LITR 5439 Literary & Historical Utopias
Midterm Submission 2009

Mallory Rogers

Breaking the Nut-Shell

Three weeks ago I could tell you everything I knew about Utopias in a sentence: in a nut-shell, a utopia in reference to literature is a story about an isolated community that is essentially governed by their unique society’s customary rules and social norms.  During these past three weeks though, my arcane knowledge about Utopias has grown immensely through reading and experiencing the stories as well as lectures and class discussions.  My definition since taking part in these events has transformed my analysis about utopias from a mere vague sentence to one that offers depth and insight into a controversial perspective.

My new concept of utopias as a perspective includes the following: utopias are novels or stories that have either historical or literary significance (sometimes both); the actual word “utopia” comes from the title of Sir Thomas More’s  utopian novel/tract of 1516, Utopia; the word Utopia is made up of Greek parts, formed either from ou (no) + topos (place, as in “topography”) to mean “no place,” or eu (good, as in “euphoria”) + topos (place) to mean “good place”; and it offers an outlet for conformists to separate themselves from normal individualized society. 

Objective 1a specifies that you can define the literary “genre” of utopias.  I have learned that there are two types of literature that offer utopian perspectives and make up the genre.  There is utopian literature, the nice side of utopias that I just finished noting, and dystopian literature—which focuses on societies that fail because of their own innate weaknesses.

 Unlike the more rational utopian literature, which consists of an open dialogue approach to individual knowledge, dystopian literature allows their societies to exceed rationale boundaries, demand conformity at all costs, and play out the consequences of what a collective society could do to its people if it ever really existed. There’s a widely known and accepted theory that all dystopian societies are capable of getting some things right to a certain extent, but eventually they are all met with their demise as they are essentially condemned from the beginning.  This failure of dystopian societies is ultimately because a common theory says that no society can change an individual completely if each member is aware of their own, individual mind that allows each person to process and react to stipulations in their own way.  As a result of this barrier, dystopian societies aren’t able to mold someone to what they would consider as “perfect”; therefore, no new member will ever really fit into the society’s bigger picture of complete conformity.  If no one fits in society, it is inevitable that it will be unsuccessful and the founders will eventually die out along with its by-laws. 

In contrast, utopias are more open to the ideas of discovery and knowledge. As people alter their minds using their individual thinking they find themselves wondering into the gray area of “what if…,”an idea utopias embrace far better than their counterpart dystopian societies. While utopias fight to keep other members on the straight and narrow path, they realize that some will have questions and expect answers if they are to remain part of the community.  As some members begin to branch out and explore new ideas and question their unique society’s ways of life, which most eventually do, the utopian society’s leaders will take the initiative to listen to and process the new ideas or information openly and freely, even discussing issues that arise in groups at public places like community gatherings, for instance. Unfortunately though, like dystopian literature, the rigid utopia ends up for the most part stuck in its collective ways, refusing to grow and resisting any amount of change, even if it is small.  Changing even a minute detail can stir controversy in a society that already views itself as perfect.  With that said, utopian societies earn a fate not different from their counterpart dystopian societies.  They too will freeze because they withstand change and eventually the society will melt away and essentially dissolve along with its sense of the perfect ideals.

I am entertained about the idea of an alternate society, regardless of it being utopian or dystopian literature. This is based on the four novels we have read this semester: More’s Utopia, Bellamy’s Looking Backwards, Perkins’ Herland, and Rand’s Anthem. Each unique story has piqued my interest by showing that it’s okay to break the standard, traditional mold that society has come to accept and push on people and that it’s okay to yearn for more knowledge and reason—lessons applicable to today’s society.  The stories encourage me to think independently and rationalize to myself why the idea of a utopia is easy to imagine as a good thing for society but difficult to grasp for reality and even harder to accept as successful. 

Many of the utopias that we have read the first half of this semester encompass attractive qualities that make accepting the theory of utopias easier and, even to a certain degree, some-what pleasant to imagine. Utopian pieces of literature tackle diverse issues that are important such as those of social injustices and the importance of individuality.  These items directly correlate with course objectives including: 1a, elements and difficulties that repeatedly appear in pieces of utopian literature and objective 3, utopian forms that mirror, parallel, or reinforce social norms or act against them.  

Ruth Pilarte—a student who took the course in 2007—sums up one of my main reasons for  enjoying utopian literature best when she says that utopias bring social injustices from the past [and present] to the forefront by simply changing gender roles dramatically within utopian societies.

An example of social injustices and misleading stereotypes for women in particular is Herland, which was written in light of the women’s suffrage movement. Though European influences on the culture had essentially created and dictated female roles of this period—the male explorers from this story bought into this trend and believed that all women, no matter the society, were expected have three main duties: to care for the family, tend to the house, and cook great meals.   The men, as could be expected, had prepared themselves early in the mission to encounter a mass assembly of these traditional dainty ladies doing “womanly duties” such as washing laundry, cooking dinner, and tending to children.  Instead, they are shocked to see that this isn’t the case at Herland.  Here the women are smart, clean, and they’re athletic—they do it all from sustaining an internal economy; to growing their own food; to protecting their land, possessions, and culture by any means necessary. Through the story you are introduced to these radical women who are their own teachers and are thirsting for knowledge to share with the others, just as the men who had came to shore with hopes of exploring the island they inhabited.  One concept I found refreshing is that the women of Herland had an undeniable knack for acquiring knowledge, sharing in the men’s excitement of learning by hanging onto and recording every story and way of life that is done different from their own. One thing unexpected though, was their take charge attitude.  At one point, the men are scared of the women and realize that they cannot get out off the island so long as the women had other educational motives.  The women wanted to know about the men and their society, how things were done elsewhere.  As the explorers enlighten the women in chapter five about their society’s ideals of a woman’s role and what is should be the Herland women are clearly utterly confused by a woman’s role. Alima asks Terry, “I don’t understand, are the women in your country so weak that they could not carry such a thing as [a fruit basket]?” It’s a challenge for these strong, independent women to fathom that any fellow women could be considered so weak that they were only good to take care of a man and family and nothing else.  To Herland women, traditional western civilization duties seemed repulsive and minimal, and hindered them from reaching their full potential which included a wealth of respectable knowledge.

Looking Backward is another example of utopian literature that places women in traditional, stereotypical roles.  Societal views of Boston in the story are based on a tier system and the idea that class meant everything. “There was no other way in which society could get along, except when many people pulled at the rope and few rode,” Julian says.   Like traditional classification based on money and class, women were also casted in traditional roles that included work with charities and tending to the family home, their husband, and children—the same views of the male explorers in Herland.  It is only when Julian is hypnotized and sleeps for 113 years that he awakens to find a different society from what he can recall, a society in which women have changed drastically and evolved.  While Julian recalls that the first Edith was traditional in her values, he comes to see that women’s roles in society have changed, beyond what he could ever imagine through a new, younger Edith, the original’s grand-daughter. The new, younger Edith was well spoken, intelligent, and inquisitive, and this intrigues him.  The first Edith, in contrast, was merely a social ladder for Julian. She offered no depth to a man’s conversation as the younger Edith in contrast could. In fact, Julian admits to enjoying her company over that of anyone else.  He was genuinely interested in the later, improved version—he had the best of both worlds: the characteristics of his old Edith matched with the essence of a new, more powerful Edith. While the latter Edith has evolved into knowledgeable and respectable, she still manages to maintain a small sense of traditional female qualities, such as retail therapy.  Even though it is clear that women’s roles in Boston had changed, they weren’t necessarily considered equal to that of men, calling attention to the social injustices of the period that were lessened but nonetheless still noticeable.  As women held jobs equivocal to those of males in the year 2000 Boston that was filled skyscrapers and cars, they were still seen as a weaker sex.  This is evident in the sense that though women were supposed to work the same as a man, they were still permitted more vacation time as well as a shorter workday.  So while Boston society of 2000 had thought they were breaking through old, traditional barriers or at least starting to, they were really only minimally blurring the lines continually holding women back by cutting them slack and affording more time simply because they were women. 

Like utopian literature, dystopian literature also deals with changes in society. While Perkins and Bellamy tackled issues such as breaking down the traditional roles of women in western civilization, Rand used her novel Anthem, to portray the gift of acquiring knowledge as something that should not be feared because it in turn can bring you the greatest happiness and pleasure you will ever experience.  The Council of Scholars though both feared and hated the idea of individual knowledge equally, so they banned individual thinking and seeking out of knowledge because of what could have come of it.  Their fear of any new knowledge and their dismissal of the idea represent their society’s detrimental methodology of collectivist thinking, a characteristic of dystopia literature.  Dystopias such as Anthem push society’s rules by introducing internal conflict. Rand does this through Equality.  Despite the risks, of being found out, he keeps returning to his newly discovered tunnel.  During the periods of isolation, Equality found an outlet for his thoughts that were otherwise banned in his society. Through a journal he is able to find passion for his own sense of individuality, apart from the society he has grown accustomed to but never really fit into.  As society holds him back from knowledge, he desires more than ever to run away to the unchartered forest, and to grow old thinking and learning for himself.  It is here in the forest that he is met by the Golden One, who too has broken from the society and found her individualism.

 This was something that I liked about Anthem. Not only was a man able to earn a sense of individuality but he in turn benefitted women and transformed their abilities of the time by bringing a female counterpart to his same level of sophistication and realization.  One radical individualist saved himself from a condemned society and in turn saved another who was in the beginning essentially oblivious to the idea of individuality. With the help of Equality, the Golden One shows that women are just as capable as men to think and thirst for knowledge.  The idea of becoming separate from a closed-minded society and embarking on a new journey full of new knowledge and ideas brought the two together in the Unchartered Forest.  While Herland’s society would have acknowledged Equality’s ideas, dystopias such as Anthem had their societies disregard them altogether. In contrast to dystopias, utopias are seen as complex pictures of cooperation, if Equality lived in Herland he could have played along as the ideas were disseminated and it would have eventually worked.  Unfortunately, though, dystopias come across as strict and unforgiving—the two had no other choice but to leave the society if they wanted to live free.

Like Anthem, Utopia also places a heavy emphasis on knowledge.  In this novel, Raphael is described as a well read philosopher who was knowledgeable in a plethora of studies.  It is noted that when he shares his philosophy books with members of the utopia society, they are excited to read about the Greek literature.  Unlike Anthem, whose leaders condemned knowledge, Utopia’s community embraces the idea; eager to devour the literature books Raphael had so graciously supplied.  Seeing that Raphael is such a wealth of knowledge that they and many others are interested in, Peter tries to get Raphael to enter the King’s service in a timely fashion.  Raphael though is already aware of his individualism and realizes that this will not fit his style.  Raphael had an edge, because he didn’t have to find his individuality like Equality did. His utopian society embraced the idea of individual thinking and knowledge—it made for happy people who were more willing to conform regarding issues that were not as heavy as knowledge. The philosopher Plato says that by building and educating people alike you can create a just and respectable society.  With this idea it is clear to see why utopian, or perfect societies, do away with individualism.  It doesn’t do anyone any good!

To end with, here is how I would explain utopias as a genre:  it is made up of two types, utopian literature as societies that are able to find a way to work themselves out for some time and dystopian literature as the societies that are doomed because they refuse to allow for differences.  While they are different in their own ways, dystopian and utopian stories tie together by showing readers of today what could happen if conformity became a way of life and individualism was banned. Utopian literature though, shows you a more sunny side of what could happen if we all conform by allowing some room for leeway, while dystopias show you the radical downfall that strict collective thinking can impose.  The bottom line is, while both types of utopian literature attack complex issues, whether it be gender roles or a thirst for knowledge, neither work well for everyone and neither can be called an ideal society because they are flawed. Dystopian literature takes issues to the extreme while utopian literature vows to hear ideas out, but then casts them off to avoid any real change.  While they each possess different points of view, the two society’s resistance to change makes the genre as a whole quite unsuccessful.