Between Consensus and Dissensus

In this article, we argue that Ursula K. Le Guin’s writings are motivated by a complex political vision of cohabitation of different individuals that is compatible with the principle of their mutual equality. However, this alternative model of sociality based on “critical difference” and dialogue faces three potential objections: her vision of “being human” risks reproducing some of the blind spots of traditional humanism, it may overemphasize individual experience, and it implicitly privileges consensus. Bringing Le Guin’s “literary” texts in dialogue with Jacques Rancière’s “philosophical” texts, we articulate a more complex and nuanced understanding of political dialogue that takes into account the disruptive nature of equality.