While reading "Utopia" by Sir Thomas More, I could not help but feel uneasy about the constant debate over what matters more in life: personal freedom or protection & fairness. It is common to hear the saying "life isn't fair" but if it could be . . . should we strive for it? Are we selfish for craving freedom and individuality when we know full well that we could end a lot of human suffering by giving up this piece of ourselves? How much should we sacrifice? Essentially, is one person more important, less important, as important as the collective whole?
"Utopia" hits on several of these questions. Speaking to More, one of the characters presses that "... as long as you have private property, and as long as money is the measure of all things, it is really not possible for a nation to be governed justly or happily. For justice cannot exist where all the best things in life are held by the worst citizens; nor can anyone be happy where property is limited to a few, since those few are always uneasy and the many are utterly wretched" (Utopia 543). Here he is arguing that anything held private by an individual that is not shared with the community can only harm said community. He attributes the loss of justice to the idea of private property and seems to suggest that as long as money is used to fuel the economy and settle debts, happiness is unachievable. However, this leads me to wonder: what kind of happiness does he mean? Is he referring to the raw "happiness" that you feel walking barefoot through the woods as you think to yourself how perfect it feels to exist today? Or is he referring to that overwhelming happiness that you feel when you breathe a sigh of relief now that your upcoming exam has been pushed back for a week?
All of this debate brought me to re-read a few sections from George Orwell's 1984, which is famous for it's portrayal of government as being overpowering and restrictive of personal freedoms. In several instances, Orwell uses the dialogue between his characters to argue that when people choose protection over freedom, they lose a part of themselves and become almost zombie-like. Speaking of the community in chapter 5, he writes that "until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious"(Orwell 5). In this way, the community is seen as powerless. Not only did they surrender their personal freedoms for the collective whole, but they also relinquished control of their fists.
A later Science Fiction interpretation of Orwell's "1984"and More's "Utopia"named "Little Brother" attempts to continue raising these issues but in a more realistic setting. Among countless other things, "Little Brother" comments on the use of "EZpasses" and pressures it's audience to recognize the danger in allowing the government to monitor and track your every move. (Upon first reading this I thought it was a stretch - until this week when I received a 130.00 ticket in the mail from my spring break trip to South Carolina this year. Even though I was not actually caught speeding - I'm from Jersey, I can't help myself - I was given a ticket because the time elapsed between one EZpass scan to the next was considered too short for me to have been going the speed limit). Anyway, all three texts raise similar issues. I find it interesting how many years this same storyline/argument has been going on in literature, society, and government without resolution.
Interesting points! It is always a question of society how much involvement is too much? I have a feeling that question will be raised throughout the life of humanity and will never truly be solved. I enjoyed that you cited works from other authors on the topic in your rumination, as well. It really gave me a chance to explore other opinions of published authors. Great work!
ReplyDeleteUsing EZpass as an example of how our government today is slowly becoming more "all-encompassing" was a good idea. As technology advances, so do the ways the governments can monitor their citizens. As for whether or not the individual is better than the whole, I would say it depends on the history of the groups involved.
ReplyDeleteIn the New York times recently I read an article about how the people of japan aren't looting and doing other things that we have come to hear about in the papers after a disaster hits an area. It also mentioned in it how even the Yakuza (organized crime) was helping to police the damaged areas and get people to safety during the disaster. They attributed this to the fact that Japanese society focuses more on putting the entirety of society first instead of the individual when faced of disasters like the earthquake/tsunami. Overall I'd say it depends on the governemnt and the people it governs as to how much freedom must be given up in order to preserve the way of life they currently have.
I also read Little Brother so I enjoyed how you used that in your example. Wow! about the speeding ticket. I didn't realize they were clocking you from one reading to the next! And your right, no matter the timeline some of the same problems just seem to keep cropping up!
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read Utopia I looked at it through the lens of having read Orwell's 1984, and I couldn't help but notice the similarities between the two works. For me, Utopia was primarily about the social dilemma, and how one decides the importance of their self or their civic duty to the societal whole.
ReplyDeleteI loved your rumination and I think you hit both sides of this argument very well. It all comes down to that people have different definitions of happiness. By creating a society where everything is fair and the same doesn't necessarily make everyone happy. Personally, I think individual freedom and rights are more important. It is true this creates more rebellion against social norms and that creates more problems for our society and community to deal with; however, I think that if you asked anyone what they wanted to get out of their life they would say happiness and if you are not allowed to express yourself, go after your dreams, and debate your opinions I think you would find a lot less happy citizens.
ReplyDeleteGreat rumination!! I have never read 1984, but I always enjoy when people in this class find similarities to other writings.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of "fair" is something I feel like everyone struggles with their entire life. As an Elementary Ed major, I expect to hear a lot of "that's not fair!" in the future. But one of the most memorable things I have learned so far is, as a teacher you need to remember that being fair isn't that everyone gets the same. Being fair means everyone gets what they need. I think that can be applicable across aspects of life, and was interesting to consider in relation to Utopia.
i liked how you've brought in Orwell's work, 1984. i have never read it but it sounds interesting. It seems to me that these utopian stories frequently share similarities with tales of dystopia. much like the relationship between Fight Club and Utopia that the professor pointed out. I would agree with Orwell that the more you choose protection over personal freedom the more zombie-like you become. and also the more power that the government gains the more freedom the individual must sacrifice (as you pointed out with the example of EZpass surveillance).
ReplyDeleteThere's a happy medium, I think, one I don't really adhere to. I am politically disengaged in every way--all I really care about is MY personal happiness, MY personal freedoms, etc. This might change once I grow older/lose dependency-status/actually have a family and hopefully get actively involved in politics. But if I'm being honest here, all I really care about is myself.
ReplyDelete