Final Thoughts on Herland

While I may not actually want to live in society of only women, there are still some aspects of Herland that I am totally on board with. Mostly, I love the power and independence that these women posses. The women in this society have the qualities that many women today are still striving for. However, I hate to think that this is only possible in a land without men. Gilman's intention is to show that her society does not allow women to reach their full potential, but I would like to believe that this can be changed without having to exclude men from the society. Although we have made a lot of progress since Gilman's time, we definitely still have a long way to go.

Another thing I really enjoyed in this book was the way in which Gilman exposes the ridiculous ideals in regards to gender relations in our society. When the men are made to explain many of the behaviors and customs in their society, you can clearly see them struggling to provide valid reasoning for it. And when they do provide reasoning, it almost always sounds absurd.
One quote that I find somewhat comical (from Terry of course):

"We do not allow our women to work. Women are loved—idolized—honored—kept in the home to care for the children"

 I actually laughed out loud when I read this line. The fact Terry said women are idolized and honored but also kept in the home makes no logical sense, and I love Gilman for pointing this out.

The one thing I still can't get on board with is the sudden change of heart about the necessity of men in this society. At the beginning of the novel they are very clear that fathers are useless, but then by the end they suddenly believe that their society desperately needs the reintroduction of men. I feel like this change is in a sense admitting defeat, and invalidating any arguments made about the worth and potential of women. 

Reproduction in Herland????

After reading Herland, one of the concepts that stood out the most to me in this Utopia was how there are literally no men. When we had our class discussion on Herland, we talked about how this is the first Utopia we have read about that has only women. We shared, as a class, that a place like this could be appealing and not appealing for a few different reasons. One person shared how this Utopia would be enticing because it would eliminate the fear of being abducted. In our society as we know it, there is a stereotypical fear that most women are raised being encouraged to "not go out at night alone," or other similar instructions to prevent men from harming them. However, despite this positive repercussion of a Utopia with only women, the actual issue I have with this Utopia is their explanation for how reproduction occurs.

I might be being overly critical, and not allowing my imagination to entertain the idea that women producing people the way they do in Herland is possible, but as soon as I read that I could not take this place seriously. It does not seem even theoretically possible for the biology of a female species to not only produce babies without a male, but males are not even being reproduced as offspring either. There are some existing species that can reproduce on their own, but they still make other male/female offspring. I do not know if I believe that a Utopia should have one gender. In my opinion, is defies the way our society functions so much so that it also almost simultaneously discourages the idea of community that Utopia requires. Granted that this Utopia is technically a community of females, it seems extraordinarily limited.  

I think that when we have our underlying class discussions about how we want to eventually define Utopia, that we should seriously consider wording that will promote the definition encompassing a diverse community. I think it will be hard when analyzing any Utopia where to define the line between community, the like-mindedness of the Utopians, and the existence of the individual. It does not appear as though Herland has a perfect balance, since the three men offset it so much. Terry especially did not seem content in this Utopia, which makes me wonder how a Utopia could be classified as a Utopia if it doesn't make everyone who goes there essentially want to stay forever? Again, it reminds me of the possibility of multiple Utopias existing at the same time.

The Marriage Union in Herland

As a female reader, I must be frank and admit that Herland left me with mixed emotions.  The second half of this book slaps us in the face with a three-couple wedding - in a society where the women clearly get off well on their own, who would have guessed that they would even consider it?  In the beginning of the novel, Somel and Zava talk to the three men about their observations of fatherhood in animals.  Zava says, "'of course we see, with our birds, that the father is as useful as the mother, almost.  But among insects we find him of less importance, sometimes very little.  Is it not so with you?'"  After a vague answer from Terry, she goes on to say, "'we have cats...the father is not very useful'" (41).  From what the women have seen, fathers play a very small role in the raising of a child. Later on in the novel, the men hint that it is mostly the women that raise the children in their country. Since having and raising children is the core value in Herland, what benefit could they possibly see in reestablishing a bi-sexual race?

In coming to terms with this plot twist, I had two distinct feelings: one, that the women should be allowed to marry without concern, for being in a relationship doesn't make any one of them weaker as a character (just as in reality); two, that the women's actions and desire for marriage fall into the stereotypical expectations of a woman (particularly in the 20th century).  It is clear that the women truly have no real need for men in their society, but they seem to prefer to have the men given the opportunity.  As a reader, this feels like a step back from Gilman's initial intention of this novel. The addition of the marriages seems to take away from Gilman's initial statement in this story: that women can be independent and create just as good of a society as men can - if not even better. While some "good" did come out of this plot twist - such as Alima finally standing up to Terry and not looking back once - I do not feel that this was a vital part of Herland's story.  To discuss the topic of women's view of relationships, I feel that Gilman could have simply written a separate story.


Reference:


Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. Herland. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2015. Print.

Sacrificing Humanity for The Next Big Thing

In Wednesday’s class discussion on Thomas More’s Utopia, Miranda presented an interesting dilemma regarding the procurement of objects. The Utopia had an excess of products which they made available to whoever needed it. Miranda brought to the class’s attention the question of what was to prevent the Utopians from abusing this privilege of an endless store of objects? Similarly, what was to force the Utopians to value and take care of their possessions if they could be so easily replaced at no monetary cost to themselves? More’s idea of the communal storehouse with endless amounts of articles needs improvement in order to create a true “utopia.” As I read chapter 15 “On the Lack of Incentive to Labor in a Communist Society” from William Morris’ News from Nowhere, I felt Morris created a better solution to the “consumer issue” raised in Utopia.

            Hammond explains to the narrator in Chapter 15 of News from Nowhere how the 19^th century and the industrial revolution affected the world and society. Hammond describes for the narrator how with the implementation of machines that could quickly and easily produce products capitalism began to dominate society as we knew it. Hammond describes to the narrator the “World-Market” and how “that World, once set a-going, forced them to go on making more and more of these wares, whether they needed them or not” and continued “they created in a never ending series sham or artificial necessaries, which became, under the iron rule of the aforesaid World-Market, of equal importance to them with the real necessaries which supported life” (Ch.15). Which is sadly where our current society stands. When we need something, or think we need something, we go on Amazon or some other online retailer to buy it cheaper and get more of it. We either overlook or aren’t aware of the fact that while there is a low monetary price tag attached to what we buy, the price of humanity is getting increasing higher. What I mean is that while we can buy the latest, wonderful invention created to make our lives easier for under $10.99 with free shipping, we sacrifice the human and fair treatment of the people producing the products and the protection of our environment. The Utopians of Morris’ News from Nowhere have solved this problem by putting pride and value back into the production of products— not just the products themselves. These Utopians produce only what is needed and necessary and nothing else. Essentially solving the “excess crisis” in our own capitalist society and the potential for it in More’s Utopia.

The Geography and Diplomacy of Utopia

In Book II of Thomas Moore's Utopia, two concepts I found interesting that were discussed were the geography of Utopia, and the relations Utopia has with other "countries." Prior to reading Book II, I has not really considered how to geographically define a Utopia. According to Moore, Utopia has no borders. I find this particularly significant because it implies that Utopia is not a limited space. In other words, that Utopia can expand, and likely contract as well. It would probably be very difficult to draw an exact map of a Utopia since it does not have defined borders in this case. Unless the Utopia is on an island, the borders end up being subjectively defined. I think I like the idea of a Utopia being malleable. When we go to make our class definition, I think it might be a good idea to include that aspect because it leaves room for Utopia to evolve.

If Utopia can evolve as a space, the other interesting aspect from this reading is how it relates and interacts with other "countries." Without having defined borders, it makes me wonder how Utopia would avoid being conquered or attacked by foreign or bordering countries. In our world's international relations, countries that border each other define their territories, but do not always agree on those definitions. I would imagine that a place without borders would cause a lot of trouble for other countries. However, although countries in our world have borders they do recognize that they can change as well, so maybe it isn't too significant. For example, when countries wage wars sometimes territories are redefined by the victors historically.

Ultimately, as far as the borders go for Utopia it makes me wonder how it will interact with other countries. Since international relations exist in our world, will they exist in a world with a Utopia? Does a Utopia need to interact with other countries? or is is self-sufficient and "perfect" enough not to need allies or diplomatic relations? Book II mentions how Utopians do not engage in trading or have allies, so I would imagine that without having relations with surrounding nations that it could risk being conquered. For example, organizations in our world like NATO have relations where if a member is attacked, the other members will defend and aid them. How could a Utopia survive without aid in a war? Do they have a very good military? How does a Utopia defend itself?    
      

Humans and Utopia: Would We Make the Cut?

I have spent a great deal of thought on the structure of a utopia, however I have recently noticed I have been failing to consider the nature of the inhabitants of this 'place'. If utopia is an idealized version of our current environment, then the people who occupy the utopia must also be an upgraded model of us (I like to call these fictional people ‘the Human 2.0’). The analyses we have been forming of utopian societies in our readings are heavily based on our own experiences. I do not see anything wrong with this, however it’s important to consider the fact that our class is a miniscule portion of the world’s population that happens to be alive in the year 2017. While each of us is quite unique, we all occupy the same classroom for a period of roughly 2 and a half hours per week on a college campus of 2,000 students in the city of Frederick, in the state of Maryland, in the United states of America on the planet Earth. We share more similarities with each other than we do differences.

Raphael’s account on Persia’s treatment of thieves would probably not work well in Frederick, Maryland in the year 2017. This doesn’t mean that it can’t work ever. We discussed the argument “but what if you are a reformed thief released back into society and your neighbor doesn’t like you” in class and agreed that this is a possibility in our society. Humans can’t exist the way they do now in a utopia, or it would quickly turn into a dystopian teen novel plot line. This is where the Human 2.0 comes into play.

One of the most curious descriptions of Utopia in More’s book came from Raphael on page 59.  He says, “…no town has any desire to extend its territory, for its citizens consider themselves to be cultivators, not owners of what they hold.” This statement is a stark contrast to his earlier narrative on monarchy where he proclaims, “[princes] care much more for how, by hook or crook, they may win fresh kingdoms than how to administer well those they already have (p.32).”

I’d speculate citizens of utopia would be very similar to us Human 1.0 models, however they would also be resistant to the pursuits that tempt us and ultimately cause unhappiness and destruction in the present society. I do not think that humans as we exist currently are inherently bad, however when we allow pride, greed, wrath, envy, sloth, lust and gluttony too steer our actions, we can end up with a planet that doesn’t look all that different from this one:

(warning: some slightly disturbing content is contained in this video)

Here we see a powerful narrative by artist Steve Cutts on the egocentric nature that a capitalistic society can create. My first thought when I watched it were that it was quite extreme, until I realized that maybe it isn’t that absurd if humans were to continue down the destructive path of competition we seem to be on. Competition between different species as well as members of the same species is natural. On a certain level—take Raphael’s tale of competitive gardening for example— it can be quite healthy for a population.

A Lack of Diversity

My first thought when starting Book 2 was: this place seems really boring. Reading about how each of the 54 cities/country towns are "identical in language, manners, customs and laws," I could not imagine being happy in a place like this. I know that the point of making everything the same is to rid society of "unnecessary desires" and to not make any one person better than another. However, I cannot imagine a life without different cultures and languages. While these differences may be a problem for many people in this world, I find them to be beautiful and intriguing and therefore I would not want to be a part of More's Utopia.

I can, however, appreciate the fact that in this utopia, basic skills like agriculture are taught to everyone. I think that's an important concept that should be implemented everywhere. At this time, agriculture was an important skill set and one that everyone should have. In today's time, there are many skills that everyone should be taught, but sadly are not.

Utility over Creativity

Thomas More's Utopia addresses the societal issues of his time with thought-provoking - and at times humorous - solutions.  In Utopia, a material’s worth is measured by its purposefulness.  For instance, Raphael argues that “anyone can see that gold and silver are less useful than iron…Nature gave gold and silver no utility” (75).  Rather, it is our own perceptions of these materials that give them value.  We associate these metals with wealth due to our culture, and we thereby view them as precious.  While good for making jewelry, or coins due to their rarity, gold and silver do not serve any vital purpose.  Therefore, these metals are merely made into chamber pots and slave chains in Utopia (which is also to conceal the fact that people outside of Utopia value gold and silver). Even clothing made from finely-spun wool is seen as unnecessary, for it does not serve its purpose in keeping you any warmer.  Gemstones are toys for children, because although they may be aesthetically pleasing, they do not have any real use for the Utopians. 

It is interesting that anything we currently perceive as valuable could be turned into “marks of disgrace” simply by changing what we associate it with (76).  What already disgusts us – not by its own nature, but merely by what we relate it to?  What I find concerning, though, is how the mindset in Utopia would affect the arts and creative expression.  Even the clothes of the Utopians resemble uniforms in that they're all very similar.  If personal expression does more harm than good, then it certainly would not have a place in Utopia.  However, something seems to be missing from a society that focuses so deeply on utility and not so much on artistry.  While I commend this overall ideal in removing any unnecessary, negative distinction between people, a level of creativity and craftsmanship may also be lost.

Reference:

More, Thomas. Utopia. Toronto: Broadview, 2010. Print.

God Is Watching You

Call me cynical, and perhaps a sinner, for having the image of Orwell's Big Brother pervade my mind as I read the rules of St. Benedict. Especially in the chapters where the degrees of humility are discussed, does the emphasis of one's lowliness as a human being, pathetic and powerless in the eyes of God, shine. A passage from chapter 7, for instance, is as follows: "The eyes of the Lord observe the good and the evil and the Lord is always looking down from heaven on the children of earth... our deeds are daily, day and night, reported to the Lord by the Angels assigned to us, we must constantly beware."  God, like Big Brother, is always watching, ready to judge or smite at a whim. Worse than Big Brother, though, is that God can condemn us after we die, and commit us to eternal torment by barring us from Paradise, though St. Benedict would exhort that it is not God's fault, but our own puny fault. 

Most of these rules involve suffocating our own human nature, which is thought-provoking, because didn't God make us in his image? So, if we censor our nature, couldn't we also be censoring the nature God has imbued within us? There is probably a reasonable explanation for this, and I realize that I am definitely showing my non-Christian bias here. St. Benedict's rules are quite austere and inhibit enjoyment of any kind, just to prepare for everlasting, heavenly joy in the afterlife, yet why even be born if not to enjoy the life we are given? Must we force ourselves to be austere for that alleged spot in heaven, sacrificing the life we know to be true, on earth?  

List of Benedict

This level of Bible-thumping always holds me at bay from a text, but Benedict says a bunch of things I can get down with. The whole premise of the text is that Benedict is establishing "a school for the service of the Lord," and the first thing he does after confirming this objective is distinguish the different kinds of monks, half of which are absolute trash, so that's kind of a funny way to start. 

One of the early chapters that was poignant in my opinion was Chapter 4: What Are the Instruments of Good Works. This chapter is a thorough list of ways to behave in accordance with the will of God. It immediately reminded me of my class on the Buddha, because the Buddhists are obsessed with lists. The Buddha's lists are definitely more concise; many of Benedict's bullet points same nearly identical things.     

Even conceding the redundancies, and approaching the text without a real religious backdrop, many of these decrees are still worthy endeavors. For example: "not to become attached to pleasures," "to keep constant guard over the actions of one's life," and "then not to murder" are all pretty decent tid-bits of advice. Some, though, are a little more heavy handed, like "to love fasting" and to attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good one sees in oneself... but to recognize that always that the evil is one's own doing, and to impute it to oneself."

I do believe it is important to bear responsibility for one's own shortcomings in life, considering we all have a handful, but I do not think that it is healthy to internalize everything bad you do and externalize everything good.       

What is Peace?

What is peace? Chapter 12 in Book XIX of The City of God proposed a view of peace that I had never considered: that peace is what every person strives for and because it is everyone's ultimate goal, the manifestations of peace can be vastly different depending on people's differing perspectives. St. Augustine goes on to define several of the different types of peace which exist in the world. Perhaps the most difficult for me to grasp when first reading it was the idea that even war is a form of peace or rather a quest for peace. At first, this seemed like a paradox: how can war be peace? But upon further analysis, St. Augustine’s interpretation of peace is completely logical. Augustine writes “Thus their desire is not that there should not be peace but that it should be the kind of peace they wish for” (866).
Can utopia exist when if someone wishes to change that utopias peace? Augustine writes “In fact, even when men wish a present state of peace to be disturbed they do so not because they hate peace, but because they desire the present peace to be exchanged for one that suits their wishes” (866). So what if someone living in a utopia wished to change the present peace? The example that comes to mind is Omelas and the people who leave because they disagree with the treatment of the child. What if rather than simply leaving, they wished to change the current state of peace? War and utopia don't seem to coincide with each other. If two utopias were at war, the result would be each becoming a dystopia. To avoid dystopian consequences, I became curious of whether there was a “right peace” and a “wrong peace” and if The City of God held the answer.
What is St. Augustine’s definition of Godly righteous peace? 
The answer, as far as I could discern, is that there is “earthly peace” and “eternal peace.” Earthly peace is when man “observes” two things: “to do no harm to anyone, and, secondly, to help everyone whenever possible” (873). Augustine’s idea of peace opposes Plato’s definition of justice because he concludes that justice is not “meddling” in other people's lives. Augustine also states that earthly peace is to be on a pilgrimage towards eternal blessings and peace. One question I had is as follows: is there no such thing as “true” earthly peace, but rather one must accept that a real sense of peace will only come when a person enters the Heavenly City?

Utopia is a Process Rather Than a 'Place'

Jake’s comment about utopia being a metaphor for single person transitioned perfectly into the reading of St. Augustine, leading me to believe he is a plant by Dr. MB to manufacture continuity. The idea of a utopia being a spiritual state for a human being rather than a place is one that sparked my interest long after class dismissed yesterday. On page 108 of The Republic, Socrates summarizes important qualifiers for a utopia: moderation, courage, wisdom and justice. I want to explore these requirements and how they could reflect a single human being in addition to describing a well-organized society.  

 Moderation

    

The first utopian characteristic Socrates emphasizes that for a utopia to function productively, there should be an agreement between the ruler and the ruled. We also see the themes of self-control and moderation woven into the narrative. On page 106, Socrates even says,” isn’t the expression ‘self-control’ ridiculous? The stronger self that does the controlling is the same as the weaker self that gets controlled, so that only one person is referred to in all such expressions.” If a utopia requires an agreement between the ruler and the ruled, it is possible for a person who is described by Socrates as being the controller and the controlled in regards to their own desires, emotions and reason to reach their own enlightenment. 

Courage and Wisdom

      

Miranda also made a valid point in class about how she believes utopia to be more of an ongoing process than a destination. This key component of utopia widens the definition of the word to be able to go beyond a ‘place’ towards something that is more like a realization. St. Augustine never uses the word ‘utopia’ but he writes that a man, whether he be a Christian or a philosopher, desires to reach ‘ultimate good,’ though for the former it comes through God and the latter aims to achieve it through itself. Socrates writes that the soldiers of a utopia should be able to distinguish what is to be feared from what isn’t. St. Augustine and Plato probably have differing opinions about what is considered harmful to the utopian states they have each described, but each understands the need to defend their own values when they are under attack.

Justice

Socrates describes justice essentially as each member who has a different function in society sticking to their own affairs and not meddling in the business of others. This is a systemic view of utopia, and one that can be compared to the systems of the human body. Imagine if your liver decided that it wanted to try to do the job of the heart and vice versa. You would have two organs designed for certain tasks doing something that is far less efficient than the way that the system was originally structured. Socrates poses that justice is achieved when every child, woman, slave, freeman, craftsmen, ruler and ruled each stick to their own roles in a society. I believe that a single person can be all of these—after all, each of us was once a child, each of us has masculine and feminine qualities, each of us is dependent on something (be it caffeine or something more serious), each of us is autonomous, each of us has a specialized skill that is unique from everyone else, and each of us is both the ruler and subject of his or her own soul.

An Internal Utopia

St. Augustine's utopia greatly differs from many of the others we have seen in that it is one that is essentially attained in one's self. By this I mean that the utopia is not necessarily a specific place that is created (like Plato's Republic for example), but rather a spiritual journey that brings a person's soul to this peaceful "utopia" which in turn would make everyone live in perfect harmony. St. Augustine's utopia is one that is more easily and realistically attainable than others we have studied; all you have to do is choose to follow this spiritual path.

Despite these differences, the utopia presented here still shares some common themes with the others. The concepts of truth, justice, and desires are all mentioned in this book. One quote that stood out to me was: "the desires of the flesh oppose the spirit" (pg 854). It seems to be a common idea in all utopian literature that people's desires need to be maintained, because that is often the cause of problems. From our discussions, however, it seems that we all seem to be in agreement that the idea of suppressing our desires is more dystopian than utopian.


 My final thought is on a quote from page 861:

"For when men cannot communicate their thoughts to each other, simply because of difference of language, all the similarity of their common human nature is of no avail to unite them in fellowship."

Although St. Augustine mentions language here, this applies to more than just differences in language. Even when a common language is spoken, a difference in culture is enough to have this same result. We see this way too often, throughout history and even today. It is the cause of racism and wars and many other problems in our world. It is a very critical reason as to why a utopia has been unattainable. Some people just can't seem to get past the differences enough to realize that underneath we are all the same.  

Augustine's "City of God": More Than a Manifesto?

Augustine's text is clearly one that advocates Christianity, but is there more to be understood than just Bible verses? What does this text add to the conversation about Utopia?

He provides us with two cities in his discussion: the City of God and the Earthly City. The City of God is, of course, a place outside the earthly, mortal realm, and the Earthly City is merely the one we all currently reside in. There are a few key differences between the City of God and the Earthly City:

1. The Earthly City is full of evil and misery.

2. There can be periods of happiness or peace in the Earthly City, but the City of God one is one of eternal peace.

3. Unlike the Earthly City, you have to earn your way into the City of God.

Based on Augustine's discussion of the City of God, it may easily be viewed as a Utopia.  It's a place stripped of everything bad, and not only are its citizens living in peace--they're living in peace forever.  This sounds pretty unimaginable (a no-place, if you will), but also pretty great (who wouldn't want to be at peace for all eternity?).  Augustine argues that Utopia cannot be achieved in this life, but the next.  Those that believe they can achieve complete happiness on their own are considered delusional. This is in part due to human imperfection and sin; the Earthly City was created to determine the perfect citizens for the City of God.

There is one interesting difference between this Utopia and the ones commonly found in literature: entering is a privilege that must be earned.  This raises the question, should a true Utopia be inclusive rather than exclusive?  Although there isn't anything in the definition of Utopia that rules out the possibility for exclusiveness, the idea just doesn't feel right to me.  For a Utopia, I've always envisioned a society where all people -- any people -- coexist in perfect harmony.  By introducing a higher power to which all people obey and respect, Augustine suggests that people will begin a journey that leads to a perfect self without sin.  Those that do not share this belief live in ignorance, according to Augustine, and thus are not suited to live in a Utopia.

Plato Republic Miranda

In Plato's Republic, Socrates explains how excess wealth and excess poverty are two problems the people will not be allowed to experience. He justifies that extreme wealth will result in the craftsmen becoming lazy and not fulfilling their duties, and that extreme poverty will result in denying the workers money to sustain their lives. Essentially, having too much or too little of wealth has the potential to cause damage. This concept connects to the idea of 'moderation' that is brought up earlier in The Republic. There appears to be an ongoing trend in The Republic that moderation is a key component towards reaching a Utopia. If there is not a balance, then the society is not in a Utopia because too much or too little of one thing can cause damage.

The idea that there needs to be a balance in a society in order for it to be good for the state is particularly intriguing. In Omelas, the child was the one part of the city that made it not perfect. Everything in the city was theoretically characteristic of a Utopia, but the child's suffering offset everything. It is interesting to consider how something like poverty, which has an inherent connotation of being bad, could actually be good in moderation. Without having the good and bad exist, how can there be balance in a Utopia? Would there be something to measure a Utopia as a Utopia if there was not something that is not perfect to reference it against? For instance, in our society we know what is good because we also know what is bad. However, that in itself also varies across cultures and ideological beliefs. How can a Utopia be a Utopia without taking the concept of balance into consideration?

Reading The Republic and repeatedly seeing the word 'moderation' leads one to believe that perhaps Utopia is not a destination but a journey. Since so many people were leaving a place like Omelas, but some of those people also stayed, perhaps there is more than one Utopia existing at a time as well. When that is taken into consideration, maybe Utopias are personal. In other words, maybe the idea of making them a society is impossible since know two people can think and agree on everything the exact same. That would suggest we do not have individuality. Is a Utopia maybe a slow convergence of consciousness where everyone becomes 'one' then? It is confusing where the line between balance and individuality should be drawn.        

Tell me a story...

Regardless of how we feel about the strict rules of censorship that Socrates proposes for his kallipolis, there can be no doubt that he is a firm believer in the importance of stories.

Big Bird and Friends gather 'round for a good story.
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Read_Me_a_Story

Socrates tells us that the stories we listen to as a young child play a key role in forming our morality. They also teach lessons - whether intentional or not - about the types of behavior that are permitted.

To be honest, I'm not sure that I find Socrates to be that far off the mark. I don't know how many of those good ol' Greek myths I'd want to use as bedtime stories for young children. Those gods and heroes do get up to some wacky hi-jinks, don't they?

But aside from the concerns of the content and form of the stories, something that struck me about Socrates' discussion is how it highlights a group of people that we wouldn't naturally associate with loads of power in this particular utopia. Not just the storytellers, but the "nurses and mothers" (53). They are the first educators, the ones who nurture the guardians when they are their youngest and most vulnerable. (Not the philosophers, who will presumably get their hands on the young men - literally and figuratively - once they are ready for a more formal education.) It's those nurses and mothers who must be "persuaded" to choose good tales for the wee guardians. Is it me, or does Socrates seem a bit insecure about whether or not those nurses and mothers will listen to his persuasion?

So let's hear it for those mothers and nurses. They are the linchpin of the kallipolis, whether in Ancient Greece or the contemporary US. Our stories are still what teach us our morality and guide us in our behavior. And is that is as it should be.

Establishing a Utopia

One interesting aspect of Plato's Republic that is unlike other well-known Utopias like Omelas, Utopia as Thomas More invented it, and others is that Plato sets out to illuminate the process of imagining a Utopia, rather than simply placing his characters and reader within one that the author has already fleshed out. This is one of Plato's greatest authorial strengths, because we as readers never know what Plato thinks.

The characters in this dialogue, Socrates, Glaucon and Adeimantus, decide that in order to determine what is truly just in a man, they must discover what justice is in a city. In this sense, Plato opens the door to an enormous overarching irony, when by the end Socrates has banished the poets from the city based on the postulate that they are furthest from the truth, meanwhile the bedrock of the entire text is founded on an extended metaphor.

More importantly for our purposes, the three parties involved spend Book II raising a city up from scratch. First they begin with only a core crucial craftsmen, but eventually the city expands more and more. This expansion is based on the fact that each person is best suited to be well trained at one specific task, and that they should be allowed to focus all of their energy on their specialized craft, so that they are capable of performing it as best as possible. However, this also leads to the invention of currency, because each person needs to be able to trade their skills for food, unless they are a farmer, in which case they need everything else.

When Socrates believes he is finished describing the just city, Glaucon famously rebuttals that it sounds like a city fit for pigs. Socrates then proceeds to describe the luxurious city, wherein the development of justice and injustice should become more transparent. I think one take-away from this argument is that injustice, or to put it another way, the need for justice, comes from a surplus of goods which allows people to live luxuriously and therefore want more than they need. Surely this is the origin of a great many crimes and acts of injustice.    

The world is humongous. It is filled with many people of varying cultures, religions, races, and ideologies. Every person on the planet is unique in their own way; differences exist between every human on Earth. No two human beings are the same. Schisms between groups of people are largely based on conflicting beliefs. All too often in the history of man, it can be noted that because of these differences a multitude of tragedies have befallen mankind: wars have been waged, racism has ingrained itself within communities, and oppression of certain groups has become commonplace.

It becomes apparent that to establish a utopia these differences that exist between people must be considered. One solution could be that everyone could accept one specific set of values that would essentially make everyone more similar, thus making the differences between everyone less apparent. However, this concept would never be feasible. Assimilating multitudes of people under one pattern of thinking would prevent any other pattern from arising. The diversity of human society would be lost as everyone began to hold similar beliefs. Furthermore, this assimilation would stifle the advancement of other cultures, causing unrest with those that want to maintain their cultural identity.

A much better solution to this dilemma is understanding. Rather than trying to erase differences by instituting a collective culture, learning to appreciate the qualities that make everyone different should be a key factor in establishing a utopia. Altogether too often, differences in culture, political stance, and race lead people to avoid interaction with others. If others are perceived to be unlike oneself, people will tend to avoid contact with an individual or group of people, never really developing an understanding of what they stand for and in what they believe.

Understanding (or even attempting to) would make everyone more sympathetic to another’s situation. Instead of judging from the outside with little to no context, people could seek understanding, giving them insight to another person’s point of view and perhaps even changing their own. If there was more understanding, there would be more sympathy. More sympathy would reinforce camaraderie among various groups of people, and with more camaraderie, peace would be more easily achieved.

For some, developing understanding and sympathy can be very difficult because there must be a willingness to develop such things. Deep-seated animosity is the worst enemy of understanding. It is a wall that prevents the process from ever starting. Therefore, people must be taught about other cultures and was of thinking before developing these biases. In schools, children should be taught to appreciate all other cultures and their fellow men and women across the world.          

Where To Begin When Creating Utopia?

The idea of defining utopia seems an impossible task. Even Socrates and Adeimantus can't agree on how to create their theoretical “city.” There seems to be too many variables to consider— what to include and what to leave out. As I continued trying to think of what constitutes a utopia, I was struck by some questions that I could not get away from regarding the idea of utopia being a “perfect place.” Doesn't perfection remove the need for desire? How can innovation exist? How can a true sense of joy be attained  if all you ever know is fulfillment; how would you be able to make a distinction between good and bad while only knowing perfection?

Two things that seem necessary to create utopia and avoid dystopia: fluidity, or adaptability, and balance.

Fluidity would accommodate for the fact that people's needs, wants, and desires are constantly changing. Omelas accounts for this in their utopia by providing an option for everyone. For example, there is religion and everyone worships as they choose or choose not to. Another idea regarding fluidity is one discussed in class while attempting to define utopia: the idea that utopia needs to be thought of as a journey and not a destination. Along that principle a utopia could be a society working together to achieve harmonious perfection. By that standard utopian happiness would be created from hope.

As I contemplated utopia further, I thought of Lois Lowry’s The Giver and the “perfect” society that is portrayed. In exchange for not feeling pain, the society also doesn't feel happiness and all of its occupants are resigned to “Sameness.” So in order to avoid a gray world, another element that would have to exist in the definition of utopia would be balance. Many scenarios of utopia have vast extremes, for example The Giver. Balance or “everything in moderation” is necessary in order to avoid creating a dystopia.

Freedom seems to be another struggle when defining utopia. Too much freedom would lead to chaos, but with too little freedom you live in a dictatorship. Again, the idea of balance needs to be applied, but how would it be decided who regulates the rules? Freedom existed in Omelas but only in the sense that the people could walk away if they found the inhuman treatment of the child wrong. They couldn't choose to free the child or that whole society would cease to exist. Choice seems to be the most important freedom in a utopian society.

One Man's Utopia is Another Man's Dystopia

Books II and III of Plato's Republic comprised Wednesday's reading assignment. Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon, discuss what components are necessary in the foundation of a city. The "first and greatest need," according to Socrates, is food (44). His arguments, to start, are relatively standard. Food, shelter, medical care, etc., are all necessary, and things that generally come to mind when one considers city planning. The incomparable Socrates, however, soon shifts the conversation onto the city's residents, delving into a discussions of censorship, and the like, and how it is necessary in order to keep citizens temperate and without too much passion.

Socrates discusses how he plans to control what stories may be told, and what stories must be "thrown out." He declares that storytellers must be "supervised," and the only sufficient stories are ones that "are fine or beautiful... since they will shape... children's souls" (53). He plans to censor stories that give "a bad image of what the gods and heroes are like," for fear that examples of these mythic figures' debauchery, violence, unvirtuousness, and the like, will create a bad example for young people to follow (53-54). Socrates' willingness to selectively censor the literary/poetic canon of his city's inhabitants, in an attempt to hide any and all notions of bad behavior, is somewhat disturbing. This act of censorship seems quite Orwellian, and to me echoes some of the reasoning certain folks have when trying to ban or censor books today. 

Socrates continues his reasoning for banning certain stories, not only wanting to ban stories of war crimes or the licentious pursuits of the gods, but of excessive laughter, appetite, etc, in an effort to encourage moderation among his citizens. He emphasizes self-control. While I agree that moderation, applied to certain aspects of life, is generally a good practice, the fact that Socrates wishes to control and censor the media consumed by his residents in order to keep them loyal, unfeeling, and "moderate," is worrisome. He decides what the truth is. To me, this seems like the erasure of passion, and he pursues this desire to erase passion, in his specific discussions of the "guardians" dispatched to lead the city, of their education, of the types of music played, etc. To Socrates, censorship is a utopian necessity, in other to keep his citizens mild, emotionless blobs. The classic Greek stories of the gods getting into less than savory activities must be hidden from this city's constituents, because "they are harmful to people who hear them, for everyone will be ready to excuse himself when he's bad... For that reason, we must put a stop to such stories, lest they produce in the young a strong inclination to do bad things" (68).

Does Socrates, the self-imposed founder of the city become the person that decides what is good or bad? What myths are too sexy to be seen? Who determines who decides? His city is based censorship and control of his citizens. He plans to manipulate the media, to hide many of the stories central to the literary canon from the city's unwitting residents in order to keep them completely dispassionate, boring, blah. Bummer!