Kristine Vermillion

Problem Solvers On Steroids

“I never really stopped to think about it

 until I stopped and thought about it.”

Me

I am known amongst some circles for this silly little statement that I make sometimes. It is kind of dorky to say it here, but it fits. I have really never stopped to think about utopias in general, but now that I’ve stopped to do just that I am glad that I have. This genre is fascinating, and I could find myself camping here longer because there are so many nooks and crannies to explore. I think what makes it so fascinating and relevant is the abundance of dystopian literature and movies in our culture, which one can’t help but be semi-familiar with. I have appreciated taking a walk on the other side because it is very useful in the advanced discussion of genres, literary conventions and the power of literature in general.

I know what a dystopia is. It is a place where the system created to govern and rule a people is oppressive and everything goes terribly wrong. It is the place where a person has to resist and fight to get free in order to truly live. It is the captivating storyline of ire and action, villains and their treacherous will to control and master, and the travail, subterfuge and eventual glory of heroes and heroines as they overcome and/or defeat the evil system. Anthem, by Ayn Rand, is a perfect example of a dystopia.

A utopia, on the other hand, is not nearly so exciting, nor do people make movies about them. Their storylines don’t merit much attention of that sort, yet they do merit the attention of a very different kind. It is a society that is intentionally designed to counter or control all the situations that lead to disorder in society. The authors are reformers. They are the problem solvers of their age that attempt, through their writing, to envision and create a place that has successfully solved the societal problems of their day. Their efforts are commendable in that they don’t accept the status quo, and because they desire to make a better world. Some people attempt to make the world better through philanthropic endeavors of various kinds, but the utopian writers attempt to effect change through a literature of ideas. This literature just happens to involve the rebooting of the entire society and nothing seems to go untouched.

     The study of utopian literature is a great exercise in the discussion of genre. Utopian literature is distinctive in its makeup. The stories share many similar characteristics that include a traveler, a guide and a discussion. While the study of the original utopian work by Sir/Saint Thomas More was interesting and worthy on its own merit, it was greatly elevated as a work when it became a point of comparison between subsequent utopian fictions. When we moved from Utopia to Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland, we noted the same characteristics mentioned above, yet we were given a completely different ideology that painted a drastically different picture. Herland is obviously a vehicle to imagine what a society would be like without all the trappings and sins of a patriarchal society, i.e. the type of utopian society that More envisioned. More deals with more typical societal ills like that of prisoners, religion, hierarchies within family and government, and war policies. In contrast Gilman's work is profound in that with the absence of men, all of these topics are also absent—at least in a formal way. For example, while Jeff, Van and Terry are in fact prisoners, how does their prison resemble anything of a man's prison atmosphere? It is also not a point of conversation as it was for More. The difference seems to indicate that the problem with prisons is a problem created by men. The same could be said about government and religion. There's no need for intricate governmental systems, and there is no need for religious systems. There's no pollution. There's no smoke. There's no poverty. There are no problems or issues of race. There's no noise. There is no sex, (until the men arrive) so there aren't any of the associated problems that plague that topic. Through the conversation between the men and their guides Gilman poignantly, yet subtly lays the blame for all of societal ills squarely on the shoulders of the men. More laid the blame for all the societal ills upon the presence of money (2.76). Thus, there are similar outcomes between More's and Gilman's works through the same genre, yet the way they are reached and the implications of both are very diverse.

The same can be said when you set More and Gilman next to Ernest Callenbach's Ecotopia. While Gilman's work of feminine fecundity is extremely intriguing as it dabbles in the genre of science fiction with the eradication of an entire gender and with the concept of parthenogenesis, Callenbach brings us back to a purer utopian work with the addition of a new scenario—one where the masculine imagination is back in play. This means that the question of sex is back on the table. In his story the same basic elements are there: traveler, guide, and discussion, yet it is also extremely different. In this story, there's lots of talk about the issues that both of the others discussed, but Callenbach doesn't do away with money, and he doesn't do away with sex. The parameters that his utopia operates within are the ideals of decentralization of government and power and hierarchies of every sort. This involves the doing away with the traditional family, gender roles and the associated constraints with an emphasis on personal interaction and transparency within a community—all within an ecologically friendly, i.e. sustainable, framework. His utopia isn't socialist, and it isn't capitalist. In it, men are still relatively masculine, and women still are relatively feminine. Sex, aggression and emotions aren't repressed. The creature qualities of man aren't hindered (p. 30, 44); rather they are accepted and embraced. However, with the reintroduction of men, women seem once again to become sex objects to be had while on work assignments, as cheerleaders to be had after sporting events, and Callenbach even brought in the woman as nurse stereotype. I honestly half expected the presidential leader, Vera Allwen, when she met with Weston to engage him sexually. What would Gilman say!? OK. I regressed a little there, but I couldn't help it. This aspect of Ecotopia really aggravated me. However, it was an excellent example in the value of comparisons between various works within the genre.

     I tried to keep the last few paragraphs focused on the discussion of the genre and the benefits of approaching it as such with the view that at this point in the essay I'd be able to smoothly move into the common literary conventions that the genre utilizes, yet I realize that I have already opened up three of the most obvious conventions of the genre in order to identify the genre. The major conventions already visited are the traveler, the guide and the dialogue between them. Yet there are other conventions within the genre that are also important to the study. Of primary interest to me are the millennial themes found in each work. This is the subject of my first research post titled "Finch and Bacon." I started researching this aspect because I am very familiar with Millennial themes in the Jewish/Christian tradition, and I was surprised to see how prevalent they are in all the materials we read. In general, the utopian notion of a better future and of a place where people live together peacefully where the ills of society have been solved is a deeply religious notion of the future promise of the millennial kingdom of heaven here upon the earth. Therefore the identification of millennial themes within the utopian works, in my opinion, is essential to the study of utopias.

     The most common millennial themes deal with peace on earth, the benevolent rule of a just government, the restoration of fruitful and joyous labor and freedom from war, injustice, poverty and illness. Embodied within the idea is the return to a beautiful and fruitful garden state. This accounts for the abundance of gardens in the utopian fiction we have read. It is an integral part of the utopian experiment, i.e. heaven on earth, and that's why I am writing on the garden element for my second research post. This millennial trope also accounts for the utopian preoccupation with the redistribution of goods to mitigate and obliterate hunger and poverty. It is why there is a discussion on money and wealth and taxes and hospitals and animals and clothes and food and work and sex and population and children and their education and every other topic that utopian fiction deals with. They deal with them because in order to make this place, or any place for that matter, a heaven on earth—the longed for garden of fruitfulness and peace—all these issues HAVE to be dealt with. Therefore, within the genre, we are presented with idea after idea as to how to solve this long list of human ills. The difference between the teaching of the Scriptural idea and theology of the Millennial Kingdom and the utopian millennialism, as I found out in my research post, is the fact that the first is built on the premise that God alone can issue in the kingdom, while the second leaves the kingdom building within the hands of man's ingenuity, and man, in general, is a lot more comfortable with the later.

     Before moving on I want to make a comment on the convention of the love interest in the works we read. While More's work does not contain this element specifically, he does of course deal with marital relationships and sex. However, the presence of the element in the works by Gilman, Rand and Callenbach has elicited a personal gut reaction that I think is worth mentioning. Gilman was obviously dealing with gender issues in her work, and she went to great lengths to show how often women are interpreted via a condescending, chauvinist viewpoint. Yet to get rid of this view, she had to make women just mothers—not lovers. It is sad that to make her utopia she had to erase a gender and cut off a major aspect in the remaining other. In reality this doesn’t make whole individuals or healthy societies.

I was then dismayed by Rand's work where after escape from the dystopia Prometheus renames the Golden One. As the one who names, he becomes the authority in her life. He interpellates her. He defines what sort of person she will be. Her name, Gaea, means mother. Her role in his new land is secured. We then see her pregnant and quiet. She is obviously a lover, and now she is also to be a mother to a new people. Yet in me there is this eerie feeling that she is the subject of man and the cycle is about to begin again and that that's all she'll ever be. That this is all women will ever be. This raises the question of healthy individuals and proves to be a huge, unresolved issue.

There was also a disturbing element in Callenbach’s work. With the revolution of sexual freedom, which is supposedly a great triumph, in the book women appear to me to be playthings for the men and for Weston in particular.  They have jobs and seem to enjoy equal status in society. They also have a type of power in their freedom to choose the who, when and where questions of motherhood, but there's something amiss. While both the mother and lover elements are there the way that it is written portrays women as the stereotypical sexy cheerleader and provocative nurse, and this, in my opinion, is worthy of ridicule.

I haven't read all of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward yet, but I have read far enough to see the pattern of condescension emerge there as well. While it is Mr. West and Dr. Leete who sit down to talk about the nitty-gritty details of labor, distribution and government, Ellen is the one who gets to take him shopping and be a super-sensitive gal in helping Mr. West deal with his situation. In doing so, what kind of utopia is it really? Is it one of mutual respect, or is it one where the women are petty and pretty little shoppers? It will not a utopia be until women are viewed as a coherent whole. I am a mother, but I am not just a mother. I am a wife and a lover, but I am not just a wife and lover. I used to be a nurse and am still mortified by how often my ass was grabbed, and I also hate to shop. So there you have it. To be continually represented as only those things is patronizing. It is time to up the ante and imagine a better utopia which is even more holistic, especially towards women. I think that this can lead to greater progress in the human condition, that is, of course, until God issues in the perfect society.

     This brings me to the third point I wanted to make about the power of literary utopias and of literature in general. The closing remarks of my first research post tie into this idea. I concluded that "the power of a good story is immeasurable. A work of literature can go places sermons and lectures could never go—providing a space for interaction that might otherwise be completely unattainable." Therefore, I truly believe that if one were to write, as suggested above, a utopia that imagines a more holistic existence between men and women, it would in reality affect change for the better, more than any bitter diatribe containing the same message would ever evoke.  It would ultimately provoke discussion and perhaps even experimentation. The presence of research and discussions into actual historical utopian type communities lends merit to this comment. Though at times this particular part of the coursework has been laborious and non-essential from my point of view, the exercise does help expand the course in a multi-disciplinary way that does have value.

People take ideas and run with them—for better or worse, this is the truth. They literally implement these ideas in their economic, social, religious, family and work practices. Such literature has way more effect than any reading of Jane Austen could ever provoke. This is why there is dystopian literature. It is the safe space of a story that allows us to follow where these ideas might lead which is important because ideas have consequences. These imaginary scenarios are best played out on pages rather than in real time, screwing with real lives. This is why speculative fiction might be regarded as a type of societal preventative maintenance. (This makes me want to coin an acronym—SPM.) Imagining where ideas might lead just might be helping to reign in the myriad of impending evils, therefore making this world a better place.

     I am also concerned with the value of literature and literary study and the justification of its presence in the educational system in the day of pragmatism and cost analysis decisions run by peanut counters, a.k.a. accountants. I am married to an engineer who is the son of a nutty accountant. The building of a case for the justification of my personal inclination to literary study is a very difficult one indeed. I have a tough audience, and I don't imagine that it is any easier in the wide-wide world of university business and politics. So far the contents of this course have provided the best justification to date concerning the relevance of the field of study, and this excites me. Also, I have found the utopian works we have read to be the most provocative, and yet they have garnered the best discussions—discussions that would not normally be able to take place without conflict between students of such diversity. (I have also held my tongue many times, which is also a relevant factor for the relative peace of our classroom.) Where else can you talk literature, genre and literary conventions along with religion, politics, economics, race, and sex and cover so much ground within the timeframe of five short weeks? I entered this class not thinking much about utopian fiction, but as I write and study and participate, I think I am becoming a believer. I am being converted, if you will, through the journey and through the discussion.