An Extreme Collectivism

                The society of Herland represents an extreme of collectivist culture. At the time the novel was written, women lacked rights that were granted to men. This divide was present in both collectivist and individualistic cultures across the world. In fact, women in individualistic cultures gained rights sooner due to the cultural encouragement to fight for one’s own desires, where collectivist cultures instill that the stability and success of the county as a whole should be considered. However, Charlotte Perkins Gillman has taken the idea of a culture that truly values each individual equally from the collectivist vision. In Herland, all of the inhabitants are women and they are all considered equal persons in the society.

                In the society, motherhood is the most important duty of each and every citizen. It is the task of the women of the society to properly raise and educate the children above all else. With no means of expanding their world or making any outward progress due to their isolation, the primary meaning for life is the continuation of their species. Motherhood in Herland is so important to the citizens that it has spawned its own religion. Mother Nature is considered the overarching life force by which all parts of nature feed off of. Mother Nature cares for the citizens through providing food and water and the citizens respect the earth by replanting resources that they have used up. Additionally, all remnants of natural goods that have not been used are returned to the earth to enrich the soil (Gillman, 51). This cycle of motherhood that originates with Mother Nature and is continued by the mothers in the society gives every woman an equal part in the goal of the society to raise and mentor children.

The collectivist theme is taken to such an extreme that the women talk in terms of “we” rather than in terms of “I.” This word use annoys the men that travel to the society as outsiders from Europe. Their exposure and adherence to individualistic culture prohibits them from comprehending the absolute connectedness of the women in Herland. The collectivist ideal is also present in their lawmaking. When thinking about enacting a law, the impact of the decision on the children and on motherhood as a whole is analyzed in detail. Laws are created only if they further the cause of motherhood and receive unanimous agreement from the mothers (Gillman, 57).  Yet, the unanimous agreement comes naturally if the decision will benefit motherhood, since all members of the society value that above all else.

There is one policy of Herland that takes the collectivist culture ideal to such an extreme that personal equality is undermined. When each woman becomes a mother, she is examined to see if she is capable of properly raising the child. If it is decided that the mother cannot educate the daughter to the expected standards, then the responsibility for the child’s education will be given to another woman (Gillman, 70). While this idea preserves the best interest of the child by allowing her to receive the best education possible, it eliminates the personal right to raise one’s own daughter. Naturally, the men are appalled by this idea coming from an individualistic culture. It raises the ethical question of should the child’s right to the best education or the mother’s right to raise her own child be considered more important? This moral quandary shows that no culture can create total equality for all while still having goals for the society.  

Zack Willis SLAMS the utopian genre! Click HERE to see what he says!

            I think that this post will focus less on Herland, and more on the Utopian genre as a whole, as I’m starting to notice certain patterns that have been developing and honestly I’m beginning to become a little detached.

            I’ll start by saying I’ve read Unveiling a Parallel before. We had to read it for Dr. Kolmerten’s seminar class, and it was by no means a bad novel, nor is Herland, but I’m beginning to see that so many of these Utopian reads lack subtlety and that feels like an issue to me. In my paper, I praised the conversational tone of Utopia, saying that it enables the reader to feel included in the conversation with Raphael Hythloday, and allows More to act as an interlocutor to help the reader explain the concepts he is putting forth. Basically, by having Utopia focus less on plot, More can put forth more ideas about what he thinks a utopian society should be. Because it’s one of the first of its kind, Utopia is an interesting read. However, if the entire genre were exactly like Utopia, it would wear out its welcome with the tired formula of “here’s a conversation between two people where the one guy explains everything and the other guy just kinda listens.”

            So what does expansion on the genre look like? I would say that Herland and Unveiling a Parallel are natural progressions from where Utopia started. Both novels are deeply preachy in the points they want to put forward, but also try to disguise it with some semblance of a plot. Herein lies my problem with these texts: the plot is secondary to the point. In some cases, and what is certainly the case here, this happens because the author wants the point to be first and foremost. It needs to be in your face and you need no chance to forget it. But as a reader, I personally am not a fan of having themes shoved in my face. I like to think a little. I won’t deny at all that these novels still certainly have things to dig through. Clearly this is true; otherwise our classes would be much shorter. However, I prefer novels like Brave New World or 1984, in which we understand the world the story is set in, but the plot comes first. We care about the characters, and because we care about them, we want to discover more about the world they live in so we can understand their motivations. Of course, these novels tend to lean more dystopian.

            So there’s my question. Can the utopian genre have an entertaining plot without the society going to hell? I think it’s possible, but the lack of conflict is certainly a hurdle. Recently I read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, which was a sort of sci-fi utopian novel about a man who travels to the distant future and discovers a utopian society, and while he kinda explains their customs and how things work, the bulk of the conflict is about his struggle to find his time machine and return to the past. I think Wells certainly did it right. It was entertaining and while the main character certainly jacked things up a little bit (i.e. setting a forest on fire), nothing indicated that the society itself was doomed.

            I don’t disagree with what I wrote in my paper. Utopia has a conversational tone, and that works for it. I think that style would work for any utopian writing. However, the genre would become oversaturated quickly. Because of this, I think utopian novels need to dig just a little deeper on plot.

Resident anti-capitalist reporting for duty

Bellamy’s view of socialism is such a different view than I was expecting him to take before I begun to read. Perhaps as a post-McCarthy era country it has been ingrained in us from an early age that everyone is supposed to believe socialism/communism to be evil, always-lurking-around-the-corner kind of threats. However, Bellamy seems to view it as a viable option. His main character is a little disturbed and frightened by the idea of socialism but from the excerpts we read, it is phrased and presented as a functioning and ideal society. The citizens who live in this world all seem to be happy with it and in turn, horrified by the society that the main character comes from. The year 2000 honestly sounds like a pretty nice place to live and it’s a shame that it isn’t the version of 2000 that we saw. (For transparency’s sake I should mention that I tend to lean a bit anti-capitalist in my political/economic views so I was bound to enjoy this society.)

One thing I loved about Bellamy’s 2000 was that people who cannot for medical reasons work are provided with money even if they can’t do a lot. This is a big problem that I have with capitalism where a lot of people with disabilities cannot work and because of this they end up homeless or very impoverished. The idea of providing them with an equal amount of money for the work they can do is wonderful to me.

I’ve seen a few posts that argue that this system is not a good one. However, I would ask how this is different from the other societies we’re studied so far? Of course some of the minor things are going to be different such as clothes but economically, these societies are the same. The only difference is that this is stated to be a socialist/communist society whereas for the other readings the ideas were there but the name was not. I think we’re too afraid as a society to entertain the thought of a society run by explicitly stated socialist/communist ideals because of the fact that we live in a country that teaches that those are evil.

However, there are some aspects of this society that mirror our own. The idea that what lead to a socialist conversion in our government were big businesses monopolizing the market and smaller businesses being reduced to nothing is something we are seeing now. This novel provides us with one possible option to stop this from happening.

Another similarity is the idea of credit cards. Bellamy’s prediction of this is so uncanny that I wonder if he could somehow see the future.

Perhaps the most important prediction Bellamy made however, was this one:

War! What is it good for? Makin lots of money.

So in British Literature I don’t think we touched on this much, but Book II of Utopia’s section on warfare includes something particularly interesting that I’ll dwell on a little bit in this blog post.

“As soon as war is declared, therefore, they have their secret agents simultaneously post many placards, each marked with their official seal, in the most conspicuous places throughout the enemy territory. In these proclamations they promise immense rewards to anyone who will kill the enemy’s king. They offer smaller but still very substantial sums for killing any of a list of other individuals whom they name.” (79)

                The Utopians aren’t giant fans of war. They don’t really see it as honorable, and I think that’s pretty cool. Thinking about our current day society, war feels like a constant thing that we’re always involved in. We’ve grown up in war (called “conflicts” or whatever), and we’re basically just used to it. Our soldiers are called heroes and, sure, putting your life on the line is definitely heroic, I’ll agree to that, but should we glorify it as much as we do?

                Back to the quote, since I never touched on it to begin with, it’s interesting to me that this is the option the Utopians go with. It seems sneaky, using secret agents, and yet, it’s… not? Like, they’re putting signs in obvious places saying “kill the king.” How often would that seriously work? I can understand wanting rewards, but that’s a pretty big task. Not to mention, in our current society, you could kill the leader but I really don’t think it would change too much. You would have to simultaneously knock out all of those “other individuals” along with the leader in order to actually end anything. It’s an interesting idea for sure, but I don’t think it would actually work.

                Outside of that, they also try to turn the enemy forces against each other with promises of rewards and personal safety to anyone who “turns against their comrades” (79), which, again, is a really strange tactic. I love that their war techniques are totally underhanded though. They don’t see war as honorable at all, and because of that, they fight wars in the sneakiest, most underhanded ways. As long as it’s resolved, that seems to be all that matters.

                The Utopians really seem to think they can just buy out anyone. From the Zapoletes, who they buy to fight for them, to the various reward posters they put up, they seem convinced that anyone outside of Utopia can be bought out pretty easily. I guess this is proven to work, if Utopia is known to have a track record, but I can’t see it working at all in our society. People can be bought out, for sure, but you’d have to pay someone a hell of a lot to assassinate their leader, and even then most people wouldn’t do it. In the end it’s an interesting idea, but I don’t consider it plausible at all in any kind of modernized society.

Socrates, Augustine, and St. Benedict walk into a bar...

...and there's no punchline but now that you're here, why don't you read my post?

One theme that is consistent throughout “The Rule of St. Benedict” is the theme of moderation and self-control. Obviously this isn’t unusual in a Christian text but I did think it was fascinating considering that moderation is one of Socrates’ four virtues. I decided to look through Chapter 4 (“What are the Instruments of Good Works”) to see how many lined up with Socrates’ virtues.

(Here are links to the rules so you can check out what number goes to what rule: Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 cont.)

What I found was that there a lot that loosely matched up and then some that didn’t fit in. The rules that I considered were about wisdom were: 3-9, 22-30, 48-52, 56-58, 60, 62, and 66-67. The rules that I considered were about courage were: 44-47. The rules that I considered were about moderation were 10-13, 34-40, 53-55, 59, and 65. The rule that I considered was about justice was 33.

There remains a group of rules that cannot fit in one of these four categories. Rules 1-2, 14-21, 31-32, 41-43, 61, 63-64, 68-69, and 70-72 belong in a separate category that I propose we call holiness. These rules are ones that involve the Christian virtues of loving your neighbor, forgiving your enemy, putting God first, etc. While some of the rules in the holiness can be also placed in the wisdom category and vice versa, I don’t think all of the holiness ones constitute good judgment. These rules are more like the ones Augustine gave in his “City of God” than anything that Socrates identified.

The virtue of wisdom contains the largest amount of the rules, closely followed by moderation. There are a few rules that speak on courage and one that mentions justice but does not define it: “33. To bear persecution for justice's sake.” However, if we look at Chapter 73, we can see that justice can be obtained not only by following the rules but by taking these rules as a bare minimum and moving further on the path to holiness. Chapter 73 tells us that “fulfill with the help of Christ / this minimum Rule which we have written for beginners; / and then at length under God's protection / you will attain to the loftier heights of doctrine and virtue.” St. Benedict is saying that following these rules will not immediately grant you eternal live but by only following these rules, you are lazy. Instead, after you have mastered all of these rules, you should move on to the Bible and writings of saints and other such writings. This mirrors Socrates’ idea that justice can be found when wisdom, moderation, and courage are implemented. In “The Rule of St. Benedict,” justice is found when Christians follow the virtues of wisdom, moderation, courage, and holiness and then continue from there onto the path of God.

“The Rule of St. Benedict” ultimately seems like a mixture of Plato’s “The Republic” and “City of God.” I would be surprised if St. Benedict was completely unaware of the two preceding works.

"I just wanted a trim..." St. Benedict says as he stares in horror at himself in the barber shop mirror.

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?