The Parable of the Sower and the Pursuit of Happiness

Jack Hicks

Octavia Butler’s The Parable of the Sower depicts a contemporary dystopian world through the eyes of Lauren, a young survivalist who seems to transcend the carnage of the world around her with a belief system she calls “Earthseed”. Lauren has the singular goal of surviving in a world where danger from either other humans or the environment are making those around her drop like flies. Some might call this world Hobbesian pre-political chaos, and others might simply call it St. Augustine’s fully realized “city of man.” Though these interpretations of Lauren’s world have relevancy to the thinking of her society at large, the philosopher most relevant to Lauren’s goals of survival and community building is Aristotle, because the two share a focus on the pursuit of higher values as a means to elevate the masses into a better polis, or in the case of this novel, an Earthseed community.

Butler’s fictional world is a chaotic one. The novel is set in the mid-2020’s when Lauren lives in the community of Robledo alongside her father, stepmother, and brothers. Inside and outside the walls of Robledo there is widespread drought, her town seeing “just a few drops of rain...for six years.”[1] There is also endemic violence and arson, homelessness and famine, and—in some parts of the country— “no decent sanitation or clean water.”[2] At one point of the novel a toddler named Amy is fatally “shot...right through the metal gate.”[3] Even with a wall surrounding the town, there is no guarantee of safety. Furthermore, the corrupted police force that demands direct payment for service offers little to no help, since most people live in relative poverty. Most individuals rely on their own means for safety. Lauren notes that en route to her baptism outside of town, “all the adults were armed” because “that’s the rule.”[4] This picture sounds very much like Thomas Hobbes’ pre-political world, in which every individual has the natural right to enact whatever violence they see necessary on any other individual for self-preservation.

It is true that the survival goals of the larger Robledoan community behave in line with the Hobbesian right of nature, the “liberty each man hath to use his own power...for the preservation of his own nature.”[5] But Butler intentionally sets Lauren apart from others in her thinking. First instance of note that sets her apart is a tangible difference—her hyper empathy, which early in the book is established as a point of contention with her father who tells her that she “can beat this thing” and “[doesn’t] have to give into it.”[6] Lauren doesn’t want to engage in the carnage of her age because she feels to strongly ailed when she witnesses it. It must be conceded that Lauren does commit acts of violence later in the book, such as when she bludgeons a stranger attacking her ally, Harry. But Lauren’s substantial acts of violence are only ever in defense of her allies or of herself. She does not kill for competition over resources like the arsonists and gunmen around her, but only reacts when she is in immediate danger. So while the world and people around her are very Hobbesian, she transcends them by aligning with another figure: Aristotle.

In Aristotle’s Politics, he goes beyond the need for immediate physical preservation, because he believes that “the political community...aims at the good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”[7] The community does well in pursuit of a good life, not a prudential life. The rest of Lauren’s society lives prudentially, simply doing what it takes to survive, even if that means joining a gang in the case of Lauren’s brother Keith. Lauren seems to strive for providence, through her dedication to a philosophy she calls “Earthseed... a God-is-change belief system.”[8] (It is true that Lauren is forced to act prudentially when in danger or when she escapes the burning Robledo, but she always acts for survival with transcendent higher goals in mind). Unlike the other theists in her community who dwell on the God of their past lives before current status quo took hold, Lauren understands that change, i.e., reorienting one’s ideals beyond short-term survival, is essential. This is Aristotelian in that he believes community and survival are about common telos, or aim. Many of the other particulars of Earthseed’s survival philosophy point to Aristotle, such as the pronouncement at the beginning of Chapter 5 that “belief initiates and guides actions—or it does nothing.”[9] Ideas and their potency matter to Lauren, as they did to Aristotle who treated concrete actions as products of abstract values. Lauren also aspires to spreading her Earthseed beyond her immediate surroundings, declaring “anyone can be [Earthseed]” and that its destiny “is to take root among the stars.”[10] Lauren does not say she wishes to spread Earthseed to survive. She is thinking many steps ahead, of creating an Aristotelian “good life,” and interplanetary polis of sorts. It is in this expansive mindset that one also sees Lauren’s first hints at an Aristotelian philosophy on community building.

Community building in Lauren’s time on the large scale seems very relevant to Hobbesian and Marxist thinking, while she contrarily maintains her Aristotelian edge. In Chapter 11 of the novel, there is mention of a city named Olivar, a private community owned by the megacorporation Kagimoto, Stamm, Frampton, and Company. This city “is much richer than [Robledo], but since it’s a coastal city, its taxes are higher.”[11] Olivar is positioned as a haven to which the poor unfortunate souls like the citizens of Robledo can flock for a better quality of life. The catch is twofold: the coastal city has an even more unstable environment than Robledo, and KSF company has such low wages that it economically cripples its citizens. To live in Olivar is “to accept lower salaries...in exchange for security.”[12] The KSF is simultaneously the Hobbesian Leviathan and the Marxist bourgeoise. According to Hobbesian philosophy, a Leviathan is an absolute ruler who delivers their citizens from a state of pre-political chaos to a state of order and acts as the sole arbiter of all matters. The Leviathan is best suited to be an individual, according to Hobbes, but can be a group. The KSF, which allows citizens to flee to Olivar for deliverance from the ravenous outside world in exchange for security, is a Leviathan of sorts. (The notion of a contract between governor and citizen is also Lockean, but in this case there is no democracy.) The economically oppressive side of the Olivar exchange ties into Marxist theory, which maintains that there is a constant struggle between an exploitive bourgeois class and an exploited proletariat class, diametrically opposed according to their ability to retain capital. Olivar is very significant to Lauren’s goals because she is firmly opposed to the city as a tool for community building. Unlike others in her society, she and her father, who retorts that “there is nothing safe about slavery,”[13] comprehend that Olivar is exploitative and not conducive to improving civilization at large. This is yet another distinction marked between Lauren and those around her. While other families apply to relocate to Olivar, she formulates her own community building philosophy.

In Politics, Aristotle details the different kinds of government, ultimately coming down to two: oligarchy and democracy. Aristotle sees democracy as the best government because it is the least susceptible to revolution. Lauren of course doesn’t give any detailed governmental plan associated to Earthseed, but she does believe that one must “embrace diversity or be destroyed.”[14] This sounds more like the opposede of the tyranny occurring in Olivar, to which Aristotle would also be opposite. Also in Politics is Aristotle’s history of the idea of community. The first association is found in one’s partner, then the family, then the village or town, and “when several villages are united into a single complete community, the state comes into existence.”[15] Lauren’s philosophy than anyone can be Earthseed and that it ought to expand universally is a clear reflection of this Aristotelian community building. Aristotle’s ideas on both ethics and politics revolve around teleology, the study of things’ ends. For him, the telos of the body politic, or community, is happiness through cohesion. Cohesion of values matters when one wants to build a society. Lauren understands that. After the burning of Robledo, she flees the city and makes the acquaintance of Zahra and Harry, also now homeless. They travel with one another, protect one another, and, most importantly, Lauren shares her Earthseed philosophy with them, reading passages from her writings and even agreeing to teach Zahra to read and write.[16] When Natividad and Travis, a mixed couple with a baby, join the group, Lauren chooses “soft, nonpreachy verses” to read to the group.[17] She aims to engage with her allies on a level of values, pursuing her community—however small—not just out of a need for survival but out of want to make something better.

The consistent thread throughout Butler’s novel is that Lauren is distinct from everyone around her. She always drives herself and those around her toward more transcendental ideals. When, in the final chapter, one of Lauren’s allies offers a cynical perspective that the group has yet to hit rock bottom, Lauren returns that “the group of [them] doesn’t have to sink any lower.”[18] She never allows herself to be pulled down with the rest of the world. While everyone else submits to economic exploitation and absolutism, or become victims of gang violence or drug addiction, Lauren maintains her goal of proactively improving her world. Aristotle is most relevant to Lauren’s goals of survival and community building because, like Lauren, Aristotle’s thoughts on individual survival and community building are not mutually exclusive or consecutive—they are tightly intertwined. Community, diversity, unity, and an embrace of change are all the higher tele toward which Lauren and her Earthseed aim to guide the world.

[1] Butler, Octavia E. 1993. Parable of the Sower. 46

[2] Butler, Octavia E. 1993. Parable of the Sower. 52

[3] ibid. p. 50

[4] ibid. p. 8

[5] Somerville, John E., and Ronald E. Santoni. 1963. Social and Political Philosophy: Readings From Plato to Gandhi. 145

[6] Butler, Octavia E. 1993. Parable of the Sower. 11

[7] Somerville, John E., and Ronald E. Santoni. 1963. Social and Political Philosophy: Readings From Plato to Gandhi. 59

[8] Butler, Octavia E. 1993. Parable of the Sower. 77

[9] ibid. p. 47

[10] ibid. p. 77

[11] Butler, Octavia E. 1993. Parable of the Sower. 118

[12] ibid. p. 119

[13] ibid. p. 121

[14] ibid. p. 196

[15] Somerville, John E., and Ronald E. Santoni. 1963. Social and Political Philosophy: Readings From Plato to Gandhi. 61

[16] ibid. p. 186

[17] ibid. p. 213

[18] ibid. p. 328

Works Cited

Butler, Octavia E. 1993. Parable of the Sower.

Somerville, John E., and Ronald E. Santoni. 1963. Social and Political Philosophy: Readings From Plato to Gandhi.