Michael Luna

The Ever-Evolving Utopian Novel

            When I first realized that this course was going to be an intensive study of utopian and dystopian literature, I had mixed feelings. I knew what dystopian literature was since I have read it for most of my life and have taught it for eight years of my life. I did not have a clue what utopian literature was or how to approach it so I had some uneasiness with proceeding into the class. Was the literature going to be some type of peaceful handout that convinces me that I should let go of my capitalistic desires so I can become one with the sacred feminine? Would the readings be reminiscent of the flyers I have received from Jehovah’s Witnesses? What I found was something much more pleasing to both my literature-based mind and my empathic existence. I do have some knowledge of what a utopia is, as this is something that becomes part of a conversation in every person’s life. Utopias are supposed to be the greatest places in the world to live. There is no crime, no poverty and everything is perfect. I did not find this to be the case with the utopian literature that I read. Instead, I found that the literature, for the most part, was realistic in that it acknowledged problems and other potential fallacies of a perfect society rather than attempt to indoctrinate the reader into believing in some fanciful fairy-tale kingdom. There were aspects of the literature that dragged on, but I suppose that has to occur when creating a new world. Throughout the course so far, I have discovered that there are much more to utopian literature. Parts of our history have been influenced by utopian writings, as have the formations of different cultures and communities. I even found myself wanting to explore further into the level of infiltration that utopian thought has upon society. 

Historical and Other Ties

            Utopian literature appears to be involved with much more than just words on a page. People have been trying to build a perfect society since the inception of civilization. This drive has caused us to move from hunter-gatherers to agrarian, a period known as the Neolithic Revolution. Even at our earliest, humans wanted more than just basic living arrangements. What utopian literature does is provide the possibility of what this possible perfect society can be and how we may achieve it during our lifetimes. Utopian literature is important to read for several different reasons. While it may not appeal to the average reader at first, truths are exposed that the average reader probably does not think about. Sir Thomas More wrote his version of a utopia in the 16^th century, a time when civilizations were still trying to find that perfect blend of workable institutions. In More’s Utopia, Raphael compares what the Utopians have done with their laws and those of other countries that continually create new laws but can never achieve cohesion. In the literary sense, this comes across as satire, which is something that I did not expect in a utopian writing. Another satiric point that More makes in his story is when Raphael states, “These things have been so provided among them that the Prince and Tranibors may not conspire together to change the government and enslave the people” (2.6) when he is talking about how the government of Utopia functions. This appears to be a slant against the ruling class of the day as those people would have believed it was their right to do what they wanted to do when it came to the common people. Charlotte Perkins Gilman also utilizes the use of satire in her story Herland and this is evident within the character of Terry. Terry functioned as an extremely macho character who thought that he knew everything about the world and that women could not function by themselves. Terry serves as a direct message to the male audience in trying to make them aware of how asinine they are in thinking that they know all and can do all. Charlotte Perkins Gilman does an excellent job in bringing about a boastful character and creating a symbol of the male gender and then causing him to be the buffoon.

            In each of these early utopian writings, the reader is exposed to other changes in society. More’s Utopia created a separate island community while Herland creates a society in which women rule everything. A critical difference is when the subject of childbirth comes into the conversation. The women of Herland give birth without the assistance of a male. This is a situation known as parthenogenesis. An uneducated reader is going to be very confused by this concept, but those who had been following the writings of Charles Darwin would most likely understand what was happening in Herland and how it was probable. Unlike women being the sole family member as in Herland, More’s story develops a family unit with a man and a woman. While this may sound similar, More goes a step further and describes how both the bride and groom are presented to each other naked. I suppose this sums up the notion of having no surprises, which is something that happens all too often in our modern marriage system. Each author does explain how these societies function and this is where utopian literature loses its audience.

            Readers are drawn to a story that progresses and involves conflict and plot. The one area where utopian literature falls short is that there is not much plot or conflict located within the story. Instead, utopian literature comes across as an entry in which the author is trying to sell you something. As I read Utopia and Herland, I found myself drifting off due to the constant barrage of informational text. This focus on didactic literature is off putting, but it does serve a purpose. Remember, utopian literature is about the creation of something new. In order to get the point across, an explanation is going to be necessary. Unfortunately, utopian literature is one genre that could easily be an encyclopedia entry. The best solution around this portion of utopian literature is to look at the bigger picture. I had to remember that I am not here to be entertained by this type of literature. It is, for lack of a better word, informative literature that sometimes uses elements of fiction: conflict, dialogue, characters, setting, point of view and symbolism. Both More and Perkins Gilman do this, albeit in a roundabout manner.

The Utopian Genre

            Most of the writing during Sir Thomas More’s life would be considered instructional by today’s standard. Many people could not read or write and those that did wanted to spread their ideals to the masses. There are old tales that we call folk tales, but even these have an instructional purpose behind them. The Greek used their stories to pass on morals and there was always some character that embodied what it meant to be the best person. When More created his story in the 16^th Century, he came up with his concept of what a perfect society would be like. What genre would this literature be? The island country of Utopia is fictional so this does not fall under non-fiction. His story does contain quite a bit of Socratic dialogue and a lot of information as well. Simply put, utopian literature is fictional literature but is it truly a novel? Looking through Utopia and Herland, I came to conclusion that as time went on, the utopian novel evolved. Since More was the first of the two writers, his story lacked many of the aspects that readers find in modern storytelling. His story did have a journey to a new land and dialogue, but that was the end of it. Charlotte Perkins Gilman introduces a type of utopian story where there is a journey and dialogue, but she also brought in a character that served as an antagonist. There was some slight conflict in her utopian story, yet it was still mainly information-driven. Passing information is a commonality in utopian literature. Idealism and realism are plentiful in utopian literature as is didacticism. In its early conception, utopian literature was much more informative than it was entertaining. However, with writers such as Ayn Rand and Ernest Callenbach, utopian literature became much more enjoyable to read while maintaining its informative quality.

            While More and Perkins Gilman are the first writers of utopian text, Ayn Rand and Ernest Callenbach help the utopian novel become much more bearable for the average reader. Rand does not use much dialogue in her story Anthem but she does create a character that the reader feels empathy. Some consider that this story is more dystopian, but it is about a utopian society with its own ideals and constructs. The structure is dystopian for Equality 7-2521 but ultimately, the society in Anthem is a utopian one. There are no crimes, no diseases, and no violence. The society has so much structure that there are not even guards in the jail. The people are controlled by propaganda, a tool that was absent in the previous utopian texts by More and Perkins Gilman. Rand brings about this concept and uses satire heavily, particularly when she labels those who had individual thought as the “Evil Ones,” in an attempt to make utopian texts more digestible for the average reader. Callenbach uses the point of view of a reporter describing what he sees while simultaneously describing how he feels about his experiences in a utopian society. Something that both Rand and Callenbach do well is to show the reader that while there are utopian societies in their stories, these societies are far from perfect. Rand and, I will argue, Perkins Gilman blend science fiction into their narratives. The science fiction element of Herland would have to be the ability that the women have to give birth without a male involved, while Rand introduces the reader to a future that takes place after a great war. Ecotopia does not have a massive war, but there is a break away from the rest of civilization, which is a common theme that utopian stories appear to contain.

            Separation and the collective ideology are both common among utopian writings. In order for these utopian societies to work, all people must be willing to do what is best for the whole rather than what is best for the individual person. More and Perkins Gilman emphasize this point with very little mentioned about what happens when a person does something for themselves only. Rand, in contrast, brings about a very negative quality associated with working for the common good instead of working for oneself. Rand is also the black sheep in the separation aspect of utopian writing as she deals more with a catastrophic event as the catalyst for her utopian society, while the other three authors merely have a separation without a major conflict or conflagration leading to the development of the perfect society. I have had discussions in the past where my friends and I came up with the conclusion that something terrible must happen if we were to rebuild. Now that I have read some actual utopian literature, this seems more of a stereotype or stigma that has been associated with the creation of a utopia. This may be an excellent tool when dealing with a dystopian story, but utopian stories do not fall into the cliché of you must destroy in order to create. This concept seems important if one is describing a dystopian society rather than a utopian one. The concept of the collective is challenged in utopian literature. The early writers created societies in which those who lived in the utopian world worked, for the most part, harmoniously together. Callenbach decided to add realism to his utopian country of Ecotopia by describing conflict among the people. They had no problem with arguing aloud or letting their emotions gain full control. They had no problem with being violent and there was definitely no problem with sexual release in Ecotopia. Though there are these small conflicts, there is still the underlying feeling that everybody needs to do what is best for the common good. Callenbach just does an excellent job in recognizing the reality that there will be problems when this happens. They will not be as drastic as Rand makes them out to be, but there will be conflict.

            A major part of utopian literature is the use of dialogue and monologue. This is where utopian literature is able to spread the message to the audience and it is helpful in understanding what is happening in the story. While there are instances where the story goes into an explanatory mode, the dialogue contained in More’s Utopia is important because the reader sees that there is a character that is not convinced by this island society and its strange ideals. Perkins Gilman also uses dialogue to explain her concept to the ignorant men that have stumbled upon Herland. While Rand uses limited dialogue, the monologue of her main character is essential in understanding what makes the society a utopian, even if he rejects it. Ernest Callenbach does not use much dialogue either, but the personal musings of William Weston are critical in understanding what is going on the country of Ecotopia. The limited dialogue and monologue are key components to utopian literature because this is where the text becomes both informative and entertaining.

The Personal Quest

            The concept of a utopian society has always been a pipe dream to me. I have never thought that one could work if it became reality, but I never had enough proof to state why I felt this way. Yet, as I continued in this course, I have found that utopian societies were created, failed and have been created again all through history. I then began to wonder if a utopian society was just a beautifully dressed word for the concept of a socialist society. As I trudged through the first couple of readings, I started to see a pattern that is present in all utopian projects. The better for the community is the idea that is pushed throughout. Capitalism is a bad idea, and consumerism is just another way to destroy our world. I feel very differently about this and perhaps that is because I come from a background of poverty. I have been one of the downtrodden where there is nothing for you but government cheese and bread that is specially made for your kind. Though I know that many people, my classmates included, come from a not so well off upbringing, they all crave that perfect society in which everything is just right and everything is equal for all. Equal for all? That is a terrible phrase. Fairness is a more appropriate term because that would at least address the differences in abilities, both physically and mentally, between people. When I think of equality, I picture everybody getting the same exact thing no matter how good or bad their performance is. I recall an objective in the course that I have been poring over since the beginning of the class: “Are utopian impulses limited to socialism or communism, or may freemarket capitalism and democracy also express themselves in utopian terms and visions?”

            I have honestly been trying to find out if there is such a thing as a democratic utopia or a freemarket capitalistic utopia and I come up empty handed each time. There have been some arguments made in class that utopian societies can be democratic but this would utterly defeat the concept of a utopia. Once you give people a choice, you are creating a system in which there will be some type of chaos and possible anarchy. Perhaps this is a bit misanthropic and cynical of me, but I only have history to blame. The only utopian communities that I had known of before this class were Soviet Russia, Communist China, Hitler’s Germany and cults highlighted on the news. Each time I heard of these societies, they were painted with a glorious brush that attempted to make them sound like the best place that every existed. The reality was more in tune with what Ayn Rand described in Anthem. People were free of crime, violence, and other negative aspects of human nature, but people were also automatons going through the motions until their battery died. What hope is there then that utopia can exist without infringing on the individual beliefs on an individual? My classmates have certainly tried to convince me.

            Through this class, I have been introduced to what are known as intentional communities. Of these, Celebration has been the ideal place in my opinion. I do not fancy working on a farm for points, living with other people in a house or tossing aside all of my worldly belongings to I can become more in tune with the world around me. I feel that I have a very healthy relationship with the world. I do not pollute it, I do not deface it and I do not take it for granted. I cherish opportunities to help other people and I love the thought of knowing your neighbors. This is one reason why I moved to a different neighborhood. This is also why Celebration has appealed so greatly to me. This community did not come across as socialist. The others that I have learned about place limitations on your personal wants. If I feel like sitting on my behind while playing an XBOX, I can do that in celebration. However, this would be extremely frowned upon in Twin Oaks. While these places are nothing like the utopian societies that we have read about in class, they are a start. I do have to mention that I am afraid that I will never find a utopian society that is not socialist. As I have learned so far, utopian societies only work if everything goes according to plan.

            I have learned quite a bit about utopias and the people who have written them. Each of them had some complaint against the powers that ruled during their time so they felt it best to construct a world that was “perfect” in their vision. The problem with this is that who is to say what is perfect for everyone else? I heartily subscribe to the phrase “One man’s utopia is someone else’s dystopia.” I hope to find more about the tie between utopia and socialism and find that this is only a superficial tie and nothing permanent.