LITR 5737: Literary & Historical Utopias
Midterm Submission 2007

Tish Wallace

June 16, 2007

Exposure and Frustration of the Individual

Utopian communities focus on the importance of others over self.  These communities work together towards a common goal for the betterment of the community itself.  The exaltation of self seems to be the cause of destruction for the community in that it creates division among the citizens.  With the exaltation of self comes the assertion that one is unique and should be treated and/or rewarded for his or her uniqueness.  This implies competition for better jobs, better pay, better education, better lifestyle which often leads to inequality.  Often individuals sow into the economy what he or she feels that he or she can reap instead of thinking of the potential benefit for everyone involved.  Stereotypical labels are informally assigned to the working class and the educated in an effort to provide clear distinctions between the “haves” and the “have nots”.  With this sort of distinction comes dissension among the above mentioned. 

Dissension causes the eventual destruction of community ties and leads to a society where one looks out for self only.  This is the reason utopian communities were considered ideal for some.  Because utopian communities promote the importance of equality efforts to create intentional communities were made.  Equality within these communities, however, seem to look like the idea of “sameness”, individual differences are not superior or celebrated, instead differences are seen as a means to an end, a way to contribute to the community for economic growth and a perfect social order.   There are problems with this approach.  Recreating equality within a socialist group exposes and frustrates ideas of individualism. 

Perfectionism, a utopian ideal, saw man as reaching a state of perfection or sinlessness at conversion.  John Humphrey Noyes led the Perfectionist movement which was founded from the Holiness movement and Adventism movement.  The idea is that under this movement “members are supposed to follow distinctive norms of behavior to create a better people and bring about a better world.”  Others is superior to self, yet in order to maintain a perfect social order the community had to work on improving individuals within that order.  Noyes, as well as others, believed that individualism promoted selfishness and therefore did not contribute to the ideal of equality within a socialist order.  So he instituted several practices within his community that supported this ideal.  One such practice, Mutual Criticism, was established to assure conformity to Noyes’ morality.  Mutual Criticism was practiced when individuals committed actions or sponsored thoughts that detracted from family unity.  These individuals were subjugated to criticism of either a committee or the whole community.  According to dictionary.com, mutual indicates an exchange of a feeling, obligation, etc., between two or more people, or an interchange of some kind between persons or things.  If this community was built on the backs of “Others” then why didn’t Noyes allow himself to be subjected to this practice? It was quoted that Noyes felt that a group should not criticize their leader.  But isn’t this just proving the opposite of what the utopian ideal is: equality?  And wasn’t it his belief that individuals within the community needed to work on improving in order to maintain a social order? Why does Noyes’ feel that he is above being “improved”?

As a leader of the community, Noyes should exemplify strict adherence to rules HE taught.  Noyes continued to show his concern for only himself when he chose to flee to Canada from fear of prosecution.  It was just convenient to “resign” around the time that outsiders were putting the heat on the commune because they were against Noyes’ practices.  So, again, Noyes’ ran.  Didn’t the Oneidans think that this was a selfish move? After all, he left them behind to deal with the drama from the “outside world”.  Was it because of Noyes’ absence that the young followers began to question his teachings? History has proven that in the absence of a leader, some followers will choose to follow their own paths creating dissension within the populace as they go.  After the damage has been done citizens began to wonder if there really was a responsibility to “Others” not only within the ranks but within leadership roles. 

I understand that even within a socialist order you have to have some form of leadership.  Yet, it seems decisions should be made as a community without the propaganda associated with campaigning or political influence.  Citizens should be able to decide on practices as a collective group coming to a unified decision.  But is this really possible? Or is this just another form of the governing body (judicial, executive, legislative)? Unfortunately, this situation seems much like individualism today.  You have strong followers of a president who become disappointed when that said president goes to another country in time of war thereby letting the people down and causing some to withdraw their support.  Said president is thought of as selfish and putting his needs before his country, “Others.”

Snapshots of individualism precede out of a socialist view.  Personal beliefs tend to take precedence in recreation of equality.  Is this characteristic of individualism or socialism? In the text, Looking Backward, readers are exposed to a community that supposedly thrives on the basis of equality and the importance of social gatherings.  One such emphasis is during times of feeding.  The citizens report to the city building designated for dining at the same time during the day yet each family has their own private dining room.  “Every family in the ward has a room set apart in this great building for its permanent and exclusive use for a small annual rental.  For transient guests and individuals there is accommodation on another floor” (pg. 100).  What is the purpose then of going to the building? These families can still enjoy having dinner together within the confines of their own homes.  How is this accommodation a promotion of social networking? Instead, this concept seems to be more of isolationism.  The only difference seems to be that someone else, a member of the industrial army, is serving the food.  The text mentions that these individuals are not regarded as the servants of those he serves but they are serving the nation.  “Nowadays it is an axiom of ethics that to accept a service from another which we would be unwilling to return in kind, if need were, is like borrowing with the intention of not repaying, while to enforce such a service by taking advantage of the poverty or necessity of a person would be an outrage like forcible robbery” (pg. 102).  Waiting on tables is a miscellaneous occupation in which every young recruit in the industrial army is given a taste.  You have to wonder though when do these people eat? If the purpose is for a community to come together and eat then why are these people being left out? This just creates a situation that is questionable and has potential for being regarded as servitude which is a description of a role within the individualistic community. 

“We are nothing.  Mankind is all.  By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives.  We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State.  Amen” (pg. 21).  With Anthem you have the dissatisfaction of a social order.  Socialism is like programming robots.  Citizens learn (encoded) chants to promote brotherhood such as the chant stated at the beginning of this paragraph.   Other chants include “The will of our brothers be done” (p. 25) and; “We are one in all and all in one.  There are no men but only the great WE, One, indivisible and forever” (p. 19).   The idea of the figurative assassination of nonconformists or the retiring of the old robotic system for the more modern stands out through most of this text.  “If you are not needed by your brother men, there is no reason for you to burden the earth with your bodies” (p. 22).  This text is different from prior texts read in this class in that it admittedly points out the problem in creating a perfect social order: the need for individualism.  Readers come to the realization that individualism is important to the community because of the different talents and superior knowledge of some over others.  This individualism leads to the advancement of the community.  This idea was carried through with the character of Equality who pointed out that the community could benefit from electricity instead of candles.  This was an interesting idea because the community saw the candles as an important improvement from torches.  The community got rid of all things associated with the “old world” which included progress previously made.  Bellamy would probably say that in context this community was looking backward and moving backward instead of forward.    

In Herland, the ideal community is that which consists solely of women.  If utopian ideal is about equality, doesn’t this include the equality of sexes, too? In this unique community you have a group of women who explain the survival of the fittest theory in which during the “end times” there were no male survivors.  The reader gets the feeling that this community has since thrived because of the lack of domination, conflict, and war, all ideas that are associated with “man.”  It is thus assumed that the success of the country is attributed to the fact that the women are equal in every aspect, even motherhood.  The country “grew together, not by competition, but by united action” (pg. 60).   Individualism breeds corruption because of the inherent competition involved; whereas social order breeds unity.  Though the idea is intriguing in this scenario, it still does not promote equality.  In fact, in a way, it promotes the genocide of males, figuratively speaking.  This society has even created a way to get around the reproductive process through parthenogenesis.  It’s like saying, “I don’t need males, not even for reproduction.”  Readers also get a sense of selective parthenogenesis because these women are giving birth to girls.  This book supports the power of the mind.  So, do these women, during parthenogenesis, focus on having girl children and not boy children? What about the selective breeding of cats? Male cats are kept away from the female cats until breeding.  Male cats are also not allowed to roam around the country.  Yes, the three men were allowed to roam around the country with supervision, yet even they admit that they were “different” while in this type of environment.  “We, in our easy assumption of superiority, had suddenly arrived; and now, tamed and trained to a degree they considered safe, we were at last brought out to see the country, to know the people.”

Individualism is frustrated within a social order.  Authors and socialist leaders can not seem to get around this aspect of our culture that so vehemently causes them so much turmoil.  With individualism come the ideas of freedom and equality.  However, it’s freedom and equality to a certain degree.  If limits are not defined then you run into an increase in potential problems like polygamy, incest, statutory rape, dissension, competition, genocide, etc.  Socialism does not really create an ideal perfect social order. Ever heard of the wolf in sheep’s clothing? The teachings and practices of socialism expose individualism for the thought comes from an “I” and is propagandized and implemented by an “I”.  Individualism (the wolf as seen by those who conform to socialism) thus, regulating socialism (sheep).