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.

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.

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. 

Everybody Wants to Rule the World

Senior year philosophy class is slowly making its way back into my mind although it's hard to pinpoint which school of philosophy belongs to which philosopher. I thought I had read this before, but it turns out I was thinking of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Luckily, The Republic is written differently and is not dry and is amazingly easier to follow than other works by Plato. For those of us who were in British Literature last semester, I imagine I'm not the only one who was reminded of Beelzebub and the other little devils making up their plans for what to do in hell. It was all too easy to picture Socrates and company sitting around in the same way discussing plans for how their city was going to work.

Anyway, I found it especially interesting how a "city" comes into being. This reading made me think of the expression, If you don't like the way it's done, you're welcome to do it yourself. Every day, I know that we all take turns complaining about something, no matter how petty, and talk about how we wish it was different or how we would do something differently. Maybe it's the way a class is graded or how someone conducted an interview. But sometimes it's even larger like how a country is ruled or how a powerful person decides to make a grand decision like go to war or create a new law. Often times, it's so easy for us to disagree or say what we would do instead because we don't actually have that real power to make a change or it's easy to say something when only so few are listening and the situation is purely hypothetical.

So when it comes to the case of creating a utopia, or even just a successful city, it's interesting to see how that plan comes into play. A person might say that we should not have laws because they feel that laws create a lot of pressure for society and restrict peoples' freedom. This all seems well and good until a store gets robbed or a person is murdered and there are no rules against it and no repercussions for doing these things. So then we go back and say, well, maybe laws aren't so bad after all because they protect us. The same trial and error could follow with government, education, guidelines, etc. Plato's writing goes along with this concept as it starts with a single person and the realization that one person cannot do it all, so obviously why not have more than one citizen in this city? So Socrates decides to have a handful of people who each provide different abilities and trades and in turn will use their skills to provide for the other city members. The list of people grows and grows as Socrates and the others realize that so many people are needed to make, share, export and exchange different things. If a person is amazing at a trade, it is better to let them spend all their time practicing and perfecting their trade than to make them juggle several different tricks and trades at a lower quality.

I also was intrigued by the discussion of heroes and leaders that make up a society. There were so many rules and quirks that were necessary to creating the ideal people for general city members to look up to. Heroes had to be tough and unafraid of death and had to be earnest and true. Heroes are designed to show what true justice is and to show humankind that you must be just in order to succeed in both life and the after life. Acting unjust can make you successful in the short-term, but it will catch up with you in the end. Characters in stories also had to act a certain way because young city members may not know how to separate fact and fiction and should only be shown the proper ways to act and values to have in a good society. All of these people, whether real people of the city or people just being talked about or passed around as stories need to be poised both in action and mind and cannot be vicious or graceless because that might give people the wrong idea. I agree with the theory behind this as I do think people are poorly influenced by celebrities who have gone off the rail or criminals who are sensationalized on the news, but I also disagree because I think there is something to be said for learning from mistakes or by learning stories that teach morals and lessons from failures and trials.

Finally, I find the brief discussion of medical necessity interesting. Socrates and the others agree that there is a need for doctors. They also agree that the doctors must be experienced and wise beyond their years, having seen a variety of illnesses and ailments so that nothing comes to them as a surprise. However, they say that these doctors must also have been diseased or injured themselves, because why else would they spend their life caring for the ill if they were not ill themselves? It sounds crazy to us, but if we think about it, a hospital is one of the easiest places to get sick in. We say to avoid them if possible because disease travels and is everywhere and we don't want to make ourselves unnecessarily sick if we don't have to. Maybe doctors should be the same way. You can only treat someone for something you have already been exposed to or had experience with. We also see the ever-popular Utopia-style view on life. Do we treat those with chronic, incurable disease or do we leave them to their fate? In books like The Giver, we learn about "the release" where older people are killed once they reach a certain age or in Utopia where we offer those who can no longer contribute to society an easy way out. Are we being kind by helping people prolong their lives if they are terminal or are we fighting nature? Would these people be more comfortable letting go and accepting their fate? Are we actually being too cruel by letting those live who are mentally ill and have no chance at a normal life?

We all have our own opinions, questions, faiths and morals that we would shape into a city or our own or even a world, but how much of what we want would actually work? Would we eventually run through trial and error and realize that the world we have now is how it should be or is there really a better way?

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. 

Making The World Write/Right

While our world is filled to the brim with issues and struggles, I think the root of all evil is perspective. Every human being is born into their own life and is only familiar with who they are and what they have. We know what we can afford, our possessions, what we stand for, what religion or faith we practice, what we've learned and anything that we have been exposed to through experience or by our family and friends. We might have heard about different times from our parents and older relatives or from a professor or mentor, but we never truly know a life that is different from the one we lead. We could all definitely use a lot of culture.

Today's people seem to be starting to get the right idea with studying abroad and rushing to make and complete a "bucket list", but the world would be a different place if we could all get on the same page. I propose that it is mandatory for everyone to have a different pen pal every five years. When you are born, you will be matched up with another person of either gender who has the same birthday as you, but must be from a different country. Governments will work together to formulate these beginning pairs. At the age of five, you will start to communicate with this matched person back and forth for five years until you both turn ten. You may write only old fashioned letters or meet in person. No text messages, phonecalls or emails. Every connection you make will then be thought out and carefully planned in detail. There will be less confusion by what a text or email tone might be, and the handwritten letters will show true sentiment.

By writing or visiting this person, you will then be exposed to their life, culture, religion, daily experiences, values, etc. You will know as much about this person as they will know about you. It will only be natural to have a vast knowledge of this person's life and the differences between theirs and yours. You will know how another country, culture, family, etc. operates and you will be able to compare and contrast it with your own. At the age of 10, you will be assigned a second person who you will begin exchanging ideas with for the next five years until you are 15. The same goes for when you turn 15 until you are 20, when you are 20 until you are 25 and so on. Every five years, you will get a new partner, but you may choose to still keep in touch with prior ones as you wish.

I really think that taking the time to explain your life and your experiences will really make you appreciate and value all the opportunities that you have that someone else might lack. Problems that seem so far away from us like world hunger and genocide might still now be drying as ink on a letter sitting on your lap. The world will be sent to you in the comfort of your own home. You will have the opportunity to meet so many people and discover so many new places in just one lifetime. Now, it is so easy to think war is okay because it is not happening on our country's land and starvation in a far off place is okay because you are eating chips while reading about it. This simple communication and little change to your life will absolutely change your perspective and outlook on life and will make the world a better place.

Perhaps this communication will only change your mind, but that's okay. Even one small person can make a difference. One person can choose to change the world. This one system change suggestion could be the catalyst to an entirely new world and while the world may never quite be perfect, this can spark the desire to make a difference and make everyone's one life to live equal to each other.

Coming live from Hood College, a post about why college shouldn't be necessary.

While I still think that less bureaucracy would be a great step towards improving our quality of life, I really couldn’t think of any way to make this work at all. So instead, I’m going to home in a little more on not making college mandatory (Yes it’s not actually mandatory, but it may as well be) because I feel like that is something that we could realistically accomplish, though it would be a group effort.

College used to be the place to go for the minority of people who really wanted higher education. Those who wanted to be lawyers, doctors, or simply valued knowledge above other things went to college. For the majority, they had no use for college, and that made absolute sense. Do you really need college to work in a factory or cubicle? Probably not. However, as time went on, more colleges began to appear and eventually it became engrained in society that we have to go to college to get a good job because we will be competing with other people who have college degrees. But still, why do you need a college education if all you are doing is filling out an Excel spreadsheet? As of now, college is attended by basically everyone, despite the fact that most students can’t afford it and are in terrible debt paying for a degree that they couldn’t give two shits about. Right now, college is an extension of high school.

So how can we improve? In order to do this we would have to totally change employer’s minds about the value of a degree. People with college degrees should not be looking for jobs in retail or jobs where it simply isn’t required, and employers should understand when the job they’re hiring for isn’t something that requires a degree. Right now, high schools are all about setting people up for college. Every step of the way you’re encouraged to think about where you want to go and what you want to do. The tests like the SAT and AP exams are mandatory to get you to a good college. As a fix, maybe the SAT and AP exams should only be available to those students with great grades and an intention to go on to higher education.

There are plenty of things that need to be changed in order to fix the mindset that college is mandatory. Most importantly, the amount of schools should be drastically decreased, and those schools that are still left should have a far lower acceptance rate. If less people are getting into college, then hopefully people will realize that going to college just isn’t as important and employers will begin to relax their hiring policies.

This was super disorganized I think, but my main point is that college should not be thought of as mandatory, and if we can get less people feeling like they are forced to go, maybe we can go back to the days when only those who wanted to be there would be in college.