Working Hard/Hardly Working

I really like different aspects of Bellamy and Morris’ futuristic societies. If I could combine them into one place, I think it would work out. Overall, I really like both approaches to work in the readings. In Bellamy’s world, people don’t start working until the age of 21 and they stop at the age of 45. Sign me up! You’re educated until the age of 21, which is typically when an undergraduate is done, and then you start working. No summer job between academic years, no juggling a job while also going to school. That sounds like bliss. And being able to stop working at the age of 45—fully stopping at 55—is a double bonus. I was stuck by the conversation we had at the beginning of the semester about how people are always so busy and multitasking all the time. I really like the idea that you are learning or working at one time; being able to fully focus on one or the other guarantees that you’ll get more out of it.

The only thing that could make 24 years of work better is Morris’ idea that all work is pleasurable. Morris notes that work is “a pleasure which we are afraid of losing, not a pain” (chapter 15), which isn’t the case in the society we live in. So many people get stuck with jobs that they do not enjoy simply because they need money. Graduating from college terrifies me because I have no idea what I’ll be doing with my life. If I lived in a society that was structured in such a way that everyone had an education and a job that they found to be enjoyable, then I would be a happy Taylor.

I also really like Bellamy’s idealistic view that “the right of a man to maintenance at the nation's table depends on the fact that he is a man, and not on the amount of health and strength he may have, so long as he does his best” (chapter 12). Being treated fairly for doing your best seems like such a simple idea, but it’s really not. People always want more, and if what someone has to offer isn’t up to their standards, they find it somewhere else. Society is praised for reaching beyond its limits and overexerting itself. I think being able to say, “This is my best and it’s good enough” is a powerful thing. It’s also important to note that Bellamy’s Boston doesn’t allow people to give anything less than their best. In a society that is practically run by the people, that is crucial. The network sustaining the society can’t work if some people decide they don’t have to give it their all.

Bellamy and Morris both point out that people choose to work because they know they will gain more by working than by not. I’m not sure if this sentiment bears truth. I think there will always be people in society that are not determined to rely on others to help them through rather than taking care of themselves. But if I could live in a society where I only work 24 years at a job that was pleasurable, I would sign the dotted line and not look back.

Busy refilling my wine glass

A lot of what Saint Benedict talks about in his Rules reminds me of Augustine and his City of God. Both men believe complete dedication to God leads to eternal peace, which is their version of utopia. In his prologue Benedict says that “we must hasten to do now what will profit us for eternity.” In the same regard, Augustine believes that the Heavenly City is “related to the enjoyment of eternal peace” (872). For both men, eternal happiness cannot be found on earth because people are inherently selfish and evil. For Benedict, mending our evil ways will guarantee acceptance into God’s world: we must “recognize always that the evil is one’s own doing, and to impute it to oneself” (chapter 4, #43). If we are aware of our sins and repent, then we can gain access to only perfect world. Similarly, Augustine believes that the Earthly City can never reach the Heavenly City because people will never be as moral as God.

Benedict touches on the four different types of monks, and how the strongest monks are the Cenobites. The Cenobites are the only monks who live in monasteries, which makes it easier for them to “become a stranger to the world’s ways” (chapter 4, #20). If they go into the world they would be subject to the evils of other people and be more likely to give into their own evil ways. Benedict believes that the monasteries curb people’s evil tendencies. However, the monks still sin sometimes and are forced to repent for their sins. Benedict does not claim that the monks become perfect examples of God’s work—only God can be perfect—but he does explain that they put in a valiant effort to be worthy of His love.

Benedict’s belief that “the sisters should be occupied at certain times in manual labor, and again at fixed hours in sacred reading” (chapter 48) also reminded me of City of God. Augustine touched on the idea that mind and body work together to promote peace (872), and I think this is what Benedict is explaining. It is not enough for someone simply work all the time or relax all the time; there has to be a balance between activity and rest, physical stimulation and mental stimulation. I think this balance helps maintain the mind in such a way that unsavory actions and thoughts are held at bay.

Essentially, both men are saying that utopia can never be achieved on earth. People are too unworthy or evil to reach God on earth, but as long as they dedicate their lives to serving Him they will reach that heavenly utopia one day. Benedict says that “the Lord shows us the way of life” (prologue), indicating that without the Lord there will never be a life worth living.

In a sense, I really resent these two readings. I’m not an organized religion kind of person, and I don’t think the fact that I don’t believe in putting a label on the sky stirs me away from living a fulfilling life. Besides, I love wine way too much to ever consider following Benedict’s rules.

Utopia within utopia

While reading “The Republic” I couldn’t help thinking about how the conversation between Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon resembled a mini utopia. For me, a utopia is all about a society that functions well as a whole, and that’s what these three men do. Socrates takes hold of the conversation, and Adeimantus and Glaucon happily go along with everything he says about their fake society. On the rare occasion that they don’t understand or agree with Socrates, it just takes another sentence of jargon to put them back on track. The three men are able to come up with their own Socrates’ own version of a society to judge because they function well enough together to map out the aspects of a “luxurious city” (48). If the men didn’t function collectively, it would have taken a much longer time to set up a society.

I was also applying Socrates’ ideas for a society to the three men. Socrates says that the best results come when “each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any others” (45). This notion can be applied to Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon. Socrates puts all of his thoughts into building a fake society, and by the end of Book III we are presented with a society that is completely mapped out with its members, literature, music, food, protection, etc. If Socrates spoke of other things and took his mind away from building a society, it wouldn’t be as complete as it is. I agree with his idea that restricting people to one profession is better than having people do multiple jobs. Being proficient in one thing is better than knowing a little about a lot of things. In the same regard, Adeimantus and Glaucon are consistent in their continual agreement with Socrates. It’s like their singular profession is to boost Socrates’ ego.

Socrates’ belief that the rulers of a society are the best of the guardians (89) can also be tweaked to fit the three men. Among the three men, Socrates is the best at setting up the fake society (that may be because the other two never really get a chance to talk, but let’s go with it). If that’s so, shouldn’t he be the ruler of the group of men? I’d argue that he is. Adeimantus and Glaucon agree with everything Socrates is saying as if he is the master of how a society is developed. If no one goes against Socrates’ concepts of what a society is, then he’s the ruler of that fake society.

Applying Socrates’ notions of utopian society to the three men speaking helped me picture the society more clearly. There were definitely parts that confused me, like all the chatter about music, but there were also parts that resonated with me. I think the basis of Socrates’ argument is that a utopia needs individual people who are willing to perform tasks that benefit the society as a whole, and that’s something that I agree with completely. Utopia isn’t about pleasing people, it’s about making people work together cohesively to form a functioning civilization.

Prohibiting Prejudice

In order to make the world a better place, we need to get rid of prejudice. Significant strides have been made to make the world more accepting of people's differences, but there is still so much hatred. It is important to make people realize that different religions, races, sexual orientations, etc. don’t diminish someone’s life; we are all just human beings at the end of the day. Getting rid of prejudice would be beneficial to the world as a whole because it would lessen the amount of crimes in the world and it would make people more connected. If everyone accepted people for who they are, hate crimes would not be a thing. Individuals who commit hate crimes do so because they are ill-informed, or not informed at all, about people who are different from themselves. Some people are scared of things that are not familiar to them, and that’s fine, but that’s where education comes in. Accepting other people into your world might also change your perspective on things. Learning how other people view life isn’t a bad thing—it gives you more to think about and helps you broaden your horizons. If people stopped hating people then the world would be a very cohesive place. Think of all the wars that wouldn’t happen!

People need to be educated about different cultures from a young age in order to minimize prejudice. A lot of biases and prejudice often come from older people in someone’s family or ignorance on someone’s behalf. Adding a class in elementary that discussed different ethnicities or sexual orientations, etc. would be a step in the right direction. Kids would be young enough to not have biases drilled into their heads, and they would be able to look at people with an open mind. The most important part is that they understand that people who are different from them are still just people; we all feel the same emotions and experience a lot of the same things. Going into middle school, kids could be given a pen pal (thanks for the idea, Logan) from a different country every so often. This would expand on their learning from elementary school. Having real contact with people who are outside of their normal circle would give kids something concrete to hold onto rather than the typical classroom style information they would receive in elementary school. In high school, kids should be offered the opportunity to spend some time abroad, or even at home with a person who is completely different than they are. A step farther than the pen pal letters, this opportunity would offer an even more visceral experience for people to really understand that being different isn’t as terrible as the world makes it to be.

Many people don’t interact with people of different cultures until they go away to college, and even then that interaction may be very minimal. This is a plan that would introduce people to a wide range of cultures at a very young age, and while it is not fool-proof, it would start making a difference early on.

And if none of that works, we can just ship them all abroad…like Wife Swap, except with kids.