Corrinne's+response

I immensely enjoyed taking this Utopian literature course; I not only enjoyed the works we read but also the valuable knowledge I gained from the books. I also enjoyed the questions the author posed the reader and how I was able to not only ask my self their question but also carry it over to my art and also ask my viewers. If I was able to take this course again and in a shorter amount of time I would like to focus on a more generalized theme of ambiguous utopias and dystopias. I most enjoyed the works that could be read in different ways or seen as a possible utopia while also being intended to be a dystopia. The ambiguity presented in works such as //The Handmaid’s Tale//, //The Dispossessed//, //We//, and //Herland// was especially impacting and thought provoking with in the class. When restructuring the class I would focus mainly on these four ambiguous utopian/dystopian works. I would also add //Herland// on as a longer work and read the book to its entirity. I personally believe that reading works that can be read different ways by different people lends for better class discussions. Reading works, intended to be read in only one way, such as //Utopia// and //Looking Backward,// does not allow for analysis and interpretation, which is crucial for insightful discussion of literature. //Herland// along with //The Handmaid’s Tale// both present very radical ideas of Feminism and also both create utopian or dystopian societies that could be seen as the opposite. Within //Herland//, a society of all women who have been gifted with the ability to conceive children with out men present, build their society on the ideals and importance of motherhood, and the values of sorority and community. While this book is presented as a Utopia I can see that this radical idea of feminine power and strength can be seen as something very negative to many people. The opposite idea is presented in the dystopia //The Handmaid’s Tale//, which presents an oppressive society created because of a lack of ability or want to procreate. The society is run by the religious right and is created to deter female strength and power and use women as forced surrogate mothers in the most extreme way. While this work is very sexist and seen as an oppressive and even violent society, to some people this may also be seen as an utopia or a possible solution to a problem people may see in our own society, with the growing population of couples choosing not to have children. //The Dispossessed// and //We// also work very similar to the two before mentioned texts. //The Dispossessed// constantly posed the question to the reader of which planet with in the work was the utopia and which planet was the dystopia. The book never fully explains which planet is supposed to be the utopia and which is supposed to be the dystopia and thus can be looked at any way the reader would like. Since one planet represents anarchism and one planet represents capitalism, political affiliation and views can sway a reader to think very differently of the work then the author intended. This idea is very similar to the way //We// is written and interpreted. Because of the time in which //We// was written, it is meant to be read in a specific way and has a very specific outcome unlike other works we have read this semester, but the ideas presented through //We// are very much left open to interpretation. One of the main ideas that was very crucial to the way //We// was interpreted was the idea that the human spirit or “soul” can not be repressed by just a governmental system. The human spirit will always propel people to do what they think is right even in the case of that going against power and control. Both of these works present a very powerful question of the importance of the human spirit and how it can never be suppressed. The authors do an amazing job of expressing the importance of this idea while also leaving this idea up to interpretation by the reader. I believe that as a reader and student studying utopian literature as a genre, reading ambiguous utopias and dystopias allows for more insightful feedback while allowing the reader to take away what they like from the novel and being able to clearly understand the utopian or dystopian elements presented in each work. When looking back on the first day of class I remember reading a quote by Oscar Wilde discussing how utopias constantly change and they are different for almost everyone. I believe this is one thing about utopias that will always reign true; utopias as well as dystopias are relative. Because of this relativity I believe ambiguous utopias and dystopias work best to teach each individual student the importance of understanding utopias in the context of history and how they can possibly shape our future.
 * Final: This summer I will be teaching this course over five weeks, so I will have to focus on fewer texts. Recommend four texts from our syllabus that I should definitely keep on the syllabus. Justify your selection by explaining what students could learn about utopia from these texts. Also explain why these four texts would work well together, either because they could form a unit or progression, or because of their diversity (or any other reason you have). Choose from the longer works we have considered: //Utopia//, //Looking Backward//, //We//, //The Handmaid's Tale//, //The Dispossessed//, //On the Town//, //Children of Men//, your group's film.**

** Response question 5: Which planet within the novel would you consider a feminist utopia? Urras or Anarres? Why and in what way? **

In the course of reading the Dispossessed we discussed many themes relating to the novel. One of the major themes that we have discussed in many other utopias and dystopias, is the theme of feminism. When considering feminism with in the context of The Dispossessed it was always a reoccurring topic of conversation, as to which planet, Urras or Anarres was the feminist utopia versus the Feminist dystopia. I feel that in order to answer this question one must first define their idea of feminism. With in feminism there are two separate ends of the spectrum and they both must be addressed. The first type of feminism is a feminism we have seen before in works such as Herland. This type of feminism places a large emphasis on women empowerment, these feminists are much more concerned with the power of women’s body and the gift of motherhood. They place a large emphasis on feminine identity. This second type of Feminism places much more of an emphasis on gender equality, many women are very concerned with being just like men, and doing everything that men can do, some go even as far as fully dressing like men and taking on masculine names. We see both of these types in The Dispossessed. We see the feminine identity embraced through the character of Vea where as we also see the emphasis of gender equality and lack of need for feminine identity through the character of Takver. These two characters we see in very different lights as well as on the separate planets. Vea we see as a generalization of women, she has everything in her personality that we characterize with women. “Her breasts, shoulders, and arms were round, soft, and very white…He kept looking at her bare breasts, pushed upward by the stiff bodice” (LeGuin 196). This passage shows just how feminine Vea makes herself. Many of these comments are very generalized views of what women should be and many women strongly embrace this idealized image of them. Vea’s character lives on Urras, the planet that Shevek travels to from his home planet of Anarres. On Urras, men and women are treated very differently there is no equality between the sexes and women are not even a part of the academic world. However, on Anarres, the planet that Shevek is originally from, we are presented with the character of Takver. Takver is a character that represents the gender equality that is present on the planet of Anarres. Takver’s name is especially important to this idea of gender equality. On the planet of Anarres to preserve their ideas of equality and community, they have created a computer that generates names for each child born into their society. All names on Anarres, because of this name generator, are completely unisexual and do not reflect gender in any way. LeGuin presents both of these women to the reader to emphasize their and the planets’ differences, is this LeGuin’s way of showing us the feminist utopia versus the feminist dystopia that is present in the novel. During discussion many people have come to the conclusion that Anarres is the feminist utopia while Urras is a feminist dystopia. However, I feel that neither planet is exactly what I would consider to be a feminist Utopia. I feel like LeGuin is not trying to show her readers a utopia or a dystopia, I feel like LeGuin is trying to prove a much larger point and that point is, whether or not gender differentiation and inequality is part of human nature or whether it is a social construct. I believe that since gender is still present and presented as a problem that still needs to be addressed on both planets, that LeGuin is showing the that gender inequality is part of human nature. As people we will always define ourselves by our gender and separate ourselves by the limitations of our genetic code. LeGuin shows this innate gender discrimination through mainly the minor inequalities that happen on Anarres. The two most prominent happenings of this inequality deal with Shevek experiencing women who do not align with his expectations. The first situation is when Shevek is presented with a very masculine looking women and comments on her unattractiveness. The second and probably most important happening is during a conversation between Takver and Shevek in which Takver is embarrassed to express that she does not want to participate in the practice of open sex, she wants to feel a bond or connection to one person. This emotion of embarrassment shows that Takver feels that there is something expected of her that she does not want to live up to. LeGuin implies many very interesting themes into her work, The Dispossessed, the one theme I find the most interesting is her theme of feminism and how it relates to the governmental system over the society, to the family unit, to individual interaction between people, and even the society as a whole. While I feel that neither planet discussed in the novel was truly a feminist utopia or dystopia I feel that LeGuin did a beautiful job of setting up a situation that really causes the reader to think where does gender discrimination come from is it innate or is it social.

**Response question 4: Write your own question- When reading The Handmaid’s Tale by Margret Atwood; gender roles become one of the many themes of this work. Do you believe Margret Atwood presented The Handmaid’s Tale as a Patriarchal society or a Matriarchal society? Explain why?** There are many important themes to Margret Atwood’s //The Handmaid’s Tale//, but one of the most important themes in this work is gender roles and how it controls this fictional society of Gilead. While the reader seems to be presented a strictly religious patriarchal society, I believe that Atwood only uses the illusion of a Patriarchal society to make an even greater comment on women’s roles in society. I truly believe that the nation of Gilead is a matriarchal society. Atwood shows this importance of the maternity inside the society through characters such as the Aunts, Serena Joy, the Commander, Nick, and the Guardians, while also showing it through actual events happening in the society of Gilead itself. I believe the largest amount of evidence of Gilead being a matriarchal society is shown through the Aunts. The reader is presented with the Aunts very early on in the novel; we see them as the overseers of the handmaids, and later on as the leaders of the Jezebels. The Aunts seem to have full control over the majority of lives in the nation of Gilead. They are even able to kill men, as well as wives, which we see at the //salvaging.// The Aunts are only presented to the reader as women in power positions; they are the women who look to be running the society. These women even carry cow prods, these types of weapons we, as readers, associate with police officers and the military or governmental positions. Similarly Serena Joy is presented as a woman in power. Serena Joy, the Commander’s wife, is credited, by Offred, as one of the first women to speak for this reform. She is given the responsibility of starting this nation, a responsibility that she does not necessarily want to carry. Serena Joy is understood as speaking out for a “needed” way of life, a return to the home. Women started this society; women were the first people to want this change, to facilitate this lifestyle. Women chose to become subservient to men. This is a matriarchal society hidden by the act of giving power to men. The men of this society did not ask for this, and many of them do not even agree with this way of life, but it is not their choice, it was prescribed to them. The act of not choosing is presented through Nick and also very minor through the Commander. Both Nick and the Commander would rather be in different situations than they are in currently. Nick would rather not see Offred objectified by the Commander, Nick would like to be with Offred and not used as a human stud. The Commander in a similar way would rather be in a more perfect version of this society. He would rather not see people suffer for the sake of the nation The Guardians also show how this society is truly a matriarchal society. The few scenes that Offred is around the Guardians they are always working as the Aunt’s aid or force. Guardians are men that are below women in a Patriarchal Society. This shows that this society is not truly patriarchal it is in turn Matriarchal. The community events also show the importance of women over men in the society. At the community wedding, while a man is the one to read from the bible the women seat their daughters in the chairs, this action can be compared to a father giving his daughter away at a wedding. Also at the birth day there are no men present at all, only the handmaids, wives, and marthas. And lastly at the Salvaging men seemed very scares if even mentioned at all. All of these absences of men also point to the idea of a matriarchal society. Margret Atwood may have written this work with the intention of allowing the reader to decide who is in control of the nation of Gilead, the men or the women? If this is the case, then as a reader I say it is a matriarchal society, and the women have full control. I believe that Atwood not only made Gilead into a matriarchal society to show the conflict between women that is constantly present in any society; while also discussing the idea of extremist views of women in society, by comparing what was wanted by the feminists in a women run culture and what has happened in Gilead with a women run culture. However, which one is better, Atwood leaves that question up to her readers. While Gilead is presented as a Patriarchal society I believe Atwood intended it to truly be a Matriarchal society.

Corrine, This is a great question and presents a really interesting way of looking at the novel. It reminds us that not all women are oppressed in Gilead, at least not to the same degree. And that oppression based on sex and gender is not as simple as men vs. women. In one sense, though, Gilead is not a matriarchy. Matriarchy literally means not rule by women, but rule by mothers. The Aunts, though they have power, are not matriarchs. In this society, mothers (at least biological mothers) have the least power, whether it is men or women who rule over them.

One wrinkle in your argument is presented by the Afterword, which identifies two men (potential matches for the identity of the Commander) as architects of the ideology of Gilead. That would suggest that men did choose the way of life Gilead embodies. In any case, whoever is in charge, Gilead does use a patriarchal ideology based on the Bible to justify itself. Why do you think the Aunts cooperate with and perpetuate this ideology?

In reading the novel //We// by Yevgeny Zamyatin the reader is placed in the interesting position of having to question the authors idea of human nature. Can human nature be learned or is it instinctual? Can human nature be changed or will it always remain the same? These questions are main elements in the writing of //We//. But, an even more important question presented in //We// is about the soul. Is the soul instinct or a human construct? Was the soul a creation of man, just as religion and God are, or is it something that actually remains inside of us and works as a driving force in our lives? This question cannot be easily answered, and is very subjective. I believe, Zamyatin views the soul as being instinctual yet easily changed by man. And I would have to agree with him. The soul is a construct that is very spiritual in nature, but even people with out faith still believe in the essence of the soul. When talking about the soul I feel the correct definition to attribute to it, is the driver of emotion, of passion, and of being. The soul is also defined as the embodiment of ones individuality. These definitions I feel correctly line up with Zamyatin’s definition of the soul, as we see it in his novel //We//. D-503, the architect and mathematician responsible for the One State’s expansion into space, and exploration and colonization of alien worlds, finds himself becoming gravely ill; his diagnosis is having a soul, an incurable disease with in the One State. D-503, a man who has based his entire existence around rational thinking and logic, is now coming down with symptoms such as passion, love, individual thought, sadness, and even joy. Though just as the soul is instinctual and is slowly appearing within D-503, the soul can also be “controlled” and oppressed by the bearer of the soul as well as those around them; this is also very apparent in the novel. D-503 starts to have symptoms of having a soul after meeting I-330, a female who is also living under the One State. I-330 seems to have already established a soul of her own and only tries to feed it by breaking as many laws of the One State as she possibly can. As she brings D-503 into her small circle of treachery his soul seems to over take him at times and turns his rational world upside down. D-503, like many of us, is given the choice to take control of his soul or let it control him. At the conclusion of the novel, D-503 elects to under go a lobotomy to remove his soul from his body, so he can once again return to his rational, routine world, within the One State. I believe this surgery very much parallels a similar process that we as humans use in our everyday life. We are all given the choice to be our own person and stand up for what we believe in, however, most people wave that right and just follow the crowd. To me when people refuse to act as individuals they also are electing to remove their souls, they are replacing who they really are with what others want them to be. In a similar way Zamyatin is writing this narrative in a direct comment to the Russian revolution and the on set of communism. While Zamyatin supported the communist party, he understood the inability to correctly and ideally establish a communistic society within Russia. In //We//, Zamyatin is able to show that communism should not be implemented by showing the inevitability of the oppression of the human soul and loss of individuality. By using D-503 as a representation for the Russian people he powerfully conveyed that in order for communism to successfully work all the Russian people must become drones or workers, not thinkers, for the One State. Through Zamyatin’s beautifully written work, I believe all people can not only understand more about history but also learn more about themselves. This work I believe is not only a reflection of a looming future but also a reflection of modern society and even more an inner reflection of individuals unknowingly repressing their souls.
 * Response 3 question: What is Zamyatin's view of human nature in the novel? Does he offer a different view of human nature from other writers we have read this semester? **

Corrine, Great work. I like the way you make the question your own by asking a series of your questions at the beginning of the essay. These questions establish the significance of your inquiry and focus our attention on the questions the book raises about the soul. It's interesting to think of the soul as both something that is uncontrollable and inextinguishable (despite One State's efforts to suppress it) and as something that can be shaped and/or removed (once D consents to its removal).

 Individualism can be described in many different ways; while many describe individualism as complete control over one’s actions, and one’s self, other people say individualism is simply having the right to choose. Edward Bellamy’s idea of individualism would align mostly with the latter claim. In Bellamy’s novel Looking Backward, his main character Julian West is awoken from a trance 200 years into the future, to discover the United States is under a governmental system of Nationalism. Bellamy believes that a Nationalistic system would protect true individualism better than any other government but I disagree after seeing the world as Julian West saw it.  Upon Julian’s wake up in the year 2000 he was confronted by many changes to the world, as he knew it. These changes include the ideas of money and wages, eating habits, housing, music, shopping, and work in general. All of the activities of these Utopians are controlled in some way or another. When discussing the ideas of money and wages with Dr. Leete, Julian along with the reader learns that everyone in the United States is paid the same amount of money, even though they are doing different jobs. The money they earn can then be used any way they choose but these choices are still very controlled. Shopping under this system is paired down to just one store in which to shop, even though you are allowed to purchase what ever you would like there is no variety of where to shop. Their eating is similarly controlled, while they are free to pick what they would like to eat they are not free to pick where they would like to eat, the public eating areas are already arranged for them. Choosing a home is also the same way. While you can choose a large, medium, or small house the style of the house and location is already predetermined. Music is also similarly controlled in this culture. When wanting to listen to music while you can choose when to listen to music the music that is playing has already been decided upon. Working in 2000 is also a choice that has already been made for you. Each worker is given the choice of what trade to study and what job to decide upon, however it is already determined for how long these citizens will go to school and how long they will work. The working class also has no choice in their employer; they all work for the nation as a part of the Industrial Army. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> While Bellamy’s idea of Utopia under a nationalistic system might protect some individualism unlike the Utopias we have read about before it is most definitely not a “true” Individualism. Bellamy’s idea of the future is much more of a controlled individualism, which in my opinion is not individualism at all. While this idea of controlled individualism is very similar to today’s society and what you can and cannot do, I believe that even in today’s society we lack true individualism. Even today we are still constantly controlled by a higher power, whether it is our parents, school, the law, or just society and cultural norms; we are given very few uncontrolled choices in how to govern ourselves. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;"> In William Morris’ News from Nowhere, a reaction to Bellamy’s Looking Backward, Morris’ main character responds to a listing of alternative ways to rule the society with an idea that he and his companion both find comical, yet I find his suggestion very fitting to the idea of true individualism. The character responds by saying, “Every man should be quite independent of every other and that thus the tyranny of society should be abolished.” While the two characters find this humorous I believe this is perfectly understandable. It is not Nationalism that allows for true individualism it is self-governing.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Response 2 question: Bellamy argued that Nationalism would protect true individualism better than any other system. Does the experience of Julian West prove that claim? **


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Comments: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Corrinne,

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 90%;">Great work. You clearly explain why Bellamy claims his future Boston protects individualism (showing you understand where he is coming from), while critiquing his claim because of the amount of state control he envisions in his system. This ability to accurately summarize a view you disagree with is an important rhetorical skill. Your examples are precisely presented, and I like your connections to Morris and our own world. Do you agree with Bellamy that his utopia allows more freedom for individuals than 19th-century Boston did?

-MSH


 * Response question: At the end of //Utopia//, Thomas More states that he has objections to Raphael, but he doesn’t say what they are. He also says there are many features of Utopia that he likes, but, again, he does not say what they are. What do you make of More’s ambiguity? How serious is he in recommending the Utopian way of life? Is he attempting to offer real solutions, or is he only presenting a satirical critique of European societies? Do some portions of the book seem more serious than others?**

In reading Thomas More’s //Utopia,// I believe that More’s intentional use of ambiguity, lack of devotion to advocating the Utopian way of life, and his odd and sometimes ineffective solutions to current social issues were not because he was talking of an actual society or even an ideal society. These intentional ways of writing and distinct plot choices were used as a warning to mankind. More is not trying to reform his current society but rather their states of mind, he does not want his fellow man to see a possible perfection on earth, he wants his audience to look towards heaven for that perfection. Many people read Thomas More’s //Utopia// as a recount of an actual “perfect” society; a number of people also read this book as a satire written to show the European people how they were living in bad faith. While both of these outlooks are respected ways to read this work I read it very differently. Utopia is ended by More telling his audience that while he does not agree with all aspects of the island, he likes many of its aspects as well. He never goes into further detail on these statements. I personally feel that More uses this ambiguity so that Utopia appears to remain undefined. He wants the island to be left with many loose ends to show that it cannot and does not exist. More is writing this work not as a joke or a pun but as a warning to his audience that a perfect society could not possibly exist on earth. More’s ambiguity helps to show this society as incomplete making it seem not truly ideal. More’s idea of perfection and an ideal society would be deeply rooted in his faith. Thomas More was a renowned Christian in his time and still today. As a Christian he had strong views of the afterlife and the idea of heaven. For all Christians heaven is the ideal. It is the perfect society. Heaven has no war, no wants, no fears, no crime, no hunger, no natural disasters, no poverty, no class struggles, just a resounding sense of contentment. I believe that More’s description of an earthly “perfection” is still nowhere close to being perfect. Utopia still has war, divisions in classes, (i.e. slaves) crime, also Utopia never mentions any sort of contentment in their citizens. I believe More’s ambiguity and unanswered arguments with the idea of Utopia is because he believes no perfection can ever be achieved on earth, earth is the temptation and struggle Christians must go through to reach that perfect way of life, heaven. Heaven is not an actual place, it is rather a place that is understood to exist much like Utopia. However unlike Heaven, Utopia is literally a pun. The word Utopia translates to mean “good place” while also meaning “no place;” so while it is good it does not exist, because it should not exist. If people had perfect struggle free lives on earth there would be no need or point to the bliss of heaven. The idea of heaven would cease to exist. Heaven is the ideal perfection; there are no negative aspects to the idea of heaven, yet there are still many negative aspects to Utopia. These negatives that remain in this “perfect” society prove that More is not seriously advocating this Utopian way of life as a way to reform his current society. Many readers will argue that he left the ideas of war and crime to keep the society “realistic.” I believe he left social problems to show that it cannot possibly ever be the “perfect” society that everyone wants so badly, that they must look toward heaven for the perfection that they want. This earthly perfection that More describes is brought about through “solutions” to social problems in his current society. When these solutions are implemented these problems are eradicated in Utopia. However, these solutions also lead to many of the existing problems in the society, such as the loss of private property, while these help to eradicate jealousy and greed it also causes a loss of individualism and personal identity. While these solutions are seen as good to the current social problems they would ultimately have worse effects on the society as a whole. These phony solutions, along with the negative aspects of a perfect society, the ambiguity of the island itself and the literal translation of its name lead me to believe that none of this work can be taken seriously as guide lines to a perfect earthly world. Thomas More’s //Utopia// can be and has been looked at as written as a satire, an account of an actually place, and even a serious call to reform. However, I view More’s work as purely a warning to mankind. He is telling his audience that all that can come of trying to obtain a heavenly perfection on earth is problems. The readers must remember that Utopia, while being a “good place” is also a “no place,” we should not waste our time trying to reach Utopia but we should be mindful of the divine perfection of heaven.

**Comments** Corrine, This is a really interesting and thoughtful interpretation. Your view addresses not only the ambiguity of More's character and statements in the book, but also the apparent imperfections of this ideal society. More's "realism" exposes the impossibility of achieving an ideal society, or heaven on earth. I like the way you position your interpretation as an alternative to others that you have considered.

Book One of //Utopia//, however, leads me to think that More did care about addressing social problems. Do you think he wanted people to reconsider things like the value of gold and the morality of capital punishment? How does the discussion in Book One fit with your interpretation?

Best, Matt Hartman