For some, ISIS has proven to be much more than a dangerous terrorist group. Instead, the Islamic State has functioned as a paradise for radical followers of Islamic Law, not to be confused with Muslims who are not radicalized/don’t agree with ISIS’ views. Much of ISIS’ views and beliefs completely go against what most Muslims believe and instead represents extremism at its worst. ISIS has gained much of its audience and following by promising those who wish to join a place considered to them as a sort of Muslim utopia.

ISIS’ goal is to establish a caliphate – a radical, extremist state with a supreme ruler. In order to do this, ISIS understands that it needs to supply basic services to the population and the group has begun forming an urban infrastructure around its proclaimed capital, Raqqa, in Syria. From an outside perspective, ISIS is functioning as many classic versions of dystopia do, using propaganda techniques to gain and keep support, while creating a form of Islamist totalitarianism. In essence, ISIS has created an oppressive dictatorship, especially for Shia Muslims and non-Muslims, but also for Sunni Muslims who do not agree with ISIS’ extremist views.

Despite all this, ISIS has been able to recruit Westerners from the U.S., Canada, and Europe to support their endeavors in forming the caliphate. What seems to have sparked this migration came from the Islamic State’s online magazine, with it’s theme of “A Call to Hijrah” or call to come to Muslim-controlled lands. It promises a Muslim Utopia, which adheres to its extremist version of Islamic Law. For some, like Asiya Ummi Abdullah, she doesn’t believe ISIS to be a terrorist dystopia, but instead she views it as the perfect place to raise a family. She believes the Islamic State, protects her and her son from the sex, drugs, and alcohol that she sees as rampant in her homeland of Turkey. She believes that by living under the Islamic spiritual code, her son’s spiritual life is secure, and she is unafraid of the American bombings taking place everyday.

As Americans we are lucky to live in a nation, which there is a separation of church and state, however through the practices implemented by the Islamic State, we can see what a terror of a world we may live in if controlled by extremist religious views. This leads me to worry about the men who could someday be leading our country, whose religious views may be pushing their support for things like pro-life and for not funding certain female health programs, infringing on the rights of women to their own bodies.

I would like to speak first on the idea of The Dispossessed as an “ambiguous utopia”. By any standard definition of utopia it is, a place, situated in a particular time and space, that is socially, morally, and politically ideal, versus a dystopia, which is also situated in a particular time and space, but which is socially, morally, and politically terrible, a state in which people are dehumanized, oppressed, terrorized, or completely dominated.

I think Anarres has interchangeable utopian and dystopian characteristics, and is not a true utopia or dystopia. By definition only and without much further investigation, Anarres seems to function well as a utopia, its people live in peace, they are all Odonians, they share possessions, have a functioning need-based economy, live freely, the streets and air are clean, and they have all the means to function effectively within a society, with “workshops, factories, domiciles, dormitories, learning centers, meeting halls, distributaries, depots, and refectories” (97).

The biggest dystopian aspect of Anarres is it’s landscape and setting, it is a scarce desert planet, with no trees and greenery “a color not native to Anarres” (96), all the trees and greens are brought in from Urras, and Shevek questions their extravagance and the idea of excess excrement saying, “such trees couldn’t thrive without a rich soil, constant watering, much care. He disapproved of their lavishness, their thriftlessness” (100). How can such scarcity be considered ideal?

In determining the ambiguities of Anarres as a utopia, Judah Bierman states, “to call a land without green leaf a utopia is surely to cast ambiguity…over the whole idea” (250).

On a planet whose decisions revolve around scarcity and need how can it sustain and fulfill the needs of a scientific genius, such as Shevek. “The special case of Shevek makes clear that the nurture of genius – scientific progress – requires the materials and opportunity for intercourse that come only from a supported community of science, from the leisure of plenty. There is a very real ambiguity in calling a place where genius cannot flourish an utopia” (250).

Anarres cannot be fully considered a dystopia, as it has the means to function as a society and has the institutions, both socially and morally, which work for it, however, it does not have the luxury of being able to sustain the needs of geniuses such as Shevek, as Urras does. These luxury and educational needs are excrement and there is simply not enough time, with the other needed responsibilities to put that much work into intellection.

Whereas Urras is a land of plenty, it allows Shevek to flourish as a physicist and professor, here “[students] were not blunted and distracted by a dozen other obligations. They never fell asleep in class because they were tired from having worked on rotational duty the day before” (127). Education of the Urrasti, was mostly for the aristocrats and for them, it was “a means to [an] end” (128). Which, is much different from Shevek’s love & desire of education, which on Urras he was completely free to do. However, was he freer on Anarres or on Urras? On Anarres “he had not been free from anything: only free to do anything. [On Urras], it was the other way around. Like all the student and professors, he had nothing to do but his intellectual work, literally nothing” (129). But even among the plenty, he feels as though something is lacking.

Bierman, Judah. “Ambiguity in Utopia: “the Dispossessed””. Science Fiction Studies 2.3 (1975): 249–255. Web.