a world, another world” (Shikasta 133). This “another 19.

(32) world” is a virtual world where the interactions between the part and the whole, between the individual and the collective, between the partial view of socio-political embeddedness and the long view of cosmic evolution, are renewed by the utopia of cosmic evolution. For Lessing, this chaosmos of cosmic evolution is virtual, creating new dichotomies, not by eliminating old ones, but by incorporating their divergences. This new world is never static but dynamic and ever-developing. It is a world of continual becoming, where dichotomies are transformed into the functioning multiplicity that recognizes them, fuels their conflicts, allows them to interact in a dynamic chaosmos rather than to battle for superiority, and thereby propels cosmic evolution. Lessing designs this virtual, evolving chaosmos so as to transcend the differentiating binary systems of individual versus collective, the partial view of socio-political embeddedness and the long view of cosmic evolution, human versus nonhuman, inner psychology versus outer space, psychological time versus cosmic time, and colonial versus anti-colonial. My dissertation examines how, in Shikasta, Lessing, via the depiction of utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta, creates a virtual chaosmos that triggers cosmic evolution, in which the map can be redrawn of a new city, a new species, a new world order, and a new history. Deleuze’s theory of the virtual, which includes his ideas of individuation, becoming, percept, affect, chaosmos, and memory, helps me understand this ever-evolving chaosmos where the part and the whole become inter-related. A Deleuzian reading of Lessing’s Shikasta enables me to make sense of Lessing’s world picture, her virtual chaosmos, with its virtual galactic messenger, cosmic forces, evolving cities, mutating Survivors, and cosmic memories, as portrayed in Shikasta. The virtual is different from the actual in that it exceeds consciousness, identity, or unity. 20.

(33) Simon O’Sullivan, in Art Encounters Deleuze and Guattari, proposes that “the virtual ‘designates a pure multiplicity’ which as such ‘radically excludes the identical as a prior condition’” (211-12). The virtual is undifferentiated difference that is constantly escaping from the hegemony of self-same identity. O’Sullivan goes on to describe the difference between the pairs of real/possible and virtual/actual: “The virtual then names a real place but one which has yet to be actualized. Whereas the real and the possible instigate a philosophy of transcendence, the virtual and the actual affirm immanence” (103). The virtual is potential and waits for actualization while the real and the possible designate the establishment of a concrete institution or identity. The former abides by “a logic of becoming (ontology of process),” which is related to utopias of immanence, while the latter abides by “a logic of Being (ontology of genesis),” which is associated with utopias of transcendence (103). Lessing establishes in her space fiction, Shikasta in particular, a virtual chaosmos that will mutate and evolve by incorporating the divergent and conflicting fates of planets and individuals. The evolving chaosmos is closely related to Deleuze’s concept of utopia of immanence and his theory of the virtual since the dynamic cosmos is always differential and interacts with the actual. In the world Lessing now envisions, we still see the individualism, colonialism, and political hegemony of our own contemporary world, but with a twist: Lessing addresses our present-day geopolitical world from a new, cosmic perspective, so that our present-day political struggles are now seen as a single, tiny part of, or stage in, a much vaster process of cosmic evolution. She no longer renders the cosmos as mere background. She foregrounds it as an impersonal web of forces where free-flowing information and ideas are shared. We are now shown that all of our binary systems and our rigid oppositions can and will eventually enrich the complexity of the chaosmos and propel cosmic evolution rather than impede it. 21.

(34) In Shikasta, in order to create a new chaosmos envisioned from the perspective of cosmic evolution, Lessing employs special narrative structures, components, and techniques, including galactic messengers, mutants (the Survivors), a cosmic Master Plan, the cosmic forces (SOWF and the Lock), evolving cities, and a cosmic archive. Indeed “space fiction” is an excellent genre for exploration of cosmic evolution. I choose not to focus on the elements of space fiction (science fiction) per se, but rather on the relationship of such elements to Lessing’s vision of this new, ever-evolving “virtual” utopia.. Lessing’s Vision of a Chaosmos Seen through a Deleuzian Lens. Why do I embrace the relationship of the part and the whole, instead of that between the colonized and the colonizer or that between the individual and the collective, to account for Lessing’s depiction of a new totalitarian/colonizing system in her space fiction? Yes, her primary concern in her earlier works is the conflict between the individual and the collective. But in Shikasta, her vision of the virtual chaosmos enables her to transcend that conflict. While her earlier novels feature a manifestly anti-colonialist stance, her outer-space series highlights a colonizer planet, Canopus, which is responsible for cosmic evolution. How then can/does Lessing reconcile the antagonistic relationship between the colonizer and colonized so as to trigger cosmic evolution? In Shikasta, the colonizer and the colonized are not opposed but play different, interacting roles in the same chaosmos of cosmic evolution. Neither the traditional division between the individual and the collective nor that between the colonized and the colonizer can help illuminate, except as background, the new cosmic relationships in Shikasta. In Lessing’s earlier novels, the entities in conflict are mutually exclusive dichotomies. From Shikasta 22.

(35) forward, utopia and dystopia are no longer separate entities but are mutually implicated with each other, rendering the utopian chaosmos dynamic, metastable, ever-becoming, without pre-established teleology. What Lessing envisions in Shikasta is no longer the politically antagonistic relationship between the individual and the collective or that between the colonizer and the colonized. Now the hierarchical relationship of the individual and the collective is replaced by symbiosis of the parts and the whole, as shown by the virtual messengers, the mutating Survivors, the expanding cities, and the evolving archive. In Shikasta, instead of depicting the power of the heroic individual to make a difference in the dominating social or political system, as in her earlier novels, why does Lessing spotlight colonial or totalitarian power, as represented by the cosmic Empire, and seemingly exile individual difference to the shadows? While Lessing’s earlier novels endorse anti-colonialism, why do her later works seemingly support a colonial or even an imperialistic system, to be administered by the Empire of Canopus, signifying the collective fate of the whole cosmos? In light of the virtual chaosmos, other questions arise: How can the colonial relationship help to trigger the cosmic evolution of a virtual chaosmos depicted in Shikasta instead of impeding its evolution? Is Shikasta indicating a return to the colonial system or a new cartography that needs the depiction of utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta to see its twist? Deleuze’s concept of the virtual helps us see how the depiction of utopian Canopus and dystopian Shikasta works in the oscillation between the actual partial view that is conditioned by political dichotomies and the virtual, cosmic view that envisions cosmic evolution and, most importantly, how the utopian/dystopian cosmos can be transformed into a chaosmos of multiplicity, where the divergent and incompossible elements, instead of being eradicated for the purpose of upholding Canopus’ cosmic Master Plan, are incorporated and reconceived in the system 23.

(36) and where the infinite speed and recomposition replace the per-established harmony. Lessing’s creation of a virtual chaosmos of symbiotic evolution is made possible by the virtual galactic messenger, the mutating Survivors, the cosmic forces such as SOWF and the Lock, and the cosmic memory. The process can best be explained using Deleuze’s theory of the “virtual,” which helps me grasp the trans-individual and even trans-organic aspects by showing how the “virtual” galactic messenger, the “virtual” mutating Survivors, the “virtual” cosmic forces, and the “virtual’ cosmic memory contribute to “real” cosmic evolution, which is beyond the “actual” world of dichotomies. Both Lessing and Deleuze reconfigure the concept of the individual, who oscillates between going to dissolution and keeping a certain identity. That is why application of Deleuze’s theory aptly illuminates Lessing’s portrayal of the unique galactic messenger, Johor. Deleuze’s theory of individuation involves how, on the one hand, the individual is able to precede the species because the individual here is not an actual “subject” but a “virtual” contingent being that serves as a part of coexisting Ideas. The virtual individual is connected with other Ideas so that s/he can transform the contour of the Virtual Coexisting Ideas while the individual and the species are actualized. On the other hand, a particular grain, an actual individual, is able to influence the Virtual Coexisting Ideas because each contributes to virtual Ideas. Thus, the virtual individual can precede and influence the constitution of the species and the actual individual, and the actual individual can also change the contour of the species by instilling new elements into the Virtual Coexisting Ideas. A consideration of the individual’s twofold dimensions in Deleuze’s theories helps me explicate Lessing’s delineation of a new galactic messenger, Johor, who oscillates between the realm of virtual and that of the actual so as to revise the cosmic Master Plan, connects to the cosmic force, SOWF, and thus triggers cosmic evolution. 24.

(37) In Chapter One, I examine how Johor can simultaneously follow and precede the cosmic Master Plan set up for the functioning of the Empire of Canopus. The conflict between the utopian aspiration of Canopus and the dystopian degeneration of Shikasta is revealed through Johor’s oscillation between the actual cosmic plan and virtual cosmic forces (the Lock and SOWF) as well as between the actual manifestation of Johor as George Sherban, conditioned by the geopolitical situation and Johor, who tilts toward the virtual because of his connection with the virtual cosmic forces so that he can revise the cosmic plan and thereby trigger cosmic evolution. Through Johor’s multiple identities, the paradoxical relationship between the individual and the empire can be manifested and the emergence of a virtual chaosmos is made possible. Deleuze’s theory of individuation explains how the individual (Johor) precedes the species and determines the evolutionary trajectory of the species when he seems to follow the rules of the species. Individuation, the double movement of differentiation/differenciation, solves the conundrum that the individual paradoxically precedes the species, on the one hand, and follows the cosmic Master Plan of the species, on the other hand, since the individual embodies two entities at the same time: the virtual individual and the actual individual. The individual is not confined in a specific species, but virtually transcends different species such as stones, plants, insects, animals, and human beings because the virtual state helps him or her to be linked to all beings. In this way, the virtual coexistence of different beings, including individuals, enables the “virtual” individual to reconnect with the cosmic forces, SOWF and the Lock. In Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition: Introduction and Guide, William James proposes that individuals will never be considered members of a species; instead, “they cross species and are a condition for the emergence of species through a process that Deleuze calls indi-drama-different/citation” (189). The process from the virtual to the actual is revealed 25.

(38) as that from differentiation to individuation to dramatization and to differenciation.. Concept Actual. Differentiation Individuation Dramatization. Virtual. Differenciation. Table 0.2: The concept of indi-drama-different/citation. Individuation possesses both virtual and actual sides. The return to the virtual is an act of “differentiation,” as Deleuze terms it, while the flight to the actual is “differenciation.” On the one hand, Johor encounters the virtual intensities that trigger transformation of differential relations within virtual matter. On the other hand, Johor’s virtual intensities, or, rather, the intensities in relation to virtual Johor, have to be incarnated in qualities and extensities and manifest themselves through the actualized individual, George Sherban. The virtual aspect of Johor, determines the trajectory of the species while his actualized counterpart, George, follows the rules of the species set by Canopus and lays bare the cracks in the system. Johor, in his virtual aspect, reveals how the virtual individual precedes the actual species and how the actual cosmic Master Plan has to be redirected and re-implemented by the virtual cosmic forces, SOWF and the Lock. On the one hand, Johor, in his virtual aspect, is analogous to a crystal, referring to the larval, embryonic state of life. On the other hand, Johor, actualized as a Shikastan, George Sherban, is attached to the cosmic Master Plan and the extensities such as stellar alignments, architectural structures, and individual temperaments. Deleuze’s theory of individuation helps to reconcile the paradoxical relationship 26.