Final Post

Though I have already posted my two required entries, and though I very much doubt that anyone will see this one, considering exams are for the most part complete, I feel compelled to share what I have learned thus far, and only begun to discover, over the past year at the College.

I enjoyed  every aspect of this course a great deal, however, I suppose to Dr. Curtis’s chagrin, as I conclude this semester, I have discovered within myself the belief that the system of a utopia is problematic and bad, and furthermore, that I am opposed to it. I am not disagreeing with the assumed utopian notions of universal happiness, peace, equality, or community, however, the way I see it, the foundational construction of utopia is antagonistic to the aforementioned values. I do believe in a better future for our world and I do believe that we can achieve greatness as human beings, but I do not believe the utopian way is the means to this end.

I have reached my conclusion on utopia through a plethora of considerations, but in the interest of space I shall be brief. First, I should like to point out that I do not believe there is no room for utopia in making the world a better place, I just do not believe that it should be taken with much more than a grain of salt. I think that Ursula K. Le Guin’s short story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas perfectly illustrates one of my main issues with the concept of utopia as a model for social change. The inherent reality and weakness of utopia is that ,no matter how seemingly perfect it appears, it will ultimately be another person’s dystopia, therefore contradicting itself. The strong subjectivity of utopia is obviously to blame for this dilemma, which is why I believe utopias are only useful if they exist in an individual society, in which people can dream up their own.

However, putting the above aside, I should like to make clear, that my chief opposition to utopia comes from the simple reality of every utopia we have read, studied, and every utopia attempted in reality; they only work under communitarian values antagonistic to individuality. I am of the mindset that a person’s individuality should never be subordinate to the state. I suppose here I am making a utilitarian argument in the sense that I believe a majority population of happy people is favorable to an entire population of neutral people.

Quite obviously, the free system in place in the United States for instance is far from perfect, and in fact terrible at times on many levels, however, it is the freedom which people are afforded to think their own thoughts and pursue their own dreams that allows us to move forward in the social arena so that we might someday break through the threshold of peace and leave conflict in history books. Furthermore, I believe that the very essence of life, is entirely connected to our right to individuality. Consider this, in Plato’s, Thomas More’s, and Karl Marx’s utopian visions, there would not be any space to dream up and present their ideas in the societies they suggest–to quite varying degrees obviously. Yet, nonetheless, the fact remains that it is the free will of the individual which allows us to imagine and construct utopias–to be used perhaps as think tanks or sign markers along the road to peace in the world.

To borrow a concept from Aristotle, the sum of the body politic of the individualistic society is infinitely stronger than the parts which comprise it, whereas Plato’s body politic consists of particular regions of said body whose sum is greater than other parts, as opposed to an egalitarian strong front.

To conclude my rant I would just like to outline the way I think regarding the betterment of society, improvement by utopian examples and the like. In contradicting myself, I would like to share a concept introduced to me during the fall semester which changed my entire world view and self-consciousness; to which I subscribe to entirely and believe to be an unsurpassed guidepost in life. In his Republic, Plato outlines and explains a concept of duty, to which every person is inextricably bound, and that duty matters, whether it be herding sheep or leading a city. It is with this concept interjected into our potentially great society that I believe we can truly move forward. If bound by a sense of duty, not to the state but to ones self and to those whom one shares their realm with, we can begin to work toward a more cooperative individual existence. It is only a start, but I believe if bound by a sense of duty to our individual talents and loves while working for the greater good, we can progress.

I know my place and I know my part. I am one of a minority of lucky individuals to have been born into a privileged life that has given me countless amounts of individual happiness and joys. However, such fortune comes with great responsibility, as whether I care to live or hope to die, I, by the circumstances of the accident of my own birth, am bound to a duty to work towards the public good and to assist those not as fortunate as me, so that they or their next of kin might be so lucky as I. Communism preaches allegiance to the state, and most utopias ring eerily similar to te provisions of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. We must be bound to our individual duties to each other and ourselves.

Utopianism As a Weapon

For my second blog post, in which I may write freely, I think it will be interesting to consider the idea/concept of Utopia and the possibilities of using it to reach negative ends. I do not mean negative in the sense of it being a Dystopia, but the use of Utopian vision to advance poor a negative cause. Below, I shall illustrate what I mean more precisely.

While browsing through the stacks at Addlestone I came across a book entitled, “Postcards From Utopia: The Art of Political Propaganda.” The book contains a series of political propaganda images from throughout recent Western history which depict utopia-like scenes that suggest the bright future that the particular regime will advance if their will were to be done.

The classic, and most prominent, of these however, unsurprisingly, comes form Nazi Germany. I will exemplify my case using them in particular. The book is filled with political propaganda art from Nazi Germany suggesting the great and bright future that would come by supporting the regime’s cause. When viewing these pictures, it is quite clear that the artist was rendering a sort of Utopia for the average German citizen, with Aryan people either working together or engaged in some noble or triumphant act. I do not know much about psychology, but I should like to think that constant inundation these images to the average citizen in Pre-World War II German–where a bad economy was beginning to take its toll on them–of prosperous Aryans with no obvious Jews in sight, might subconsciously plant a small seed of prejudice and entitlement. These pictures of Aryan prosperity and success, in addition to the degrading, Dystopian type pictures concerning their present economy scapegoating the Jews in the country would create the perfect cocktail for the Nazi’s to lure the people of Germany into the holocaust.

Essentially, I would like to pose the question: could Utopianism only be a tool for manipulation of a people in order to carry out evil acts? When considering the idea, I recall that most people do not believe a true Utopia is even possible, so is the idea of a perfect society perhaps only a low hanging fruit for tyrants to use on an impressionable population to gain control and perhaps enact their versions of Utopia as Hitler had? What are your opinions on the inherent nature of Utopia and its propensity to facilitate evil doing?

Homo erotic Nazi propaganda posters World War 2 WW2 Nazi Propaganda Poster encouraging women to have many children Postcards-from-Utopia-9781851243372 poster-behind-enemy-powers

Eugenics Advertisement in Brown’s School Newspaper?

 

563418_10152529250955391_2118584874_n

My buddy from home posted this picture of an advertisement he saw in his school’s newspaper today, The Brown Daily Herald, which he found quite troubling and offensive. Along with the photo he added these remarks:

What are the bioethical implications of such an ad? Are qualities such as beauty and intelligence now commodified goods?

In the Facebook comments on the post, some people make arguments defending the content of the ad, ranging from feelings of moral cynicism to defense of a personal right of choice, certainly valid consideration. However, do also consider, though very probably inadvertent, but existent, parallels to Nazism when viewing the ad.

Personally, upon consideration of the arguments presented in the comments, I feel as though  it is important to allow oneself to be alarmed by such an ad, and to question and consider it’s implications. Moreover, I also think it is important to view and take into account the type of society we are (whether good or bad) that such an ad was produced. Additionally, I believe the content of this ad is comparable to the plot of Oryx and Crake and the Crakers, in addition to the alarming display of the realities of our world today.

Certainly, such an ad is questionable and debatable in it’s ties to eugenics and Utopian human vision. What are your thoughts? How does this ad make you feel?

 

Religion in Thomas More’s Utopia

To start, I should like to acknowledge that I am aware of the context from which More constructed his Utopia, and I understand the overwhelming religiosity of the period, and how even more radical a deviation from which would be. With that aside, I would like to call into question the religious principles of More’s Utopia; specifically, where he attributes the successful operation and functionality of Utopia to the society wide belief in a rewarding afterlife upon living dutifully in Utopia. To me this is inherently flawed from the ground up, as I see this as a society based entirely on a selfish motivation for salvation, and though in practice it  is just and equal, the reasons why are perverse, thus i believe it is fully corruptible.

Regarding the corruptibility of Utopia, in a way the society exists teetering on the edge of a cliff, because the predominant motivation for cooperation and duty is salvation (the basic construct for the whole society), and if belief in salvation crumbles even slightly, the entire societal system would likely fall into disarray, and with no precedent for corruption, ultimately destruction. I reach this conclusion by drawing on Book VIII from Plato’s Republic in which he outlines why the Kallipolis will ultimately degrade into a tyranny. The Kallipolis begins to fall not as the result of some great tragedy, rebellion or war; the crux of the decline is a simple miscalculation in the math in child birth and rearing. If such a seemingly insignificant flaw will bring down the whole Kallipolis, then to me, it is logical that the breakdown in the belief of salvation in Utopia will have even greater ramifications and destroy the society even quicker. Therefore, I believe that the required religiosity in More’s Utopia is a fatal flaw and should be removed from any other attempt at Utopia, and replaced by a system of self-worth based in altruism, since anything is possible in Utopia.

I feel as though an altruistic approach to cooperation and duty should replace the religious apparatus in More’s Utopia. In my opinion, More takes too much of a Platonic view that people necessarily need motivation in the form of salvation to be just. However, if a Marxian sense of individual self worth and palpable usefulness were constructed as the motivator for duty and justice in Utopia, I believe the society would be safer from corruption and destruction. I can not say specifically how or in what way such an altruistic vision and sense individual self worth should be achieved or take place, but I do believe it is the solution to the flaw of religious salvation being the motivating factor in More’s Utopia.

However, my belief in a secular Utopia based on Marxian values with platonic organization is confounded by the thesis of a book by John N. Gray entitled, ” Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia,” in which he argues that ideas of utopia are inherently inseparable from religion, particularly Christianity, because of the similarities of their basis. Moreover, he holds that any idea, like Utopia, is inherently a “religion,” and the proliferation and realization of any religious construct will inevitably come with conflict and bloodshed. In an overarching sense, Gray is trying to say the world is a perpetual dystopia of conflicting ideas (which he calls religion), and forms of Utopian thinking are entirely part of the problem. Ultimately, according to Gray, even a secular Utopia, such as I prescribed above, is inherently religious and therefore prone to conflict, resulting in societal deterioration, making my argument moot.

Gray’s book is certainly an interesting piece to read through in your free time and we have a copy available in the library if anyone is interested in looking at it!