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.

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.

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.

The Environmental Dystopia

One of the most horrifying issues faced today is our impact on the environment.  Be it our use of plastics - which has led to the investigation of a possible new geological epoch - or our use of carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels, we are creating a dark future for ourselves and our planet.  An increase in ocean temperatures will increase the strength of hurricanes, which continue to pose a serious threat to human life today.  Flooding increases in some regions and severe droughts in others.Without intervention, human activity may cause entire ecosystems to fall. With all of these side effects and more, we will eventually pose a serious risk to our own survival.

In order to mitigate our negative impact on the environment, several changes must be made. Carbon emissions, for example, have in part been covered by the Paris Agreement, but all countries (worldwide) must follow this plan. Additionally, we can increase investment in researching and implementing carbon capture and storage to reduce carbon dioxide concentration. Littering must be taken more seriously, and we must increase our recycling efforts. To reduce plastic waste, a "plastic tax" could be implemented in order to discourage the purchase and use of such products. Companies that use recycled materials could also be given tax breaks. Clean-up crews could be implemented on a larger scale to remove litter.

In the most extreme case, we could forego our technology and revert to a pre-industrial lifestyle. To do so, governments would need to enact a ban on all unacceptable technology and confiscate such items. People would resist this severe transition and a totalitarian government would most likely be necessary to implement this new way of life. References to our current technology would be removed and literature would be censored. After a few generations, the public would no longer remember the way life used to be. To prevent the same damaging technologies from being rediscovered, governments would have to regulate inventions. Those that don't cause harm to the environment would be granted permission for use, whereas dangerous or harmful inventions would be hidden from the public. The inventor(s) would be placed under strict supervision of the government and forbidden to speak about their dangerous discoveries.

The negative side effects of human activity are well documented. In order to protect our future health, we must also protect the environment.


Image Sources:

1. <http://www.climate-change-guide.com/melting-polar-ice-caps.html>

2. <http://www.countrylife.co.uk/country-life/country-life-litter-campaign-71195>