#94 = Volume 31, Part 3 =
November 2004
Tom Moylan
Reading Utopia, Reading Utopian Readers
Kenneth Roemer. Utopian
Audiences: How Readers Locate Nowhere.
Boston: U of Massachusetts P, 2003. xiv + 295 pp. $39.95 hc.
Ken Roemer ends his meticulous and thoughtful study of utopian readers with a
fictional Afterword in which a “gathering of utopian audiences” meets at a
preview of the exhibits on utopianism curated by Gregory Claeys and Lyman Tower
Sargent at the Bibliothèque Nationale and the New York Public Library in 2000
(225). Arriving by various utopian modes (sailing ships and starships, suspended
animation and dreams), the visitors sort into several groups: “first readers,”
or the utopian authors themselves; living descendants of the authors “who shared
the legacies of their ancestors’ utopian worlds”; professional readers such as
reviewers, illustrators, critics, and scholars; activists who put utopian words
into utopian action; the 733 readers from Roemer’s own twenty-year
reader-response research; and the “implied,” “ideal,” and “competent” readers
inscribed in utopian texts by authors and scholars (225-31). The gathering opens
into the exchanges, silences, tensions, arguments—and transformations—that come
with the practice of reading utopias; but Roemer closes his account with some
observations of readerly agreements that stand as key points that run throughout
his book.
Generally, the assemblage affirms the estrangement effect that we critics
associate with the utopian reading experience, but they further observe that it
works better when mediated by a familiarity delivered by recognizable narrative
conventions (as in domestic fictions or love stories) or by characters with whom
the reader identifies. In other words, Roemer reminds us that a utopian reading
experience, and perhaps transformation, seems to work best when it is made more
comfortable, hence acceptable, in its very estrangement. Another common
understanding amongst the group is the recognition that utopian writing is
almost always hybrid, and invitingly so. With various textual ingredients
(fictions and non-fiction, maps, constitutions, reports, and multiple narrative
strategies) folding into the mix of a given text, a generous accessibility is
achieved that allows readers to cut into the utopian pie at a place, into a mode
if you will, where they find it to be most tasty and then work from there.
Finally, the gathering agrees, with notable exceptions, of course, on the power
of utopian literature to move and transform readers, even when those
transformations open into an array of directions and possibilities within what
Ursula K. Le Guin (as cited by Roemer) has called the expansive “living room” of
utopia (230). This short fantasy ends as its author looks outside the library to
the larger, general publics that have been there all along, those wider
audiences that will continue to be open to, and indeed moved by, utopian
writing.
Roemer’s Utopian Audiences is an extensively researched study
(theoretically, archivally, and ethnographically) that will change the nature of
utopian scholarship. Substantial as this study is, it comes to us in the open
and sensitive style and sensibility that infuses its closing pages. Like the
literary tradition it studies, Roemer’s work is challenging yet generous, giving
us a fresh insight into how the utopian text can change its readers and perhaps
the world.
Many of us who have followed Roemer’s work on his ongoing “utopian reader” study
and on reception and reader-response theory have been waiting for the book to
appear. We knew that it would be a major contribution to utopian studies, but
the actual work has gone beyond expectations. It has much to teach all of us,
those new to utopian studies and those who have been at it for a long time.
Utopian Audiences began in 1983, when Roemer decided to study the
responses of readers to a utopian text that has long been recognized as
generating a challenging and even personally and socially transformative
reception: Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward (1888). The decision led him
into the realm of reader-response studies, reception theory, and studies of the
book and literacy, as well as into broader cultural studies concerned with the
production and reception of books. The work of Pierre Bourdieu, Norman Holland,
David Bleich, Janice Radway, Michael Steig, and many others informed his ongoing
study. With his pragmatic choice of students as his primary research population,
he established a context in which he could carry on his research alongside his
teaching but also invite other colleagues to contribute (leading to a research
population that eventually encompassed seven US states and four countries).
Along the way, he extended his field to members of a retirement community and a
reading group. This book is the result of Roemer’s study of these 733 readers,
his strangers in a strange land, and his tracking of how readers came to locate
the nowhere of a utopian text, how they transformed it, and how they were
transformed by their readerly experience.
If publishing his account of this study, his extensive appendices of the
results, and his overview of the 733 readers were all that he gave us, Roemer’s
book would be a welcome addition to utopian reader studies. As such, his book
joins a slim but important body of volumes in an area of scholarship that many
of us talk about but never get to. Utopian Audiences joins works such as
Peter Rupert’s Reader in a Strange Land (1986) and Gary Saul Morson’s
The Boundaries of Genre (1988), and nudges studies such as Henry Jenkins’s
Textual Poachers (1992) in a new direction. Roemer takes seriously the
claims about the process of utopian reading made by scholars such as Darko Suvin,
Fredric Jameson, Marc Angenot, Kathleen Spencer, Peter Fitting, Lee Cullen
Khanna, Phillip Wegner, and many others (myself included), but he also takes the
next step into the study of how actual readers read utopias.
In opening this field of scholarly endeavor, however, Roemer not only gives us
the detailed account of his research project in the last third of the book but
also, in the first third, delineates how reader and book studies can inform the
overall study of utopian texts. In doing so, he urges us to include the reading
experience as a crucial element of utopian textuality. He offers a new way to
understand the utopian text as it is produced by its readers, and so he opens up
a new apprehension of the power of the utopian text to challenge and to
transform. Nevertheless, he carefully acknowledges the substance of the actual
text and its author and does not reduce the text to its reading-effect. Thus,
Roemer generates new coordinates for the scholarly, and readerly, location of
utopia. He changes the paradigm of utopian studies in doing so.
In this general discussion of utopias and their readers, Roemer describes the
theoretical and methodological constellation he developed to carry out this
project. Refusing a reductive approach that would privilege any one aspect of
the study of utopias over others, he develops a scholarly matrix that attends to
the practice of reading, and he does so by including considerations of the
nature of genre, the cultural production and dissemination of books, and the
historical circumstances (of the society, the text, and the author).
One of Roemer’s compelling insights comes in Chapter Two, “Documenting,
Visualizing, and Defining Utopian Reception.” In the section “Readers Defining
Utopia,” he gives his most considered account of the general conclusions of this
long-term project. He recounts many of the well-known assessments of utopian
texts that are generally shared within utopian literary studies; to these,
however, he adds his own finer, sharper, and often new commentaries. Yes, a
utopian text can “invite perceptual or even behavioral changes” in its readers
as it invites them to “visualize the nonexistent” and “transform no place into
their own someplace” (60); but Roemer’s readerly analyses give us a better sense
of how this can happen. He goes on to explore how readers work with the content
of a given text and move on a continuum of visualization and ownership that
ranges from passive reception, and even rejection, to an active role as
“co-creators, or as powerful, even dominating, transformers of the utopian
message” (62). He offers what I consider to be a valuable and fresh assessment
of utopia’s transformative potential by focusing on the reading of utopia as a
“hinge” experience as he discusses the process of readerly disruptions that lead
to readerly re-visions. While others have spoken of readerly feedback in the
process of imagining and engaging with the alternative world of the text, Roemer
gives this assertion the substance that comes with an investigation of actual
reading experiences. He takes what Jameson in “Of Islands and Trenches” (1977)
famously calls the “fruitful bewilderment” of an engagement with utopia and
traces how that response plays out in readers (11). Thus, Roemer not only
redefines the nature and function of the utopian text (67), he also gives us a
new way to work with it.
Roemer’s contribution to the utopian studies paradigm goes beyond theoretical
abstraction, for he moves into close readings of several utopian texts to make
his points (including some not usually named in the utopian canon). In the first
section of the book wherein he sets out his theoretical matrix, he develops
extended (re)readings of More’s Utopia (1516) and Le Guin’s Always
Coming Home (1985). He also works from his well-established position as a
scholar of Native American studies, offering a reading of John G. Neihardt and
Nicholas Black Elk’s Black Elk Speaks (1961) that considers Black Elk’s
own reading of this narrative and links it to the potential of reading the
entire book, but especially the “Great Vision” chapter, as an ambiguous utopia
for his immediate audience of Lakota readers, an audience that differs from the
wider range of readers of this familiar text. Roemer’s nuanced readings of these
selected texts, then, need to be noted on their own account but also in order to
grasp the substance of the general theoretical insights he has developed over
the course of this project.
Roemer does not stop, however, with his study of the 733 readers nor with his
theoretical intervention. In the middle section of the book, he steps into his
own area of expertise on the nineteenth-century utopia and discusses one of the
key utopian texts of that era—a book that was received by a range of readers who
were accordingly changed by it. Roemer’s study of Looking Backward stands as the
third element in what could really be a trilogy of monographs. While he follows
the approach used in his brief readings of Utopia, Always Coming Home,
and Black Elk Speaks, his work on Bellamy’s book extends over several
chapters. In this fuller demonstration of a reader-centered methodology, he
identifies and explores the dynamics of the several categories of readers of
which he speaks: the “first reader,” the author himself; the professional
readers (book reviewers, illustrators, scholars); and the 733 readers of his
recent study. Each of these “readers” is given a chapter that in its own way
expands our understanding of Looking Backward in particular and of the utopian
text in general. Before getting to his studies of specific readers, from Bellamy
to the 733, Roemer ensures that his readerly studies are properly placed in a
context that acknowledges the history of the period in order to understand the
political and, even more, the perceptual origins of how this text was read and
judged. He then considers the context of genre expectations that the early
readers of Bellamy would have brought to his book. Again, each of these elements
in his unfolding presentation offers an instructive model of how we might go
about incorporating reader-oriented analysis into our studies of utopian works.
In Chapter Three, “Perceptual Origins: Preparing American Readers to See
Utopia,” Roemer goes beyond any notion of the reader simply “creating” a text by
developing his analysis of how readers are already socially constructed before
they come to the text. Recognizing how little work in this regard has been done
in relation to the scholarship on Looking Backward, and endeavoring to
look beyond “traditional cause-and-effect studies of utopian literature,” he
draws on cultural studies of the reader-as-subject and of the production and
reception of the book to determine how American readers of the 1880s came to see
Bellamy’s book as a utopia, so as better to understand “why utopian fiction
became highly visible for thousands of Americans” (72). He describes the
historical and political context and establishes the period as one of disruption
and change; but—rather than simply noting that these circumstances “provided
familiar topics that would both ground and energize utopian narratives”—he goes
on to argue that they helped readers to be open to “the meaningfulness and
usefulness of a literature that viewed the world as a cruel and senseless
collage of contrasts—contrasts that spoke urgently for orderly resolutions to
contemporary problems” (74). Thus, he traces how readers came to regard
Bellamy’s book as a hopeful, transformative text, one that led to the formation
of the many Bellamy Clubs and Nationalist Clubs that engaged in immediate
political action at the time. Roemer does not stop there; for in the rest of the
chapter he looks at how an “interpretive community” of new “utopian” readers
grew out of the context of the development of Bellamy’s book as a major source
of ideas, morals, and values in this period (to situate the power of didactic
fiction), out of the interpellative mechanisms of middle-class value systems (to
mark the tension between such values and the realm of utopian values), and out
of American and European attitudes that fed into the conceptualization of what
was to be increasingly seen as “utopian” writing. The chapter is a useful study,
again one that constitutes a valuable contribution on its own, as it
demonstrates how a book came to be read as a utopian book and to work as a
transformative text at a specific historical moment.
Following this chapter, Roemer makes another contribution to our general
understanding of utopian texts in Chapter Four, “The Literary Domestication of
Utopia,” as he argues that the highly popular nineteenth-century genre of
domestic or sentimental fiction provided a nurturing ground for what was to
become utopian fiction. By reading utopias in light of their hybrid
inter-relationship with a genre not usually associated with them, he gives us a
new sense of the nature and value of each fictional mode. This reconsideration
of the literary conventions of domestic/sentimental writing gives Roemer a way
to evaluate how utopian fiction was taken up by its readers, showing us how the
sentimental or domestic elements within Looking Backward (e.g., the love
story, the evocation of the coziness of home, the sentimental heroine, the
androgynous narrator, the moral didacticism) enhanced the text’s utopian
function as they invited readers “to read their worlds as continuations of the
narratives and, empowered with the right feelings, to articulate their readings
in acts as private as helping orphans or warning young women about untrustworthy
men, or as public as joining temperance or abolitionist groups” (97). Indeed, it
is in this chapter that Roemer best illustrates his argument that the utopian
(and science fictional?) estrangement effect requires a textual machinery of
familiarity and invitation/involvement to establish a rapport with readers that
could take them through their estranged reading of the strange new world to a
readerly position of overt response and even action.
Finally, in Chapter Five, “Getting Beyond Stasis,” Roemer takes on one of the
most negative readings of utopias: namely, the anti-utopian judgment that
utopias are static assertions of a so-called “perfect” society. In doing so, he
works both with and against “anti-utopian readers” as he contends with their
dismissal and seeks to understand how it is that utopian texts generate and
invite a more active quality of expression and reception than the anti-utopian
judgment would grant. He works from a study of utopian content and its implied
readers (in the sort of work many of us do), yet he goes on to focus on the
practice of reading utopia as an exposé that moves under or through any possible
conclusion of textual stasis and uncovers, as in Ernst Bloch’s writings, a
forward-looking utopian core. Thus, he advocates the need to move beyond a
reading of content to an examination of the “reading connections, styles and
structures” to see “how and why actual readers have accepted or rejected the
socioeconomic and stylistic invitations of utopian texts” (120). As he begins
his extended discussion of Looking Backward in this chapter, he again
takes us beyond what has too often become a reductive analysis based only on
content or the judgments of an implied reader. Certainly, the text’s content and
its network of implied readerly invitations need to be part of the critical
project; but also the “real” readers need to be brought into the picture, and
indeed given a central role in this work. With this framework, Roemer commences
his study of Looking Backward as he turns to an analysis of Bellamy as
the “first” reader of his utopia. It is this demonstration that gives us another
of Roemer’s insights (however important it is to the book’s section on
Looking Backward), as he concludes that the
best way to get beyond reductive notions of stasis and dynamism in ... any
literary utopia, would be to use all three perspectives [on the text’s content,
on its implied readers, and on its actual readers] in an attempt to imagine
readers who could experience a literary utopia as a discovered model and as a
network of invitations and as a life experience that transforms the world into a
potentially utopian text. (136)
For me, one of the most intriguing sections of Roemer’s book comes in the
last chapter, when, in the course of his discussion of his 733 readers, he
measures the “Distances Between Here and Utopia” (215-20). In summarizing his
readers’ responses to four questions, he gets to the issue of the potential use-
value of utopian writing. Questions such as “Would you like to read a book like
this again?”; “Would you recommend this book to someone else?”; and “Do you
think Looking Backward is still relevant?” brought positive responses of
75%, 77%, and 81%, affirming the readers’ perception of Bellamy’s utopia as an
important book. And yet the question “Did reading Looking Backward change
your views about society and about yourselves?” garnered negative responses of
60% and 73% respectively. These negative answers sharply differed from the
evaluations of the nineteenth-century reviewers of the book, who, from both
positive and negative viewpoints, acknowledged the transformative power of this
utopia (not to speak of Bellamy himself, who would have been truly saddened by
this last response). This moment in Roemer’s book thus suggests a larger
ideological and political assessment of the changed subject position and
potential agency of twentieth-century readers (and by extension, those in this
new century). In this section, Roemer discovers the trace of the alienation of
readers in our time: for even as current readers may perceive that the text
reveals a problem “out there” in society, they nevertheless refuse or are unable
to recognize a role for themselves in doing something about it. This observation
leads Roemer to an interesting take on the critical, especially feminist,
utopias of the 1970s, as he ponders the extent to which the emphasis on
interpersonal relationships in these works may indicate not a new political
dimension (in that the “personal is political”) but rather that these texts mark
a stage in the long withdrawal from the perception and embrace of a public
agency on the part of the general population, as measured by the responses of
utopian readers. As Roemer notes this historic shift, he speculates on how his
own study might have hyper-emphasized it (i.e., by way of the location of his
primary audience in the more passive, and micro-alienated, atmosphere of
schooling); however, he then speculates on how the cultural ground of
subjectivity and agency itself has changed (as measured by the loss of
recognition of the moral power of books). He stops short of a more developed
meditation on this shift, one that might lead to a clearer sense of the degree
of disempowerment among people in the present day. While such a meditation is,
properly, not in the remit of this book, it is one that I find provocative as I
think of how the political terrain has been flattened, especially in the last
half of the twentieth century, as popular activism has receded (and indeed as
the agency of professionals and experts has grown).
It should be evident that I highly recommend Ken Roemer’s Utopian
Audiences. As an innovative introduction to the field, with its clearly
delineated stance and methodology, it will prove invaluable to new students, who
as they take on its imperatives and strategies may well break new critical
ground. As for those of us who have been working in utopian studies, for however
long, we should read this book carefully and think, explore, and consider just
how we might take up Roemer’s insights, methods, and challenges in our own work.
Get it, and read it, and, one hopes, be transformed by it.
WORKS CITED
Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward: 2000-1887. 1888. Ed. Daniel H. Borus.
Bedford Series in History and Culture. New York: Bedford, 1995.
Jameson, Fredric. “Of Islands and Trenches: Neutralization and the Production of
Utopian Discourse.” Diacritics 7.2 (1977): 2-22.
Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture.
New York: Routledge, 1992.
Le Guin, Ursula K. Always Coming Home. New York: Harper and Row, 1985.
More, Thomas. Utopia: A Revised Translation, Backgrounds, Criticism. 2nd
ed. Trans. and ed. Robert M. Adams. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton,
1992.
Morson, Gary Saul. The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevsky’s “Diary of a Writer”
and the Traditions of Literary Utopia. University of Texas Press Slavic
Series 4. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.
Neihardt, John G., and Nicholas Black Elk. Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life
Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux. Lincoln, NE: U Nebraska P, 2000.
Ruppert, Peter. Reader in a Strange Land: The Activity of Reading Literary
Utopias. Athens: U Georgia P, 1986.
Back to Home