What makes a utopia problematic, and which utopias could most easily be associated with that characteristic? Answering that question is a complicated process, and there are many possible conclusions that could be formed. However, I find that a utopian novel becomes problematic when it does not effectively achieve the goals it desires to attain. By that definition, I find that Herland could be considered the most problematic of the novels we have read, because it does not effectively persuade its audience to take a higher view of women.
To clearly understand the problematic nature of Herland, it is helpful to have a working definition of “problematic.” In my mind, utopias serve the fairly narrow purposes of promoting social changes or criticizing current societal patterns. Whether those purposes are blatantly propagated or subtly hidden within the fabric of the writing, Utopia, Looking Backward, Herland, and Gulliver’s Travels all write with that same element of social critique and persuasion. If utopias truly do attempt to achieve that end goal, a utopia becomes problematic when it does not adequately establish a case for its new and improved system. Utopias that avoid the title of “problematic” are those that demonstrate a believable or likeable utopian environment. Herland does not do this effectively.
In class, we frequently referenced the idea that Gilman wrote her work as an argument for a fairer or more respectful view of women. I wonder if the nature of Gilman’s writing actually had the exact opposite effect. Women are portrayed with an entirely respectable view of the world, possessing “vigilance,” being “as cool as cucumbers,” and appearing “serene,” but other aspects of the story undermine her credibility (Gilman 17-18).
After defining women in such an admirable way, she goes on to base their society around some odd form of mother goddess and mother worship (Gilman 48). If I step into the shoes of a male reader of the early 1900s and consider his worldview, I cannot imagine him doing anything other than laughing at the ridiculousness of it all. Had Gilman built a similar society around a more believable reality, I think she would have been taken more seriously. Gilman had a noble goal, but by adding a very strange virgin birth story attached to a fabricated god, I wonder if she may have confirmed what the men of the early 1900s often believed that women cannot grapple with a logical and structured real world.
The novel is not only rooted too deeply in fantasy, but I find that it also does not adequately respect women’s rights. Thus, even if the novel were to be taken seriously, the underlying morals of women’s rights seem inaccurate. Specifically, I see this tension arise when Terry attempts to rape Alima (Gilman 112-113). While the novel takes rape seriously, I do not believe it successfully portrays the gravity of that violation. It bothers me immensely that Ellador comments, “…I begin to see a little-how Terry was so driven to crime,” and I am even more bothered by Van’s response “Oh, come, that’s a pretty hard word for it…” (Gilman 118). I find this so entirely disturbing.
A book written by a woman in defense of women should not give a single line towards defending rape, either inside of marriage or outside. I understand that Gilman’s time period did not necessarily perceive forced sex to be a crime within marriage, but Gilman’s whole purpose is to defy the time-bound principles of politically correct womanhood. Why should she stop short of declaring forced sex to be entirely wrong with no possible justification? By not fully closing that door, I think Gilman does not adequately defend women’s rights, and that is majorly problematic.
If we examine Gilman’s novel in light of the message it portrays to society, I find the resulting message entirely problematic. It lends itself towards losing its message in the midst of laughable fantasy, and the foundational principles of the book do not adequately defend women’s rights. Because of that, Herland lacks believability and moral strength.
I have little faith in utopias. Because of my vivid memories of the worst side of human nature, I do not believe that I would ever attempt to write a utopian novel. However, were I to do so, I would focus my society on education. Societies and cultures around the world seem to suffer from two major problems that underlie many others. Those two problems are intolerance and ignorance. A society that has a strong educational backbone as its primary goal can largely solve these two problems.
To paint a clear background to the problem-solving nature of education, the issues intolerance and ignorance must be considered. It is arguable that these two problems together are the underlying causes of most problems our societies face. Consider, for example, wars. The war on terror can largely be contributed to intolerance between religious groups that seem irreconcilable. A lack of tolerance and comprehension of opposing worldviews seem to lie at the bottom of the disagreement. Not only do wars stem from lack of knowledge and tolerance, but everything from government shutdowns to riots to crime can also often be attributed to people’s lack of education on the subject of tolerance or human rights.
If we understand the importance of knowledge, we can begin to see how education should be practically worked into the nature of a utopia. In forming a utopian society, I would begin with ten years of intense, indoctrinating education during the formative years of a child. Starting on that strong base, every advertisement, media production, and book would be censored to reinforce that education. The education of individuals would be the same regardless of gender, and would focus heavily on human rights and tolerance.
From a human rights perspective, philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Locke would be used to teach that mankind is inherently bound to his rights. No one deserves to be mistreated, no one deserves to have his or her property stolen, and no one deserves to be bodily harmed. When it comes to educating tolerance, individuals would be taught the importance of open-mindedness. By teaching many different viewpoints, tolerance can be built on the solid foundation of human rights. Then, regardless of particular governmental structures or economic systems, the society cannot lose its clear sense of right and wrong. Education thus seems to serve as a practical and reasonable foundation for a utopia.
However, this education runs much deeper than practical societal order. If the value of human rights is coupled with appreciation and tolerance for different cultures and educated deep into a society’s fabric, that society becomes deeply grounded in peace and respect. By teaching the logical nature of many different opposing political and scientific perspectives, individuals would be forced to realize that people from many different backgrounds and cultures have legitimate reasons for believing what they believe.
While universally identical belief systems like Looking Backward or Brave New World present can’t be achieved through that style of education, respect and appreciation definitely can. I would argue that individual belief and respect works along the grain of human nature much better than compulsory universal belief systems, and would also be much easier to enforce. It would root individuals in their deepest desires for freedom and individuality while subtly allowing all those views to richly coexist
When that peace and respectful is a foundational part of people’s moral system, every other aspect of society is affected. Systems of government, whatever technical form they take, are forced to legislate in a way that promotes the people’s rights, because the whole society calls for that legislation. Law and punishment takes on a face of justice, because the judges, lawyers, and lawmakers that work within the society each value fairness and justice at the core of their being.
While the value of that education does not carry over entirely into production of goods, the principles still apply at some level. Learning to value and respect other individuals develops a sense of interconnectedness and community that inspires working together for the public good. The actual mechanics of an economic system compatible with that education is not as relevant the existence of a work force comprised of individuals that firmly value and respect each other.
Having examined the issues of intolerance and ignorance alongside the practical application of education to that problem, I find that education can greatly transform the foundational beliefs of a society. Through that transformation, the entire society becomes more capable of existing in a utopian form.
The concept of taking a top class Alpha-Plus individual out of his brave new world and putting him in a utopia strikes me as a rather amusing situation. To put him in the most intriguing of situations, I envision an Alpha-Plus being placed in a Future Boston context. It seems to me that in so doing, the Alpha-Plus would be moving from a brave new world to a brave new world. Largely, I believe an Alpha-Plus would respond with overwhelming prejudice, but mixed feelings concerning male-female relationships and lack of drugs.
On the one hand, I see an Alpha-Plus responding with intense prejudice towards this new society. While in Brave New World individual value and quality of life are strictly determined in a hierarchal fashion by place in the caste system, Looking Backward shows a world where all are treated exactly equal on the grounds “that he is a man” (Bellamy 45). When faced with a new world where a person’s title “is his humanity,” an Alpha-Plus would look with disdain and arrogance on the classlessness of society (Bellamy 45).
That disdain would most likely only increase when examining the work structures in Future Boston. Here, the lower class individuals are not only equal in value, but also have equal opportunity to rise through the ranks and become more powerful. They can “win promotion” and “taste glory” (Bellamy 60-61). For an Alpha-Plus looking at this society, the ability of low classes to become high classes would be extremely disturbing, and I am sure that his conditioning would inspire strong prejudice against those around him.
While an Alpha-Plus would develop many negative feelings concerning the structure of work in society, I think the feelings would be much more mixed when addressing male- female interactions. From the more negative point of view, an Alpha-Plus would find himself forced to enter into long term relationship in a more traditionally oriented society. Rather than being free to pick women at random, he would be tied down to one woman or be removed from society.
At the same time, I wonder if the lack of class distinction would excite an Alpha-Plus. “Wealth and rank no longer divert attention from personal qualities,” Bellamy informs us (Bellamy 130). Coming out of a society where social pressure generally forces individuals to be interested in someone within their class, an Alpha-Plus would suddenly find himself with the freedom to be interested in anyone he so chose. While he may be tied down to one individual, his field of choice is significantly larger.
I don’t believe these mixed feelings would be constrained to male-female interactions. Instead, I wonder if this would also be true concerning drug use. The society seems completely absent of drugs, and that could come as a rude shock to an Alpha-Plus. He would have no way to escape the world or avoid its pain. That said, this world contains significantly less pain. In Brave New World, pain is often coated over by soma, but in Looking Backward, pain is simply removed from the picture. Life is leisurely and simple, so I wonder if soma would even be a necessity.
Not being accustomed to this classless society, I believe an Alpha-Plus would struggle with Future Boston’s equal respect for humanness. However, I believe male-female relationships and lack of drugs would be met with a much more balanced response.
In order for society to exist in an orderly fashion, some form of decision-making must be made concerning education. I believe that the value of education in a society will determine whether a society looks more like a utopia or a dystopia. Education can first be considered a determinant based on our cultural perspective.
With novelists writing for our world, we need to consider our audience. In many modern cultures, people have been deeply socially conditioned to believe that education is inherently valuable. Thus, it would be best suited to our audience to give utopias unending access to education. On the other side of the spectrum, when we read about a society with limitations on the pursuit of knowledge, we instantly perceive it to be a dystopia. Rather than fight against that instinct, it seems to me that it is simpler for the authors of dystopias to use a lack of knowledge to increase the perceived “wrongness” of their society.
Beyond our natural instinct towards education, the effect of knowledge stems from its connection to freedom verses control. I think human nature has a natural tendency to long for freedom. When society allows knowledge to be freely accessed, people tend feel unrestrained and able to pursue greatness. This lends itself to a utopian feel that runs with our sense of politically correct society. To look the opposite direction, close control of knowledge puts all power in the hands of a few people to determine what is in the best interest of the people.
When a society depends on the knowledge of the few, it is more prone to error, corruption, and pursuit of selfish interest. Thus, a society without free access to knowledge is just more likely to be a dystopia. Control of knowledge structurally leans towards dystopia, while freedom of knowledge increases utopian features.
Knowledge affects more than promotion of freedom and effective government. It also influences societal improvements in technology, medicine, and other fields. When a society allows free access to knowledge, new technology can be created, diseases can be eradicated, and production processes can be improved. This leads to a society that experiences growth and forward movement in the style of forward-leaning utopian societies. However, when that knowledge is restricted, society becomes bound in inefficiency, with few changes being made.
Consider, for example, Brave New World’s food production methods, where Mond states, “We could synthesize every morsel of food if we wanted to. But we don’t. We prefer to keep a third of the population on the land” (Huxley 224). Rather than make steps in scientific progress, the control of knowledge has forced inefficiency into the system. In a world where progress and improvement is highly valued, this inefficiency seems entirely dystopian in nature. In our perception of inefficiency as dystopian, it is clear that the societal improvements of knowledge divide utopias and dystopias into their separate categories.
If we examine the clear utopian nature of knowledge, questions begin to form. How could anyone ever perceive a dystopia to be a utopia? How is it possible that a dystopia is someone’s utopia? I believe this distinction depends entirely on the ignorance of the people. If the people of a society are either ignorant or taught to be ignorant, lack of knowledge can look utopian. A Brave New World astutely observes, “People were ready to have even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life. We’ve gone on controlling ever since” (Huxley 228).
When the people get tired of having to make their own choices and act in intelligence, dystopian society where knowledge is controlled begins to look quite utopian. It seems to me, then, that one of the key underlying messages of utopias and dystopias is the importance of protecting knowledge.
