Gilman's half-Utopia

I generally didn't like this novel. Not that I found anything bad about Gilman's Utopia, nor would I mind living there in the slightest. Instead, I disliked the glaring contradictions and discrepancies that made her Utopia entirely unbelievable. Granted, every Utopia is supposed to be implausible at some level, but there's always some way of suspending ones disbelief, which this novel failed to do. While reading this novel, I was comparing Herland as much as I could to the more classic Utopias of Thomas More and Plato. And while both of these classics read as instruction manuals to a realistic society, I could not (in the end) come to see Herland as anything but fantasy.

Let's start with some small, specific issues. At first, the very practical attire for these women made them look very similar to the men, especially with their short hair (27). Yet it's only later on when the men grew out their hair that they mention their similarity, as if the women had long hair (39). By that point, the men had made a thorough study of their language, but they still argued over whether there are any men (38). Realistically, if there hadn't been any men in the land for 2,000 years, it would be quite clear in the language. Words like "man", "he", and general masculine conjugations would be startlingly lacking. And speaking of language, they mention quite famously at this time that they have no concept of virgin (39). But later on, when we see the recorded history of Herland, the first generation of women were called virgins (47). Along the same lines, they had no concept of punishment, either, whether that was criminal, interpersonal, or even philosophical (95). And yet, they had no trouble inventing an entire criminal court system out of nothing just to punish Terry, and in record time (113).

On that note, I find the whole idea that this land could possibly be a Utopia quite fantastic. They have absolutely no incidences of crime (70); not a single one conceives of a horrible idea (94); not even their infants are ever seen crying (88). All I can ask is... why? Sure, we know that they have a culture of "peace, beauty, order," etc. (85), but there is never any explanation why that culture persists, let alone anything that could be construed as an explanation why no one has ever contradicted these values. We remember that there were parts of Plato and More that were pleasant and other parts that were unpleasant. But that's because these writers acknowledge  that people are not robots; there are always going to be bad eggs that need to be dealt with somehow. Morris, as we remember, claimed a change in economy can bring about this culture, but Gilman never uses even that. For Gilman, apparently, all evil can be removed from the world if it was populated by women. (That, and a healthy dose of eugenics (59), which we know everyone loves).

And that's the next thing that I find odd. The whole premise of this story is that all the men were wiped out in a great disaster 2,000 years ago. Other than that, there's not supposed to be anything anthropologically different about this society. The fact that they're cut off from the world is merely a device to prevent men from entering. The parthenogenesis is merely a way of making them independent from men biologically. So when we see that this society is set apart from ours by having no crime, no war, no money, no greed, no wickedness, and no disease, we are left to assume that all these things are caused by men. How interesting is it that such a prominent feminist seems to believe that civilization is the handiwork of men! Inasmuch as Gilman is countering her culture by showing the success women can have in creating a society, it nonetheless hinges on the concept that these women are utilizing skills that are (or were in her time) entirely feminine, thus turning their country into "an everlasting nursery or parlor" (84). It's also clear that these women are not immune to the typical hysterias of the day (94).

The only thing their society lacked was the opposite gender, which Gilman admits is necessary (83). It's for this reason that the women commit themselves to marry the aliens, presumably realizing that they have no idea what to expect except fatherhood. And albeit that the three travelers were rather slow in explaining the concept of relationships, it's nonetheless frustrating that these women never compromised their ways once. For being so liberal, they were so unwilling to bend their pride to the customs of people that they willingly pledged their lives to. The moment that Van explained unconditional love to Ellador (108), which is the only time the women admits the men are offering something worthwhile, is no doubt the sweetest part of the book.

Utopia... and More Utopia

(There's nothing like starting a blog with a pun :p)

Sir Thomas More's Utopia is most famous for surviving on an economic theory we would refer to as communism. Everyone works for the society, and anything they produce is not privately owned but shared equally by the society. They have no money, except in a large communal treasury (or junkyard) to be used as a tool against foreigners. This economic system is one that, as we all know, always makes the most sense, and works fairly well in microscopic communities. But whenever it's applied to a large group of people, something always goes wrong. If this island were real, for instance, we would expect it's economy or government to collapse within a few years, let alone the 1,800 years Hythloday boasts of. The reader wonders why every citizen doesn't say "why should I work 6 hours a day? Don't we all live in abundant supply? If I work 5 or 4 hours, and spend the rest of the day in Epicurean pleasures, do I not end with the same lot? In fact, why should I work at all if everyone else will supply my needs?" While most people write off Utopia as either impossible or another example of a tiny community, I believe that Sir Thomas More did think of that problem, any answered it with the one thing every Marx, Mao, and Lenin completely missed.

The figures given of Utopia proves that we're not dealing with a small, classless state, as we're used to today. Because Sir Thomas More lived in an era of what we would "proto-novels", a lot of his details are much more precise than any Utopian work before him. Like many writers after him, he uses these details to give a sense of how big the island is, and therefore justify using a complex system to run it. He says that there are 30,000 people for every Syphogrant, and 200 Syphogrants all together, and therefore giving a total population of 6 million (more than twice the size of England). He says that there are 16 people per family, and 6,000 families per city, giving the total size of each city as more than 78,000 people (rounded to 100,000 in the footnotes, much larger than the average city in Europe). This size is exact for every city, because the laws force people to move if the numbers change. This means that there are 3 Syphogrants per city, as Hythloday confirms. Because there are 54 cities, then that approximates the urban  population to 5.4 million, meaning that about 600,000 live in the country. The island itself is circular shaped, with a diameter of 500 miles (or 800 km). That gives a total area of about 500,000 km2, which is twice the size of the British Isles, and closer to Madagascar. As there about 300,000 families, that means (in terms of population density) that every family gets about 1.6 km2, which is good because every family needs a farm. These figures make it even more remarkable that Hythloday boasts of 0% unemployment. But those who don't contribute to society are made slaves, and Hythodolay never mentions how many slaves there are, so we don't know what the actual unemployment rate is.

Anyway, now that this has proven that we're dealing with a developed, urban society and not a group of "noble savages", we come back to the original problem: how can we get 6 million people to contribute to society in an unbiased manner, without falling into sloth or greed? Sir Thomas More's answer is, surprisingly, very similar to the solutions of both Plato and Augustine before him: religion and philosophy. Everyone in the community, and therefore everyone who works, holds to the belief in an overarching deity that both created them, and holds them accountable to their actions. Not that people work out of fear of Mithra, but rather they see the goodness of God as analogous to the harmony of soul and body. Mithra looks faithfully over them, not merely as a judge, but as a bill of rights that everyone can turn to for absolute standards. All other traditions, philosophies, and sciences may vary among the citizens of Utopia, but this one fundamental axiom remains constant, like a cornerstone to their society. Once that is established, not only do all the citizens gladly work 6 hours a day, but improve their society to create new development of science and mathematics.

But what happened to the communist manifesto of Marx, Lenin, and Mao? Religion is merely the "opiate of the masses," and people are expected to work for the society simply for the sake of society, and nothing greater. The "enlightened" thinkers had dimmed their minds by rejecting the only thing in the world that is indispensable.

It's too bad that I have no skill in art, as it would complete my life to see Sir Thomas More's face Photoshopped into a stereotypical communist propaganda poster, perhaps with Plato and St. Benedict behind him.

A Tale of Two Cities

As I read theses passages, I was constantly looking for where some sort of description of the City of God might be, so that I can properly compare it to the Republic. But unfortunately, Augustine does not go into every tune and pastry like Plato does, but instead sets out a fairly broad view of two cities. One city based on a love of pleasure, and the other based on a love of God.

Many people may get confused as Augustine doesn’t go into nearly as much detail with his utopia as Plato. But one reason for this is because Augustine doesn’t disagree with Plato on many of the minute aspects of society. For instance, on the subject of enforcing justice he says that the City “needs make use of this peace also” (877), and on the subject of socializing, “the philosophers hold the view that the life of the wise man should be social, and in this we support them much more heartily” (858).

Augustine’s primary focus is to criticize aspects of Platonic philosophy in light of Christian theology. In our class discussions, we concluded that Plato’s republic would fail because injustice comes from human nature (the fig-stealer). Apparently, Augustine felt similarly, for he states “the story of mankind is full of them at every point: for in that story we are aware of wrongs, suspicions, enmities, and war” (858). Whereas Plato gave reasons for the Republic to start wars, Augustine wars to “consider the scale of those wars, with all the slaughter of human beings, and all the human blood that was shed!” (861). Finally, and most importantly, we remember that Plato established his society on the grounds of certain immutable virtues, such as moderation and justice. Augustine, however, goes through these virtues one by one, and points out that they are impossible to fulfill because of human nature (854).

Instead, the single virtue that Augustine places at the head of his society is peace. But this peace is not of an earthly focus, which Augustine calls “a kind of compromise between human wills about the things relevant to mortal life” (877). But rather, he defines this peace as focus on eternal life in Heaven (865). In other words, Augustine is proposing a kind of theocracy where focus on God is the primary foundation for all aspects of society. Whereas Plato focused on education, and considered religion to be one aspect of it, Augustine instead believed that education without the proper religious backing is worthless.

That’s another reason why Augustine is so vague with his description of the City. He believed that the minute aspects of society don’t really matter so long as the right religion is established. In his own words, “She takes no account of any difference in customs, laws, or institutions, by which earthly peace is achieved and preserved – not that she annuls or abolishes any of those, rather, she maintains them and follows them, provided that no hindrance is presented thereby to the religion which teaches that the one supreme and true God is to be worshipped” (878).

I find it fascinating that even today, many religious people would agree with Augustine’s basic premise: the City of God, which focuses on heavenly things, will ultimately survive, whereas the City of Man, which focuses on earthly things, will ultimately perish. Many evangelicals today point out governments that abolished religion, places like Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and the French Directorate, and conjecture that they all failed because they threw out the out the only indispensable piece of society. 

Test and prove all things

Plato famously said “only when philosophers become kings can we truly have justice,” and indeed that has become the basis for many Utopias since. Of course, two thousand years later, we are beyond any sort of intellectual elitism. But the idea of holding very high standards of intelligence, and the expectation that all decisions should be made after careful contemplation, is still paramount to a perfect society in my opinion. In other words, society must uphold a contemplative and speculative life as the most admirable quality of humanity. This change is society is best achieved through education.

It is very unfortunate that our society does not hold philosophy to be very important at all, let alone the basis for all society. If a person is lucky, he might be able to squeeze in a philosophy major into some obscure university, but then risk losing all hope for employment. In fact, anyone who spends most of their time in contemplation is usually ridiculed by more popular folks, who tend to think more with their hearts than their heads. Instead, it is these quiet thinkers should be looked up to.

People continue to debate on the importance of topics ranging from the environment to the economy to the social order, but all of that is useless without a basis for reason. Where would climate change be without environmental science? Where would economic policy be without economic science? And where would talk of social justice begin without a basis for ethics or morality? Everything that separates our society from dumb animals is our ability to take the world around us and hold it up to a higher, intellectual standard. We eat to survive, but we just as easily make culinary arts. The noises we make are not just some mating call, but we have the ability to make poetry and literature.

In a similar manner, everything in society can be held up to an ultimate standard of truth and justice, against which absolute right and wrong, truth and false can be discerned. Some call it science, while others call it philosophy. Ultimately, all other laws hang on this. When society recognizes this, and protects that standard for rationality above all else, then Utopia can be achieved. 

The seven liberal arts, with philosophy at the center, from a medieval manuscript

And here is how that can be implemented: first, the scientific community (with other academia) should take certain reforms, spelling out a general standard for scientific thought, and placing philosophy as the most fundamental science. Then there should be a reform of education. Rather than being taught raw information, students should first be taught how to interpret information. Facts taken straight from the internet or television, without first critically analyzed, should be frowned upon. Children need to be taught from a young age that wealth and fame will never make them happy, but truth and justice will.

The renowned author Dr. Seuss once wrote about a fanciful school in Hooray for Diffendoofer Day!. One of the most memorable lines from that comes from one of the teachers: “and most importantly, we taught you how to think”. Perhaps that should be the models for all schools.