Herland and the Utopian Perspective

            So, Herland was a pretty interesting read and got me thinking about a lot of stuff. I’m glad that this was also written in a story format like Bellamy and Morris’s writing because it made it more accessible to me.  I’m also glad that Gilman wrote this story short enough for us to read the whole thing because it gave me all of the context that I needed for such a story.  But did you know that this is actually the second book of a trilogy? That kind of blew my mind especially since I thought this text did well standing on its own.  If anything Gilman went a little too far in Herland because a lot of the stuff that I was on board with in the beginning of the text gets contradicted in the end.  I researched the book that comes after Herland and found out that Gilman gets even more contradictory! Ellador and Van eventually leave our world to go back to Herland where Ellador then gives birth to a son.  I thought Gilman was saying that society would be better if we were all independent and autonomous through her representation of women living alone and asexually reproducing.  But now Ellador and Van have organically brought the first male into Herland.  So I guess Gilman confused me.

            For the first part of Herland, she satirizes the society she lived in—when the three men arrive in Herland they try to lure out the women with fashionable accessories.  The women, living in a land where unnecessary luxuries don’t exist, are unfazed, showing two things: one, that women are not materialistic, unreasonable beings and, two, that society would be better off if we focused on the things we need.  Simplicity leads to happiness.  Gilman is writing a feminist treatise as well as proposing ideas for a better society.

            I think a lot of this text can be taken as “anti-men” because Terry is such a forceful, disgusting character, the women have been surviving without men, and that the three travelers are constantly outsmarted by the women. But I really don’t think that is Gilman’s point.  Utopias are impossible to achieve so instead Gilman is outlining the customs she wanted her society to adopt: reverence for motherhood, women having complete control over their own bodies, and autonomy for all.  When the three travelers learn about and adhere to Herland’s ways of life, they are allowed full autonomy as well.

            The contradiction comes up in the love story aspect of Herland.  While I don’t think that the relationship between the travelers and the women inherently means power is being taken away from the women, I do see it as Gilman retreating from her original insistence on autonomy.  Romantic and sexual relationships do not make sense to the women, but they still fall for the men now that they are present in their society.  Its like saying that because men are present, women must fall for them. Terry is so terrible and Alima fights with him constantly, but she still enters a romantic relationship with him.  The women don’t understand marriage, but are still coerced into it by the men.  I know Gilman’s feminist ideas are restricted by the society around her, but I thought she could perhaps have achieved more for autonomy like she did in “The Yellow Wallpaper” (which I highly recommend).  

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:

Country Mouse/City Mouse

I wish I knew what edition of the story this lovely illustration comes from,
but alas, I never wrote it down.
I am a bad example.

Remember the fable about the Country Mouse and the City Mouse? Even though the plot isn't (strictly speaking) relevant to our readings from Morris and Bellamy, it's always what I think of when I read these two stories. Both of them create a communist/socialist utopia, but they go about it in radically different ways. Every time I return to these novels, I'm struck by how similar their values are, and simultaneously how differently those values are realized.

These texts (published in 1888 and 1890) are very much products of their time! The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 (1850 for the English translation). And there's quite a bit of Darwin to be found in there, too, if you're looking for it; On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.

Karl Marx.
He's hiding Engels in his jacket and won't let him escape.

A couple of you have mentioned that you'd like to see a utopia that combines these two. It would be interesting, wouldn't it? Could we find enough commonality, or are the differences just too great to reconcile?

Nowhere

I really enjoyed reading these texts. I mostly enjoyed reading News From Nowhere. It is a little hard to start reading a text not from the beginning and skipping over chapters. However, I believe the stranger just ended up in England and he is noticing the people there since everything has changed. This new England seems really cool. The people seem pretty educated and there are no schools in place, which is pretty cool. The people can speak several languages and some of the dead ones too. Also, "kids" don't have to start working until 21, which is nice since I started working WAY before that. One of my favorite things that we read is when the guy went to the store and two little kids helped  him. Plus, he didn't pay for anything.

I believe the guy's name is Dick, but when Dick told the stranger about how there is no laziness. I though that was pretty funny, seeing as how majority of people are lazy now. The disease is called "Idleness, because they were the direct descendants of those who in the bad times used to force other people to work for them — the people, you know, who are called slave-holders or employers of labour in the history books. Well, these Idleness-stricken people used to serve booths ALL their time, because they were fit for so little. Indeed, I believe that at one time they were actually COMPELLED to do some such work, because they, especially the women, got so ugly and produced such ugly children if their disease was not treated sharply, that the neighbours couldn’t stand it. However, I’m happy to say that all that is gone by now; the disease is either extinct, or exists in such a mild form that a short course of aperient medicine carries it off." I really enjoyed all of this it is filled with humor and truth. There are so many people who are lazy and to live in a world where there is no laziness!!! Omg I would love it. I think that really sells me on these Utopia's, where everyone works.

The other part that follows that I enjoyed and thought humorous as well is: But the old man broke in:
“Yes, all that is true, neighbour; and I have seen some of those poor women grown old. But my father used to know some of them when they were young; and he said that they were as little like young women as might be: they had hands like bunches of skewers, and wretched little arms like sticks; and waists like hour-glasses, and thin lips and peaked noses and pale cheeks; and they were always pretending to be offended at anything you said or did to them. No wonder they bore ugly children, for no one except men like them could be in love with them — poor things!” This was really funny because the author is making more humor about slavery and history, but in a good way.

I also enjoyed how Dick and his love, Clara, were able to divorce and then rekindle their relationship WITHOUT getting a court involved. There was no need for bringing other people into the relationship because the problems go from love to about who gets who. It needs to all be focused on the couple and nothing else. A year or two later, Dick and Clara are able to get back together. I think this is a policy we should adopt because our system just seems to have failed all of us. We have so many problems with our policies that we end up focusing on property and the tangible things, which aren't that important. What is important is why or why not the relationship did not work.

Utopia as an Unending Journey

First off, I rather enjoyed the fact that these texts read like science fiction novels instead of lists with rules and regulations.  To me the fictional set-up of the story the story showcases the idea that the world described is never going to exist.  Instead, the stories demonstrate that there are changes to be made to the existing system that could bring about a better society in the long run.  The narrative incites more interest because, of course, it is less laborious to read than a list of how to make a better place.  The story also gives us the seeds of how things would be carried out in this imaginary world already constructed for us.  I think that with the world and scenarios already created for us, we can more actively apply the ideas to our own world.  The story line gives a more solid foundation from which to build our own ideas.  The lists seem to broadly point out the way a society should be set up, but does very little to actually apply it to how modern people live. 

I found it interesting the different perspectives on technology and urbanization that Morris and Bellamy displayed.  Where one has people living in a city like setting the other describes a world more basic and somewhat primitive.  It struck me as an underlying conflict over whether man is better off in the city or the country although I somewhat doubt this was the intention.  I have actually wondered this myself so this may be the reason this contrast stood out to me.  Having been raised in a city I definitely enjoy the amenities of being surrounded by everything I need or wanted whether it be for entertainment or necessities.  Not to mention our technological advances have made many aspects of life extremely convenient.  However, I also see how we do get too engrossed in the technology we have created for ourselves to the point that the technology in some ways runs our lives.  

Although Bellamy and Morris have different ideas on the layout of Utopia, I cannot help but feel that the most important tenants of their societies were very similar.  The division of work, the motivation to work, and the eradication of a monetary system were all important in our discussions of what a utopia looks like.  The idea that class causes more issues than it solves has come up before in our readings.  Both these texts seem to attempt to destroy the ideas that people are of different classes based on the money they earn or their particular occupation.  Jobs such as waiting tables are not viewed in poor regard.  Everyone has access to the same resources so nothing is unequal in that regard.  And finally even labor is made to be divided by what a person enjoys although the two authors go about making jobs themselves easier. Jobs are a central idea to the construction of our idea of what Utopia is and the way these two authors present the labor force is quite a bit different from what the previous texts have suggested.   

Back To The Present

There is so much going on in the two readings for today.—so much, in fact, that I couldn’t decide on only one subject. Instead, I’m going to list a few areas which caught my attention and write briefly about each. 

1)      In Morrison’s reading, I was hoping to hear more about the time period this young man has awoken to. I can look at our society and government today and decide that things need to change. Therefore, I know that the time which this man came from needed a major change, and don’t really want a review of why. Instead, I want the major differences are now. We get some of that in a few of the chapters, but the longest chapter is mostly back-story. 

2)      While we’re on the subject of chapters, I must say that they were relatively short. But when it came to the chapters of history, they became so boring that they felt as if they lasted for the same amount of time that the protagonist was asleep! 

3)      Diction. It is clear that the language in which this was written was way off the mark. When Morris finally indicates that the protagonist has been dropped in the 2000s, I was confused as to the reason why they were speaking in such a manner. I soon had an “ahh-hah” moment when I realized that Morris could have only imagined people speaking in the same way they spoke when he wrote the book. Similarly, Bellamy’s manner of conducting the dialogue is also a bit outdated. It would be fun to see a version of these books in which the protagonist speaks in this outdated manner, while the other characters speak in whatever the authors would have imagined to be the change in vernacular.

4)      On page 79 in Bellamy’s text, he talks about the way the society decided to change. This makes me wonder whether our society will ever reach a point in which everyone supports a common approach/need for change. It seems impossible to think of a world that is so far beyond working successfully as a unit that, without violence, they unite with a shared goal.

5)      Both protagonists seem to find the most appalled—and sometimes judgmental—interviewees to speak with. When asking simple questions about the change in government or societal standards, the character will often exclaim things like, “in heaven’s name,” or, “no, no.” It makes me sympathize with our main character. How was he supposed to know?! He’s only trying to better understand the world he has woken up to—I feel like people should try and cut them some slack.

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.business2community.com%2Fcontent-marketing%2F5-lessons-content-back-future-2-01123655&ei=9nfsVNPTFIGrgwTop4CgCg&bvm=bv.86475890,d.eXY&psig=AFQjCNE3AJYmPXOngp6V_SIxB5wuLtChDw&ust=1424869719043701

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.