Abstract

Using the framework of Hegelian dialectic to understand the author Ursula K. Le Guin and her science fiction novel The Left Hand of Darkness, connections can be drawn to the gender hierarchy in society. Through analysis of the novel’s language, the history of the First and Second Waves of Feminism, and Hegel’s dialectic, I was able to conclude that a society without traditional gender hierarchy can be successful, peaceful, and prosperous. Such a society, as is conceptualized in The Left Hand of Darkness, can be used to rethink our society’s harmful gendered hierarchy. This research offers a shift in traditional binary thinking to highlight a diverse perspective of the framework and narrative through which one views their own life.

Introduction

A popular science fiction novel, The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin is a revolutionary tale on gender written in a time of Second Wave American feminism in the 1960s. The novel is an early attempt at exploring the possibility of a society not defined by its own social hierarchies. Through understanding the historical period, the author, and the content of the novel, one can begin to understand the ideological shift needed for change to occur on a broad societal scale. Looking beyond the concept of gender itself, I will explore the notion of The Left Hand of Darkness as a classic Hegelian novel and of Le Guin as being a classic Hegelian thinker. In exploring these ideas, one can consider the relationship of Hegel’s dialectic thinking to feminism, Ursula K. Le Guin, and the effectiveness of The Left Hand of Darkness in questioning the worth of gender binary in creating a peaceful, unified society.

A revolutionary of her time, Ursula K. Le Guin published the science fiction novel The Left Hand of Darkness in 1969. In the mid to late 1960s, literature exploring the controversial ideas of feminism and gender was relatively rare. Literature of this time did not explore the realms of what was possible in a society that had been so characterized by a binary, heteronormative view of gender and its function, or, in other words, a society shaped by heterosexual relationships and clear divisions between male and female gender. Le Guin played a role in shifting this narrative with her science fiction novel. In The Left Hand of Darkness, she explores what a society lacking in gender binary might look like – whether it could be more successful, more adept at peace and unity, than a society in which gender hierarchy defines life. Through a comparison of the novel’s alien character, Genly Ai, and his journey to become recognized as a fellow creature worthy of attention, the novel’s journey can be used to rethink the notions of acceptance in society today.

First Wave of Feminism

To begin making sense of the issues being dealt with in the novel, it is first necessary to understand the historical context of feminist movements in the United States. The First Wave of Feminism took place in the 19th and late 20th centuries, with goals of gaining social and constitutional rights to put women on equal ground with men. Most notably, the First Wave of Feminism achieved passing the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, allowing women the right to vote in U.S. politics. While this was a big win for women at the time, it still was an unequal win and a wholly unequal movement. In large part, feminist work of this time centered around the rights of “white, Western, middle-class women,” at the exclusion of most others [2]. Furthermore, women were not seeking to leave behind the binary-gender, unequal state of American social hierarchy. In keeping with the status quo, the patriarchal system of binary gender was widely seen as adequate and even desired to maintain order and function within society. As history progressed, however, women sought to gain more rights and more recognition for their role in the home and in the workplace [3]. However, this was still not a push for equality between genders or an abolishment of the gendered system itself, but it was a way women could move around more easily and visibly within their seemingly designated roles in society. The move towards this way of thinking eventually erupted into the Second Wave of Feminism, which began in the 1960s.

Second Wave of Feminism

Ursula K. Le Guin was a product of the Second Wave of Feminism. This was a political movement of recognition, acceptance, and integration of women into the general affairs of society. Previously, women had been viewed as mothers, as housewives: as a role to fulfill and play. Feminist movements sought to have women recognized for their physically laborious housework, the emotional labor of their marriages and childrearing, and their unequal place in the workforce [3, 4]. In Le Guin’s surroundings, white middle-class women were fighting for equality in the workforce, equal pay, and to be recognized as more than just a “reproductive creature” to be used by men [3]. It is from this period and from this perspective that Le Guin wrote her science fiction tale of gender and of the journey towards recognition and acceptance of an alien species of people. The parallels between the feminist movement of her time and the depictions of gender in the story are remarkable. As the main character, an alien creature to the Gethenian people, Genly Ai’s journey of acceptance by the society and his subsequent push for the joining of a confederation of planets mirrors the feminist movement. His journey was similar in its move for recognition, acceptance, and social integration.

Diversity in Feminist Movements

While the Second Wave of Feminism was far more successful than the First Wave in creating awareness for women’s issues and removing women from their silent jobs as mothers and houseworkers, the movement did have faults. Feminist activism of the 1960s was essentially feminism fought for the white, middle-class, educated woman [2]. Additionally, the movement mainly focused on women who were married to men and who had children of their own. The Second Wave did not consider women of any other race, sexual orientation, or marital status. In fact, those women were still pushed out of any attempt to participate in sit-ins or protests to further the feminist agenda [5]. Beyond just the comparisons of the Second Wave of Feminism and the novel itself, feminism of the ‘60s had faults that feminists of today have continued to address.

This knowledge prompts readers to question the diversity of these movements. Since the Second Wave, women who have not fit into these limited social categories have often been excluded and even harmed by the feminist movements themselves. Where could every other woman who did not and does not meet this image fit into society? Where could such a woman find support, encouragement, and solidarity in community? The feminist movements of today seek to rectify and answer these questions. A study conducted at the University of Michigan found that intersectional invisibility harms already marginalized Black women in a two-fold manner, finding themselves at the intersection of racism and sexism [5]. In another show of the current feminist issues, transgender women, or women assigned male at birth, also find themselves in the crosshairs of inequality. To reconcile the issue of women’s rights for trans women, Emi Koyama, a social justice activist, seeks a solution in transfeminism. She sees the transfeminist movement as a “movement by and for trans women who see their liberation to be intrinsically linked to all women and beyond” [6]. Representing only two such perspectives, questions of feminism are clearly at odds with each other, with the movements themselves, and with the general attitudes of Western societies.

The Left Hand of Darkness

In attempting to decipher such a complex issue, Ursula K. Le Guin offers a novel shift in thinking. In her book, Le Guin presents a society unmarred by the complexities of gender, by the constant push and pull that Western societies face in the movement towards liberation and freedom for men and women. Le Guin offers a thought experiment, a proposed idea or solution to the issue of gender in a patriarchal world. In essence, she asks: in a world plagued by the scars of patriarchal history and present-day traumas, how might society look if gender being defined as Man versus Woman was removed from the equation and replaced by a society where gender existed as Ambisexuality, as a totality of both and neither gender? This question is exactly what lays the foundation for Gethenian society and its ambisexual people.

In the fictional society on the planet Gethen depicted in the novel, male and female do still exist as conceptual ideas, appearing relevant for short times. In general, however, the Gethenian people live in a sexless and genderless state, called somer, in which they are “sexually inactive, latent.” Every 22 or 23 days, however, during the period of kemmer, sexual potency comes alive. As it is described, “the sexual impulse is tremendously strong in this phase, controlling the entire personality, subjecting all other drives to its imperative” [1, pp. 96-97]. A Gethenian has an equal chance of being a Man or a Woman, mostly in the sense of genitalia rather than in behavior. While binary gender does exist during this short period, one can argue that it is not entirely binary, given that each individual has an equal chance of being either gender at any given period of time. In their notes on Gethenian sex, Ekumenical researcher Ong Tot Oppong writes, “Normal individuals have no predisposition to either sexual role in kemmer; they do not know whether they will be the male or the female, and have no choice in the matter.” Oppong further points out that much leeway and freedom is given to Gethenians during the period of kemmer. It is a time of intense sexual, emotional, and physical relationship with others. It is also the time when pregnancy may occur for any Gethenian if they are given the female sex organs. This being the case, all have equal leniency in work, responsibility, and life, a leniency not afforded to pregnant mothers in our Western society [1, p. 99]. Le Guin shows Gethenian life as such:

“The fact that everyone between seventeen and thirty-five or so is liable to be ‘tied down to childbearing,’ implies that no one is quite so thoroughly ‘tied down’ here as women, elsewhere, are likely to be – psychologically or physically. Burdens and privilege are shared out pretty equally, everybody has the same risk to run or choice to make.

Therefore, nobody here is quite so free as a free male anywhere else.” [1, p. 100]

Because all Gethenian people exist free of desire for sexual interaction during most of their lives, they live with intense focus and goal-oriented behavior. They are not distracted by desire, by emotions, by the push and pull of a gendered experience. Life on Gethen is peaceful, is fair, is equal in its inequality. Gethenians prioritize work, compliance, and survival in their everyday lives. Sexual escapades and the mental distractions of desire have no interference in the general order of life.

If it is the case that Gethenian society is generally a peaceful place to live and its people do not suffer the usual fate of gendered hierarchical society, one must consider the relationship of these two factors. Without the pressures of gender, of patriarchal control, life appears far simpler and more peaceful. Death and punishment for crimes are left up to nature. Without the biological urge to procreate, to constantly seek sexual partners, life is focused and equal. In their comical quip, Oppong exclaims, “One is respected and judged only as a human being. It is an appalling experience” [1, p. 101]. Our society is vastly different – different in the sense that personal judgement comes from the perceived ability to parent, one’s financial accomplishments, and the ability to meet the unfair expectations that a binary gendered society places upon its members. If such respect and peace is the case on the fictional planet of Gethen, can this idea be extended to the reality of life on Earth – to life in a society centered around the inequalities and expected roles of gendered hierarchy?

Hegelian Dialectic

To answer such a question, one must understand and use the principle of Hegelian dialectic. Classic Hegelian writing can be viewed through a trinomial lens – a three-part perspective melding oppositional ideas into a cohesive third conclusion. This idea of thinking in threes is commonly called dialectic. In essence, dialectical thinking is a contradictory process of opposing sides, of viewing opposite sides of an issue. Other dialectic methods of thought can commonly lead to a philosophical standstill, making it impossible to form a conclusion based on the oppositional ideas and viewpoints. This leads to either a skepticism of the issues themselves or a sense of nothingness – a giving up in the face of seemingly no conclusion. Hegel shifted the common two-sided viewpoint to include a third component in his three-part philosophical perspective. In his view, there are two opposing viewpoints, called “thesis” and “antithesis.” The thesis is an intellectual proposition, while the antithesis is the negation of the thesis, or the disbelief in the commonly held belief. To come to terms with these oppositional ideas, Hegel introduces synthesis, a third component unifying the oppositional ideas into a new perspective. To Hegel, the dialectic process creates a “new concept but one higher and richer than the preceding—richer because it negates or opposes the preceding and therefore contains it, and it contains even more than that, for it is the unity of itself and its opposite” [7]. In this sense, Hegelian dialectic is a philosophical framework allowing for the eventual synthesis of ideas into the creation of something new, rich, and intellectually gratifying.

It is with this understanding of the Hegelian dialectic that one can begin to answer broad questions of meaning. As a framework of thinking, Hegel’s dialectic allows for the understanding of gender though the framework of a synthesis. Gender, in this case, can be thought of as a “What if?” question framed through three parts. What if Man versus Woman, as is seen in a gendered binary, takes second place to the synthetic notion of a comprehensive Ambisexual state, as seen in the novel? As a synthetic idea, an ambisexual state can be viewed as a bisexuality, or attraction to both genders; as a sexual ambiguity; and/or as unisex, or suitable for both Man and Woman [8]. In this way, ambisexuality is not a negation of gendered binary, but is a state of totality, encompassing the binary into a unified third, or a synthesis. It is this synthesis that allows for the consideration of whether a gendered framework in society is needed or beneficial. Readers might wonder what goal the gender binary serves in a society of vastly diverse people. Thinking through Hegel, the answer to this appears to be that the idea of Man versus Woman is itself a social construct offering little value to the real picture of society.

In comparing the Gethenian ambisexuality and the world where Genly Ai comes from, with its gendered hierarchy, Ai contemplates the significance of the gender binary. In this comparison, he comes upon a conundrum of questioning the dualities themselves. As Ai says:

“I suppose the most important thing, the heaviest single factor in one’s life, is whether one’s born male or female. In most societies it determines one’s expectations, activities, outlook, ethics, manners – almost everything. Vocabulary. Semiotic usages. Clothing.

Even food. … It’s extremely hard to separate the innate differences from the learned ones. Even when women participate equally with men in the society, they still after all do all the childbearing, and so most of the child-rearing… But it isn’t that they’re stupid.

Physically they’re less muscular, but a little more durable than men.” [1, pp. 252-253]

It is with this thought that readers see the issues of a binary logic. As Ai explains the ways in which gender is performed in his world, he appears to question why roles are divided as they are. In his reasoning, males and females mainly differ on the expectations put upon them by the gendered society in which they live, rather than by any inherent difference. As Ai considers the gendered characters in his society, he comes to question why the hierarchy exists and what function it is designed to play. If Ai can start to question this inequality and way of life, can the notion be extended and applied to human life?

Finding the Connections

Consider for a moment that Le Guin wrote her novel as a science fiction set in a fictitious place far away from the current realities of human society. Science fiction allows for the writing of nearly any ideas, framed in whatever manner, whether somewhat close to reality or completely imagined and impossible. To draw the bridge between this fiction and any real-life application is best done with Hegel’s dialectic. Without the framework of Hegelian thought, it would be difficult to determine the conclusion that a third alternative of ambisexuality does, in fact, offer a richer existence than the current state of society, in which life is centered on the binary of gender.

The importance and relevance of the relationship of Hegel to a science fiction novel should be thus considered. According to some, such a question and its resulting answer are of little importance. Why consider a science fiction novel with its fictitious problems when people today struggle with real issues? Society today, as was the case throughout history, struggles with hierarchies, including hierarchies of gender, race, social status, and income, to name a few. Why, then, is it important to consider a made-up world and its made-up problems? To answer this question, readers must consider Le Guin’s own words. In an interview, Le Guin pointed out that she had no intention of her novel ever being a model for which people might want to follow.

Rather, she had intended for the tale to be a thought experiment, a method through which to view a particular issue affecting real people in the real world. Le Guin explains, “Everybody was asking: ‘What is it to be a man? What is it to be a woman?’… I eliminated gender to find out what was left” [9]. This view is not a negation of gender by a removal of the notion itself, as an antithesis would suggest; rather, this idea offers a synthesis in which the concept of a hierarchy is expanded in favor of a more equal perspective. With this knowledge, one can see how a thought experiment has great power in prompting a mindset shift. The idea of an ambisexual society, replete with its ways of life and relative peace, can be superimposed on the current gendered society on Earth. It is evident that when not confined to a binary state of existence, or a hierarchy where people are seen as lesser or greater based on their gender, a society can function in a state of relative peace. Man versus Woman is not necessary to maintain order and rule within a society. Seeing the evidence of this in a fictional novel gives an idea and a hope to those living inside the bounds of such a world. This idea can be used to implement change and action in the current binary world. What could life on Earth look like if binary gender roles were pushed aside, allowing for greater social movement within society?

Conclusion

In wrapping up a paper on the relationship of gender, Hegel, and The Left Hand of Darkness, one should consider the question: How might society look if gender as Man versus Woman was removed from the equation and replaced by a society where gender existed instead as ambisexuality, a totality of simultaneously both and neither gender? If the long-fraught history of the feminist movements in the United States is any indication, our world has struggled to make peace in an inherently unequal society, in which gender is placed on a pedestal and allows for a patriarchal system to be perpetuated. While some might consider it a far reach, Le Guin’s science fiction novel allows for a view into a theoretical possibility and somewhat abstract thinking, a thinking that allows for the use of science fiction to inform real-life understanding and action. By using the novel’s truly Hegelian dialectic reasoning, it is possible to see how a society shifted away from Man versus Woman offers an entire world of possibility as a society of ambisexuality – of both and neither. Hegelian thinking clearly opposes the negative thinking or either-or, of this-or-that. Le Guin masterfully escapes these ideas by offering her readers a synthesis of the two – an entire planet of people who are not ruled by their own binary but by the tertiary of ambisexuality. Sometimes Man, sometimes Woman, but usually what she calls “potentials, or integrals” [1, p. 101]. Thus, to answer the stated question: society without Man versus Woman could look like the Gethenian society of peace, prosperity, and justice in its equality.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express sincere gratitude to my professor and mentor, Dr. Timothy Bruno, for his guidance and encouragement throughout this writing process.

Contact: nikkikay101@gmail.com, tbruno@howardcc.edu

References

[1] U. K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Random House, 1969.

[2] M. Rampton. “Four Waves of Feminism.” Pacific University Oregon. Accessed: May 13, 2024. [Online.] Available: https://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/four-waves-feminism.

[3] C. Tsoplakis. “Comparing and contrasting the Women’s Rights Movements from the 1960’s to today.” Accessed: May 8, 2024. [Online.] Available: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://journals.psu.edu/ne/article/download/61055/60773/65765&ved=2ahUKEwju5a7-q8eFAxU1F1kFH YJ2BQoQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0jytK19O_qg_oWRXHO5uJS.

[4] “Second Wave Feminism: Collections.” Gale.com. Accessed: May 13, 2024. [Online.] Available: https://www.gale.com/primary-sources/womens-studies/collections/second-wave-feminism.

[5] S. M. Coles and J. Pasek, “Intersectional invisibility revisited: how group prototypes lead to erasure and exclusion of Black women,” Transl. Iss. In Psych. Sci., no. 6, pp. 314-324, 2020, doi: 10.1037/tps0000256.

[6] T. Bettcher, “Feminist perspectives on trans issues,” Stanf. Encycl. Philos. Accessed: Feb. 4, 2025. [Online.] Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-trans/#TowTra.

[7] E. Maybee, “Hegel’s dialectics,” Stanf. Encycl. Of Phil. Accessed: Feb. 4, 2025. [Online.] Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/#ApplHegeDialMethHisArgu.

[8] “Ambisexual.” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed: 4, 2025. [Online.] Available: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambisexual.

[9] Freedman, Conversations with Ursula K. Le Guin. Jackson, MS, USA: Univ. Press of MS, 2008, p. 99.