Who Needs Boys?? Oh Wait... Apparently We Do...

The end of this book has left me very unsure of my feelings, just as we were warned that we would be after the last class.  I really liked the beginning of this book and agreed with Gilman very strongly.  As a joke, my mom and I have always discussed the perks of having a society made up of only women, using men only for reproductive purposes.  While this was a joke (and not very nice) I was very surprised to find that this is almost exactly what Gilman did.  I laughed out loud when the men were surprised by the organization and beauty of Herland upon their arrival.  I wasn't sure what they were expecting.  To me this society was designed exactly as I would have imagined a society made up of all women to be designed.- orderly and clean.

As a feminist work, I think that Herland did a wonderful job at pointing out the downfalls of Gilman's society in the beginning.  I admired her feminine characters and the strength and autonomy that they possessed.  I especially loved the chapters in which the differences between Herland and the outside world were drawn.  I think that the points raised were well thought out and important for Gilman's time, and I think that she portrayed the problems in a comic way that kept the reader interested and entertained.  They created an effective commentary and were one of the most memorable parts of the book for me.

As the book came to a close, however, I found the ingenuity and cleverness that Gilman had possessed in the beginning of the book to be undermined by the ending plot.  While Gilman successfully created a society that was autonomous without any males and that called into question a lot of the practices of her society, the romantic relationships that develop between the characters at the end of the novel contradicted her original points and premise and left me very confused.

When the society was first introduced, it was described as self-sufficient, clean, orderly, and crime free with everyone treating each other as family.  The society was described as successful despite its autonomy and independence from any male influence.  While the men were surprised to see a society of all women working so successfully, I did not find it strange at all.  I applauded the society and, while I may have opposed the greatest honor being motherhood, agreed with many of the characteristics of Gilman's society.  When the women began falling for the men, however, I found myself shaking my head and questioning Gilman's purpose.  The autonomy that she had created so successfully at the beginning of the novel was lost as these women began to become romantically attached to the men that entered their society.  As a feminist work, it lost its edge.

While I did find that the women seemed to remain dominant, or at least somewhat equal, in the relationships that the developed, I still think that the development of relationships on any level with males ruins the premise of the novel and discredits many of the beginning points of the book.  How could these ladies have been so successfully autonomous for so long if they fell for men as soon as they entered their society?  Why do the men need to be integrated into the society in order for it to be considered successful or complete?  Why do these women find themselves drawn to these men, especially Terry, who do not respect or understand their way of life and who bring their own ideas and prejudices with them?  While both Van and Jeff seem to enjoy the ideals of the society and respect the women, allowing them to share equally in the relationships, it seemed very strange to me that these strong, independent, successful women felt the need to share any of that or give it up for a relationship with a male of any kind.  Maybe these relationships would have made sense to me if these women had been seen struggling without men or had been left feeling incomplete, but that was not the case.  This society had even figured out how to reproduce without men...  It was only when the romantic relationships developed that violence, in the form or rape, was introduced into the society, and the peace and tranquility that the society seemed to have at the beginning had disappeared in a way at the end of the book.

While this book made an effort at, or appealed to, both feminist and utopian literature, I think that it fell short on both accounts.  Its contradictory nature and the
willingness of its inhabitants to change and leave keep it from being effective in either category.

Could It Really Work?

Like many of the other readings that we have looked at already in this class, I think that the society that Moore proposes is a great one overall.  There is, like always, the question of whether or not this society would actually be able to be successful if it were real.  No matter what the authors claim of these fictional societies and people, we come from a society and have a background where people cannot be trusted to the extent that More describes the Utopians.  We always face these readings with the infamous fig stealer at the forefront of our mind.

Despite the questions about what can and cannot work in this society, there were many things that I liked about the way More set up Utopia.  I agreed very strongly with the government and the way it was run and used.  It is not a government like the one that we have today or like More had while he was writing.  The government officials are not elected, but are appointed by the people.  Those appointed do not act as though they have power over the other people.  They are more like caretakers and they make sure that their people have what they need.  It is at these officials' houses that the people of the towns are fed and the officials are the ones that work to distribute the wealth.  I also really enjoyed that there was no official justice system.  There were some understood and accepted laws, like those about drifters and deserters, but the other issues were handled on a case by case basis.

I also enjoyed how the schedule was arranged.  I found myself thinking as I read that I could be happy in a society where I was required to work and give back to society for six hours a day, which I found to be very reasonable.  They were then allowed to attend educational lectures or continue working.  I loved that both lunch and dinner began with reading from an intellectual work, and I loved the table arrangements.  I think that I took so kindly to this lifestyle because no one is overworked.  I am in charge of my own schedule and find myself constantly running back and forth trying to get everything done that I need to do, and usually there are just not enough hours in the day. This lifestyle really appealed to me because I would not be able to do this to myself and would be able to have time to do things that I enjoy doing, like attending the educational lectures.

I also really enjoyed the discussion of the uses for money, gold, silver and jewels.  I found this to be very backward from how we think and how they thought during More's time, but I loved it!  I really enjoyed the discussion about nature and his comment about how nature gives us everything that we need, so the gold and silver and jewels that are buried are not necessary and should not be given a higher value than a more useful material like iron.  I love that they made these metals something to be looked down upon, and I think More was correct when he said that by using the metals the Utopians were convinced that they were nothing, but by locking them up, they would spark curiosity.  I also laughed when I read that jewels were reserved for the toddlers.  I think that in a society where money is of no value, they dealt with the objects that were deemed valuable in other societies in a very clever way that really did make them of no value in their society.

There were a few things that I did disagree with as the book continued on, but they were not huge things, rather, things I found to be strange.  I found the rules governing the act of marriage to be strange, but I wonder if they were more in line with the practices of More's time and society than they are with ours.  I keep putting myself in the place of the girl for that awkward first meeting and just cannot wrap my head around how that could be normal.  I also found their means of population control to be strange.  I understood moving people around if they towns got too full, but I did not understand how they were able to let the colonists onto the island without any conflict.

That last idea brings me to my main thought as I went through the end of this book.  I found the ideas of respect and understanding to be of utmost importance in not only Utopian society but all of the other surrounding societies.  The Utopians all had respect for each other and for how the society was run, and those outside of Utopia seemed to have a relatively good understanding of how the Utopians lived and accepted them and left them alone.  I cannot help imagining this society in the world today and the need that many of the larger powers would have to make a trip over and enlighten them to the ways of a perfect world as we have done so many times before.  So, I guess I really do like More's ideas, but I still have those lingering questions of how this society would actually work in a world like the one we live in today and if it would actually work as well as More says it does if it did exist.

Is God the Answer?

It may be my catholic school background, or maybe I was just not reading closely enough, but I found St. Augustine to be fairly easy to understand.  I even found myself agreeing with many of his overarching ideas and drawing parallels between many things that he called attention to and what I see in our world today.

Of all that I read, I found his discussion of the two cities to be the most interesting.  For a while, I could not discover what the second city was.  Obviously, the first of the two cities is the City of God, in which there is all encompassing happiness and love because all is as it should be and God is the only one with power.  The second city, we find out in Book XI at the end of chapter 1, is the earthly city.  I found almost all of what St. Augustine to be saying throughout this book focusing on these two cities and the ways in which they differ.

If I am not mistaken, he does not like mankind and believes that they do not understand spirituality of the workings of God.  He feels very strongly that the City of God “does not depend on the chance impulses of the minds of men, but is manifestly due to the guiding power of God’s supreme province,” (Book XI, Ch.1). Throughout this reading, St. Augustine compares the earthly city to the heavenly city.  All of his commentaries about the two focus on the differences between the supreme, perfect nature of God and the fickle, imperfect nature of mankind.  The largest section of comparison comes in Book XIV, chapter 28 when he is discussing the origins of the two cities.  He states that the “earthly city was created by self-love reaching the point of contempt for God” and “the Heavenly City by the love of God carried as far as contempt itself,” (Book XIV, Ch. 28).  He makes a clearer distinction saying, “the earthly city glories in itself, the Heavenly city glories in the Lord,” (Book XIV, Ch. 28).  According to St. Augustine, the major difference between these two cities is the power given to God and the complete submission to his word and deed.  He favors this over all other ways of thinking and states that those who favor the Heavenly city will be much happier than those that continue to reside in the earthly city.

When reading these comparisons, I cannot help but find similarities between some of the problems that St. Augustine highlights and those that I see in the world today.  Many of the points that he raises about humans and their focus on pride and power hold true today.  His comments about how in the earthly city, “the lust for domination lords over its princes as over the nations it subjugates,” (Book XIV, Ch. 28).  There is no difference between his assertion then and what we see in our world today.  As a nation, we still look to dominate other countries, and we always have.  Even among the people of our nation, competition for the best clothes, or the best car, or the best grades dictate our actions and our priorities.  While I do not agree fully with St. Augustine’s solution, I do believe that something needs to be done about the desire to be the best.  I think that his idea of a city where competition and domination are nonexistent is wonderful.  I think that this connects back to the first day of class and our first blog post.  Many of us had a plan to change the world that revolved around the idea that our world needs more understanding and acceptance of others.  I think that, while St. Augustine may have had a different solution to the problems that he was finding in the world (through God and spirituality) than we did in our class, I think that the desire for a solution to the problem shows that there has been very little change in the nature of humans and their priorities since this was written.  Maybe St. Augustine is on to something and there really is a city that could exist, where all of the issues we discussed on the first day of class are resolved, in a sphere beyond our imagination.

It's All Relative

“What would you change to make the world a better place?  And how can that change be implemented?”

            The answer to this question is one that I have been struggling with since it was posed in class yesterday.  Sure, there are plenty of answers; coming up with one is the easy part.  The hard part of this question, the part that has been nagging at me for the last two days, is how to implement the change that I believe this world desperately needs.  My original answer in class was to create an increased understanding of people, ideas, environments, and lifestyles.  While I still believe that this would be an effective change and that if it could be implemented it would in fact improve our world, I continue to find myself struggling with the “How?.”  The more I think about the “How?” the more I find my thoughts drifting to the idea of perspective.  For this reason, I am changing my response from class a bit and this post will focus on the importance of perspective and how awareness of perspective and a conscious effort to keep an objective perspective will help make this world a better place.

            I found that I was drawn to the idea of increased understanding because I am constantly upset about the lack of respect and regard people have for those around them.  Today’s society is very individualized.  People make decisions based on whether they will benefit or whether they will enjoy what they are doing.  Gone are the days when we helped out our neighbors or walked an elderly person across the street.  No one has the time or patience for that anymore, and that is sad.  The idea of perspective comes in when we discuss how this increased understanding and regard for our fellow humans comes about.  I believe that a world where everyone shared an unbarred and objective perspective would be a happier one.  If people could and would put themselves willingly in someone else’s shoes, there would be far less prejudice and an increased understanding of what those around us face on a daily basis.  This willingness to look at a situation through someone’s eyes that aren’t their own doesn’t come over night.  It takes someone who has worked to develop their understanding of their perspective- someone who is willing to make a change for the better.  This change, if made by all, will work to effectively eliminate hate, prejudice, poverty, and war. 

            Originally, I had the idea that this effort would begin with a select few that made the choice to help change this world, but as I thought more about implementation, I realized that there was no way that my strategy would initiate any change at all.  Instead, I have decided that our society should implement a policy where a half hour every day is set aside for reflection.  This reflection time could take many forms- journaling, meditating, deep thinking, whatever- but during this time, people must make a conscious effort to put themselves in someone else’s shoes- to deepen their understanding of perspective- until, little by little, that reflection and that acknowledgement of the humanity of those around them enters into their everyday thoughts and actions.  I believe that, as a society, we can be trained to be kinder and more accepting.  I believe that we have the potential to truly make this world a better place, and I believe that the seed for that change is in each and every one of us, but due to cultural norms, we must work to surmount the obstacles in our path and take the time to change ourselves and the world by changing our perspectives.