LITR 5737: Literary & Historical Utopias
Final Exam Submission 2007
Jo Lynn Sallee
02 July 2007
Topic A2. Given the mixed history of Western Civilization in relation to non-western cultures, does this oblivious attitude amount to a repression of ethnic or racial difference? How much should utopian studies invite or require the expression of racial/ethnic difference, resistance, or dissent?
Racial Interpretation -- or lack thereof -- in Utopias
There are several basic characteristics related to forming and maintaining a “utopian” city or civilization. First, the community must be essentially cut off from the rest of the world as evidenced in the texts Utopia, Looking Backwards, Herland and Ecotopia. Secondly, some type of communal living arrangements must be implemented. Also, for most, a more natural type of life will necessarily come about with varying degrees of devotion to nature and the environment. Of course, American capitalism and the greed it insights must be thrown over for a more socialistic, and equal, type of economic plan. Basically, all must agree to work in a communal fashion, or for the collective good of all the people.
However, just who are “the people” and how will they blend together in this supposed perfect land? Can a perfect world exist among the faces of a multi-cultural society? Does adding the “race issue” create too much life compromise to be considered utopian by the above stories? It appears that evidence gathered from the assigned class texts suggest that a racially blended society is not part of the “utopian” plan.
Perhaps because of its time in history, Thomas More’s Utopia makes little or no reference to race or ethnicity. Even their slaves are taken from prisoners of war captured in battle, or are people that are “condemned to that state of life for the commission of some crime” (57). Likewise, Bellamy’s Looking Backward avoids portraying various races in his fictional year of 2000. As demonstrated in Utopia, much of the dialogue is done in a Socratic fashion of question and answer. Yet, even when Edith and Julian do emerge to go out shopping they only witness “a throng passing in and out, about the same proportion of the sexes among shoppers . . . as in the nineteenth century” (66). There is no reference to differing faces, varying dress, or cultural markings; therefore, one can only imagine the sameness of a strictly “vanilla” crowd.
On the other hand, Gilman’s Herland does at least acknowledge the race of the utopia’s inhabitants. Citizens of Herland are described as being of “Aryan stock” and “‘white,’ but somewhat darker than our northern races because of their constant exposure to the sun”(54). Although there is no discussion of the race for the slaves, it is related that during a slave uprising the “infuriated virgins . . . slew their brutal conquerors” (55). If they were people of another color, they were quickly eliminated. Two thousand years later the women remained so cut off from others that they had to reproduce asexually. The women even attempted to perfect their own race by trying to “‘train out, to breed out, when possible, the lowest types’”( 82). They were so homogonous that even a lower “type” was avoided at all costs. Not only were they all women, the inhabitants of this utopia appeared unnaturally, and blandly, all of the same race and color.
Finally, entrance to Callenbach’s more modern Ecotopia brings about a smattering of racially different faces. Yet, even the title of the chapter, “Race in Ecotopia: Apartheid or Equality?” does not bode well for the situation. The main character, Will, refers to voluntary segregation by “the black population” as well as those in “Chinatown” that “were officially designated as city-states within Ecotopia” (107). The city-states “possessed all the attributes of tiny independent countries” and inhabitants lived only among people of their own color (107). He even pulls out the stereotype of “Soul City” as a “heavy exporter of music and musicians . . .” as well as mentioning a re-emergence of “Swahili” in Soul City (108). One can only assume the author forgot that the “black population” was formerly American, and not recent African immigrants. Effectively, Callenbach takes his utopia backwards in time by refusing to deal with the race issue except by simply, and conveniently, isolating the races from each other in his view of the perfect world.
However, Callenbach may redeem himself somewhat with his admission that if “the races cannot live in harmony [then it] is surely one of the most disheartening developments in all of Ecotopia” (110). Perhaps this enlightening statement opens an avenue of thought that could help to explain why race mingling is not mentioned in other, and more dated, utopian texts. It has taken several modern generations for various races in America to tentatively settle differences enough to reside more easily among each other. As of today, there have been no choices to be made by an apocalyptic or defining “millennial” moment. Perhaps it is possible that as a natural historic progression, society will need a new and improved definition, or vision, of “utopia,” and it will more realistically include all of God’s people, regardless of race, creed, or religion. This would mirror Dr. M. L. King’s vision of an earthly perfection where “all . . . will be able to join hands and sing,” and reside peacefully in an intermingled fashion that may equal an earthly utopian heaven. Who can predict though, maybe in the future Dr. C. White will pen a novel depicting a new and improved multicultural utopian vision for the upcoming twenty-first century, and the “people” will be able to read and dream about it.
Topic B4. What relations are possible between literary and historical utopias? From the instructor’s perspective, these two parts of our course remain disappointingly distinct. . . the seminar did not leap to draw connections between the two. . . What connections did students perceive between these two aspects of our seminar? How might the connections be enhanced? Would you recommend any re-organization of our objectives, so that the “Literary Objectives” and the “Historical Objectives” are less separate? Or more so?
Literary and Historical Utopias: What’s the difference?
Today’s modern vision of a natural “utopia” seems to come straight from the bible. Selections from Genesis, the Book of Acts, and Revelations must have sparked the original inkling of creating a new “utopia” on earth. Collective descriptions of the Garden of Eden, communal life, and the return of Jesus can fill one’s heart with a nostalgic yearning for a return to perfection. Yet, perfect love and heavenly reward are concepts that remain just beyond human reach. Obviously, heaven and earth are two separate places and, as much as some try, humanity has not yet achieved a heavenly and perfect utopian community upon planet earth.
It is the very concept of an elusive utopia that makes the blended study of historical and literary utopias so instructive. It is important to keep the Literary / Historical class objectives separate so as to divide real-life fact from created and fanciful fiction. Studying what utopian ideals really work and which ones are just whimsical dreams are part of the attraction to the subject. As Matt Mayo observed in his final exam, “Utopian Literature normally informs far more than it entertains . . . Unfortunately, most Utopian works lack powerful characters [and] characters too often seem like cardboard, making it difficult for the audience to develop any emotional attachment to them”(2005). Therefore, the combination of actual historical and literary utopias facilitates a better understanding of the people who may choose an alternative or “communal” lifestyle as portrayed in fiction or real-life scenarios.
Also, since there are no working multicultural utopian texts, it is relevant to include selections from authors that show the prevailing theme of utopianism. For example, Dr. King’s “Dream Speech” makes references to communal living “when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles . . . will be able to join hands and sing . . .” as in heaven. Natural metaphors are laced throughout the speech such as “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream . . .” that clearly calls up heavenly nature visions. More nature scenes are presented when he says “Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain . . . Lookout Mountain . . . from every hill and molehill of Mississippi . . .” Again, mental pictures of beautiful countryside obviously relates the natural utopian ideal.
However, it is the studied historical utopias that give reality based pictures regarding what works from the utopian lifestyle, and what does not. Highlighting this subject matter may add an interesting facet to the class. Perhaps a day near the end of the course could be spent examining the utopian ideals that do not stand up to the test of real life. For example, in most utopian novels, children are treated as “communal objects” to be raised and educated by the community instead of by their parents. As explained in my own historical presentation, in the real Twin Oaks community, this practice was abandoned long ago because parents wanted and needed a closeness and control over the lives of their children. In reality, the biological need to take care of one’s own offspring can be an overwhelming and inborn emotion. Most free human beings would not be able to “hand over” the care of their children to others, regardless of the utopian benefits.
Secondly, how do people adapt to the “sameness” generated by a utopian life with no capitalist advancement or achievement? It appears self-explanatory that Twin Oaks residents only average a seven year residential stay. Maybe a temporary “vacation-like” scenario would be more palatable to capitalist citizens of America. In his presentation “The Temporary Rainbow: A Week in Utopia,” Donny Wankan reported on the Rainbow Gathering that occurs once a year. The gathering takes place in nature, camping style, and they strive to be as environmentally friendly as possible. Attendees are capitalist most of the year, but use this retreat as a time to “be healed and express yourself [themselves].” Donny quoted his friend Carla as saying “one week makes it work;” apparently none of the attendees wish to live the communal life, eschewing capitalism, for more than the allotted week. The communal life presented too much “togetherness” and drug induced excess to be maintained on a permanent basis.
Thirdly, contrary to the communities of Utopia, Looking Backward, Herland, and Anthem, current real-life utopian movements were not initiated by defining apocalyptic or millennial moments. Lacking millennial motivation, the reasons for the inception of real-life “utopian” communes may be as varied in number as there are actual working communities. For example, the Twin Oaks Community was started after founding member, Kat Kincaid, read the utopian book Walden 2. The “utopian struck” founders wanted to escape from growing capitalism and violence experienced in the United States. Possibly they were pushed by nostalgia into looking for a simpler, and back to basics, kind of life.
Fascination with “utopias” appears to cross years and writing styles. From the penning of Thomas More’s Utopia to that of the modern Ecotopia by Callenbach, it became obvious that not many basic organizational changes emerged. For this reader, the class “Literary and Historical Utopias” presented a realm that was new, informative, and enjoyable to contemplate.