Problems with Utopias: It Made Sense Once...

Anne Morrow Lindbergh was also a decent woman

who said really dumb things.

In Herland, Gilman presents a nineteenth-century version of Progressivism. Some of her ideas have substance. Some are shallow beyond belief. And some...

Are deeply troubling.

Some Gilman defenders try to argue that Gilman's more distasteful attitudes arose later in life, after she said all the stuff the defenders approve of, but a great many of the not-so-palatable ideas show up in Herland's sequel, which was begun in 1916. And they creep through Herland.

However, I believe in being fair to historical figures, just as I would want future people to be fair to me. 

Gilman is writing pre-World War I and World War II. Elements of nineteenth-century Progressivism that strike one, now, as tainted by mid-twentieth century events, were not (necessarily) then. 

Such as, just for example, eugenics. 

Gilman is completely on-board with genetic modification. Everything from grain to cats to humans is "bred" to help produce an advanced society. "Bad" mothers--a concept Terry lambasts several times in both Gilman's version and in mine--are encouraged to not become pregnant (a kind of "hold it in" form of birth control), all for the sake of the race. There are no criminals--though there are guards and a fortress--since that tendency was bred out, just as the poor cats were bred not to kill song birds.

The skin does indeed crawl--and Gilman's sequel is worse. She practically argues that war (World War I) is okay because it will wipe out the degenerates--and put those uncomfortably clannish Jews in their place--so the world can do better the next time. 

Gilman was truly not this awful, any more than Anne Morrow Lindbergh (see above) was (Charles Lindbergh kind of was, but that was his personality, which rested on the premise "I am the cleverest man in the universe"). 

Like Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Gilman had not yet seen where such theories lead. The Holocaust was not yet part of history. 

Now that I've let Gilman off the hook, I'm going to put her back on it. Although eugenics was considered acceptable in the early 20th century and plenty of people on both the left and the right promoted ideas connected to eugenics, there were people and groups who did not, including civil libertarians and Roman Catholics. 

And guess what? They were mocked as backwards and reactionary and not on the "right" side of history!

But again, Gilman had plenty of company--and, again (to be fair), she propounded a non-violent, non-aggressive approach that would take multiple generations to accomplish.

Still, the argument is distasteful. As Terry points out, Van and Jeff go along with the mentors because although genetic determinism is tainted, both men adhere to populist ideas about environmental determinism, i.e. social structuring through language and name-calling. 

Same argument. Different skins. 

"If sports is a childish substitute, I can live with that."

Another of Gilman's arguments, though less distasteful, runs down the same rabbit-hole. Like many nineteenth- century socialists who yet despised the communal aspects of communism, she wanted the competition of capitalism to produce big brother firms that would care for individuals. She was pro-competition as far as it sustained an economy but not so far as it was generated by the individual. 

In Chapter 9, Alim attempts to defend team sports. Gilman wasn't necessarily opposed to athletics. The women in Herland freely climb trees and exercise. However, she fails to appreciate that the "non-nice" aspects of competition are not something that can be excised, the "nice" parts left standing. 

Get the trains to run on time by all means--but those who defend utopias want to do it without the more unpleasant aspects of competition (firings and bankruptcy). Of course, eliminating the unpleasant competitive side often means forcing people to work for free or under threat. 

Lots of utopians fail to grasp this babies and bathwater point. As my Terry states in frustration:

Van argues that Troas sustains the individual--while eliminating the "unhealthy" aspects of individualism: excessive competition, excessive consumption. But the argument rests on the presumption that one can carefully select on the one hand without damaging on the other. Breed citizens for greatness--surgically remove their unlikable parts--without violating their individuality and denying their biology. 

When a country rests on such circular logic, can anyone get out?

In any case, Herland is a cautionary tale to utopian builders. Every utopia risks looking reactionary within a few decades since any social order that claims to "fix" human nature (piecemeal or otherwise) will be disproved in time--sometimes very, very violently. 

Chapter 9

His in Herland or Astyanax in Hiding