From the beginning of this class I have wanted to write my own utopia. The further into the class, the more I realized how hard that would be. Then came the brilliant words which are attributed to Anthony D’Angelo “Don’t reinvent the wheel, just realign it.”
Great thinkers throughout time have put forth a lot of effort to produce their utopias, and I agree with many of the things that they have to say. I just need to tweak a bit, and take the Frankenstein approach—a little from here, a little from there—to create my new monster.
Making “The Change:” Outward and Inward Revolution
In creating my utopia, it requires outward and inward revolution. Outwardly, everyone’s needs must be met, and inwardly, it must be realized that those needs are being met. Repression (dealing with the balance of freedom and equality) and human nature (so the inner change can be realized and actualized) are important parts of making this change or leap into utopia. The description and ideas of these two aspects are taken from my own previous papers on utopia.
It only takes one thing out of place or in disharmony, and utopia has turned into dystopia (this fine line is covered most thoroughly in the 21st century utopian writing, such as Brave New World, and Nineteen eighty-four). Either people are somehow transformed to not be able to be imperfect (or create dystopia), or they continue in imperfection, and the disharmony/imperfection is somehow repressed/controlled.
I disagree with the “desire-less” human nature state that many utopian writers present to create a utopia (Where reason is king, and decisions are no longer emotionally driven, such as in More’s Utopia, or Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels), and instead, for my utopia, have a uniting drive in human nature (a positive objective), and use repression as a personal, sacrificial decision made to balance freedom and equality.
A willingness to repress some of my own individuality may be needed to maintain the change toward utopia. Since each person’s utopia looks different, if my utopia involves working because it brings me pleasure, and for John Doe it does not involve work because work is enslavement, a collective utopia would, in some form, involve repression to some extent, since our ideas are incompatible. This “giving in” of some of my personal freedom is what creates the balance of freedom and common good for all.
While most utopian writers think that human nature will comply with utopian ideals as soon as society’s vices are removed (More, and many others noted the removal private property, wealth, and status), I disagree. These are important issues, but will not certify that people will fall in line. As brought up in class, we should never underestimate the creativity of human nature: when one set of problems are removed, we are sure to find another.
Marcuse points out that “all the material and intellectual forces which could be put to work for the realization of a free society are at hand. That they are not used for that purpose is to be attributed to the total mobilization of existing society against its own potential for liberation.” (Marcuse, 1967). Much of this is because our description of “basic needs” has changed. Where we should be moving up Maslow’ hierarchy of needs, we instead create a new bottom level once we have climbed up the previous one—instead of moving to the next level of needs.
My utopia builds upon what is learned from the real life example of the utopian project of the Kibbutz. Melford Spiro overviews the four generations in the Kibbutz movement, and studies the outcome of the children who were raised in the utopian environment.
Since these children were raised to be collectivists, the conclusion is that they would become so naturally. Surprisingly, they were not, even though everything around them was, and they were taught from the very beginning to be. The article concludes that individualism is natural to human nature: “that preferences for individual over collective possessions, privacy over togetherness, personal over group interests, and freedom over equality…are human nature.” (Spiro, 2004, p. 564).
Spiro points out three things that happened to create something different (collectivism) that lead to the beginning of the kibbutz and utopian living: first, “adolescent rebellion against parents and other authority figures who represented the values of the regnant social order,” second, “an emotionally powerful social experience (or experiences),” and lastly, “a motivationally powerful belief system.” (Spiro, 2004, p.564). These three things are what form my utopia, put slightly different: distance from the past, powerful unifying experiences, and a strong belief system.
Distance from the Past
Since we are not naturally inclined towards collectivism (a major part of utopia), it requires a choice, a personal limitation of individual freedom for the good of all. The first part of the three step plan towards utopia is the rebellion, or distancing from the past.
Utopias are normally distanced from the present through time (being set in a futuristic time period, like Looking Backward, News From Nowhere) or physical space (More’s Utopia, Herland) or both (The Dispossessed, Red Mars). My utopia is distanced through time (set in the future, not too close yet not too far), and is a non-violent progression, as was in Looking Backward. Not all rebellions or revolutions need to involve violence: perhaps just a (violent) change in consciousness.
In Looking Backward, “All that society had to do was to recognize and cooperate with that evolution, when its tendency had become unmistakable.” (Bellamy, 2003, p.72) That does seem a little incredulous, but we will go with it. In the story, all the monopolies kept getting bigger and bigger until they became one, and then that became the peoples. “The people of the United States concluded to assume the conduct of their own business, just as…before they had assumed the conduct of their own government.” (Bellamy, 2003, p. 76)
Marcuse’s idea (1967) was that to break with present realities and move toward utopia requires “the simple refusal to take part in the blessings of the “affluent society.” (As seen in some of the beatnik and hippie movements). Refusing the affluence that could easily be theirs led to positive change. Looking at great men and women who made a difference in history, there is a commonality among them: they turned down, or repressed their personal desires for many other things. They were focused, driven, and would not be distracted by other options to complete their goals. This is what it would take to create my utopia.
Jameson introduces the idea of the terror of obliteration; that in order to make the jump from present reality to utopia, you have to let go of all of the past. Like the “science-fictional figure…is warned that salvation will be possible only at the price of allowing the entire personality…to be wiped away without a trace.” (Jameson, 2004) Although my utopia progresses naturally, it requires a willingness to let go of the past and everything and enter with open hands, like in The Dispossessed:
“If it is the future you seek, then I tell you that you must come to it with empty hands. You must come to it alone, and naked, as a child comes into the world, into his future, without any past, without any property, wholly dependent on other people for his life. You cannot take what you have not given, and you must give yourself. You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” (LeGuin, 1974, p.301)
Since I am not a fan of violence, it will not be needed in my utopia. The Dispossessed puts this well: “Justice is not achieved by force…we are not seeking power, we are seeking the end of power…the means is the end…only peace brings peace, only just acts bring justice. We cannot be divided on the eve of action.” (LeGuin, 1974, p.296)
Powerful Unifying Experiences
The second point made in the study of the Kibbutzim was that they were united by experiences together. In my utopia their driving force will create the positive unity (rather than the focus on the negative removal of current social vices) needed to move towards utopia.
While driving forces may be a mixture of different motivations, when the driving forces changes, so does the utopia—or what it looks like. It is very rare indeed for more than one generation to have the same driving force (as circumstances change, and the people themselves change) which is why very few utopias can last more than one generation.
In my utopia, I realize that the powerful unifying experiences cannot be maintained in the same exact way after the first generation. I do not expect my utopia to continue for more than one generation, because that generation will have children who have minds of their own and will need to take into their own hands their future and the kind of utopia it becomes. By definition, an education in a utopia must create this. By letting go, I release them to have the power to succeed or fail, while hoping to God they fare well, and learn from any mistakes along the way.
While fear is a very powerful uniting experience, and useful in creating utopias (for example, the graphic novel, Watchman), it is not the basis that I want driving my utopia. Suffering is also a powerful unifying experience, bringing us together in a much deeper unity than fear—fear is grasping at straws, whereas suffering together creates a brotherhood that is difficult to break. But I would not wish suffering on anyone for a utopia, even if it brings about good results. Inevitable it may be, but that does not require my planning it into the program.
The Dispossessed is based on pain and suffering. It was the unifying drive that started and continued their utopia. “It is our suffering that brings us together. It is not love. Love does not obey the mind, and turns to hate when forced. The bond that binds us is beyond choice. We are brothers. In pain, which each of us must suffer alone, in hunger, in poverty, I hope, we know our brotherhood. You have nothing, you possess nothing, you own nothing. You are free. All you have is what you are and what you give.” (LeGuin, 2003, p. 300)
Suffering as a motive is very closely related to brotherhood, a “twin” of what will be my utopia’s driving force. Brotherhood is the most well-known and common driving force for utopias—it was foundational in the beginning of our own nation. It is the picture of moving forward, hand-in-hand, toward a utopia.
Looking Backward says this is the main difference between current life and utopia: “The solidarity of the race and brotherhood of men, which to you were but fine phrases, are, to our thinking and feeling, ties as real and as vital as physical fraternity.” (Bellamy, 2003, p. 122) News from Nowhere has much of the same sentiment.
In the article on the Kibbutz, it describes brotherhood as passion for community, or “Communitas.” Communitas produces this passion, and is “an emotionally powerful social experience consisting of primordial and reciprocal identifications among the members of a small social group…A family-type community, between twelve and seventeen young men and women would sit together every evening after work…and exchange impressions and opinions…longing of each for his neighbor, a desire to sit together until late at night.” (Spiro, 2004, p. 564-5) This is what I want in my utopia.
But brotherhood alone often forgets the personal sacrifice required to make any community, let alone a utopia, work. Therefore, in my utopia, the “twin” of brotherhood is motherhood. Our class discussion on motherhood was eye opening for me. Think of the characteristics that the word “motherhood” conjures: caring, self-sacrificing, nurturing, strong…these were the ideals of Herland, the utopia that had only women for 2000 years. The picture for this driving force is of a mother carrying her child into utopia. The suffering component comes in the sacrifice that is given for the betterment of the next generation.
Herland magnifies what I feel is missing in society when Terry, the male chauvinist of the story, is disgruntled by how his girlfriend applies motherhood to him: “The only thing they can think about a man is only fatherhood! …Fatherhood! As if a man was always wanting to be a father!” (Gilman, 1992, p.124) So when I say that my utopia values motherhood, I also mean this sense of fatherhood, which is almost lost in today’s society.
While the focus in utopia is more often aimed at brotherhood, it is interesting to compare and contrast the differences and similarities of it and motherhood. Motherhood is a more outward focus, with a future vision for their children, and a willingness to sacrifice and formulate their utopia around those children.
Before concluding this section, it must be noted that letting go of the control of the next generation, and of the iron fist that says utopia must continue the way it has in the past, is the key to continue a utopia past one generation. This “hands off” is often the most difficult part of motherhood.
Strong Belief System
This final part noted in the Kibbutz article is the “how” of the day-to-day running a utopia. http://www.lovolution.net/MainPages/artWorks/DesignUtopia/DesignUtopia.htm has a great list of questions to ask if you would like to create your own utopia. I used this as the foundation in the following subjects that I will discuss (limited due to time and brainpower, not the scope of the subject): the basic structure, goals and values, education, politics, relationships, religion, and jails.
Basic Structure
While smaller utopias are easier, for it to be a true utopia, I believe it has to be for everyone. My utopia would be global, for how can you call someone your brother if you allow for one to receive benefits, and the next one not to. This then calls for diversifying of the physical structure, or killing off everyone to be able to live in only one kind of structure. I recognize this problem, and put it aside for future papers.
The basic physical structure of my utopia is similar to the garden-like state of Herland, which was carefully cultivated with lots of fruit trees and nuts growing everywhere, making the best use of the space. They were vegetarian because it made the best use of what they had, and I think that is a great idea. Since I will not force my ideas on everyone, anyone is free to have meat—as long as they raise it themselves, taking complete responsibility from start to finish.
The duties of each member within this utopia is to pull their own share as was represented in Looking Backward. This does not mean that each person is required to produce the same amount, but that each gives the full amount of effort. This takes the pressure off performance and doing and allows one to focus on character and being.
Looking Backward also then has everyone being paid the same amount through a credit system—including the women and the handicapped—for equal time and effort, though not necessarily equal results: “The worker is not a citizen because he works, but works because he is a citizen.” (Bellamy, 2003, p.122).
Goals and Values
The goal is utopia—the perfect place for everyone. Hopefully everyone has bought into this goal. If not, and it gets really bad, you can skip to the “jail” section to see what happens. The values already noted are motherhood and brotherhood, but specifically, integrity (being real and trustworthy), commitment (diligent, consistent, finishing what you start), kindness (compassion, putting others first, helping, friendly), excellence (doing your best no matter who is looking or how “small” the job), being passionate (know what you want and go after it), curiosity (desire to learn and know more), and generosity (using money/ time wisely to give it away wisely).
Honestly, I have included these simply because they are my values, and so I find them extremely important. Since utopia is not just equality, but a balance with freedom, each person is allowed to choose their own goals and values. Unfortunately, this basically dooms my utopia from the start, but we will ignore that and any other practical oxymoron that has come to the surface at the present moment.
Education
The amount of children a family had would not be limited by rules in my utopia, because (hopefully) through the education each individual would take responsibility for the children they bore. Looking Backward put it this way: “Over the unborn our power is that of God, and our responsibility like His toward us. As we acquit ourselves toward them, so let him deal with us.” (Bellamy, 2003, p. 203) They would rationally think through the population needs and concerns as well as their own individual desires, as they did in Herland.
While I understood the idea of the children living together on their own to receive the best education from those best trained to do so (as in Herland, and many of the other utopias, including the Republic) in my utopia the children would live with their family like in Looking Backward. I do not see the struggle between community and family as strongly as presented in the article “Utopian Thought: re-visioning gender, family, and community:” “Community is a more progressive grounding for relational life than family…offer(ing) an alternative to the possessive and exclusive relationships of the bourgeois family.” (Brenner and Haaken, 2000, p. 338-9)
While on the whole I didn’t appreciate News From Nowhere as much, the whole “back to nature” outlook brought some definite insights to education: “The whole theory (in the 19th century) of their so-called education was that it was necessary to shove a little information into a child…the hurry of poverty forbade anything else. All that is past: we are no longer hurried, and the information lies ready to each one’s hand when his own inclinations impel him to see it…we can afford to give ourselves time to grow.” (Morris, 2004, p. 57)
While I am sure not every kid would naturally ever sit down to study, learning this way seems very healthy: the children would go into the woods and learn naturally, at home they would “see books lying about, manage to read by the time they are four years old” (Morris, 2004, p.25), and pick up languages naturally from their foreign peers. That might be idealistic, but I like the more natural approach.
I also liked the idea of education divided into ages, by Robert Owen in “The Book of the New Moral World.” He has 0-5 year olds getting good food and “ training to think, speak, and act rationally,” 5-10 year olds in “exercises that consist in that which will be permanently useful…characters formed physically, intellectually, morally, and practically.” From 10-15, 10-12 year olds are helping the younger class, and 13-15 year olds are “engaged in acquiring a knowledge of principles and practices of the more advanced useful arts of life…to produce, prepare, and execute whatever society requires.”
By 15-20, they can tell what each person is best at/likes to do, and so it is “training and educating to have all his faculties and powers cultivated.” From 20-25, is “the highest and most experienced class of producers and instructors.” After 25 years of age, they only work if they want to. From 25-30 they are basically just preserving the work, and then doing what they find enjoyable to do.
From ages 30-40, they “govern the home department, and 40-60 year olds are in charge of external or foreign arrangements…attending to visitors from other establishments…circumscribe the world in their travels.” (Utopia Reader, 1999, p. 207-219) Owen tried out his experiment in the New Harmony community in Indiana. This is lifelong learning and responsibility, which are two very important pieces of my utopia.
Politics, Economics, Science, and Technology
If I could only pick one book to base this section off of, it would be Looking Backward. I liked their progression from capitalism into socialism (as previously noted in this paper), and their use of credit to all workers the same amount (also previously noted). Socialism in history has not worked, often because it does not reward responsibility or character, and those lessons from history must be dually noted and brought into the equation.
In Looking Backward, the work is done by whoever wants to do it. If there is a job that no one wants to do, then fewer hours are needed. They make all jobs equally attractive by increasing/decreasing the hours and benefits. For example, if everyone wanted to be a doctor, then the normal doctor working day would be 8 hours. But if no one wanted to be a lawyer, then you would only need to work 4 hours a day at the lawyer job, making it more desirable.
Jobs are like serving in the military: everyone does it from 21-45. From 21-24 they do the “common labor,” first of all, to get the experience, and second of all, because someone has to do it. This teaches them discipline, and then between 24-30 they can specialize if they would like to, finishing up when they are 45, and then only working if they chose to, or for the good of the community.
Looking Backwards has them using technology for the general betterment of life, whereas News From Nowhere has them stop most technology in a more natural setting. My utopia would lean towards Looking Backwards, but would be careful to consider environment and lasting effects of the decisions made in science and technology.
For example, Red Mars has the situation where the longevity “treatment” is available, but only to a few. Any technology must be beneficial and available for all. If the utopian world cannot sustain everyone having it, then they should not introduce it, for it creates disunity. This would be a question of the “few” repressing, or sacrificing their ability/freedom for the sake of equality and community.
From Red Mars: “It’s been coming for years…even before the treatment life expectancy in the rich countries was nearly double that in the poor. Think about that! But in the old days the poor were so poor they hardly knew what life expectancy was, the day itself was their whole concern. Now every corner shop has a TV and they can see what’s happening—that they’ve got AIDS while the rich have the treatment. Its gone way beyond a difference in degree, I mean they die young and the rich live forever! So why should they hold back? They’ve got nothing to lose…and everything to gain…they could live like us.” (Robinson, 1993, p. 429)
Relationships
As far as gender issues, in Looking Backward: “In giving full play to the differences of sex rather than in seeking to obliterate them…the enjoyment of each by itself and the piquancy which each has for the other, are alike enhanced. (Bellamy, 2003, p.197) In my utopia, the differences are not ignored, but careful consideration is taken to equality and balance.
Looking Backward also pays men and women the same, so marriage isn’t about what you provide or bring to it, but the person themselves: “Think of a world in which there are nothing but matches of pure love.” (Bellamy, 2003, p.201) Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think it will work that way completely. But it is a nice thought.
I personally never took into account many of the effects we have from our feminine/masculine driven society that are brought out in Herland. When the three men came into Herland and met the women they would marry, they had nothing to give but themselves—the women were completely competent alone. This forced the relationship to a deeper level, especially when added to this was no sexual attraction, since the women hadn’t seen any men for 2000 years. What would a relationship be that wasn’t based on sexual attraction or for what the other person could give/provide for you? Rather utopian, I am sure.
Most utopias are anti-marriage because marriage is exclusive and into the realm of “mine” and “not mine.” I liked the way The Dispossessed explained their relationships as partnering. For many in their society, it meant nothing more than being roommates with benefits for a time, but to others it was a lasting bond no different than some people hold for the term “marriage.”
I wouldn’t have such a permissive society as they did, mostly because the idea is so foreign to me. It did allow for a freedom to cultivate love without restraint, but I have not seen any viable proof of benefit to this in the people around me who are experimenting with this (such as cohabitation, “free sex,”). In fact, I have seen just the opposite. Part of what makes love as powerful as it is, is the exclusivity that it holds.
Hopefully the value of commitment would hold together relationships during difficulties where it often seems easier to just leave, rather than having a complex set of rules. In News From Nowhere, someone in their utopian society kills someone else in the name of love and from relationship issues. It is brought up that love is a messy thing, even in utopia. I agree.
Religion
Religion is very important to me, and so yes, I want it for everyone. I also know I cannot force it on anyone, darn it. “Free will” holds the open idea of choice, as well as the hope that if I really believe that I have what “works” in religion, I don’t have to force it on anyone—they will want it if they see it really “works” in my life. True religion is based on relationships, until we screw it up with rules anyways. The best explanation of religion I read was in Herland:
“Here was a religion which gave to the searching mind a rational basis in life, the concept of an immense Loving Power working steadily out through them, toward good. It gave to the “soul” that sense of contact with the inmost force, of perception of the uttermost purpose, which we always crave. It gave to the “heart” the blessed feeling of being loved, loved and understood. It gave clear, simple, rational directions as to how we should live—and why. And for ritual it gave first those triumphant group demonstrations, when with a union of the arts, the revivifying combination of great multitudes moved rhythmically with march and dance, song and music, among their own noblest products and the open beauty of their groves and hills. Second, it gave these numerous little centers of wisdom where the least wise could go to the most wise and be helped.” (Gilman, 1992, p.116)
Jails
What about those who just won’t listen? Looking Backward says they are mentally sick: “We have no jails nowadays. All our cases of atavism (a backward step in evolution) are treated in the hospitals.” (Bellamy, 2003, p.161) The Dispossessed had this same basic idea, but the “hospital” is called into question, if it is really not just a jail.
In my utopia, the focus is on rehabilitation (more of the “they are sick” idea) would be balanced with restitution, where they need to make right what they did wrong, working with the community to come to the conclusion of rehabilitation naturally. Taking personal responsibility is part of the education of anyone, criminal or not. This takes a lot more work, but brings about the most amount of closure. If this help is refused, then isolation for the protection of the general populous might be a last resort.
Conclusion
My patchwork quilt of utopias has many gaps, as do all utopias. I have simply put on paper the best of my own ideas, as well as my favorite of those I have read. Utopia requires an outward and inward change from the present—happening simultaneously.
A balance of personal freedom and equality is important, as well as three components drawn from the Kibbutz experiment: distance from the past (letting go, not necessarily a physical violent revolution, but a change of consciousness), a powerful uniting experience (such as motherhood and brotherhood), and a strong belief system (the specifics of how things will be run).
Like Frankenstein, this utopia is unpolished and contains many gaps, but is full of heart, desire, and hope for something better. “But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly because you tread on my dreams.” –W.B.Yeats
Recent Comments