1 Tim Whale ENGL 410 Essay 1 Question 8: Wherever and whenever they are set, utopian and dystopia

texts are always fundamentally engaged with a real historical and cultural context, a specific here and now.

2 Far from being buried in the past Utopian literature is vibrant; it deals with contemporary concepts and asks for our opinion. It paints a world that 'could be' and we cannot help but place ourselves in the picture. We explore the ideals proposed and make judgements based on our own modern tastes. Utopian texts are writerly they are filled with signifiers or symbols, which may be described in a historical context, but ultimately represent wider concepts such as justice, equality and humanity. These concepts are universal; they are not restricted to a specific historical or cultural context. Each reader perceives these concepts subjectively - we all have different opinions of what is just, equal or humane. These opinions are based on a contemporary perception, the present conditions in which the reader lives. Although utopian and dystopian texts may seem fundamentally engaged with the historical and cultural context of when they were written, I am going to argue, the reader will always compare them to their contemporary setting thus bringing the text into the immediate hereand-now. Although all writerly texts do this to some degree utopian texts are different because they use a dialectic argument which forces a stronger connection with the reader. This essay will examine two Utopian texts, Utopia and Gulliver's Travels, chosen because they highlight that even when set in the distant past the issues dealt with become contemporary. An analysis of the inherent dialectical features of utopian literature is key to understanding why utopian texts are fundamentally engaged with the present conditions of the reader.

The dialectic process draws the reader into the utopian text and forces them to engage the text with a contemporary perception. A general explanation of the utopian dialectic process must be given before embarking on a close reading of specific texts. This essay will avoid the more advanced dialectic positions such as Hegelian dialectics or dialectical materialism and instead refer to the classical definition of dialectics, which can be understood as a dialogue of arguments and counter arguments, advocating propositions (thesis) and counter-propositions (antithesis). The result of such a dialogue is either to agree on a proposition or to combine them into a synthesis. As Byung-Doo

3 Choi explains in Dialectics of Utopian Space, the utopian space... should be seen in a dialectic relation to the now-and-here place (2). The here-and-now place is the reader's present world while the utopian space is the imagined world which acts as an antithesis. This dialectic between experience and imagination is the epistemological foundation for utopian desires. We start our imagination from the present conditions in which we live and make everyday experience, which is only real and concrete. It is the present conditions that motivate and sustain us in a commitment to utopia. Thus we can define the desire for utopia as the yearning to close the gap between lived experience (life as it is) and imagination (life as it might be). The two are not independent: the social construction of our experience - its contradictions - affects our imagination, and vice verse... Indeed, the dialectic implied here is that between the known and the unknown (7). The Utopian space is an imagined 'no place' which must work in contrast to 'some place'; it provides an antithesis but cannot become a synthesis with the concrete world. Alex Sutton describes this in The 'utopian impulse', or the dilemma of systematic change. utopia, which, by its very nature, is a clear historical period that cannot be reconciled with any other. While, in abstract terms, this is not problematic, it means that utopia, as a negation will always remain a negation, and never be synthesised with concrete or particular social forms to which it stands in opposition. Even normatively speaking, an extant Utopia would be conceptually impossible as it would require something to stand in opposition to: as a not place, it requires a place to negate. Therefore, it requires a normative wrong in order against which to be opposed, as a normative good (6). Because the utopian space can never be reconciled with the concrete world the utopian text often remains open-ended. But far from being a bad thing this highlights its genius - by working as an open-ended dialogue it compels the reader to become involved. Any synthesis

4 between the concrete and the imagined must happen in the mind of the reader, who cannot help but judge each proposition based on their contemporary values. utopian content of all kinds is clearly ideological and its function lies principally not in its ability to reveal the future, or provide a map for social change, but simply in its critical negativity its ability to demystify the present (8). As an imaginative construction of the socio-spatial world, the utopia can bring into play a rich critical apparatus of the modern world, it can illuminate and emphasize the neglected shadowy, hidden parts of the existing system (Byung-Doo 3). The use of dialectic ensures that no matter where or when they are set, utopian texts are fundamentally engaged with the contemporary context of the reader.

The dialectic has been an essential feature of Utopian literature since its earliest inception, its most basic form is a conversational dialogue between two or more people. For example as far back as Plato's The Republic we see a dialogue of propositions and counter propositions in Book 1 between Socrates, Cephalus, who is a spokesman for Greek tradition; Polemarchus, who voices popular thought, and Thrasymachus; who represents the Sophist's opinion. Cephalus states justice means living up to your legal obligations and paying your debts: a good man, is, that he has had no occasion to deceive or to defraud others... he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men. But Socrates presents an antithesis: Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought. The dialogue continues with Polemarchus who considers these propositions before stating justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies. But again Socrates provides an antithesis stating that judgements concerning friends and enemies are fallible: Many a man who is ignorant of human nature has friends who are bad friends, and in that case he ought to do harm to them; and he has good enemies

5 whom he ought to benefit. Thrasymachis then enters the dialogue and affirms a Sophist view to ignore justice entirely because those who abide by it are controlled by those who enforce it: the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger. This is a typical Platonic dialogue of propositions and counterpropositions it is intended to place the reader in the discussion as if they were present. In Utopia, More and Hythloday discuss the value of common property in a similar dialogue: Howbeit, doubtless, Master More...where possessions be private, where money beareth all the stroke, it is hard and almost impossible that the weal-public may justly be governed and prosperously flourish (More 50). For where every man under certain titles and pretences draweth and plucketh to himself as much as he can, so few divide among themselves all the whole riches, be there never so much abundance and store, there to residue is left lack and poverty... Thus do I full persuade myself that no equal and just distribution of things can be made, nor that perfect wealth shall ever be among men, unless this property be exiled and banished (51). More disagrees, claiming a society with communal property would have no prosperity and its people no incentive to work. But I am of a contrary opinion, quoth I, for methinketh that men shall never there live wealthily where all things be common. For how can there be abundance of goods or of anything where every man withdraweth his hand from labour? Whom the regard of his own gains driveth not to work, but the hope that he hath in other men's travails maketh him slothful (52). By using a dialogue Utopia is challenging the reader to pick a side; they must participant in the dialogue. Utopia invites its readers to reappraise their values and the relation of those values to practice. Its success may be measured in the variety of critical opinion it has elicited. For, like

6 More's contemporaries, modern readers must locate the meaning of the work in its dialectical structure (296). The dialogue between Hythloday and More is left open-ended at the conclusion of the first book and it is left to the reader to resolve the conflict based on their own values. As Grace explains: Utopia manages quite well to accommodate all manner of contrary readings. It is a mirror not only of aspects of early sixteenth century Europe, but of the social, religious and political views of later interpreters. Its curious open-endedness invites readers to join issue with Hythlodaeus at the conclusion of his discourse. More does not deny us that opportunity by foreclosing: Utopia remains, in the coinage of K. J. Wilson1, an "incomplete fiction" (27). In Gulliver's Travels the protagonist is regularly involved in open-ended conversations such as the dialogue with the King of Brobdingnag regarding the merits of European society. Gulliver explains how justice is conducted: I then descended to the courts of justice; over which the judges, those venerable sages and interpreters of the law, presided, for determining the disputed rights and properties of men, as well as for the punishment of vice and protection of innocence (Swift 145). This description lacks detail, Gulliver assumes the European system of justice is good simply because it is presided over by judges. The King questions Gulliver for more detail: He asked, What time was usually spent in determining between right and wrong, and what degree of expense?... Whether they or their judges had any part in penning those laws, which they assumed the liberty of interpreting, and glossing upon at their pleasure? Whether they had ever, at different times, pleaded for and against the same cause, and cited precedents to prove contrary opinions? (146147). Rather than being impressed the King only sees negatives; his analysis reveals an antithetical line of questioning and it is the reader who is invited to answer. If the reader takes the bait they cannot help but base their answers on their contemporary values. The use of conversational dialectic is unique in
1 Incomplete Fictions (Washington, 1985).

7 Erewhon because it does not always take the form of a conventional dialogue between characters. The narrator is sometimes involved in a conversational dialectic with himself in which the reader simply 'listens in'. This dynamic is apparent in the narrator's assessment of a trail in which a prisoner is found guilty of the crime of consumption and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. The narrator considers the judges verdict and is initially carried away by the opinion of those among whom I was(Butler 103). But later the narrator begins to form questions and counterpropositions. But when I was alone, and began to think the trial over, it certainly did strike me as betraying a strange and untenable position. Had the judge said that he acknowledged the probable truth, namely, that the prisoner was born of unhealthy parents, or had been starved in infancy, or had met with some accidents which had developed consumption; and had he then gone on to say that though he knew all this, and bitterly regretted that the protection of society obliged him to inflict additional pain on one who had suffered so much already, yet that there was no help for it (104). The concept is adherence to the law; the thesis is that those who transgress must be punished, but the antithesis asks should we punish those who break the law due to misfortune. A synthesis is made by the narrator which is in agreement with the verdict of the judge. I write with great diffidence, but it seems to me that there is no unfairness in punishing people for their misfortunes, or rewarding them for their sheer good luck: it is the normal condition of human life that this should be done (104). The reader is given a choice to accept this proposition or form their own synthesis based on their values of justice. The dialogue is a convention of utopian literature as seen in The Republic, Erewhon, Utopia and Gulliver's Travels. The dialogue subtly encourages the reader to compare and contrast the values of the text with their own contemporary perceptions. The conversational dialectic ensures the text is fundamentally engaged with the historical and cultural context of the

8 reader.

Another important feature of utopian literature is the structural dialectic; in the conversational dialectic the thesis and antithesis are presented in a discussion or argument; in the structural dialectic the utopian 'space' acts as the thesis or the antithesis, which the reader compares to their present conditions. In Utopia the basic premise of utopian space as an antithesis is clearly evident. In the first book we were given a summary of the conditions in England whereby More for the most part supports the status quo while Hythloday makes antithetical objections. At the end of the discussion Hythloday responds that More thinks this way because he has no living model to base his opinion. I marvel not wonder, quoth he, that you be of this opinion. For you conceive in your mind either none at all, or else a very false image and similitude of this thing. But if you had been with me in Utopia and had presently seen their fashion and laws, as I did... then doubtless you would grant that you never saw people well ordered but only there (52). Utopia is introduced as a place where Hythloday's antithetical beliefs are the norm; Utopia has been set-up as an antithesis; an alternative to the status quo. The utopian space lets us imagine the antithesis as a working model. For example in the first book the merits of communal property were discussed in a dialogue but in the second book they are described in action through the imagined island of Utopia. Without private interest the Utopians have no need to make a profit, they produce only what is needed, there is a greater pool of workers because all are employed and less time is required in labour leaving citizens free to pursue science and the arts. but that every one apply his own craft with earnest diligence; and yet for all that, not to be wearied from early in the morning to late in the evening with

9 continual work, like laboring and toiling beasts... All void time between the hours of work, sleep, and meat, that they be suffered to bestow, every man as he liketh best himself... to bestow the time well and thriftily upon some science as shall please them (64-65). Utopia is a model of a communal society and is clearly an antithesis to the society based on private property which many readers live in. There are many ambiguities in Utopia such as the Syphogrants who police the Utopians; its use of slavery; the encouragement of euthanasia; its dishonourable method of warfare; and the ban on premarital sex. But if Utopia was a perfect place populated by perfect creatures without failings it would become an easily dismissed fantasy. In order to draw the reader into the dialectic discussion the utopian space must include paradoxes and ambiguities. As Grace explains: one must suspend one's disbelief in order to hear Raphael's tale. Even if one were to be dismissive of the Utopian scheme, it would first be necessary to lower one's guard sufficiently to let the message penetrate. Having heard the story, however, one is prompted to make sense of it, to resolve its paradoxes and ambiguities rather than just to dismiss it. So the Discourse sets up an internal dialogue in the mind of the reader, requiring the reexamination of settled assumptions about issues raised by Hythlodaeus. All of these contrasts, of course, are related to fundamentally differing social structures and value systems (291). It is this internal dialogue which places the utopian text in the here-and-now; the reader, not the author, resolves the propositions presented in the dialectic based on their own contemporary values.

The utopian space can be used in many creative ways to draw the reader into the dialectic argument. In Gulliver's Travels there is an antithetical relationship between each of the lands visited. To summarise: each place has an distinct ideology or thesis, through structural irony we are presented

10 with an antithesis which shows this ideology is lacking, we then find the synthesis represented in the proceeding land visited by Gulliver, but the new thesis is soon destabilised by structural irony and the cycle continues. The first utopian space in the dialectic cycle is Lilliput, a society with culture and structure similar Europe. As Stillman notes When Gulliver is thrown ashore on Lilliput, he comes into contact with very small human beings whose government and society bear a striking resemblance to those of England... Hiding behind the Lilliputians, Swift engages in topical and severe criticism of England (99). An example of this criticism is shown in the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu which began as an argument over which side of an egg to break first: Whereupon the emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law,... there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one emperor lost his life, and another his crown... It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death (64). The reasons for this conflict are blatantly ridiculous; thousands of lives have been lost in an expensive war over something trivial and petty. But Gulliver reports it with complete seriousness in a nave tone which encourages the reader to become suspicious and form their own opinions. A common reading is that Lilliput and Blefuscu represent England and France; the conflict between Big-Endians and Little-Endians represents the Protestant Reformation and the long war between Catholics and Protestants. This specific historical and cultural context points to the universal concepts of religion, politics and national identity. The Lilliputians have culture but an antithesis is presented through structural irony which shows they are petty and oppressive. The Brobdingnags in comparison are not oppressive; they represent the synthesis of society and virtuous leadership. Stillman believes Brobdingnag is a Utopian society because its government is not oppressive , it employs virtuous rulers, and it has a functioning balance of power... Swift works by opposites, allowing criticisms of England's institutions to suggest the non-oppressive practices of

11 Brobdingnag (99). This use of opposites is illustrated in the revulsion shown by the King when Gulliver offers to give him gunpowder: The king was struck with horror at the description I had given of those terrible engines, and the proposal I had made. He was amazed, how so impotent and grovelling an insect as I (these were his expressions) could entertain such inhuman ideas, and in so familiar a manner, as to appear wholly unmoved at all the scenes of blood and desolation which I had painted as the common effects of those destructive machines; whereof, he said, some evil genius, enemy to mankind, must have been the first contriver (151). For Gulliver this attitude is narrow and lessens his opinion of the Brobdingnags. Although their culture and social structures are fair he sees them as intellectually backward. The learning of this people is very defective, consisting only in morality, history, poetry, and mathematics... wholly applied to what may be useful in life, to the improvement of agriculture, and all mechanical arts; so that among us, it would be little esteemed. And as to ideas, entities, abstractions, and transcendentals, I could never drive the least conception into their heads (152-153) The antithesis implied by Gulliver is that Brobdingnag society lacks abstract science and the progress it provides. It is no accident that the next place Gulliver encounters is Laputa, a synthesis of society and science, where ideas, entities, abstractions and transcendentals are valued above all else. The Laputans live on a floating island and spend their time in theoretical contemplation. The island symbolises, on one hand, the marvels of their science, and, ironically, on the other hand, that they are cut off from the world and have their heads in the clouds. For example the tailor who measures Gulliver for a new suit: first took my altitude by a quadrant, and then, with a rule and compasses, described the dimensions and outlines of my whole body, all which he entered upon paper; and in six days

12 brought my clothes very ill made, and quite out of shape, by happening to mistake a figure in the calculation (180) Although the Laputans spend hours in theoretical contemplation they lack basic skills in practical geometry. As Nicolson and Mohler explain Swift's Laputans excel in theoretical learning; the abstractions of the higher mathematics are their meat and drink. They can solve equations- but they cannot build houses, because of the contempt they bear to practical geometry, which they despise as vulgar and mechanic (305). Gulliver finds the same obsession with the theoretical at the Balnibarbi Academy where the scientific pursuits include a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers(197), an operation to reduce human excrement to its original food and work to calcine ice into gunpowder (198). The antithesis being implied here is that scientific enthusiasm needs to be tempered with natural reason. With this antithesis in mind the last place Gulliver visits is the Country of the Houyhnhnms where intelligent horses live in a society governed by a philosophy of natural reason. This new synthesis combines society and natural reason. As Gulliver explains: The word Houyhnhnm, in their tongue, signifies a horse, and, in its etymology, the perfection of nature (253). The Houyhnhnm are similar to Plato's philosopher kings; they are portrayed as so preoccupied with the form of good that they do no wrong (or so Gulliver believes). As these noble Houyhnhnms are endowed by nature with a general disposition to all virtues, and have no conceptions or ideas of what is evil in a rational creature, so their grand maxim is, to cultivate reason, and to be wholly governed by it (286). Their lack of shame in their own nakedness paints them as a kind of prelapsarian society. he could not understand, why nature should teach us to conceal what nature had given; that neither himself nor family were ashamed of any parts of their bodies (255). Gulliver believes he has found a utopia but again through structural irony the reader is invited to make different conclusions. Gulliver becomes so enamoured with the Houyhnhnms that he begins to despise his own race. The Yahoos are humans, although they lack intellect, but Gulliver has no qualms about suggesting they be

13 castrated to keep their numbers down. I mentioned a custom we had of castrating Houyhnhnms... that this invention might be practised upon the younger Yahoos here, which besides rendering them tractable and fitter for use, would in an age put an end to the whole species, without destroying life; that in the mean time the Houyhnhnms should be exhorted to cultivate the breed of asses (290). This solution echoes an infamous British statute passed in 1719 that allowed for the castration of priests illicitly entering Ireland; but it also points to universal concepts that are still argued today such as whether or not to offer sterilization to solo-mothers. Gulliver has become so preoccupied with the rational that he has lost his humanity. He writes that No man could more verify the truth of these two maxims, That nature is very easily satisfied; and, That necessity is the mother of invention (295). He is willing to act with what he regards as necessity with no question about whether his actions are humane. When he leaves Houyhnhnm he constructs a large canoe from the skin of human (Yahoo) children! I finished a sort of Indian canoe, but much larger, covering it with the skins of Yahoos, well stitched together with hempen threads of my own making. My sail was likewise composed of the skins of the same animal; but I made use of the youngest I could get, the older being too tough and thick (301). His pragmatic attitude is reminiscent of a brutal tyrant. One can almost imagine a similar rational pragmatism being used by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews. The final antithesis made here is that a society solely governed by reason which neglects human passion and emotion is no better than any other in fact in many ways it is worse. The concepts dealt with are universal, due to the ambiguities in the text we do not trust Gulliver's opinion and are compelled to draw our own conclusions. The structural dialectic in Gulliver's Travels has taken us from a thesis of eighteenth century Europe symbolised by Lilliput; through structural irony we are given the antithesis that the rulers of this

14 world lack virtue; this proposition is absorbed into the new synthesis represented by Brobdingnag, but Gulliver puts forward the antithesis that their world lacks abstract science and progress; this idea is then synthesised in the portrayal of Laputa, Balninarni, Luggnagg and Glubbdubdrib, but we soon realise the obsession with theoretical science lacks natural reason; the synthesis of society and natural reason is found in the Country of the Houyhnhnms; Gulliver finds himself inspired by their ideology but in the process he loses his humanity. In the end Gulliver ends up back where he started in England; the structural dialectic has come full circle; although his experiences have changed him there is no final resolution. The ambiguities and open-endedness draw the reader in and compel them to either leave the text unresolved or to find their own resolution. Although the setting of the text is eighteenth century Europe the concepts discussed, such as social structure, war, science and pragmatism are timeless. No matter where or when the utopian text is set the dialectic structure forces the reader to compare the utopian space with the real world; thus the utopian text is fundamentally engaged with the reader's here-and-now.

A brief review of two critical essays will reinforce my argument that utopian texts are fundamentally engaged with the reader's context not the author's. When comparing the fourth book of Gullivers Travels Hammon 2 concludes that the Houyhnhnms provide a model of political justice (24) while in contrast Stillman3 concludes the Houyhnhnm society turns out to be severely flawed or dystopic (98). Where Hammond finds a utopia Stillman finds a dystopia, not because one of these readings is wrong but because they have placed different values on each of the propositions put forward. One of the antithetical arguments regarding the Houyhnhnm is their emphasis of reason over passion. As Gulliver explains: Neither is reason among them a point problematical, as with us, ...but strikes you with immediate conviction; as it must needs do, where it is not mingled, obscured, or discoloured, by passion and interest (286). Hammond believes this 2 Eugene Hammond. Nature-Reason-Justice in Utopia and Gulliver's Travels. 3 Peter Stillman. With a Moral View Design'd: Gulliver's Travels as a Utopian Text.

15 lack of passion represents altruism and cooperation. "Passion and Interest" are nearly synonyms, and represent selfish disregard for others. Houyhnhnm reason being an instrument of justice, it opposes not passions per se, but those passions which endanger the common good. Whatever coldness it seems to have is directed primarily against a warmly passionate love of oneself (18). But Stillman believes this lack of passion reveals self-interest and a corrupt rationality. He basis this point on their treatment of the Yahoos: So the Houyhnhnms do not know how to... treat the Yahoos, and as they discuss the issue they show the limits and corruption of their reason... they refer to mythical history... to justify killing... The perversion of their reason reaches a nadir in the very topic of debate: whether to commit genocide. For Swift, whether reason is employed by horses or humans, it can be corrupted for their own purposes, interests or passions (103). A dialectic argument has been presented: the thesis is Houyhnhnm society is just because it is based on natural reason; the antithesis is it is not just because its inhabitants lack emotion and humanity; the synthesis of these ideas is up to the reader (critic). Hammond has not accepted the antithesis, in fact his entire essay is an argument against it, while Stillman has put so much weight on it he sees the Houyhnhnm society as an outright dystopia. Regardless of who we agree with this example highlights that no matter when or where the utopian text is set our contemporary consideration of the dialectic propositions directly affects our interpretation, thus the interpretation of utopian literature reflects the values of the reader not the author.

Although utopian texts may be set in a specific historical and cultural context they will ultimately be held up against the reader's present experience. The key to understanding how this works is to understand utopian texts as a dialectic argument. Propositions and counter-propositions are either put forward in a conversation between characters or are symbolised by the imagined utopian space.

16 The dialectic is left open-ended which means if the reader wishes to find a resolution they must become involved in the discussion. This involvement can only be subjective there is no other choice for the reader but to inject their own values. Wherever and whenever they are set, utopian and dystopia texts are always fundamentally engaged with the here-and-now of the reader.

17 Bibliography Butler, Samuel. Erewhon, or, Over the range. Grant Richards, 1901. Print. Byung-Doo, Choi. Dialectics of Utopian Space. Dept. of Geography Education, Taegu University. http://econgeog.misc.hit-u.ac.jp/icgg/intl_mtgs/BDChoi.pdf Grace, Damian. Utopia: A Dialectical Interpretation. Moreana, no. 100 (1989): 274-302. Grattan-Guinness, Ivor ed. Companion Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematical Sciences. Volume 1, John Hopkins, 1994. Hammond, Eugene. Nature-Reason-Justice in Utopia and Gulliver's Travels. Studies in English Literature, 1500 - 1900, Vol. 22, No. 3, Restoration and Eighteenth Century (Summer, 1982), 445-468. More, Thomas. Utopia A Dialogue of Comfort. Heron Books. Print. Nicolson, Marjorie and Mohler, Nora. The Scientific Background of Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Annals of Science 2:3 (1937), 299-334. Plato, Jowett, Benjamin (Translate). The Republic. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html Sargent, Lyman. The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited. Utopian Studies, Vol 5, No. 1 (1994), 1-37. Stillman, Peter. With a Moral View Design'd: Gulliver's Travels as a Utopian Text. Qwerty 11 (2001), 97-107. Sutton, Alex. The 'utopian impulse', or the dilemma of systemic change. University of Warwick. http://www.ecprnet.eu/databases/conferences/papers/258.pdf Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels. Heron Books. Print.