Composing Utopia

William Morris’ and William Dean Howells’ A Traveler from Altruria are both responses to Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward.  Morris and Howell recreate Bellamy’s structure of a perplexed time traveler arriving in a new and better century. The problem, however, with Morris’ and Howell’s new utopia is also the same. Neither author addresses the recurrent and unresolved problem of human nature.

In Looking Backward, one of Julian West’s primary questions regarding the new society is if human nature has changed to allow for such a communal society. His “outdated” mode of thinking was based on a capitalistic society run on the basis that each individual works for his own benefit. In the three new utopias though, members of society only work for the society. Howells, on page 305, describes it as “a family, rather than a nation like yours.”

I do not believe that such utopias are feasible. In News from Nowhere, on page 278, Morris writes “people found out what they were fit for, and gave up attempting to push themselves into occupations in which they must needs fail.” In A Traveler from Altruria , on page 394, Howells writes, “with our absolute economic equality, there can be no ambition.” What Howells and Morris note as an attribute in his society, I see as the most basic flaw. Not just from a capitalistic standpoint, but from common logic, even if workers work to their fullest ability, having no ambition will only result in a stagnant economy and a lackluster culture.  Clearly, such societies would face many difficulties if actually implemented if human nature is indeed unchanged. However, because it seems like most utopias are indeed based on “absolute… equality,” I am wondering if I am missing a key point that will make equality feasible, or if these utopias are merely dreams and not meant to be implemented.

Rosie Qin

After reading the selections from both William Howells’ A Traveler from Alturia and William Morris’ News From Nowhere, I shared similar thoughts as my classmates pertaining to the incompleteness of these works. Nowhere did they really solve the entirety of problems inherent in today’s society. Rather, both writers just chose to portray a society “fixed” of all the problems we see today.

This made me wonder, as I thought both Morris and Howell must have had a reason for this ambiguity. These two utopias certainly weren’t roadmaps to success, but all the same, I think by reading between the lines readers can surmise the messages of both writers, and how in fact they were very complex indeed.

In starting with Morris’ News From Nowhere, the passage that struck me was the one concerning government. Perhaps it is just because I’m examining government in my literary review, but moreover, I think Morris presents several points where he suggests what can be changed from 19^th century governments. When Hammond is discussing where the current power lies, he notes, “I think we shall not be far wrong if we say that the government was the Law-Courts’” (281.) Hammond also quickly follows that segment, with a further justification. He exclaims, “’It seems, then, my son, that the government by law-courts and police, which was the real government of the nineteenth century, was not a great success even to the people of that day’” (282). Although overall, Morris’ message largely falls short, such quick dissertations are key to pointing out what he believes a successful society has. Morris is openly critical of government control (or as he saw it, control by law and order), and was quick to criticize Parliament as a mere puppet. Overall, I think Morris stresses the need for citizens to have a say in government, and warns against a government centering on mere regulation.

Moving on to Howells’ work, A Traveler from Alturia, lessons can also be learned. In particular, I thought Howells deals with much more ambiguous topics than does Morris. Overridingly, I was interested by his thought regarding money. Howells is quick to embrace the familiar proverb “the love of money was the root of all evil”, and thus remedied a solution: no money (309). Howells character of the Alturian continues to note that, “All the many murders done from love of money, or of what money could buy, were at an end” (309). Evidently, Howells believes major problems such as murder center around financial aspirations, and when the money system stops, the troubles stop. Although I don’t necessarily believe murder as a whole would cease, I think Howells has a point. Would the world be better off without the need for financial affluence?

Overall, what distances me from these writings, as noted by the other posts, is their lack of achievability. True, I don’t think Alturia will ever occur, but then again I’m not sure if that was the point of Morris’ or Howells’ work. I think Utopian authors believed that if any of their actions were heeded to any degree, then current society would benefit from the fantasy world, which as a whole, could never be realized.

-Steve Jackson

I wasn’t sure if people had been chosen to start new posts for the blog that is due Monday. Since I have already read the two readings, I figured I would start a new post just in case no one was appointed. I’m sorry if I’m “stepping on someone’s toes” so to speak.  

Everytime I read one of these utopias, I always wonder why people have written them. It seems to me that authors have the artistic ability to imagine better worlds but have no way to create them in the real world. In the selections from both Howells’ A Traveler from Altruria and Morris’ News From Nowhere, the authors discuss how people live to help each other and not themselves. They live to “let everyone live the life he likes the best” (Howell 307) and “yield to the more general opinion” (Morris 290) for the sake of the public. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s pretty impossible to convince everyone in a society to live for everyone else. It’s really hard to change the nature of all the bad people that exist in this world. On a smaller note, it’s hard to convince those who just want something for themselves once in a while (a perfectly natural and innocent act).

Something that Morris wrote really caught my attention: “How could they be better than the age that made them?” (Morris  277). In this section, the two characters were discussing how incredibly commericial the scholars of the past had been and how the scholars of the new civilization are interested in real learning ie gaining knowledge because they truly want to learn. When the narrator asks how the past scholars could be anything but they were because they lived in a certain type of world, Hammond glazed over the whole issue. He just wrote it off and kept talking about other things. Thus, like in all utopias, there is no explanation about how people changed over the years. How did the scholars change for the better if people develop from the world in which they live and why did the change happen? How did people go from stealing and lying to caring about everyone else over themselves? What caused these changes? I know that in Morris’ utopia, there is no motivation to steal or lie or cheat because of the lack of government, crime and need for personal property. Howells claims the same thing when he says that money was the motivation for all crimes and acts of violence and that all societal problems were solved by getting rid of money. Neither of these explanations make sense to me.

I hate to disagree with celebrated authors but there are people in this world that do bad and violent things just because they want to do so. It’s awful to think about, but it’s true. The only way utopias would work is if human nature completely changed. Howells claims: “It used to be said that ‘it was human nature’ to shirk, and malinger and loaf, but we have found that it is no such thing. We have found that it is human nature to work cheerfully, willingly, eagerly, at the tasks which all share for the supply of the common necessities…it is human nature to give and to help generously” (307). (I would have block-quoted this but the blog wouldn’t let me do it correctly) I believe that everyone has a bit of selfishness in them, and that’s okay. It’s okay to want some personal property or some time to yourself. It’s human nature to do so, whether Howells agrees or not.

It really bothers me that people write utopias in which everyone is perfect, in which everyone has changed so dramatically for no apparent reason. If they’re going to write utopias, should they not at least attempt to explain how and why people have so drastically changed? How could the whole concept of money and government change when it is basic human nature to debate and want things his or her own way? If people are going to write utopias, could they not write stories about a society that could work with the people who live today? Sure, it might not be the most perfect society that could ever exist, but it could still potentially be better than the world in which we live. And wouldn’t it be a better use of their time to create worlds toward which humanity could actually work rather than worlds that could never exist?

Elizabeth Lindsay

Also, please note the new page on the site with examples of successful rhetorical analyses. (Look to the left for the new tab.)

1. Please read over the tips and instructions for writing literature reviews on the following two sites:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/literature_review.html

http://library.ucsc.edu/ref/howto/literaturereview.html

2. Please read through and comment on (as you would a classmates’ paper) the following sample lit reviews. As you read, think about how these samples are effective or ineffective(based on the two websites you just reviewed) as lit reviews.

(Gender and Language) http://ecdev.hku.hk/acadgrammar/litrev/examples/three.htm 

(The Impact of the Chat) http://ecdev.hku.hk/acadgrammar/litrev/sample.htm

(My lit reviews from papers on Bellamy and Morris and technology, and Kenneth Burke’s dramatism) Michelle’s lit reviews

Bellamy harshly criticizes the social conditions of the nineteenth century, and this implies criticism of his readers and their beliefs. My question is what reason does Bellamy give to justify the nineteenth century society?

Julian characterizes the conditions of the nineteenth century as a “moral outrage.” Bellamy softens his harsh critique of his audience’s beliefs by saying that ignorance largely accounts for the existence of this outrage. People still thought that there needed to be a huge gap in between the rich and the poor, and that there should not be equality among classes. Therefore, the utopia described in the 21st century portrays equality, education, and economic progress in society.

In addition, Julian claims that the utopia he describes is the logical outcome of the nineteenth century’s rapid industrialization. Contrary to his contemporaries’ beliefs, the nineteenth century is not the peak of human civilization, but only one stop along the way. By placing his strange, unfamiliar, somewhat threatening vision of the future with the context of rational and logical progress, Bellamy attempts to persuade his incredulous and reluctant readers to give serious thought to his proposals for social reform.

Amy Rutland

When analyzing or creating any society, the first aspect to be taken into account must be human nature. If analyzing a past or present society, we must first understand how members of that society viewed and accepted their positions and roles. When planning a future society, the creator must designate and provide acceptable jobs or else nobody would choose to join this society if they had a choice. Lastly, I believe an underlying factor in the success of any society or organization is a sense of security and trust in the structure of government.

In Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward , Julian West was clearly confused by this new order and exclaimed that “human nature itself must have changed very much.” A few paragraphs later, on page 41, Doctor Leete explains that in this new social order is “wholly based upon and deduced from it that if it were conceivable that a man could escape it, he would be left with no possible way to provide for his existence.” Later on page 86, Doctor Leete continues that “from that moment that men begin to live together, and constitute even the rudest of society, self-support becomes impossible.” In addition, in this new society, because all citizens are so assured of their being cared for by the society, “no man has any care for the morrow, wither for himself or his children.”

With all these explanations, Doctor Leete paints a picture of an unquestionably secure environment where the citizens place all their trust that the system will care for them. Furthermore, even if that is not the case, no citizen has to power to leave the society because they have given up so much self control for the benefit of the group. Now, do we think that, even today, society leave no room for self support? And if, even today, we place quite a large amount of trust in our way of living that Bellamy’s society seems almost conceivable? I think an important point to keep in mind that Professor Smith mentioned that until Europeans actually met the Native Americans, they had never imagined any other way of life? This has been one of the most detailed and planned out utopias we have read so far, so would it be possible that, however terrifying, Bellamy’s world might actually be able to exist?

Rosie Qin

     Edward Bellamy explains practically every aspect of his ideal nation in his novel Looking Backward.  The economic situation, or lack thereof, in the nation, the goods and services distribuition, and the infallible unity felt by every citizen is supported by possible, though not necessarily probable, social and labor structures.  His utopia is a very well thought out one, and its desirability is great.  However, the one subject that Bellamy fails to directly address is that of religion.

     While the character Doctor Leete does explain some aspects of faith to the hundred-year-old protagonist Julius West, there are some questions that still beg to be asked despite his scholarly explanation.  Cheif among these questions is that of unity of faith.  Historically speaking, members of varying religions have not shared a complete sense of unity like the one described by Bellamy under the norms set up by the nation.  There have been crusades, long-lasting and bloody rivalries, and senseless acts of terrorism and murder all in the name of propogating one’s religion as the singular answer to all of life’s mysteries.  And since the nation in Bellamy’s utopia does not force a single religion upon its people, it is to be understood that the common man and woman retain a sense of free will and free belief.  This means that the various ages, ethnic backgrounds, and cultural backgrounds which make up the United States of America in any location on the timeline of human existance maintain and practice their chosen, respective faiths underneath the nation’s banner.  And because a large amount of religious skirmishes throughout history have been over belief rather than wealth, the genius economic system set up by Bellamy cannot possibly cure religious strife.

     My question is this: in a location that experiences no war, has very little to no crime, and has absolutely no need for armed military enforcement, how is it possible for those of differing faiths to get along in perfect harmony?  Indeed, the differences in faith would most likely lead to and propogate more crime than what is described in the novel.  While weapons of large-scale destruction are not available or even created in these utopian nations, person-to-person crime cannot be stopped ultimately.  Historically there always have been, and by looking in retrospect, one can say that there always will be, those who take their faiths far too seriously and act far too harshly on belief alone that equalities among gender, race, and age cannot possibly cure the murders and attacks caused by religion.

     This being said, after reading the entirety of Mr. Barton’s sermon (starting one page 178 and ending on page 191) it is clear that there would be those who, even in the same faith, would disagree with what he says.  This is because regardless of what religion one may belong to, there will constantly and consistently be people who disagree with one another.  With human nature, which throughout the novel is promised to have remained unchanged, and reasoning, especially internal reasoning, naturally leading towards individual opinions, how can there ever truly be peace amongst humanity?  Without a forced religion, or lack of religion, by those in charge, or, in this case, by social norms, how can there be no strife between a family and their neighbors of differing beliefs?  In truth, how can unchanged human nature allow for every single one of us to get along?

 -Chris Zook

I received a question via email that I thought might be relevant to more of you. I’m posting it here, just in case.

The question:

I just have a quick question for you regarding the sources we can use for our proposal due on Monday. After doing a good bit of research in the stacks of Paterno one thought that’s struck me was to due a paper on the aspect of nature in a utopia. I’ve found some good sources and think I can make it happen. My question that I’m unsure of is, our we allowed to use primary support for our paper? Or do we need to find secondary criticism to some primary work?

 (I’m looking to use Huxley’s Brave New World, as he portrays a Utopia that’s conditioned to hate nature). I don’t know if I can cite BNW directly, or if secondary text is what we are after than I would be better suited to find some critical essay or soemthing of the sort addressing Huxley’s portrayal of nature?

My response:

You should NOT site Brave New World in this literature review. You should only be citing secondary works. Look at the scholars who write on nature in Brave New World and see what other utopian works they are discussion along with it. Perhaps your focused topic could be- the role of nature in 21st century dystopian novels. (Remember that the Brave New World is a dystopia, not a utopia…)

Your next steps would be to see what other 21st century dystopian novels are out there, and try to find out what people think about their attitude towards nature.

–Michelle

After reading through Chapter 3 in the Elements of Reasoning, the first thing that came to my mind was, “…What?”  While I read through everything meticulously, I was, on the whole, utterly confounded.  It seemed to me that everything could be a conjecture, as everything that the author mentioned was.  And what was this “shared reality” that was supposed to denote a conjuncture?

As I went back and took a deeper look, however, things began to make more sense.  The “shared reality,” I came to realize, occurred when a statement—a conjecture—was left open enough so that the reader is unsure of exactly what happened during that time period.  He or she can only guess, and since there are many options available, thus the “multiple realities” come into play.

Although that topic was cleared up, I am still confused as to what makes a proper conjecture.  While I understand some of the more obvious ones—the police stories, for instance, as they leave so much opened to the reader—the observations confuse me.  How can “There was a fly in my soup,” or “He was a white man in a pink shirt” leave any doubt as to what occurred (pg. 56)?

As a small tidbit, I found it interesting that English, like the sciences, have so many different types of specialists.  I always thought that English majors are all…well…English majors.  After this chapter, I found out about “narrative theorists,” as well as the different classifications of narratives (much as living organisms are divided into classifications.)  Was anyone else (particularly science majors) intrigued by this?

-Brandon Koger