"The Unit": SPOILERS ALLOWED

The Unit is one of the best dystopian/speculative fiction books I've read in a long time. I'm opening a discussion for the book with spoilers allowed in hopes more of us will read it!

Great idea! You already mentioned the wonderful way that Holmqvist used Dorrit's viseral memories of her dog Jock to illustrate her feelings of profound loss and sorrow. To me (who "wasted" most of my life on horseback) it raises the question of the value of our relationships with animals. Are we dispensible to them? Are they dispensible to us? When Dorrit learned that Jock was apparently happily living in a family with a child who adored him, does that mean that society was right about their relationship not counting for anything? Does this foreshadow Dorrit's relationship with her child? Better off raised by others?

I was really intrigued by the motherhood theme, which I didn't see coming at all in a book that was supposed to be about organ transplants. (Are organs like dogs? Like children? You should only have them if you are deserving?)

Holmqvist did a wonderful job of capturing the animosity between mothers and childless women. Were you satisfied with what appeared to be her resolution that mothers can't help becoming totally subsumed by their hormones? Being childless myself, I'm not sure. Interestingly, in my experience, I have found that more often new mothers feel as though they have been abandoned by their childless friends and don't understand why. And, of course, they have been abandoned, because childless women are really not that interested in obsessing about (or witnessing) every time the baby gurgles or passes gas.

The motherhood theme did make for an emotionally authentic ending, I thought though. Dorrit acted in the "best interest of the child," as society had defined it. The reader is left knowing that this is not in the best interest of society.

The book also has me thinking about what society values, and how this came to be.

Our society, like the one in The Unit definitely favors people who produce, without any consideration of what they consume or conserve. Are these antiquated values based on facts that are no longer valid? What would a society be like that rewarded people who consumed very little and who conserved as much as they could?

I see what you're saying. Especially like your last paragraph.

I see Dorrit acting out of hopelessness. After she makes it out of the unit, she realizes she has nowhere to go but back. Her home, her money--everything--is gone. She is completely dependent on the unit. (Sort of nice symbolism that she runs out into the cold and freedom, and must go back to the fake hothouse environment of the facility; she has acclimated physically and psychologically to the place.)

The unit, as I see it, has completely worn her down, and even the prospect of new life is not enough to save her spirit.

I think the book has to be read, in part, against the declining birthrates in Sweden (and the industrialized West generally) and the growing crisis of how to care for the elderly. Holmqvist sets up a tension between young and old. Older people are allowed freedom only if they have younger people in their care or have children who will take them in.

Re "maternal instinct," I don't think there is such a thing. I think most human beings are hardwired to protect children and infants. (Even if you think they're bratty and messy and don't have any yourself, my guess is that, man or woman, you'll still run out in front of a truck to protect one.)

I had my one and only in my 40s. I had fewer hormonal responses to pregnancy than to my monthly cycles. I was not imbued with any particular super skills as a result of these hormones. I was appalled that there were hundreds of "childbirthing" classes as opposed to childcare classes. I found goodl ol' Dr. Spock's book Baby and Child Care a wealth of practical tips and common sense.

I think that "maternal instinct" is basically a sentimentalized version of 19th century misogyny, a way for men to weasel out of parenting by ginning up the idea that women do it "naturally." The idea has hung on because it makes money, e.g., the ever-growing mountain of "lookit me, I'm PREGNANT!" books ... books that I refused to read after having been given one by a relative because a) a pregnancy pretty much takes care of itself if you're healthy to begin with and don't have a lot of bad habits, and b) they're full of scary numbers about late-life pregnancy risks.

And if people REALLY believed that there was such a thing as "maternal instinct" why are there all these infant-rearing theories (attachment parenting, extended nursing, co-sleeping) that tell mothers how they should be dealing with their babies. Pfft.

So (sorry for THAT rant) I think Dorrit's response isn't hormonal or maternal, just shows how her humanity--her own sense of herself--has been so beaten down after her time in the unit that she gives up.

Yes, of course, I didn't think about the fact that the book must read in the context of its being Swedish. I don't know much about that country, but by all accounts the population is very homogeneous and adherent to the social contract. (In constrast, Americans will insist on their right to take their 9 year old girl to the firing range to shoot an Uzi, no matter how much other people frown upon that sort of thing.) That also answers the question of why a person who was not a conformist would allow herself to be brought in to the Unit in the first place. None of the characters seemed to be childless by choice. They either were unable to have children or simply didn't make much effort and ran out of time. Apparently it simply was not an acceptable choice to make in that society, particularly when the result could be that you would be deemed dispensable.

So yes, I do think that was the likely reason that she didn't try to escape. She was almost certainly suffering from depression and grief as well, and had in fact contemplated suicide (her final donation.) Of course, I think that her inner rationale would have been that it was for the good of her child to be adopted out.

All of the people in The Unit seemed to be feckless. Yet you like them, and I think that one of the author's points was that in different circumstances people will behave differently. For example, if she and Johannes had met on the beach near her house, they may have had a relationship and a child, before being taken to the Unit.

I thought this article, about Swedish immigration patterns since 1970, was interesting.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/assessing-immigrant-integration-sweden-af...

Like many countries with declining birth rates, Sweden has opened itself to immigrants. While Sweden approached immigration with a good deal of humane planning aforethought, social engineering is always a tricky business. People won't always act logically or rationally.

So Sweden is experiencing assimilation problems, segregation, and differences in wealth between native Swedes and immigrant families. There's also been a backlash against immigration toward nationalism.

I don't think this was necessarily her intention, but, against that larger picture of immigration tensions, I wonder if Holmqvist's novel could be viewed as a cautionary tale--you turn immigrants away and stay "pure," you run the risk of a dystopian vision like hers, a society that can't support single people over 50.

>6 nohrt4me2:. Holmqvist undoubtedly was working against the backdrop of declining birth rates, and a reader could certainly see The Unit as a cautionary tale, although obviously the novel was primarily concerned with organ donation. Conincidentally, I am listening to Superfreakonomics which has a section dealing with studies of altruism, and whether it is an innate human trait. That book notes that in Iran, which pays people who voluntarily donate kidneys, there is no waiting list for a transplant. There was apparently a proposal in the US Congress to allow for paying for a round trip ticket for a person from a developing country to come to the USA to donate a kidney, and to pay the individual an amount that would be small in the USA, but potentially life changing in the donor's country of origin. This proposal was soundly defeated as "exploitative" and unethical, and as a result, the USA has a very long list of people waiting kidney transplants and these people sometimes die while waiting for a transplant. Additionally, we sometimes hear of a small but real black market dealing in stolen organs.

With this information, I decided to look up the organ donation rates in Sweden. It appears that Sweden did have the lowest donation rate in Europe until about 2006. Since then, they have made some policy changes to encourage donation. One such change is to go to an "opt out" rather than an "opt in" default, so that a person is presumed to give consent to his organs being used after death. Somewhat more ominous, however, is a policy in one region where there is early intervention to contact and convince relatives to donate a dying person's organs, including where the "brain death diagnosis is underway" as well as changing the criteria for when to offer intensive care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17098018

Is this sort of coercion any more ethical or less exploitative than a cash transaction?

That's a good question, and interesting info from NCBI.

I'm not sure I have an answer, though I do have a REAL LONG REPLY (warning), and know a fair amount about organ transplants: a friend's husband received both a heart and a kidney, and a colleague is on the list for a liver transplant. My in-laws also donated their 7-year-old's organs after a sudden massive cerebral hemorrhage.

The system as it stands now is supposed to be blind and based on your need and the likelihood of a successful outcome, not your wealth or social standing. However, it's not really that straightforward. If you don't have health care insurance, you are very unlikely to have a doctor who will do the tests that indicate you need a transplant. You are also unlikely to find a specialist who will do the transplant if you don't have health insurance the specialist accepts.

Moreover, individual states have a some control over the transplant process, so it's easier to tip the scales in your favor in some areas if you have money and influence. My friend's husband had to travel out of state to one of the few hospitals doing transplants at that time. A poor person without health care insurance could not have afforded that. In addition, when the donor was found, my friend had to sign an agreement to pay $100,000 out of pocket for the transplant if the insurance wouldn't pay.

So, long story short, the idea that you are not "buying" an organ is, in a practical sense, a fiction.

A fair amount of pressure to donate was placed on my in-laws when EEGs and other tests indicated brain death; organs decay rapidly and children's organs are in special need. "It's a way to keep part of your son alive," was the pitch.

The donation of a child's organs is a huge publicity coup for the hospitals from which the organs are donated, and I was deeply ambivalent at the way the hospitals cast my in-laws and their son into the "hero and savior" roles in a huge media blitz that won a lot of prestige for the hospital. On what would have been my nephew's graduation, the hospital ginned up more publicity by recognizing him with what would have been his senior class. And in another stunt, the hospital arranged for his parents to meet the girl who received the heart, now going to an Ivy League college.

Don't get me wrong; I'm happy that girl is alive. One dead child is better than two. But the sad part of this is that my in-laws were struggling people who had to borrow money to bury their son when the donations were completed.

While cold cash is not offered to living donors here in Michigan, there are some incentives. Let's say your husband needs a kidney, but you aren't a match for him. You can give your kidney to someone for whom are ARE a match, and then you move to the head of the line if you ever need a transplant yourself. If everyone whose family member needs a kidney donates, that enhances the likelihood of your husband finding one.

When we fell on hard times ourselves, I would not have thought twice about donating a kidney or liver resection for money. The operations, which are paid for by the donor's insurance, would have taken fewer years off my life than the stress of the financial woes.

>8 nohrt4me2:. I am in favor of monetary remuneration for organ donations. I prefer transparency. I also agree that it is a myth that no money is involved in these situations.

The major teaching hospital with which my PCP is affiliated is hounding me about signing consent forms to allow them to use my biological material in their Biobank program. When I was approached in person at my last appointment, I asked whether I would get a cut if the hospital made any money from my biological material. The hospital representative indicated that, yes, in fact the hospital might potentially profit, and that, no, I would not be entitled to a share of the profit. I recommended that she read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and get back to me.

So many controversies here. This was one of the few books I've read - Children of Men was another - in which breeding people are the ones with status. I've just finished The Giver in which the assignment to be a birthmother is kind of a slight indicating that the woman is not capable of much else and after three years at that task she's assigned to the most menial of jobs for the rest of her life. Now in the US, women who birth and raise children are pretty much considered secondary to the real people who are financially productive men and women. Every few weeks a hub bub arises over some establishment ejecting a woman who dares breastfeed her baby in public as if such animalistic display is too coarse for the general public.
I don't know that it was just hormones that had me in the grip of motherhood, but I have been in her spell most of my adult life. I bore two children, natural childbirth - one at home - of course, breastfed each for 2 1/2 years then became a labor and delivery nurse so that I could continue to emerse myself in the experience. I love every aspect of birth the way some people love every aspect of any other art or obsession. So my heart goes out to those dispensible, childless people. I also cringe at the super fertility pushers like the Dugans and other Quiverful types as if they were promoting the daily eating of entire chocolate cakes.
So, thinking a person dispensible because they didn't bear children to me is like thinking a person dispensible because they don't understand string theory. A culture that rewards only one way of being is an inhumane culture.
As for organ donations, I know that there are donation specialists who visit people whose loved ones are on life support trying to convince them to donate. It does seem gruesome, but it's a way to get organs. Also, I had a friend whose father, not wealthy by any means, got a new heart when he was, I think, in his seventies. His daughter knew nothing about the plan until it was almost accomplished. I think he may have been an experiment for the hospital or surgical team. He lived a pretty good life for the two years following. How many livers did Larry Hagman get? Being rich helps one get organs just as it helps one get babies to adopt. Just as it pretty much helps one get anything.

I recommended that she read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and get back to me.

Good response!

Now in the US, women who birth and raise children are pretty much considered secondary to the real people who are financially productive men and women.

Wow, is that still true? It seems to me that was part of second-wave feminism, but I thought third-wave was more child-friendly.

What I do hear a lot from younger men is the expectation that their wives will work and "pull their weight." I heard this all the time when I worked at a tech company with a long of men in their 20s and 30s. It was hard not to want to smash their little heads between a couple of rocks.

I understand that some men and women don't want to raise kids themselves. Valid lifestyle choice, especially if you have a white rug, don't like having to explain things a lot, and have no tolerance for low-level plastic clutter in primary colors.

But I don't understand the outright hostility to mothers, as if they were deadbeats. Somebody's got to raise up a crop of young people who will help help all the oldsters, childless or no, as lawyers, doctors, nurses, cops, bus drivers, mechanics, physical therapists, EMS techs.

These dichotomy of views about mothers held by women was one of the things that Holmqvist illustrated so well.

After Dorrit finds out she is pregant, she doesn't say anything to her friends. When she tells her closest friend, Elsa, Elsa reacts with anger. Dorrit explains the choice that she was given: to have the bavy removed from the womb now or have a natural birth and then give it up for adoption. She expects Elsa that her explanation will earn Elsa's pity or at least quell her anger. But instead, Elsa gets insulting. She says: "Well, you're not one of us anymore. I mean how are we going to be able to...How are we going to be able to trust you? Now that you've gone and become like them?" Elsa goes on to say, "So you're going to be waddling around here, with a big belly like a Buddha, looking smug and important and on a higher plane, just like all those needed stuck up bitches out there in the community."

When Dorrit talks to Alice about it, Alice asks Dorrit to try to understand Elsa, saying "You haven't forgotten how it feels to lose a friend because of a child, I hope?" Later on Dorrit thinks about this question, and muses that she did remember being shut out by friends after they had had children. Not that they didn't want to see her, but when they did see her they were constantly and continually preoccupied by the child. At the time she was convinced that this was an intentional choice by the mother, but now being pregnant herself, she saw herself becoming more self-absorbed and less receptive and troubled by the sorrows and joys of those around her. She guessed that it might have a biological basis and went and apologized to Elsa for her hormones.

Of course, the way that we think about other women, and whether they are mothers or not, is colored by cultural attitudes. I think that Second Wave feminists did look down on mothers, and part of the reason for that was that the choices and sacrifices that feminists made were new and difficult, and that mothers took the well worn path of least resistance and were sainted for it.

I'm not sure where we are now with motherhood. My step daughter recently became a mother, and she has a large group of contemporaries that have all left their jobs and go to Mommy Yoga and what not together. To me, it seems as though since women are not making real strides in the workplace, in leadership, and in important roles in society, a lot of them have simply given up and are taking the well worn path again.

It's been so long since I read the book that I don't remember enough details to comment on the book, but I generally appreciated the theme.

I have to disagree that mothers are seen as second-class in the US. Maybe stay-at-home moms are seen that way by some (because apparently if you don't get a paycheck and give your labor over to the 1% you're not seen as a productive citizen). But myself, and other women who don't want children, are constantly asked why we don't have kids, are told that we are going to change our minds, are asked who will take care of us when we're older, how we can be so selfish, etc. I really wish that having children, or not having children, were seen as a choice and not a given. Same thing with marriage. It shouldn't be so strange to be an unmarried, childless woman. (And in my 30s, no less! Apparently my biological clock is just ticking away like a time bomb!)

I think that mothers should be duly compensated and appreciated for the work that they provide to the US economy (if you want to narrow it down to just economical terms), even though because it's unpaid it's seen as second-class. However, I also think that people who chose not to parent (or, for whatever reason, can't parent) should be accepted as well. I guess it's no surprise that in the US, if you're a woman, either way, you can't win.

Yes, I think she did illustrate that well. I need to go back and read that passage again, and post about it tomorrow.

To me, it seems as though since women are not making real strides in the workplace, in leadership, and in important roles in society, a lot of them have simply given up and are taking the well worn path again.

(More apologies for writing a tome here; I really am enjoying this exchange of ideas!)

I do see where you're coming from (ack! I'm so ambivalent!). I still research, present papers, publish, and I am assigned to mentor younger teachers. I certainly try to be a supportive and enthusiastic leader as a senior staff member, and I did my best as a mother to help my son see how the world looks from my (female) perspective.

However, I have noticed that in the last five or 10 years, the workplace has become increasingly toxic. Both men and women in upper management/admin positions tend to be fighting each other for turf instead of providing leadership and mentoring. "Leaning in" in this environment may not look all that enticing to women, particularly those with the added responsibilities of parenthood. When I think about what it would be like to work with the horrors in upper admin in my shop, all I can see is myself in a hospital bed with a severe coronary.

And, while terms like "Mommy Yoga" give me a feeling akin to biting down on aluminum foil, I think that committed and thoughtful parenting is an important social role. I think the volunteering I did at my kid's school newspaper and the latch key program reading to kids who had never been read to by their own parents was as important as anything I did at work.

As for women being sainted for being mothers? Maybe motherhood still confers automatic sanctity in certain circles, but in our society mothers seem to come in for more criticism than praise. To wit the number of "mommy screwed my life up" memoirs and novels.

I've often thought that, instead of writing a memoir about their horrible mothers it would be interesting for somebody to write a memoir the women relatives, teachers, friends and co-workers who chipped in to make sure they didn't go down the tubes.

It seems like a Catch-22 to me. Women don't get ahead in their careers, so they decide to leave them and become mothers, but then the most often used excuse that we hear for the lack of equal pay is that women choose to take "mommy track" jobs so they are not paid as much.

When will USA have paid maternity leave like other western countries? I believe that Canada has a 6 month paid maternity leave. When will other workplace policies change so as not to penalize women who choose to become mothers or at least encourage them to remain in the workforce?

>13 lemontwist: has it right. Women are damned if they do, damned if they don't. No wonder our feelings are ambivalent toward each other.

Women don't get ahead in their careers, so they decide to leave them and become mothers ...

Wow, that strikes me as the life plan of a dumb ass. You have children because you want to be a parent and deserves parents who love him for himself, not see him as some sort of "I didn't get the job, but they gave me this kid" booby prize.

Maybe that's why there are so many screwed up kids. It used to break my heart to go to the animal shelter to volunteer. Volunteering at latch key was almost as bad.

... women who don't want children are constantly asked why we don't have kids, are told that we are going to change our minds, are asked who will take care of us when we're older, how we can be so selfish ...

Viewing your child or spouse as long-term care insurance is a laugh. Divorce is skyrocketing among couples over 50 and kids move out of state.

When two close friend died, it was women friends, married and unmarried, who went to chemo, fielded phone calls, brought in food, and guided the kids through the funeral arrangements.

Increasingly, older women, divorced, widowed, with and without grown children, are moving into homes together to provide stability and support. I think this is an excellent model for old age!

>16 nohrt4me2:. I think that there are many reasons that women choose to have children, but the reason is not often that they really like children and are interested in parenting. I wish that there was a way to provide incentives for women who want to parent to do so without becoming dependents. I wish that there was a way to provide disincentives for women who don't want to parent so that they won't have children. Blaming the lack of opportunity for women on their desire to be parents is twisted when coupled with societal pressure to have them. Of course, nothing is said about the male parent. Maybe things will only get better as more men who want children take an active role in parenting.

I can't say whether I agree about older women supporting each other in old age. I've seen all too much nasty behavior by some women toward others.

The ongoing debate on why women earn 4/5 of what men do:
1.A large number of women choose careers in fields populated by a large number of women (sounds tautological to me)
2. Women take time out of their careers to bear and raise children.
3. Women are unwilling to devote the 80 to 100 hours a week to their careers that men do because they choose to care for their families.

Which seems to me to say that women don't earn what men earn because they choose to be human. When >14 nohrt4me2: they choose to avoid all the political backstabbing career advancement requires,(>15 vwinsloe:) give up on the whole thing and become full time stay at home mothers they're seen as economic failures and a waste of education and talent. When they decide not to have children they're considered failures as women. >13 lemontwist: damned if you do, damned if you don't is right.
And now I have to ruin the whole diatribe by saying that I have such a wonderful relationship with my grown daughter that it breaks my heart to know that she is determined not to have children so will not have such a relationship in her life.

>18 Citizenjoyce: Which seems to me to say that women don't earn what men earn because they choose to be human.

I'd say that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

I don't have any dependents, meaning I have probably the most flexible lifestyle possible, and it's impossible for me to put in the number of hours at my job (in an extraordinarily male dominated field) that would be seen as "productive." Granted, I work 8-10 hour days most days, sometimes 11 or 12. But if you're not in before the boss, out after the boss, it doesn't seem to matter how much effort you put into how much time.

I work the hours I do (largely between 0600-1600) largely because I need to have outside interests: hobbies, friends, activities. I have severe depression, so it's not like I can ignore my needs outside of work, but I imagine that even the most mentally well person also enjoys having a life outside of work. So, imagine adding the stress of having children to that. It's almost impossible for me to "prove" that I am "dedicated" to my career (see: pissing contest) because I don't sacrifice my every ounce of well-being to it. And I don't even have anybody to answer to at home.

The system is broken, and women with any kind of needs (physical or mental illness, dependents, etc.) just get the ass end. This is why sexism doesn't need to be explicit and overt. It's there, it's just hidden in these subtle ways that men or the privileged aren't generally going to ever have to discover.

>16 nohrt4me2: Increasingly, older women, divorced, widowed, with and without grown children, are moving into homes together to provide stability and support. I think this is an excellent model for old age!

Sign me up!!

>16 nohrt4me2: Increasingly, older women, divorced, widowed, with and without grown children, are moving into homes together to provide stability and support. I think this is an excellent model for old age! That sounds good to me when I'm too old to live alone. For now, my five dogs and I take care of each other and wouldn't particularly want any other human living with us.

>21 Citizenjoyce: Would beat going to The Unit. You pick your own housemates (dogs and cats included), you have your own room, you hire and fire your own cleaning or nursing help as needed. Even in good assisted living facilities, which many people can't afford because they're not covered by Medicare/Medicaid, someone else hires your caregivers, and it's just tough if you don't get along with them.

Whether you have a friend or two move into the former family home to share expenses, or you start a co-op house, I think these types of arrangements can help stave off loneliness, lack of stimulation, and reduce the burdens of home upkeep I see in my 80+ mother and her friends.

>22 nohrt4me2: I absolutely agree. I just wouldn't want to do it if I had the alternative of living alone.

And now I have to ruin the whole diatribe by saying that I have such a wonderful relationship with my grown daughter that it breaks my heart to know that she is determined not to have children so will not have such a relationship in her life.

I'm not sure it ruins your diatribe at all. You were blessed to have such a daughter. But there's nothing to say she would be blessed in the same way if she had a child. It might be more heart-breaking to see her with a child with whom she could not bond or didn't get along with. You might feel you had to defend them to each other. It might upset the joy you now feel in your daughter.

I think society still mythologizes and romanticizes motherhood, babies, and children, imbues them with some kind of innate innocence and nobility (that robs them of their real selves). This despite the fact that every mother, in her heart, knows these ideas are facile and even dangerous. When I confessed to a friend that I was dismayed to see my newborn son looked exactly like my father-in-law, a crass and ignorant man I disliked, there was a complete shutdown in sympathy. I wasn't holding up the myth. Until I saw that the person emerging from that infant was nothing like his grandfather, I had a hard time warming to him.

Mothers do not always fall in love with their babies at first sight. Mothers rarely feel the same about all their children, and often do not love all their children with equal intensity. Sometimes the personalities of mother and child just aren't compatible. (I think some of these things were touched on as topics of conversation in We Need to Talk About Kevin.)

In partial response to >12 vwinsloe: Dorrit's friends seem to be railing against those romantic notions of impending motherhood, which perhaps indicates that, in some way they believe in them and fear what Dorrit will become by virtue of her pregnancy. Dorrit clearly fears this too, and blames them on her hormones, on something beyond her control.

>24 nohrt4me2:, back up in post 2. I said:

~Holmqvist did a wonderful job of capturing the animosity between mothers and childless women. Were you satisfied with what appeared to be her resolution that mothers can't help becoming totally subsumed by their hormones? Being childless myself, I'm not sure. Interestingly, in my experience, I have found that more often new mothers feel as though they have been abandoned by their childless friends and don't understand why. And, of course, they have been abandoned, because childless women are really not that interested in obsessing about (or witnessing) every time the baby gurgles or passes gas.~

And I think that you are right about the romantic notions of impending motherhood. Yes, I have stopped seeing friends when they have become mothers, but not because of any ill will or of romantic notions of impending motherhood. To the contrary, the new mother's interests and priorities changed, and we no longer had much in common. So while Holmqvist did well to point out the animosity, from my experience the rationale given was in error. Of course, as I also noted all of the women in The Unit seemed to have wanted to have children, so perhaps envy might play a part.

http://www.attn.com/stories/178/sarah-silverman-provides-most-provocative-explai...

Sarah Silverman takes on the wage gap.

>26 Citizenjoyce:. Thanks for the chuckle.