Composing Utopia

While reading the various sources concerning the Shaker society, many interesting facets stood out to me. However, most interestingly, I found their belief on outside interaction extremely thought provoking. It seems as though the Shaker’s consider the isolation of their society imperative to their success. As written in “The Millenial Laws”, it is decreed: “When you resort to taverns and to public places, you shall not in any wise blend and gather with the wicked” (184). In addition, it seems as though when members of the Shaker community need to venture to outside society, interaction should be kept at minimum. Edict #16 notes that, “When two or more are out together, […] in the streets, you should keep so close together that there would not be room for even as much as a dog to run between you and your companion” (184). It would seem that Shakers tried to minimize relations with people not in their society, and if they did need to venture to the outside world, remain as close as possible to fellow Shakers.

What struck me as being so interesting is that it seems as though this theme runs in other utopias we’ve seen. Particularly, in Walden Two, it seems as though members of the Walden community wish to take no part in interacting with the rest of the world. Perhaps it is simply because a utopia offers a haven of sorts from the quandaries of society? I wonder if this theme runs prevalent in other utopian works, and if this separation is so strongly needed for a Utopian community, such as the Shakers to maintain success.

In essence, my thought to the audience is, do you feel that this isolation is imperative to the successful formation of a utopia? Do you think the separation from the problems and issues of current society will allow a community to achieve blissful existence?

-Steve Jackson

In responding to criticism on Walden Two, Skinner proves a valid point.  Much of the criticism on Skinner’s novel focused on the fact that while the system of government in Walden Two may work on the small scale, it would never work in a larger environment such as New York City.  Skinner, however, rebuts, explaining that his utopia was not a final product, but merely a prototype.  Much as any scientist tests theories in closed systems before testing them out on the real world, so too would Skinner utopian ideas be tested.

Skinner does admit, however, that “[a] network of small towns or Walden Twos would have its own problems” (393).  Still, Skinner argues that these towns would be able to solve the problems much quicker and more efficiently than a large city.  Large cities not only have a huge diversity of people to deal with, but also had logistical problems.  (This is proved easily if one looks at the downfall of the Ottoman Empire hundreds of years ago.  Because the empire spanned three continents and included factions of people who would typically be at war with each other, it required a great deal of force to keep together and eventually just collapsed.)

This raises two questions.  First, do you think that Skinner’s ideas would work on the larger scale after some testing and improvement?  Second, do you feel Skinner’s ideas about small towns solving problems better than cities would hold true in the long run?  Are there any other examples in history that support this?

-Brandon Koger

Just posting a link for some av.

Dear class,

 I forgot to mention one other thing I do when I do group work. I’d like each one of you to write me an informal one page cover letter to be handed in with your position statements next Wednesday. This cover letter will be an evaluation of your group’s teamwork- tell me what each person contributed (hard work, timeliness, knowledge of the material, creativity, etc) and how you divided up the work. I’m sure you are all doing your parts, but I will take into consideration the division of labor when assigning final grades.

 Also, as the debates are worth 15% of your final grade for the course, I’m going to split that to be 5% for the position statement and 10% for the group presentation.

 Other reminders: bring all your previous final drafts with you on Monday for the sentence level editing workshop. (As well as the draft of your position statement, of course.)

 FOR TOMORROW (Friday)- you are to come to class ready to perform your debate- so bring the individual notes you need to do so.

 Michelle

Please see the posted syllabus for the changes to Wednesday’s reading assignment. Happy group meetings!

While reading Brave New World, one of the first things to catch my attention was the similarity between Huxley’s ideas for raising and educating children, and B.F. Skinner’s.  In Walden Two Skinner describes children being raised completely in a series of nurseries according to their age groups.  They are taught to eliminate certain emotions, such as jealousy, through “behavioral engineering” (93), which is for the most part conducted in groups.  The children are allowed to run naked with one another for at least a portion of their early lives (91).  Similarly, although with exaggeration which makes the reader feel that such a society is to be avoided rather than achieved, Huxley writes of behavioral engineering of another sort, including shocks and loud sounds to discourage particular qualities in children (29-30).  The children are also raised together, and naked, even to the point of being encouraged to have ”erotic play” with one another (38).

In my mind I had imagined that Huxley wrote Brave New World in response to Walden Two because of the exaggerated similarities which Huxley describes his dystopia.  (He wishes the audience to feel horror at the way that the children are raised as a warning to the public about the possibilities of future generations.)  However, I was surprised to find that Brave New World was published in 1932, fifteen years before Walden Two!!  I can understand if Skinner wished to express his ideal utopia, and his ideas just happened to conflict with Huxley’s, but it seems strange that someone would write a story after the sarcastic criticism has already been made.  Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter, or else have any other similarities to point out? 

One of the most prevalent features of Brave New World was the fact that Henry Ford was used as society revolutionary figure, possibly even their “god.”  The first time “the year of our Ford” is written, one would think that it was merely a typo.  But at “A.F.” and the sign of the T become more common, one begins to think about the repercussions of choosing Henry Ford as their figure.

The most obvious reason why Ford was chosen was his perfection in the use of the assembly line.  While others did use the assembly line before him, Ford was the first to really make this work—to be able to offer very, very inexpensive cars that every person could afford.  Thus, he was the first real consumerist leader.  When looking for ways to create their society, the members of the “brave new world” looked to Ford and his assembly line for inspiration.

One important point to note, though, is that Ford is not only Henry Ford, but a combination of other important figures whose ideas the new society used.  At one point in the novel, the speaker said something to the effect of “Ford, or Freud, as he called himself when speaking on matter of psychology…”  In this way, one can see that Ford is combined with at least Freud to serve as the inspiration to society.

So here is the question I present: How successful is Henry Ford in serving as the inspiration and god to the Brave New World society?  Is there another figure from history (either one that exists at this point, or a figure who would have come up on the path to Brave New World’s current society) that would serve the position better?

-Brandon Koger

In Brave New World, the society places a lot of emphasis on Ford.  Instead of saying “Oh my God,” citizens exclaim “Oh my Ford!”  The measure of time has changed from B.C. and A.D. to A.F. or after Ford.  The symbol of this society instead of a Christian cross is a T for the Model T.  Why all the emphasis on Ford?

Brave New World was first published in 1932.  Around this time, Henry Ford was a popular figure.  He was known for his economic gospel of Fordism.  In the United States, Fordism was characterized by Ford’s achievements in the assembly line, mass production, standardization and efficiency.

These concepts of standardization, mass production, and efficiency are evident in Brave New World.  A great of example of this is the processes used by the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre.  A process known as Bokanovsky’s Process was created where on average ninety-six identical twins are created from a single cell.

Ford has had a great impact on Brave New World and is viewed as a god.  However, why has Ford had such as great impact on society?  Why is he viewed a god and not anyone else from his time?  Is there anyone today that has the power to impact future society like Ford has in Brave New World?

After completing Brave New World and considering that it was written in the same time and society to which George Orwell belonged, I thought it was interesting to consider the differences in Huxley’s and Orwell’s fears for their society’s future.   It seemed to me that Huxley was afraid of elements such as propaganda and growing materialism trivializing our culture so that we would, over time, become desensitized to individualism and the ideals upon which our society is built.  Orwell, meanwhile, was more threatened by outside influences – the power and consequence of dictators like Hitler and Stalin – and wrote about those types of situations incorporating themselves into our society. 

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four illustrated the introduction of foreign concepts taking down our society from the outside-in, while Huxley’s Brave New World presented our own trends in materialism and propaganda taking down our society from within itself.  As critic Neil Postman wrote in his book Amusing Ourselves To Death, “Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”  

In discussions between the two authors about the other’s book, each argued on his own behalf for which society was more of a threat. Huxley writes in Brave New World Revisited that both forms of propagada – in a democracy or dictatorship – are truly threatening to our individualism (which he believes defines our community) because of the tendency toward over-population and over-organization within our societies.  The democracy propaganda is filled with distractions that threaten “to drown in a sea of irrelevance the propaganda essential to the maintance of individual liberty and the survival of democratic institutions” (268).  The dictatorship propaganda uses “repetition, suppression, and rationalization” to manipulate.  Is the danger in triviality as great as the danger in what we currently fear?  Which author’s dystopia is more foreboding, and which seems more relevant to you?