Problems with Utopias: Babies and Bathwater, Part I

In the next post, I'll discuss the "babies," the good stuff one wants to keep.

Here I will discuss the problem of trying to save the good stuff while throwing out the bad. 

Many utopias are closed environments that want to preserve the positives of a harmonious culture with all its benefits: neighbors who care; a meeting of the minds over thought and dress and upbringing; easy communication, which--as Sapiens points out--gets more difficult in communities larger than 100-150 people. 

The utopians don't want any of the attendant negatives. 

Basically, utopias want small-towns, villages, without all the yucky stuff, such as lack of diversity and, oh, witch trials. 

Because, yes, witch trials are more likely to come about in closed, insular environments than in open, cosmopolitan ones. 

One of the irritating aspects of both "it's takes a village" leftism and "once upon a time, people were respectful and knew the difference between right and wrong!" right-Pollyanna-ism is the failure to allow for human nature and the need for infrastructures. 

Diversity AND harmony don't come about by magic. They don't marvelously materialize because people who really, really want them run around saying the proper things. In fact, diversity and harmony are naturally at odds, which is why dictatorships always revolve around removing choice.

As my Terry states, "True unlikeness bothers people. Pluralism pushes people’s buttons, which is why they always want something easier to manage. Diversity won’t stay put, different only to a point. Besides, no matter how many people are taken into consideration, any system will leave someone out. And that someone will complain."

Some type of governing system is required. It will be imperfect. It still needs to be there because, in fact...

Rousseau was wrong. William Golding was right. 

Gilman, to her credit, attempted to create a fully diverse society with Herland. It is implied in several places that it is somewhat more diverse than even Gilman admits to her upper-class audience. 

The problem? As my Terry suggests, she wants the diversity to stay put, controlled, different only to a point. Not so diverse that the citizens will actually passionately disagree about, oh, abortion or vaccinations or individual rights or Motherhood or government or crime or punishment or religion...

Enough diversity to be admirable. Enough to show that the system works. But not enough to actually put anything or anyone at risk, to result in, say, witch trials or a turnover in leadership. 

Moadine, a mentor, responds to Terry by suggesting a scenario where a mild difference in opinion could snowball into a new economic approach. She is aware of this possible reality. She argues that Herland avoids such extremes not by force but through culture--basically, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."

She has a point. Unfortunately, powerful cultural expectations don't dovetail with the accepting, tolerant, and "roll with the punches" culture Gilman wants to create. Take into consideration, for instance, that many supposedly more "harmonious" countries than the U.S. have far stricter immigration laws. 

Terry's point is consequently valid. Eventually, always, inevitably, the culture changes. The noisiest, non-harmonious elements receive the benefits: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” 

When change arrives, either top-down rules or in-place infrastructures prevent the whole thing going off the rails into anarchy. To avoid the use of the former (dictatorships quelling grassroots revolutions), the latter need to be in place already. Impossible to add them overnight.

Thanks to Eugene for the comparison between the phrases!

To be continued October 1st...

No comments: