After looking over Iris' post I realized all of that is totally true! There are so many set rules on how to act, what to do when, how to dress, what to read and your entire daily life is mapped out for you. Where is the self expression? Where is the freedom, the creativity? Admittedly the last two books we read from by Bellamy and Morris personal creativity was mentioned especially with regard to working and living. You could choose how you wanted to spend your allotted money, whether it be on fancy clothes or a nice house. Your "job" was also artistic and enjoyable. Bellamy and Morris, personally, are the two closest things to a utopia we have seen so far. They allow for individual choices, work, and family.
The other reads throughout all I could think of were the Pod People from The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (preferably the 1956 film version). The people described in the utopias just seem like they aren't quit human, like to actually be utopians they lose a bit of their humanity sort of like the pod people. The pod people are perfect clones of the humans but everyone (well everyone that was close with the original person) can tell there is something "off".
These utopias have so many of types of laws, rules, and regulations that help to make them these utopias that they just sound like they would create mindless people. Everything is so ordered and controlled you don't have to think at all. So after a few generations of a brain numbing life I'm pretty sure people would just get dumber. Like that thing we mentioned in class were they choose sexual partners based on qualifications to create more "average" people.
Does the perfect world really have to create a race of thoughtless people? Why can't utopias like Morris and Bellamy's exist? Why does everything have to be so structured and so controlled that people can't even have a family, own a house or even decide what clothes they wear on a daily basis?
I understand that a society needs rules and guidelines. What is the old thing that kids that act out crave boundaries? Sure I get that as humans we need guidance, hopefully from someone wiser, smarter, and (again hopefully) more morally upright. But why does this guidance have to turn into soul crushing oppression?
Utopia, to me, was always about freedom in many different forms. Personal, religious whatever it was I always thought that for a society to be perfect people should be allowed to do as they pleased. I realize now that for a society to work there do have to be rules in place. There have to be guidelines for daily life and laws and that people can't just go around and do whatever they want when ever they want. But seriously you can't even pick out what you wear that seems a little much to me.
So, as a note, I think I've shot myself in the foot here by posting very infrequently by choice. The idea was to work on our readings, go through the day, and as I thought about these ideas of utopia .. I would come up with various themes to write about in my blog.
As is evidenced, not many themes came to mind. For the two posts (of two) that have had themes, they were somewhat disorganized, and frankly I think my system for getting work done isn't airtight.
Then again, what plans aren't airtight? The past readings we've had tackle various social issues phenomenally in theory (just like my organizational system does) .. however in practice, they both have flaws. I end up doing the most pertinent assignment on the list, while long term projects (like this one) get pushed to the side. The same could be said for Soviet Russia .. the "Communist Experiment". Everybody shares everything, and nobody is greater than another (except some are more equal than others).
The point is, there's no easy way to know if a system would work in practice. While I would like an ideal system where I could continually come up with quality content in an organized manner, it seems fairly clear that (while some decent content may be there) .. the frequency of each post isn't cutting it.
Similarly to Bellamy's world where the government is the monopoly .. there's always a downside, always a flaw in these systems of utopia. The theory is fine, and More may think that a secluded island full of superior members with perfect ethics and moral behavior would work flawlessly .. but things never go as planned. Someone finds a way to take advantage of a system, and things go awry.
For that reason (thinking now of unintentional societies) I'm glad the United States code of law (and frankly, most democratic codes of law) have the flexibility for change. They may not be the squeakiest running machines, and they may be held together by patches of tar and duct tape, but at least they've been tested. People have worked to take advantage of societies, and constant patching to current laws curb the problem.
Now. Where can I find some duct tape. My system needs some fixin' ..
So this is the kinda thing that happens when you take a Sociology of Sexuality class and Utopian Thought. I haven't decided if I recommend it or not.
So, In my sex class we were being asked questions about an article called "Hip-Hop Honey or Video Ho". I kid you not, this is what I get to talk about every Tuesday and Thursday. Any who, We were talking about a couple of different things about females in the hip hop industry and what not and then the conversation took a dramatic left turn. It turned into this idea that the women in the videos have to be ashamed (I am taking liberties here, plenty of people in my class weren't believing this and just being quiet...I'm sure.) Now, 'slut shaming' aside it led to this idea of role modeling. My professor was all, "You know what would be great? If we were all role models for each other and looked to one another for social rules."
No...No that would not be great. And you know what? That's the kind of crap that's been bugging me about Thomas More's utopia and The St.Benedict stuff. I don't like when people need to watch other people to maintain decorum or what not. It probably one of the biggest things about humanity that makes me sad.
To explain, have you ever heard the statement "Why can't you be more like ____?" ? Or, have you ever been in a middle school and have to fill out one of those bits of paper that ask you who your greatest role model is? I have, and it...it kinda hurts. It takes my ability to create myself. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to look up to people or anything but that's not what a role model is. A role model is a person whose behavior in a particular role is imitated by others. I think appreciating someones work and being a fan of them is better than attempting to act like that person. I especially hate that this is a question I'm asked as a child because it assumes that I can only be me because I'm acting like someone else. Do you know how hard that makes high school, college, and the rest of my life to find myself?!
If I went about, curbing my behavior to match that of someone else's I wouldn't be me. I think that we as human can and do unconsciously follow one another's social ques. When your best friend starts whispering you follow suit, when you start to talk like those you're talking to, these are moments where you are changing how you may normally be to what society is dictating. Going to a specific college because your favorite actress went there and believing that will do you good is crap, in my opinion. Other people's decisions shouldn't dictate what you do with yours.
In Utopia this is how the society controls it's people. It expects certain behavior for people of varying ages and then place them near or with those that have the best influence. The youngsters get to sit next to the elders because this will teach them how to act.
Well, I feel like I've sufficiently ranted about something without completely getting my point across. As is my MO. So, like I usually do I'm going to post another video of something. But I'm going to try and tie it in this time! Ok, so if this band had pitched it's idea of being a steam-punk three man acoustic group in Utopia they would probably have been turned into slaves! What? Your saying that I didn't tie that in well at all and should stop talking? SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE AWESOME MUSIC!
I'M STILL YELLING, THIS POST HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE NUMBER 643!
If utopia is supposed to be perfect why can't you have personal relationships and why are women so far off the radar? In everything we have read we have heard about the classical idea of a family: mother, father, kid(s). Everything seems ok with this until you read farther and discover that if a child does not like his father's profession he can be "adopted" by another family with the desired profession. Families can be taken apart and stitched back together in more desirable fashions. They are changed for the benefit of the whole community. Which makes sense seeing as how many of us voted for good of the community over good of the one. Utopias cannot exist if good of the one is always put to the front. But why do personal relationships have to suffer? You can still have a family unit and friends and have utopia. I understand now that to maintain a perfect society there have to be rules but without friends and family life can lose meaning. I get that in utopia the community is meant to be your family but why can't there be smaller more intimate relationships?
In the utopias we have read women are basically off the radar, unless of course they are raising the children or require special carts for travel or need special seating at dinner so they don't cause disturbances. Seems like a downer to be female. "Yay I get to read my children, how long they'll be my child who knows, pre-selected and screened stories!" I think the women should be more mentioned and not just in the negative ways. I'm not saying there should be a just women utopia I just think that totally forgetting about women, other than as care providers seems a bit one sided. Women play a big part in every society why not so much in utopias?
An
Abbot is someone who brings together the community and brings to light the
situation at hand so that the matter can be discussed and be put into action. This
can be compared to the House of Representatives the Senate and Head of State.
These people are persons who bring the community together to inform them of the
happenings in the society and what course of action needs to be taken for the
people to live out their lives to the best of their abilities. In my opinion an
Abbot is not an Abbot because of political office, but, rather, they are
persons who are capable of bringing people together and performing the needs of
prudence and justice. They are given power by being representatives of the
majority of the people that they rule and bring to congregation. They are not
in themselves Abbots without the characteristics of honor, loyalty, fairness and
justice. Their qualities must be above the layman’s in these characteristics to
be true Abbots.
An Abbess is
someone who is worthy to serve in the place of God. She should possess
qualities that allow her to teach and command with divinity. She should seek to
be able to mold into her disciples the divine teachings and instill obedience in
her disciples. An Abbess can be compared to heads of churches, mosques, temples
or any religious institute. These people teach the teachings of God and lead
their people to paths of peace, happiness, fulfillment and divine justice. An
Abbess is someone who truly cares for the people and answers to God for her
method of teaching. She or he, in this contemporary view, possesses the ability
to teach to the people the ways of religion or spirituality. It is her or his
job to lead the people (the disciples) to obedience, love, self-respect and
glory.
The Cenobites are
those who live in religious factions and serve the Abbot. Cenobites can be seen
as priests or priestesses that serve the people through serving the Abbot and
the Abbess. It is a combination of a Godly view and a communal view where the
community is represented by the Abbot and the ideals of God are represented by
the Abbess. The purpose of the Cenobites is to serve. They serve the community
by combining religious or spiritual factors with communal needs and realities.
Cenobites can also be likened to the lower branches of government such as the
judicial branches. They serve the Abbot through execution of the law.
The Anchorites or
Hermits are the people who fight for god and against the devil. They fight
temptation and their own evil ideas. These people can be paralleled with the military.
The soldiers fight to protect the nation or the community from evils and to persevere
over adversity in the name of their beliefs. They are connected to the Abbess
in their Godliness, but they serve the Abbot in his communal needs. To be an
Anchorite one must be dedicated to their country and must possess many of the
qualities of an Abbot. They must seek out honor, loyalty, fairness and justice.
The Anchorites of Hermits seek out justice in the name of their Abbot.
The Sarabaites
seek out self-gratification and call holy only the things that they enjoy,
while calling those things that they cannot enjoy unholy. These people can be
compared to the public. The public is often ruled by self-serving desires and
can only see things from their own perspective. They are not bad per se, rather
they are ruled by emotion and gratification. These people have a personal law
and are not directly connected to being ruled by an Abbot or an Abbess. They
are the everyday person who may be represented by the Abbott or government, but
is not ruled by the same characteristics of an Abbot or Abbess in their daily
lives.
Gyrouagues are
those that are unstable and constantly moving. They abide by no law and are not
directly associated with the Abbot or the Abbess. They make their own way
through life never settling long enough to acquire the necessary tools of
skills of being a regular citizen (or Sarabaite in this analogy). Their unruly
emotions and unstable temperament requires them to be in a state of constant
change, never adapting to the norms of society.
Our society is
set up not unlike that of the Rule of St. Benedict. We have a government, which
is like the Abbot, religious or spiritual leaders, which are like unto the
Abbess. We have Cenobites that are priest and priestesses of the Abbess or the
judicial branch of government that serves the Abbot in his needs to execute the
law. Anchorites or Hermits that fight against the devil and temptation and
their own thoughts are the military personnel. These people still serve the
Abbot. Sarabites are the lay-persons of our society and the Gyrouagues are the
people who tend to be outcasts of society. The Rule of St. Benedict stands true
even today.
After reading quotes from Winstanley and the
perusing the Twin Oaks websites I couldn’t help but notice the similarities
between the two when it came to work.
Both Winstanley and the Twin Oaks community place a large focus on the
environment and the enjoyment of ones work.
Winstanley says:
“The earth was meant to be a common treasury for
all, not a private treasury for some…Private property is the cause of all wars,
bloodshed, theft and enslaving laws that hold the people under
misery…Whensoever there is a people thus united by common community of livelihood
into oneness it will become the strongest land in the world, for they will be
as one man to defend their inheritance.”
Similar to Winstanley’s belief, the Twin Oaks
community strives for sustainable culture, energy conservation, and alternative
energy. Along with their devotion to the
environment, they also focus greatly on the working individual and cultivation
of the land. I find this to be a very
important aspect of a successful community.
The Twin Oaks view on work and labor is actually
very similar to More’s view on labor as well.
They consider all work to be of the same value and a means of enjoyment
and fulfillment. I really appreciate the
fact that they consider domestic chores to be a part of “real work”, and
encourage people to work both income and non-income jobs, keeping the citizens
from getting bored.
I really appreciate this about the Twin Oaks
community. Especially in this day in
age, when working has become a necessity for survival, focus on the worker’s well-being
would make for a much happier community.
With this alone, Twin Oaks sounds like a community with very good
intentions. I couldn't help but thinking, is this community really a healthy place to live and raise a family? The flexibility with work is great, but how would the seclusion effect the people living in this community? Time will only tell if Twin Oaks can prove itself to be as Utopian as they hope to be.
I have been brought up with the idea of slavery being
something that is negative. I look at Thomas More’s Utopia and wonder if I can
fathom the idea of slavery being a tool rather than an atrocity. I see that the
possibility of people paying off their debt to society as something that I may
not want to accept as a necessarily good idea, but there are little options
when people transgress against their society.
For example, we have jails and
prisons to rehabilitate people who owe society for a wrong-doing. We have
hospitals to rehabilitate people who are ill (specifically mentally ill). We
have schools to teach people to conform to societal norms so that people will
not fall into the category of transgression. We also have people that are so
impoverished that slavery would be a better option than dying of starvation.
When I take a look at these factors I realize that although
I may not necessarily agree with everything that More says, I realize he has
thought through a plan for an Utopia and that plan is better than no plan at
all. So, before I jump to a conclusion where I view Thomas More’s Utopia in a
negative light, from the perspective of how I was raised, I must look deeper
into the functions of society so that I can realize some other factors that I
did not see before.
So, instead of the breaking up of families, starvation,
torment and the other disparities that come from the institution of slavery, I
propose that a work study program be instilled. It would be more beneficial if
we could put these people into a career path and allow them to become
upstanding citizens of society. We would require a mandatory sentence to rehabilitating
education that leads the citizen to become a working unit of society.
The mandatory sentence would work with people who are
doctors who can inspect the citizen’s mental well-being so that the
transformation of the individual not only is physical, but psychological as
well. This insures that people are working together. It makes a system of
education and checks and balances that hold the individual responsible for
being the best citizen he or she can be.
So we're halfway through the semester
and we've already seen a massive array of utopias. They've included
futuristic visions, shining cities, spiritual happiness, and island
paradises. It's been interesting, and so I wanted to share my opinions on where they sit on the spectrum. (The diamonds are color-coded to the text at the bottom.)
Now that we've examined all of these
different visions, I think my own idea of an utopia is coming
together. I want to look back at how my utopian vision has grown, and
I want to look ahead to see if we will ever get close to achieving
anything like it.
First, I'll give my definition of an
utopia:
It is not
perfect. Instead, it is a better place than where we are now.
It
does not have to
exist in some sort of time or place.
It either has
some form of written constitution of the people or is ruled by a
benevolent autocrat. It is one of these two extremes, but nothing in
the middle.
The people in
it must be involved in some sort of activity for the betterment of
others. This action can be physical or spiritual, but it must exist
in some capacity.
Now on to my
personal utopia:
Kindness is
strongly encouraged. Most everyone participates in some sort of
charity work.
Vice is
discouraged and frowned upon.
Those in need
of help receive it.
Men and women
work together to lead the household and society.
Education is
crucial, and most everyone participates in and enjoys some sort of
thought-provoking activity.
Some sort of
philosophical study or relationship with the Supreme Being is
encouraged.
The leader(s)
(either constitutional body or autocrat) are constantly reminded of
the burden of their position. They do not fritter away public funds,
waste time, or slack off on the job.
So, the big
question is: do I think any of this is possible? I think some areas
may be possible, but others certainly are not.
There's another
pressing question: do I believe that we will ever achieve an utopia?
At the beginning of the semester, one of my posts included a stanza
from W. H. Auden's poem, “One Evening”:
“O
stand, stand at the window
As the
tears scald and start;
You
shall love your crooked neighbor
With
your crooked heart.”
I still
believe in a utopia based on kindness and love, but another stanza
from that poem comes to mind:
“O
look, look in the mirror,
O look
in your distress;
Life
remains a blessing
Although
you cannot bless.”
Do I
think we'll ever be good enough to achieve a utopia where we help
each other? No, I don't, mainly because I don't think we're than
interested in doing so.
(Chart provided by the Dr. Heather Mitchell-Buck.)
For many reasons and for many people socialism is an ugly or
scary word. Especially for those of us who have grown up in the United States
of “It’s mine and it’s the biggest and best,” we find it difficult to conceive
of letting go of our control over purchase power and in a sense the liberty to
make our own decisions. People believe that if the government has too much
control and if they support us to much that we will lose the ability or the
right to make our own choices. For me and my own exposure to utopian literature
it seems that the “better place” always has some connection to a socialistic
structure or another form of nationalism or communism that is similar. Why then
does a “better place” rely on such foundations? In order for improvement there
must be an elimination of many injustices that exist in our own society today.
Many proponents of these forms of government believe that all citizens have a
right to health care, education, food, and shelter. Many people would argue
that these are the basic necessities of life and that no one should be in a
position where these aren’t granted. In most utopian works the founder or
author goes a step further and ensures that all people are employed, thus there
are no poor, and that because of their contribution to society they deserve
access to serve their basic needs. In Looking
Backward, Bellamy describes a place where “government has extended” and “the
social system no longer offers a premium on dishonesty” (33).In large contrast to how we run things today,
Bellamy explains that “when the nation assumed the responsibilities of capitol
those difficulties vanished” (33).
In
this fictitious place there are no political parties or politicians, every
decision and framework is made to serve the good of the people. The elimination
of politics has also eliminated corruption. It’s very interesting to step back
and really analyze which parts of this proposed place make us feel
uncomfortable. Or are we all on board with Bellamy’s view of utopia? And if so,
why are we? Is it that everyone is taken care of and that for the most part
everyone makes an “equal” effort to contribute?
I find it interesting to
compare the issues that we vote on today during elections to the issues that
were written about as a proposed utopia years in our past. How far have we
really come in creating a better world and what are we willing to give up to
make that world a reality? Dr. Leete replies to the narrator that their “people
value humanity over self-service.” How many of us can say that we truly
practice that today? And if we made a conscious effort to try do you think that
we would create our own small part of a better world?
No, seriously! I make a difference when it comes to the purchases
of people who come into the violin shop. Why? I think it's because I don't only
sell the instruments. I also play a role in repairing them.
In Looking
Backward, I totally agree that, "It was the principal business of clerks
to help people to make their selection in my day." That is the role that I
play. Now, the idea that my role can be replaced by a note card is a load of
crap.
Let me tell you
the story of scary fireman guy. For convenience, I shall call him SFG. I
was standing behind the counter at work when this tall guy walks in and says to
me, "I want to buy a cello."
I smiled, mainly
because I didn't want him to hulk out and break my spine with his teeth.
"No problem.
Is there a price range you were aiming for?"
"Price
range?" He sputters and he turns a bit pink.
"Yes, we have
cellos starting at $800 and ranging up towards $10,000." I pull out my
price book and wait.
"$800- I'm
not buying my kid an $800 piece of shit wood!"
"Uhh..."
I really had nothing to say to that. He started turning purple-ly and
I rushed right to rentals.
"I'm sorry, I
was under the impression that the instrument was for you. We do have rental
instruments in fractional sizes for students. How old is your child?"
He goes a back to
pink and in walks his kids and wife. I go through the rental program and blah
blah blah. Then he starts thinking that our maintenance and insurance system is
a scam.
"Both are
optional, of course. I just super recommend it because your kid is in
middle school and kids use bows as swords and drop kick cellos for
laughs." I totally don't say that to his face but I say roughly the same
thing.
I show him a list
of repair costs and times. He gets mad but his wife accepts the insurance and
they leave.
Guess what, they
were in two weeks later with a broken bow that they didn't have to pay for
BECAUSE THEY GOT THE INSURANCE THAT I RECOMMENDED TO THEM! IT'S NOT EVEN
HELPFUL TO MY COMPANY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO FIX THE DAMN THING!
Okay, screaming
aside I was dead helpful. And not for commission reasons or anything.
I know people think, "Oh that's cause you work in a small business."
Okay, that might be kinda true but how many times have you gone to a bookstore
and they scan coupons for you when you don't have them. I've been to large
company arts stores and they always give me the discounts that apply. I really
don't think that clerks are out there to screw everybody. I've gotten more help
from live clerks than the back of a box every time.
So I don't think
that Utopia can exist without clerks. I know this seems pretty petty but it's a
big thing. I know much more about violins, violas, cellos,
basic carpentry, power tools, financial math, people skills, medicine, and
animal care. Seriously, all from being a clerk at a violin store. By removing
the occupation of being a clerk from the public you remove
learning opportunities. We all know how I feel about the loss of learning.
It makes me cringe inside. And outside.
Also, totally removes the only incentive I have to go shopping. I
hate just getting things. Tell me about it, give me the specs even if you think
I don’t understand. I want to see people talk about things they like, make, or
just know about. This got personal and strange. I’m just gonna stop here.
Here's an awesome video about minecraft!
This blog post was brought to you by the number: 640
In many ways it is jarring to devote an entire class day to
reading about how females interact and relate to the idea of utopia. Hopefully,
many females in 2013 feel that they are decades away from the distinct oppression
felt by our grandmothers and those that came before them. For most of us, I
assume that unless we are taking a feminism class or another course that deals
heavily with gender that we typically aren’t focusing on the differences
between the two. I am well aware that gender inequality still exists in many
other countries, but for the most part I’d like to believe that it is something
of our own personal past.
When considering the texts written about utopia between the
years of 1890 and 1919, you cannot help but allow yourself to be transported
back in time. What was it really like for women during those years? What kind
of woman would I have been had I been conceived one hundred years earlier? If I
had written about a utopia in the year 1900, would I have felt the necessity to
conform my writing to mirror the male conventions? I’d like to think that I would
have been a rebel and that my utopia would end with the female strong and
independent, succeeding and being happy without a man at her side. But in all
reality, I am aware that the pressures felt by females past were heavy and that
taking a stand sometimes looked more like the intention of standing tall.
In our brief overview of female presence in utopian
literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, we see that
there is tension created by attempting to give the female a strong or
independent role. Sometimes, as with the example of Elodia, the heroin appears
too much like a male thus defeating the purpose of giving her a figurative place
of her own.How then does the female fit
into utopian literature today? I am increasingly anxious to read later works and
to see where the female has landed all of these years later. Now that women are
both in the home and the workplace where do they fit in a utopian society? And
do both the women and the men see the woman in the same place? If not, how far
have we really come in creating equality? Or perhaps more importantly, the
perception of equality?
