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.