You know, Utopia doesn't seem so bad in hindsight...

That the word 'utopia' can literally mean 'no place' says a lot about the fact that, as a species, nothing ever particularly seems to satisfy us. This has been portrayed in multiple ways across multiple medias. Even if the world itself is perfect, there's always that one teensy little imperfection that really makes the deal a lot harder to sell to us. And if it isn't small, then it's either a big problem, or the fact that an entire group of people is so discriminated against that they couldn't possibly see the world in the same fashion, thus no longer making it a utopia.

One of the most striking examples of a faux Utopia (although really, aren't they all fake?) is the psychedelic 80's badfest of Logan's Run, where all but a small portion of Earth has been completely wiped out of humans, save for one sole civilization that's dedicated to nothing but for the pursuit of happiness and 'earthly pleasures'. Sounds great, right? Just as good as More's Utopia!

There's a slight problem. In the utopia of Logan's Run, every citizen must die as soon as they turn 30.

More's Utopia is a lot less transparent than that, and that's what makes it stand out above literally every other pop cultural 'utopia' rendition that we've seen in the last 50 years. With movies and books like "The Hunger Games" and a couple of notable Star Trek episodes it's different, because can plainly see just what exactly is 'wrong' with whatever is going on the the world.

With More's Utopia, I could honestly think of a handful of people that I know who would be perfectly happy to move there (provided certain elements are updated to fit a more 'modern' era. At least there's that.

The Familial Role

     I truly believe that a vast number of our societal issues can be traced back to the family – and what happens inside the familial circle. We are all a product of our parents, our upbringing, and if educated on such things as morality, courtesy, respect and the value for human life, I believe so many of our social catastrophes and intolerances towards others which breed discord and violence would never come to fruition. Today, we see that so many of our modern perpetrators have been the victims of a troubled childhood.

     Yet to some extent, it is also one's society's responsibility to ensure that its inhabitants are getting the training that grounds them as active, productive, healthy members of the community. One of the passages in Book I of Utopia illustrates this

                     'If you do not find a cure for these evils, it is futile to boast of your

                     justice in punishing theft. . .If you allow young folk to be abominably

                     brought up and their characters corrupted, little by little, from childhood;

                     and if then you punish them as grownups for committing crimes to

                     which their early training has inclined them, what else is this, I ask,

                     but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?' (21)

The validity of the point being made here is truly sobering to read. And as I processed this, it really hit me that, as a society, we have so much responsibility to ensure that resources are provided to the family's and the individuals within them so they have the knowledge and tools necessary to raise well-rounded, balanced citizens. There is no one to blame but ourselves if a society degenerates generationally. Ultimately, the family holds the power to nurture and train the future of society. But shouldn't we all take an active role or at least an interest in determining our destiny?

Why aren’t the Utopians Vegetarians?

Reading through Utopia I found a fair few things quite odd. One thing that stuck out to me was their ideas toward meat. It states that they sell it and eat it and it’s made readily available to them, but they dare not taint their hands with the blood of the animals, they have their slaves do it. More states that “Bondsmen do the slaughtering and cleaning [of the animals]…The Utopians feel that slaughtering our fellow creatures gradually destroys the sense of compassion, which is the finest sentiment of which our human nature is capable” (50). If the Utopians truly feel that way, then why subject anyone to do the slaughtering and to the loss of compassion? Aren’t they saying that by killing an animal you slowly kill your soul? That seems a little cruel to do even to a “slave” whom the Utopians still consider human beings, I’m pretty sure at least. I feel the much simpler thing to do, especially since they are so big into farming and big ol' gardens, is to just become vegetarians. 

http://www.nomeatathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fruits-and-veggies-photo.jpg

Utopia and Euthanasia

I was very intrigued by Thomas More’s ideas of his Utopia. I was particularly drawn to his views (or the Utopian views) of euthanasia. Like the footnotes point out with the root words of Utopia (no-place) and Raphael Hythloday (an archangel / nonsense-peddler), I feel it is important to know a word’s origin. I feel it helps to understand where a word comes from and how it was originally meant before society placed it into a new context. For example, euthanasia has a bad connotation to it because we associate it with death and loss, typically that of a pet: “I had to have my dog euthanized (or put down).” Euthanasia has now become a “bad” word because it is associated with our own bad feelings that we associate with it. Euthanasia’s Greek roots (funny how a lot of More’s vocabulary is rooted in Greek) as found on medterms.com state that “The word "euthanasia" comes straight out of the Greek—"eu", goodly or well + "thanatos" death = the good death—and for 18th-century writers in England that was what euthanasia meant, a "good" death, a welcome way to depart quietly and well from life.” I feel this is exactly what More was trying to relay to the readers, not that the Utopians wanted to go around killing people or convincing people they’d be better off dead, but providing a way to end suffering and escape a painful and drawn out death.

I have witnessed a lot of death and dying and I appreciate the sentiment More is trying to convey. More states the Utopians “tell [the dying person that] he should not let the disease prey on him any longer, but now that life is simply torture, he should not hesitate to die but should rely on hope for something better” (71). The “something better” is likely that person’s perception of the afterlife aka heaven. My Great Grandfather passed away at 88-years-old. He was put on Hospice because he was terminally ill and dying and he knew it as well as everyone did. He prayed every night and day for God to take him Home. He eventually couldn’t eat or drink anymore and because he was on Hospice they didn’t allow IVs or feeding tubes. His body eventually shut down. It was hard for me to watch. I didn’t understand why they deprived him of food and water. But now I do. It was to move along his progression to the other side. He was suffering, crying out to die every day but unable to obtain the release he sought. He prayed for an end to his life on Earth so he could move on to something better, somewhere where he could be pain free. It upsets me now that we don’t provide the “good death” (euthanasia) to those terminally ill. I don’t think it is right to force someone to suffer longer because the idea of something we don’t fully understand makes us too uncomfortable aka dying.

We extend this gratitude easily to our beloved pets. Two years ago I lost my golden retriever to lymphoma. His lymph nodes on his neck swelled to the size of mangos and labored his breathing. He couldn't keep any food down. He could barely walk. His quality of life was gone. He was suffering. I took him to the vet and held him close as they injected him with medication that made him fall asleep. I held him as he died. It was the best I could offer him at that point, the good death, and I prayed he was taken off to something better.

If we do this for our pets, whom we cherish (sometimes more than people), why don’t we offer the same treatment to friends and family?

My sweet Brodie Bruce. He was diagnosed with lymphoma when he was almost 4yrs old. With chemo treatment he was able to stay with me for an additional 11 months before he passed. He was 2 months shy of his 5th birthday.

Utopia

   In class we had a great discussion about Book II of Utopia. However, after having this discussion I realized how much I disliked the idea of a Utopia. I realized how NOT perfect a Utopia really was...to be honest it was just as bad as any other society. One thing I thought was pretty interesting was the "Marriage and Divorce" section. If a Utopian couple cannot get along, they find others who they would like to live with. However, they have to get the senate's approval in order to "separate by mutual consent and contract new marriages" (73). Divorce is only accepted if the senators and THEIR wives have thoroughly evaluated the situation. In my opinion that'a a little weird, and I believe the couples are not receiving as much freedom as they should. It goes on to say that divorce is given unwillingly because "they know that husbands and wives will find it hard to settle down together if each has in mind that a new marriage is easily available" (73). Well that's very interesting because it seems as though the senators are not just handing out free divorces if a couple has a problem. They actually make them at least TRY to work it out... I guess that's pretty good too. Unfortunately, as I kept reading I saw that they punish adulterers with the "strictest form of slavery" (73). I don't like the term slavery at all..so that kinda pushed my buttons just a bit. In Utopia there should only be perfection right? Why even have slavery or adulterers? Again, that's the reason why a Utopia will never exist because no one is perfect.
    While in class we discussed the health care situation given in Utopia. That was one thing we could all agree was pretty awesome! I mean who wouldn't love four hospitals in every city? No one could ever complain that the wait to be seen by a doctor was too long, because there were many other hospitals to go to! Also, with having all of these hospitals it showed that the main concern was to take care of the sick and make sure they were 100% healthy (that's great in my opinion)! We talked about how the hospitals were very large for comfort reasons and for those who had contagious diseases to have private rooms. This was another awesome aspect! Everyone would love going to the hospitals in a Utopian society, the nurses and doctors were great care givers, the hospitals were well supplied, and hunger would never be an option because of the wonderful food! Only a crazy man wouldn't accept this type of health care!

The Con's List of Utopia

So on Wednesday we have a class discussion on Book II of Utopia. I heard a lot of people saying that they did not like it as much as Book I and I have to disagree. I thought Book II was great because it offered us insight into the thoughts of what Thomas More may, or may not have considered a Utopian Society. What I wanted to talk about on the blog were some of the things that we didn’t talk about or mention in class. My con’s list far outweighed my pro’s list for the Utopian society so I thought I would address those rather than the pro’s. One of the things that I couldn’t stand was their courting rituals. Where the women and man have to show themselves to each other naked? “Whether she is a widow or a virgin, the woman is shown naked to the suitor by a responsible and respectable matron; and similarly, some respectable man presents the suitor naked to the woman.” (72) It may just be my old soul showing through but I was like that’s odd…and weird…and I am uncomfortable. I also found their ideals on war fascinating. They have this idea that war is beneath them, and yet if it came down to do it they are willing to pay as much as it costs to get the Zapoletes to fight for them. These people, the Zapoletes, are said to be made of the utmost viciousness. It is curious that although war is beneath the Utopians, they are willing to slaughter their enemy, and the fighters they hired should it be necessary. 

The Island of Population Regulation

Utopia, meh. The whole book felt like a medieval Ursula LeGuin novel to me. A seemingly perfect place that fails to pass closer inspection, Utopia has more negative than positive attributes. Perhaps I'm a selfish person, but between the utter lack of privacy and  constant focus on the common good, More could not pay me enough to move to his non-existent paradise.
Another element that just did not sit well with me was "Kinda' Exile Island" as well as other population control measures. Although we are assured that the Utopians are cool with being shipped off to an overflow colony for the good of all Utopia, it just doesn't seem right. After all, this is not a matter of being able to feed or provide for them - Utopia has a ton of excess food and supplies, but simply a comfort measure. What is not addressed is whether or not these colonists are afforded the same opportunities as the rest of society and the inherent unfairness of being relocated because of some arbitrary population quota. Maybe because the UK was already displacing unwanted populations to British Colonies in Australia and the Americas, this seemed like an acceptable outlet.
Additionally, what was with the redistribution of children as if they were resources? I get that children were helpful for work, but every Utopian works so I would think that would mitigate their value as workers somewhat. The assertion that the citizens were just fine taking one for the team and sending their "extra" children off to childless couples, is so absurd that I nearly lost my ability to "buy in" to the story. It's a good thing that Utopia is no place/good place and that Hythloday speaks nonsense!