Big Brother Knows Best: Stop Trying to Cheat the System

Well, if those readings weren't comparable to falling down a rabbit hole, then I don't know what is. My brain is thrumming with confusion and ideas and I think I might have to read both these texts in their entirety to figure out what exactly is going on and if I like it. I feel like we have been dropped into two typical "dystopian" societies that we would find in a leisurely work of literature but instead of seeing that system fall or seeing that protagonist question the system or rebel, we are only getting the system's view. We are given two unreliable narrators who barely know who they are themselves and are figuring out what societies they've fallen into. Both in the future, with people from the past, these stories show immense changes in societies similar to the one we live in now. This makes it almost easier to grip as far as this being possible in the future, but also terrifying that we could one day slip into a coma or travel away and come back and see a whole different working of the world.

Both stories have a resounding totalitarian vibe no matter what their government actually goes by. And both are introduced to the characters in the same way. Welcome to our Utopia. You look confused. Here's what you've missed. But on another note, they are both very modern and make me think more of angsty teen utopian fiction than the other works we have read so far. Neither seems ridiculous and field by robots or time machines either. They're completely plausible and have reasons for why everything is the way it now is.

I'm still mulling over what we've read and I think I need to think out loud this time around, but here are some ideas that stood out to me.

Bellamy:

"There was absolutely no violence. The change had been long foreseen." (31)

• I would think that any kind of change in our world would start with some kind of conflict that eventually led to war or destruction. I don't think we would ever come to a point of mutual understanding where we agreed that a change would need to come, but maybe it's just never gotten to that point. Our country comes together when tragedy strikes and maybe if the impact was that big, our togetherness would stay until we resolved out world.

"The nation, that is to say, organized as the one great business corporation in which all other corporations were absorbed; it became the one capitalist in the place of all other capitalists, the sole employer, the final monopoly in which all previous and lesser monopolies were swallowed up, a monopoly in the profits and economies of which all citizens shared." (30)

• We spent years of school learning that monopoly was terrible and that any big spender who monopolized something like the railroad system was a pompous jackass to be frowned upon. But here we have someone saying that we were only afraid of monopolies because we didn't see their value and that they're actually good and we should monopolize even the biggest monopolies to create one giant one. We apparently shouldn't fear being taken over by the big leagues, but instead succumb to them and encourage it to a higher more extreme level. "The absorption of business by ever larger monopolies" (29)

"To make a beginning somewhere, for the subject is doubtless a large one, what solution, if any, have you found for the labor question?"
"The solution came as the result of a process of industrial evolution which could not have terminated otherwise"

• This was interesting and was mentioned in Morris' text as well. Machinery and industrialization were able to tackle issues with labor. I would think this would take away job opportunities and increase poverty, but they see it as being better.

"We have no wars now, and our governments no war powers, but in order to protect every citizen against hunger, cold and nakedness, and provide for all his physical and mental needs, the function is assumed of directing his industry for a term of years." (32)

• I like that war does not exist or is at least quite rare and that the government cannot declare war. I also applaud the values and goals of the government. It is not power play, but rather making sure that everyone is comfortable and has the basic necessities for the basic rights to live.

Wrap-Up: I am also fascinated by the lack of political parties. Does this mean that everyone has similar values or that there is more chaos without labels? I understand requiring service from people for a few years, but from 21-45 seems like a ridiculous plan. No selling and buying of anything? Credit cards that are really debit cards with no spending freedom? Equal pay for work that is only determined when we say that everyone works equally? And labeling people as the Invalid Corps because they are the lowest class of contributors; is that kind or absolutely cruel and unusual?

Morris:

For Morris' read, you had to dig a little deeper to figure out the laws and customs. We see that there is some sort of required uniform from the phrase "work-a-day" clothes. We also see that money is different or not used when the protagonist pulls out coins as a tip and is met with confusion. It's interesting that money is always seen as dangerous in these societies. Many don't have it or control it so differently.

We hear that here have been no crimes like robbery in 150 years, which sounds great. There is no criminal law, no civil law courts and crime is treated like a "spasmodic disease". However, murder seems to be looked at with just a brief shrug. Sometimes people fight and sometimes it leads to killing each other, but no worries "remorse will certainly follow transgression". No punishment necessary. What the hell?

Work sounds way too Buddha and Hippie-like for my liking, but that could be my Myers Briggs personality that thrives on tangible rewards like grades and honors. The reward for labor is life. You should be thrilled to work because it means you're alive. Work is pleasure! Wealth is having your work complete! Who needs machines, they ruined all the fun of work. Let's get rid of them so we can love work again!

It's also interesting to see how this society came to be. It sounds like the rich were upset that they would have to financially support the poor which would eventually create a giant middle class. State Socialism starts and then there's the destruction of commerce. Then comes 'the lesson' or country-wide meetings with a new plan that sounds creepily like Hitler's 'Final Solution'. Massacre breaks out and turns to civil war and then the conservatives defeat the liberals. Chaos ensues. A massive strike starts and then the party of ORDER arrives.

I don't know how I feel. And I find it interesting how these stories both contradict and echo each other. The purpose for creating them sounds similar. But one started from peace and one from violence. One worships machines and one despises them. One decided change was necessary and one had to persuade a nation for change. I enjoyed both reads, but I'm still completely baffled. All I know is that these people have accepted their governments and worship them and think they are best. They do not question, they do not look back at the past and they would never try to cheat the system or work against it.

Love thy neighbor, Hate thyself

While everyone is feeling guilty that they should be brushing up on their Bible readings or going to church more, I am in a whole new world of wonder. Some of the phrases match the ones I hear in the Torah on Yom Kipur (Our day of judgment), but my religious knowledge is more attuned to how to prepare a mean bagel with Lox and Cream Cheese or knowing how to deal with curly hair. Growing up Jewish meant not really understanding communions and confirmations, and just trying to make comparisons with the holidays and traditions I grew up with instead. As I mentioned to Dr. MB, I attempted to learn the basics of the bible for fear of not knowing allusions used on my AP Lit test in high school. I believe I used the Precious Moments children's bible.

Needless to say, my knowledge of bible verses is slim, and unless Laura Ingalls practiced writing the bible verse on her slate in her little house on the prairie, I'm probably not familiar with it. I really liked the way that this was organized. The is the topic I want to discuss and this is how I'm going to explain it. I guess Augustine was set up similarly, and I know I bashed it, but I felt here that the explanations were vital to understanding the topics and subjects presented and that it was written in a pretty clear and easy manner that kept it interesting and not as dry.

There are so many thoughts both positive and negative brewing in my head, but I guess I'll just focus on the things that stood out. I suppose the biggest point to be aware of is that those in a monastery are to live their life for God. This, of course, seems obvious, but I've never realized how demanding that statement is. You live your life for God. Not for you, at all. You should never do anything to make yourself feel better or happier, and you should never be upset with yourself or angry at yourself. In fact you should feel nothing yourself, and you can't even pity yourself if you feel any of these things. You were born merely to serve God and that is all you will do. If you are happy, it is because you have done things to make God happy. Nothing can be for personal gain. Everything comes back to God.

And while we're on the subject of what life is meant to be lived for, it's also key to note that everyone should be fearful of God and Hell. Everyone must accept that God is awesome and almighty and there should be fear in their hearts and minds in order to serve God. You may love God, but you may not think yourself a comrade or equal to God. You must always serve God and respect God. You also must live in constant fear of Hell. You can't just be aware that hell is a bad place, you must constantly fear it every day and it should be your biggest worry. Your life goal should be eternal bliss in Heaven. Everything you do is to earn that eternal glory, but you must also remember that it is easy to fall into the pits of hell. It is so simple to think a bad thought that turns to sin and drives you to hell. There is even a portion of the text that says to never follow your intuition. It basically states that it might seem like a good idea at the time, but that ultimately whatever trial you attempt will end with you in Hell, because any personal idea or plan is apparently unholy and can only result in hellish turmoil.

The other points that seem to get drilled into your head during the reading are obedience and general rule following. Rules of any kind are law. You should follow these rules and respect them above all else. You must also be obedient. You must do everything you are told to no matter what you think of it. This goes for the rulers at your institution or from God himself. It doesn't matter what the command is, you must follow it for God. It is considered insane to follow your heart and instinct. Why should you need to come up with ideas and plans of your own if you have rules and obedient orders to follow?

I could go on and on with the bad and the good, but my notes and the text itself are endless. (The discussion should be filled with content and length too!) But overall, I found the rules fascinating because they were all backed by bible verses that seemed to be the perfect mottos and slogans for installing the rule. Everything also circled back to serving God. So while a rule might not make sense to us in a modern sense, they did all serve a purpose to serving God. A monastery resident would know everything to do, think, say and act without having to ask [which is good because we shouldn't really be talking unless absolutely necessary...I mean a question could provoke an answer which is scandalous] It's perplexing to read something in a Utopia class that is all about living for one thing: God and not for creating a perfect world for ourselves. In this sense, we must serve God and think nothing of ourselves in order to gain that Utopian eternal life, but while you live, you may only serve God, you must respect all others, but you can think nothing and do nothing for yourself. You can live, but you can't live for you.

Rules, Rules, Rules. Oh and more Rules

My initial reaction to this reading was that there's no way I'm gonna understand any of this, but now that I've actually taken my time to read it. It was sort of boring, but I liked it. There are so many rules. Rules to Rules to Rules.

But I think the just of the whole text was that you must submit yourself to God. Your whole self. You own nothing. It is all God's. Everything you must do you must do it for God with God in mind. You must also ask the Abbot/Abbess. Even they must use counsel sometimes. I am assuming from this text that the best kind of person is a God fearing man. The text even states that the Abbot himself should do all things in the fear of God... he will have to render an account of all his decisions to God, the most just Judge.

Another thought was that this text is like a day by day rules and regulations list of how to live by God. St. Benedict thought of EVERYTHING and how to do it. Like I said before: lots and lots of rules, even for the sick, which to me is crazy.

Did anyone actually read Chapter 4, What Are the Instruments of Good Works????? Well I did and the list is freaking crazy. Do not murder, do not steal, to bury the dead, visit the ski, love fasting, relieve the poor, clothe the naked, help in trouble, prefer nothing to the love of Christ, don't get mad, don't hold grudges. AHHHHHH. Its so much. How can anyone remember all of these things? Oh, I know. Because women have certain times of the day during certain times of the year to read. We must always read and when reading time is over, we can sit on our beds and be still OR read. We just cannot disturb the others from sitting still. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing wrong to live a life by God. But to live this life described in this text????? Oh, hell no. (Sorry God). That's not gonna happen. Well, I'm sure there were people who did, because those people are described in chapter 1. There are four different types of monks. The first is the best and its the life that is described in the rest of the reading. The second type, Anchorites/Hermits, are okay. The third type, Sarabaites, are described as detestable, so they ain't shit. And the fourth kind, Gyrovagues, ain't shit either. The last sentence of the chapter says: Passing these over, therefore, let us proceed, with God's help, to lay down a rule for the strongest kind of monks, the Cenobites. Is that what the rest of the 42 chapters are? Just A rule???? How about a whole bunch of freaking ruleSSSSSSSSS.

After I read this whole text and thought about this piece of work. I realized who in their right mind would take their time to actually write this??? Who says that these are the right ways to live their life??? Did he get a vision from God? I highly doubt that. Did he get counsel and a whole bunch of abbots get together with their brothers and wrote this work? I don't get it, but would like to know why. Knowing what class is like, I'm not sure if my question is going to be answered. I would hope so though.

Censorship brings about a just society?

I believe that the idea of censorship is one that a few people have touched on in their posts already, but this is the point that struck me most about The Republic so far. As a society, I think most of our ideas of utopia before this class were that in a very simplified form, utopia = freedom. When we take Dr. MB’s definition into account, we can see the flaw in our thinking but most people aren’t as lucky as us to be taking this class (not sarcastic!!)

So why do we associate utopia and freedom? I think this starts from the misconception that utopia is a perfect place and so for us freedom is perfection and so utopia is a free place.

In addition to this, there is the misconception of utopias and dystopias being the direct opposite. Dystopias are where only the privileged are free to do as they like and everyone else is oppressed and must rise against the evil dictators.

Reading The Republic challenges our ideas of what a utopia is. Socrates begins his excruciatingly long metaphor with the statement that he will present a just city to his listeners: “Perhaps, then, there is more justice in the larger thing, and it will be easier to learn what it is. So, if you’re willing, let’s first find out what sort of thing justice is in the city and afterwards look for it in the individual, observing the ways in which the smaller is similar to the larger” (Book II, 369a.) So we know from the beginning that Socrates is thinking of this fictional city as a utopia.

Socrates begins to explain how they will censor their literature and their mythology so that the citizens of this city will only hear stories that uphold the values of their society. He says “Whenever anyone says such things about a god, we’ll be angry with him, refuse him a chorus, and not allow his poetry to be used in the education of the young, so that our guardians will be as god-fearing and godlike as human beings can be” (Book II, 383c.)

This is where we are faced with the contradiction (in our previous beliefs) that a utopia is not necessarily free or our idea of benevolent.

The act of censorship in our society is viewed as an attack; historically, literature has generally been censored because it was written by oppressed people, or because the subject matter makes people uncomfortable. Here neither seems to apply. Socrates may be uncomfortable with the subject matter if only because he believes it will bring about less than desirable traits in the soldiers guarding the utopia.

In the end, all of this is an extended metaphor for what makes up a just man. If the soldiers exist in the city, they exist in the man. What Socrates seems to be expressing is a desire for censorship of the education, information, and literature we consume, even when those may be as beautiful as Homer’s poetry.

I’m not sure about you but this doesn’t sound like a utopia I would want to live in.