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 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?    
      

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.        

Self-sacrifice for the Greater Good

In order to make the world a better place, I want to implement a national and international rule that requires everyone, who is able, to volunteer. I believe that volunteering makes a much more significant impact on the betterment of society than society gives it credit for. Volunteering time and service is something that can be done in various forms. It can be done in the comfort of your own home, and there are varying degrees of volunteering that can be committed to make an impact. The amount of time someone volunteers does not have to be huge in order for society to benefit. Even little acts can help others in need more than if everyone did nothing. I believe that volunteering is important because there are a lot of less fortunate people in the world. Not everyone can afford to get the help they need, and when people volunteer and help others they tend to feel better themselves as well. Volunteering has a fairly large range of application as well. Therefore, society would have numerous options. There are hospitals, schools, food industries, nursing homes, and a plethora of other options that could appeal as volunteer options for people. In addition, the method in which one volunteers their time or service also has a multitude of options. People could volunteer and do something from a computer in a completely different part of the world even. Without volunteers, people struggle to be successful. Most things in our world cost money, so without money sometimes people in society suffer. Money provides an incentive for people to do work for themselves and others, but volunteering without a reward builds character and helps people to make real connections. If people stop doing things only for gain, then negative aspects of society like crime could decrease. Sometimes all anybody needs is someone who cares, and the more selfish people there are in the world the more unhappiness will increase. Volunteering is a good way to ground people in reality, and expose them to different people and places. Also, you never know if you will be someone who needs help one day, so it can be mutually beneficial. I believe that society can accomplish this by requiring volunteering to be implemented in schools, communities, and the work force. It does not have to be daily or for very long, but making it required and included in curriculum will help people make time for it. There won't be an excuse if it is already part of what you are doing. Even though not everyone works or goes to school, if communities encourage volunteering the outreach will increase. Obviously not everyone will likely get to participate in the entire world, but if those who are already fortunate enough to work or go to school do, then at least an impact is being made. Volunteering in school can be as simple as people tutoring or cleaning up trash. Volunteering in the work force can be as simple as annual soup kitchen trips. I believe it has a greater chance of being successfully accomplished if the idea is gradually inducted. Maybe it won't ever reach everyone, but at least there is no harm in volunteering even a little to help as many as you can. It is like the saying that goes something along the lines that if you can't help everyone help one person by Mother Teresa.