It Takes Many Societies to Make a Utopia

            Like Taylor, I find myself liking qualities from Both Bellamy and Morris’ futuristic ideas; however, I seem to slightly enjoy more of Morris’ ideas. The idea I enjoy above all is that of work. Morris says, “We are not short of wealth, there is a kind of fear growing up amongst us that we shall one day be short of work. It is a pleasure which we are afraid of losing, not a pain”(1232). Having this mindset completely changes everyone’s life. Looking forward to going to work and enjoying your job makes you appreciate your life a lot more and understand the value of hard work and the value of doing what you love. Frankly, I think our society should be more like this. Yes, we are encouraged to do what we love, but I cannot tell you how many people have told me “So an English degree, how will you make money?” Yes, I hope to have a rather high salary, but I believe doing what I love will be more rewarding than money. Aside from my small rant, Morris’ people also have the idea that, “instead of avoiding work, everybody seeks it” (1325). This would help to have all jobs fulfilled and a very successful, high functioning society.

            Though I really enjoyed Morris’ ideas, I found myself very intrigued with Bellamy trying to restore the old system of living in his society with a new way of life. On page 30, Bellamy explains that this new system would have, “more individual dignity and freedom, but it would be at the price of general poverty and the arrest of material progress.” I think that it is good to have a society (much like our own) that has individual dignity and freedom but poverty should not be the price to pay for being free. Perhaps Bellamy could find a way to combine his ideas with Morris, such as the value of money (or lack there of), so people could have some sort of freedom without living in complete poverty. In addition, people may realize that being materialistic isn’t necessary to have a good life, and perhaps they could focus more on the non-materialistic benefits they are rewarded with as they work.

            While reading both texts I also found that many ideas prevalent in both societies were similar to ideas I enjoyed from Thomas More’s “Utopia.” One example of this is the idea of “no money or obvious exchanges” (1088). In our society today, much of what we do is greatly influenced by money. In both of these societies, money does not dictate how these people live and enjoy their lives (which I think is wonderful!!).  In addition to money not having value, there is no buying and selling of goods, which for the most part takes away classicism. Lastly, as I previously explained, Morris’ society really appreciates and values their work, just as the people do in “Utopia.” Perhaps the BEST society could combine ideas from Bellamy, Morris AND More’s ideal societies.

Am I in Sunday School?

When I first started reading “Rule of St. Benedict” I could have sworn I had accidentally picked up the Bible. While reading Chapter Four, I felt like I was back in Sunday school reading the Ten Commandments, except instead of ten there is a list of 72 “instruments of good work”. Just to be a little different from everyone else, I thought I’d highlight some of the points St. Benedict made that I actually really like (yes there are many that remind me of the City of God and I am not completely in favor of, but there were quite a lot of points that I thought would make a sufficient society). For starters, how about no meat? Addie? In Chapter 39 he says, “Let all abstain entirely from eating the flesh of four-footed animals.” In addition, he says that people should not over-indulge. Though some may see this as people not eating enough, I see it as a good thing. Perhaps it’s hard to understand because in our culture today people eat quite a lot and obesity is rapidly increasing, but eating just enough would help people stay healthy and make sure everyone gets food.

            Now let’s talk about social structure. Yes, people have certain jobs to obtain to, but there isn’t really much of a power imbalance. The young are to respect their elders, but they are not necessarily less important in the society. Early on in the chapter one he says, “whether slaves or free, we are all one in Christ.” This being said, everyone is on somewhat of an equal playing field, at least more so than in St. Augustine’s version of society. He also says, “let no one in the monastery follow his own heart’s fancy” (Chapter 3). Benedict believes that rather than doing his or her own will, everyone must do the will of God. I suppose this takes away individuality, but at the same time, if the Utopia of the afterlife is something everyone in the society is striving for, wouldn’t it make sense to work together to achieve it? And if everyone does similar things and shares the same beliefs wouldn’t that make it easier too?

            Back to the Utopia real quick…does Benedict ever use the words “Heaven” or “afterlife”? I could be completely mistaken and oblivious, but I did not see these words appear in the text, at least not frequently. Yes, the Abbess “hold[ing] the place of Christ in the monastery” makes us aware that there is some other place where God must be, but Benedict doesn’t really mention Heaven itself (he refers to living for God but never says exactly where God lives). I couldn’t tell if this was just supposed to be common sense (that he is talking about Heaven) or if perhaps it was purposeful. He never really mentions that there is a place that they are hoping to get to, rather that they are just living for God. Is Utopia Heaven? Can there be a Heaven without a Hell?

Socrates Talking to Himself About Nature vs. Nurture

When I started reading “The Republic,” it seemed as if Socrates was talking to himself. As Hayley mentioned in her blog post, Socrates is “desperate to display his own intelligence.” I too think that he wants to show off how intelligent he is, so much so that it seems like he is talking to himself because his friend’s replies are some what of the “yeah yeah whatever you say just please shut up” nature. While I may have started reading with similar thoughts in my head as the responses of Adeimantus and Galucon, I gradually began to be interested in what Socrates was actually trying to say.

            Early on in the reading I came across a footnote that said “a city is a collection of people, not a collection of buildings” (14). Though this may seem like a simple concept to grasp, there’s actually quite a lot of depth to it. Rather than focusing on just the idea of Utopia as a whole, like in other readings, Socrates is diving into the specific details of the lives of the people who make up/create this society. Shortly afterward Socrates starts developing his plan by beginning with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (defined in Noel’s previous post) realizing that people first need food and shelter then they can start thinking about their jobs and roles in the society.

            Toward the beginning of Book Three, Socrates starts to share ideas that remind me of the nature vs. nurture debate in psychology. On page 72 he says, “haven’t you noticed that imitations practiced from youth become part of nature and settle into habits of gesture, voice, and thought?” Socrates seems to be suggesting that children imitate many behaviors that they learn quickly at a young age, and continue many of these behaviors the rest of their lives. If this is the case, then he believes that from an early age, as they are creating this Utopia, the proper ideas need to be practiced and installed into people’s heads as to not create conflict in the future. Though I think this is a good idea, especially if you want a Utopia to remain a Utopia, I think Socrates has to keep in mind that many people act a certain way not solely because of their nurture but greatly because of their nature (how their genes are wired). This being said, Socrates can do all he wants to make his society perfect, but ultimately he cannot completely persuade people to do one thing or another because he cannot control their nurture.

            I do apologize for this post being a bit all over the place, but perhaps that makes it more like Socrates thoughts. Although I find many of his ideas quite insightful, I do not find them all plausible. Yes, over a great period of time society can drastically change, but does every individual change? Are people only acting a certain way because they are in this new society and think they all have to act a certain way? What would happen if you isolated people after years of trying to develop Socrates ideal society, would they go back to their old ways?