Understanding Zamyatin

I would like to propose a theory based on Thursday’s discussion. I have yet to read the introduction by Mirra Gingsburg and only vaguely grasp the prominent issues in 1920’s Russia. That said, it seems to me that Zamyatin’s sociopolitical position in We is based on a belief that dictating governments cannot flourish while denying the nature of the people they govern. An argument, which when tangled with We’s plot, seems to suggest the dissenting statement: “you’ll have to lobotomize everyone if you want this type of society.”

Now perhaps it’s not everyone, but surely Zamyatin himself could be interpreted as dangerous in the One State… and in Russia (where his books were banned, following the first publication of We).

Straight from Wiki to you: "True literature can only exist when it is created, not by diligent and reliable officials, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics" -- Zamyatin

So Zamyatin unabashedly values dissent and rebellion. But when applying this knowledge to We it is unclear whether Zamyatin’s personality and approach to these values more closely identifies with D-503, I-330, or even R-13. It would be my guess that Zamyatin indentifies with all the characters in We, from the protagonist to the indistinct antagonists (at least in their intent and emotion, if not action); the conflict, miscommunication, and confusion between the characters likely reflects his own lack of answers. I think Zamyatin would humbly agree he did not have the answers, but neither did Russian leaders, or the One State.

Primitivism and Happiness

I got these definitions from the dictionary on my Apple computer…

primitivism |ˈprimətivˌizəm| |ˌprɪmɪd1ˈvɪzəm| |ˌprɪmɪtɪvɪz(ə)m|
noun
1 a belief in the value of what is simple and unsophisticated, expressed as a philosophy of life or through art or literature.
2 unsophisticated behavior that is unaffected by objective reasoning.

satire |ˈsaˌtīr| |ˌsøˈtaɪ(ə)r| |ˌsatʌɪə|
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I believe We is a satire. Therefore, Zamyatin is saying that returning to the simple ways of life is what is needed to obtain happiness, and this would be a life similar to that of the ancients, or fur people, who live outside the Green Wall. This idea is called “primitivism” and I think Zamyatin is educating the Reader of this idea. Using mathematics as a foundation for a society is satirical because it is anti-primitivism. Mathematics is a complicated subject. Nature, for example, would be much simpler.

Zamyatin is ridiculing society by showing control does not equal happiness. Control equals indifference, which is a neutral state. We discussed in class that having a lobotomy would cure someone of his or her sickness (i.e. imagination), and the person would be forever happy. It seems to be a very bizarre sense of happiness to me…

http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/finnegan/English%20251/primitivism.htm