Composing Utopia

Clearly, both Owen’s and Cabet’s utopian communities were based on equality. However, at least in my opinion, they both failed to achieve a community were everyone is perfectly equal. In his utopia, Owen delegated responsibility by age group because he believed that this is the natural way to classify society (208). He argued that equality is the idea that no citizen will expect services that he would never return (208). Owen justified his age classification as equal because there will be no occupation performed by one that will not eventually performed by another. However, this definition of equality does not seem to coincide with our society’s current definition. Now, most people believe equality means having equal rights as everyone else throughout life. By segregating people by age, Owen essentially limited the way people can contribute to society. For example, he allowed people of the “eighth class” to travel the world to bring back new ideas, but no one else (216). This exclusion seems to be the essence of inequality.

Cabet’s society is also not entirely equal. The people in Icaria are forced to wear specific clothes. If everyone wore the same thing, even though it may seem repressive, equality is still maintained. However, this is not the case in Icaria. People must wear clothes specific to their age, sex, and other factors (225). This process is inherently unequal because people are not given the opportunity to wear what others are allowed to wear.

Since it appears that both Owen’s and Cabet’s utopia societies, which pride themselves on equality, are not truly equal, it begs the question: Can any society truly be equal without completely changing human nature?

-Jon Chekan-

Robert Owen’s age based class system resembles that of the current education system. Where he made divisions at intervals of every five years, we separate ourselves from preschool, elementary, middle and high school. Afterwards, we further separate ourselves by deciding to go to college or to enter the work force. Then there is the option of graduate school. These divisions, like that of Owen’s are categorized strongly be different age groups.

Other more subtle, but nonetheless striking similarities between his proposal and the current education system include children being “placed, trained, and educated, as that they may be in a proper temperature for their age; fed with the most wholesome food… regularly and duly exercised…” (209). To me, this sounds a lot like the early years of elementary school where children are insulated from the outside world so that they may develope “in a proper temperature.” School lunches seek to provide an adequate amount of nutrition, and regular physical education classes and recess are built into the school day to promote physical fitness.

 The main difference between Owen’s proposal and the current education system is the accepted age for individuals to gain independence and enter the work force or to contribute to society. For Owen, children in the second class (ages 5 to 10), will be “rationally trained and placed, perform all the domestic operations of their own immediate or family…” (211). By the end of the third stage (i.e. age 15), children will have a working knowledge of “working up materials… [for] garments, buildings, furniture, machinery…” (211). And by the fourth stage (the mature age group of 15 to 20 year old), they are to be married and well into their adult lives. Needless to say, child labor and teen marriage are highly criticized in today’s world.

However, it is indicated at the end of the section that Robert Owen lived from 1771 to 1858. As such, the excerpt was written around the industrial age. Placed into the context of this time period, the structure that Owen creates may very well appear to be a utopia. My question is, are we living Owen’s ‘New Moral World’?

 –Bonnie Lu

Robert Owen’s utopia in The Book of the New Moral World raised many issues discussed in other utopias such as equality, morality, prosperity. However, Owen’s utopia is based on class by age, which I think is one of the most innovative, novel, and practical solutions to the problem of equality.

Equality is the underlying goal of the majority of utopias we have read this semester. Utopian authors, sharing this goal, write to either to explain the need for equality or detail the mechanisms for  achieving this end. Owen’s novel focuses on the former. This excerpt from the book is written largely based on an already perfect society. “They will be well trained,” “will become willing,” and “will have more sound health” are example of common sentence structures (210). Initially, this mode of writing reminded me of Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward where a perfect society suddenly comes to be without much explanation. However, it is interesting to note that Owen did not just come to decide that there should be a perfect society. He was the founder of New Harmony community based in Indiana (219). This was very important to note because previous utopian authors were only writers. The fact that Owen put thought into action give his argument more credibility, ethos.

The second reading, Voyage to Icaria by Etienne Cabet, was also written by a man who founded an intentional community. Again, it is founded by equality as proved by the first sentence: “The Icarians form together a society founded on the basis of the most perfect equality” (220). This piece is extremely detailed plans for government, societal positions, clothing and food. Incredible attention to detail can either make the goal impossible to fulfill or ensure that the ideal is achieved. For example, the following may or may not be beneficial to state in Cabet’s manifesto. “The popular representation is composed of 2000 deputies who deliberate in common in a single chamber. It is permanent, always or nearly always assembled” (221).

Now, my question is based on these works and the past novels and excerpts from this semester. Are utopian essays and novels more effective if they focus on procedure or ideal? In other word, were written in Owen’s idealistic style more convincing or were detailed work like Cabet’s a better strategy in terms of rhetoric and presenting an argument.

Rosie Qin

            Both Owen and Cabet strive for equality in their utopias, and it is clear that they both feel that equality in every form is necessary to live in a utopia.  They try to make their societies equal in sharing wealth and even uniforms as Cabet describes, but I still see a great deal of prejudice from one society.

            Cabet does not go into great detail about the breakdown of his society, and it seems that everything is very equally distributed.  He says: “Incarians form together a society founded on the basis of the most perfect equality… they all share equally the responsibilities and the advantages of the association” (220).  The main difference I saw between the communities and their views on equality came with the views on age.  Cabet says that everything is divided “according to the sex, age and other circumstances fixed by law” (220).  He does not elaborate any more than this on the age issue however.

            Owen’s society I saw more prejudice with age.  The entire society is broken up by age with the different classes, and I thought this was interesting.  Instead of breaking up society by class based on wealth, Owen says: “The distinctions of class and station are artificial… the natural and rational classification of the human race, is the classification of age” (208).  Although everyone does receive the same treatment at the same age, I feel that there is still a hierarchy that puts younger people at the bottom based on their inexperience and lack of knowledge.  Is this society really as equal as Owen wants it to be?

            To make our society more utopian, we should look at these societies created by Owen and Cabet.  Can we learn anything from them?  Would basing our social classes off of age really create equality?  Owen even suggests the possibility of prejudice but gives no clear solution to the problem.  So what is this “weapon” he is proposing that will make our society a utopia?  Will we ever see the day that society is free from prejudice?

-Nick Kluthe

In the utopian societies laid out by Etienne Cabet, author of Voyage to Icaria, and Robert Owen, author of The Book of the New Moral World, the lifestyles of each member of society is carefully laid out.  In Owen’s utopia, society is divided into eight classes.  Age determines what class one belongs to, and ones class determines what role one will have in society.  Icaria also possesses this organization down to when members of society is supposed to eat and what they will eat.  The strength of both of these utopian societies to me lies in their organization and control.

Each society values equality.  The first principle of justice in Owen’s utopia is that: “NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO REQUIRE ANOTHER MAN TO DO FOR HIM, WHAT HE WILL NOT DO FOR THAT MAN; OR, IN OTHER WORDS ALL MEN, BY NATURE, HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS” (208).  Icaria is founded “on the basis of the most perfect EQUALITY” (220).  However, can equality only ever be achieved through this rigid organization?

 I believe that equality is actually limited through rigid organization.  While rigid organization present in the utopian societies of Cabet and Owen did promote equality, the equality gained was artificial.  To me, equality means everyone starts with the same clean slate and with the same opportunities and chances as everyone else.  It is up to the person to decide how he or she chooses to utilize those opportunities, not society.  Freedom and equality are synonymous to me.  One cannot have one without the other.

 What is equality?  Does freedom or rigid organization help aid or hinder equality? 

 - Steven Dodge

Please take note of the revised syllabus- and your proposal instructions for Wednesday, under “Homework.”

I found the section on systems of criticism incredibly interesting, especially the beginning: “any person wishing to be a criticized offered himself for this purpose at a meeting of the Association. His character then became the subject of special scrutiny by all the members of the Association” (191). Not many people could imagine putting themselves through such criticism. However, I find that this process could be very helpful in society. While it would be emotionally difficult to put oneself through such a process, I think it would be incredibly helpful for people to realize how they act and how they could improve themselves (according to the opinions of their peers).

Some may say that they don’t care what others think of them, that they like themselves just the way they are. Most people are not being close to truthful when they say such a thing. If you think about it, people put themselves through that kind of crticism every day. People constantly scrutinize themselves and their actions. They constantly obsess over whether or not they made the right choice or if they seemed mean when they asked someone to do them a favor. It is very rare that people don’t evaluate their actions and wonder if others think those things about them. In fact, many people seek the honest opinons of their friends and families when their criticizing themselves. However, do friends and families really criticized honestly? They may be nice and spare people’s feelings, but what good does that do when people are trying to identify and fix their problems? In order to truly improve themselves, people first need to know what to fix.

This brings me to a couple of questions that surfaced in my mind when reading this section. Would an organized system of criticism be better than the personal one that already exists? Would it improve society to have people become aware of how they look to the outside world or would this type of criticism cause tension in society and drive people never to be satisfied with themselves?

Elizabeth Lindsay

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