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?