Reflecting on this Semester

This semester in Social Utopias has been a very long learning process. I came into class with very basic skills in writing, reading, and thinking and all of the work that we did helped me to develop those skills. Reading so many challenging texts, discussing them and writing about them helped me to sharpen all of my skills.

My writing process has been an absolute roller coaster but in the end I think I have improved my writing skills so much. At the beginning of this year the only writing format I was comfortable with was the five paragraph essay and even that was a struggle. Teachers in high school always told me that I need to improve my clarity, diction, and syntax. While this is still a work in process I think it is fair to say that I have come a long way. One of the biggest advancements that I have made is a focus on structure and clarity. I have worked on writing strong and to the point topic sentences that reinforce my thesis. From there I have worked on making sure my paragraphs are clear in order to strengthen my overall argument. A helpful technique that I have worked on is making a reverse outline after I have written my first draft to make sure that I do not stray from my topic. This process has been so helpful and the progress it has made is pretty evident in my writing especially in the progression of response papers to my final essay.

I am going to demonstrate my progress with examples from several of my response papers. At the very beginning of the year in response paper #2 I had a lot of work to do in developing my writing. The way I began my first body paragraph was not very tactful. I said, ‘The first way that justice is defined is “to speak the truth and repay what is borrowed’ (Plato, 5). Cephalus and Polemarchus explain this first definition with lots of confidence” (Response Paper #2). Firstly, it was not a good choice to start a paragraph with a quote. I think that I thought that it was crafty but in reality it is hard to give a paragraph good structure without a solid topic sentence. I should have started with a sentence that was more relevant to my thesis and then moved into the definition of justice. Additionally, the sentence that followed my quote was vague and did not provide any analysis of the definition that I chose. I am happy to say that I am able to pick out my mistakes from past work.

My third response paper was structured slightly better and and evidenced some learning but not quite enough. The structure was better as each paragraph had a topic sentence that was more focused and the paragraphs attempted to support my thesis. However, there were lots of problems in my diction and syntax. One of the sentences I wrote said, “Each individual in Kallipolis is content because each person is assigned to a job that they are good at” (Response Paper #3). This sentence is not strong as the word “each” is repeated. Additionally, the word choice is weak as I used the word “good” to describe the way a person works. I look at response papers like this one and look back at how much I have improved in simple word choice. I am more thoughtful when I edit my papers so I look for strong word choice and attempt to eliminate repetition.

Jumping forward to Essay II is a great example of how my writing improved over the course of the semester. This essay demonstrates everything that I learned in the writing process. I worked hard to create a thorough outline with strong evidence and then developed my first draft after that. I then proceeded to edit that essay around six times, each time looking for something different. I looked at structure, flow, clarity, word choice, evidence, and punctuation in order to make sure this essay was as flawless as it could be. One example of my writing is: “More notes that the ‘one and only path to the welfare of the public is the equal allocation of goods’ (More 47). He resolves that if this change in private property can be enacted, then people will be treated fairly and receive equal opportunities” (Essay II). I am really proud of the formal tone and strong statements I make in this sentence. I am also proud of my use of evidence through quote incorporation in this section. While essay II was not perfect it was a huge improvement from my initial writing samples.

My reading methods have improved as I have explored many challenging philosophical texts. Plato’s Republic was a hard piece of writing to get through but I worked hard to read slowly and took the time to highlight and annotate the pages. Spending more time with close reading helped me to get a lot more out of the text. I was able to find the meaning the author was intending and then looked further into the writing so that I could begin to analyze. With the other texts I took on the same method and with all of this practice it continued to improve. One specific moment that I remember from reading the texts was while reading More’s Utopia was analyzing the role of government in the city of Utopia. I did close reading to determine how leaders were elected so that I could properly use it as evidence in an essay. Using close reading to look for evidence has really helped me to strengthen my writing.

Before I started this class I had no idea that I was not properly honing my critical thinking skills. I learned to not just look at the obvious conclusion from the author’s writing but to think harder. I began to narrow in on themes from the text and challenge my self to identify the author’s intended meaning. In the past I never realized that when I analyzed texts I always immediately jumped to my own conclusions and interpretations. Now I have worked on taking time to see first what the author was trying to say because that helps to inform my interpretations. I have also looked into thinking about connecting texts. Some of the most interesting discussions we had in class were when we would make comparisons between current texts and texts that we had read in the past. As we read Rousseau we made so many connections with More’s writing and ideas and that really helped me strengthen the ideas that I learned believe can only benefit my academic skill set.

One skill that we spent a lot of time developing was oral communication. We contributed to high intensity discussions and debates about the text we were reading. Certain exercises like the one where we were forced to make new arguments and add to the existing arguments of our class mates were very helpful. Additionally, we had several group presentations where we had to work on presenting information as a group and I think this worked really nicely as our groups learned to work well together. Finally, we had our final presentation on our research project and that worked on condensing a huge amount of information and thoughts into a short individual presentation. This helped to test this skills that I had been building all of this semester.

My absolute favorite part of this class was the outside the classroom learning experiences that we were lucky enough to have. The first experience we had was our visit to the Twin Oaks community. Twin Oaks is a commune where all of the people in the community work together to sustain their society. This trip was such a good experience because it felt like were getting to visit a real live example of the types of utopia we had been studying. Our tour guide really helped us to understand the businesses that Twin Oaks ran to help generate income. They produce tofu and build hammocks to generate income for the community. The residents work in cooking, cleaning, those two businesses and some of their other businesses in order to keep the community running smoothly. Instead of rotating jobs the way some communities that we studied had done they just fulfilled their required amount of weekly work hours. It was also interesting to see who ran the community and they said it was mainly small committees who took on important tasks and got them accomplished. Getting to see the utopian societal processes in action was really exciting because it put all that we were learning into action.

Later on in the semester we had another incredible learning experience when we learned about CHAT and then got to see it in person. Percy Strickland came into our class to explain the CHAT community to our class. CHAT was a community that him and his wife started to help improve the lives of the children of the poor community of Churchill. They started it to help students in school and to give them a community to stay with after school. Then as a class we went to one of the main buildings of CHAT and we got to see first hand a part of their community. Afterwards we took a bus tour of the Churchill neighborhood so that we could see the community they were working with. While this was not a Utopian community in the traditional sense it was a place where Percy land his wife were trying to improve the community. They were trying to level the playing field and give more resources and support to people who do not have enough so that they have a better chance of succeeding. This type of utopian thinking where people try to bring happiness to others is absolutely inspiring. Our out of class learning experiences gave me a chance to apply our class lessons to everyday life and it made everything we learned more relevant and important.

In the end I am so happy with what I have accomplished in this course. I have developed my thinking, reading, writing skills and enjoyed new experiences outside the classroom. I think the important conclusion is that all of these skills work together and improve together. I improved my writing a lot but that would not have happened if I hadn’t honed in my thinking or reading skills. Similarly, our discussions and outside the classroom learning helped me to have a broader learning experience. It is so unique to be able to apply what you learned in class to real life and I had the opportunity to do that. I am thrilled to say that I have come away from this course a better student.

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Jessica Nadel

What are the problems and challenges that Flora Tristan faces as she as she travels the world?

Women traveling alone during the 18^th century encountered many obstacles. Flora Tristan   encounters many challenges during her travels around the world. She observes many social problems that plague society in many different places and attempts to solve them. Flora Tristan is intent on bringing social justice to people who face discrimination which includes women and the working classes. During her crusade to make change the challenges she faces are the ignorant beliefs and unkind attitudes of the people she is trying to help, the people she meets along the way, and her own resulting negative attitude.

One of the first barriers that she faces is when she tries to help start a worker’s movement. Unfortunately, the laborers are not intelligent enough to understand her proposal in Worker’s Union. She sets out on a tour of France to meet with different groups of workers so she can explain her plan and get them on board. The difficulty is that people do not understand what she is saying. For example, at one of her first meetings a man read her writing out loud and he “understood nothing” (Tristan 125). He did not understand the concept of an association of working men which is something she saw as a simple concept. Unfortunately, lower class workers who have been forced to work long jobs from a young age never had the chance to be educated. If they were educated, then they might not only understand the basics of her plan but also the intricacies. Tristan faces the challenge of informing uneducated workers about her plans to help give them more.

Another complication Tristan faces is that the proletariat are not even aware that there is the possibility of having better working conditions. Many of the workers that Flora Tristan speaks with are living tough lives but they are not aware that there is anything better out there for them. The workers had never considered forming a union because they had no idea what positive results that would bring for them. Until the workers truly understand the benefits, Tristan will find her movement challenging. During her travels on a boat she interviews the workers and she “found on the boat not a single prospect for conversion” (Tristan 130). The fact that the men that who complete hard labor daily would reject her plan is disheartening. Their lack of enthusiasm only stems from the fact that they cannot even imagine a life with better working conditions. It does not seem possible and they do not know what it entails so they do not feel that it is worth it to take action. These workers have never been given such a positive opportunity that it feels surreal that attaining better working conditions and better pay could ever be achieved. Tristan must face this lack of understanding and lack of enthusiasm and push through it so that she can make change.

Tristan is also forced to confront the problem of gender discrimination when she tries to make change. Flora Tristan is astounded by how ignorant England’s House of Commons is when it comes to gender equality. Women are not only barred from serving in the House of Commons but they are also not allowed to attend its sessions. In this way “half the country is deprived (…) of civil and political rights” as they cannot advocate for themselves nor understand what legislation will effect them (Tristan 57). As a result, Tristan felt that the only way she could understand what was going on would be to dress up as a man so that she could enter. During the attempt she was identified as a woman and scorned because of that. The men truly could not understand why any woman could deserve to witness one of the country’s legislative bodies. She is not able to do proper research as she attempts to give women equal rights. Tristan struggles as she is put down by so many people simply for trying to help further the rights of women.

Tristan’s own attitude is problematic as it is not enthusiastic enough about individual workers to incentivize them to join her movement. She is not only unenthusiastic but also rather negative about some of the workers that she tries to help. This is a problem because the only way a labor movement can be started is if working class individuals are willing to ally themselves with Tristan. Unfortunately, she is too invested in the cause to take the time to understand the workers. She is so impatient with the laborers that she makes ignorant statements such as, “It is to the principle that I am dedicated, and not to individuals.—Individuals are unintelligent, conceited, stupid, ignorant, and insolent” (Tristan 128). She speaks so negatively about the workers and does not even try to understand them. The workers are uneducated and are not even able to comprehend the language of the plan she is putting forth. Thus, it is easy to understand why working class individuals would be hesitant to work together with someone who makes such patronizing statements. She is simply not patient enough to make the best of this situation.

With all of the challenges that Flora Tristan faces during her journey it is not a surprise that eventually she develops a negative attitude towards her pursuits. She has to deal with the workers who are so uneducated. She must try to explain her plan to give them equality even though they cannot possibly understand what she is saying. She must also put up with the gender discrimination that she faces in the House of Commons. The cumulative challenges she faces makes one question how she manages to pursue her goal of eliminating the social problems that plague society.

Works Cited

Tristan, Flora. Utopian Feminist: Her Travel Diaries and Personal Crusade. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Jessica Nadel

What are the factors that have caused the kibbutzim population to fluctuate?

Lubell’s article The New Rise of Israel’s Kibbutzim: More Young Families Opt for Communal Life explores the factors that have caused the kibbutzim population to fluctuate. The first kibbutz, Degania was founded in 1910 and many things have changed since that time. Lubell analyzes both facts and personal interviews to help him understand these changes. Based on this article it appears that there are two factors that have influenced the population of Israel’s kibbutzim. Social values and economic situations are the main factors that have caused movement in the number of kibbutzim inhabitants.

A kibbutz in theory is a socialist community where all of its members contribute to the sustenance of the kibbutz. Kibbutzim were originally founded so people could implement socialism into a functioning society. The pioneers were immigrants who were intent upon living in Israel as well as creating a community with shared property and values. This type of community was exceptional as it sought to place citizens of a community at an even playing field where each person had enough resources to survive yet because there was no private property everyone was equal.

The necessity of survival in a new country made kibbutzim very popular. On kibbutzim members produced crops and built their homes all on their own. They collaborated to provide sustenance for the entire community. They also socialized as a community as they valued each other’s company. At a time when survival was challenging it was an extreme comfort to survive as a team. However as Israeli society developed outside of kibbutzim it became easier to live so people began to question whether or not this society was right for them. They saw people with new technologies and lifestyles where individual nuclear families survived on their own. The necessity that was part of the motivation to create the first kibbutz was gone and all that survived was the ideology.

It was the introduction of industrialization and the resulting economic hardship that caused a major dip in membership. Lubell points out that “the pioneering socialist and Zionist spirit that drove the movement in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s ran head-on into the consumerist, free-market 1980s and came off worse” (Lubell). Consumerist values were almost completely opposite of traditional kibbutz values but communities were forced to adapt to the industry to remain financially feasible. Industry values financial success and advancement meanwhile kibbutzim valued happiness and equality. Unfortunately, industry became the only available option to keep kibbutzim financially in check. Communities ran their own businesses and scaled back on agricultural work in order to generate sufficient income. This worked until economic crisis slammed Israel in the 80s and people moved out to the cities as kibbutzim began to struggle financially. This was the cause of one of the worst population plummets.

In the past few years following the challenging economic problems kibbutzim have been gaining back the membership they lost. Recently there has been a resurgence in membership as kibbutzim have once again become financially sound. Kibbutzim have become appealing to “young families seeking to escape the high cost of living” who are also interested in gaining a supportive community (Lubell). People are attracted to an affordable lifestyle that also minimizes the stress and competitive nature of the cities. Kibbutzim provide economic support for the whole community because as long as they are working they are housed and fed. The financial benefits are a major factor in helping to revitalize the kibbutz following.

These communities have become more appealing and gained more members because they have eased up on their social structure. According to the socialist principles that they were founded on kibbutzim functioned based on assigned jobs and their methodical rotation. Kibbutzim used to employ all of their residents in their agriculture and various businesses but now people are not required to participate in kibbutz employment. Now “in most of the communities, members no longer have to work largely in kibbutz-assigned jobs for a modest monthly allowance. Instead they can pursue their own professional paths and earn their own wages, a portion of which may go back to the kibbutz” (Lubell). Allowing people to work outside of the kibbutz in whatever career field they choose is innovative but it also eliminates a lot of the principles of communal living. People like Nir Ortal can pursue a career they are passionate about like working for a start-up company and still gain the benefits of a community. In a communal lifestyle all of the members of the community participate in the upkeep of the tasks that need to be done including housekeeping, cooking as well as the businesses the community owns together. In the modern model of the kibbutz this has been partially abandoned and that eliminates a sense of community and hard work that the communal lifestyle generates. However, it also allows people who are passionate about their jobs to be a part of the kibbutzim community. This has attracted many young people to move to kibbutzim because they know they can work where they love and still experience the benefits of a strong community.

Being allowed to possess private property is a value that did not exist on original kibbutzim but is a phenomenon that exists today and has made these communities more interesting. The original kibbutz emphasized that all possessions were owned by the community and the few materials each individual had were simple and uniform for example clothing. This was important as it took value off of objects and emphasized that people should appreciate important things like equality and happiness. While in ideal this was good it is challenging to keep people content with this lifestyle when the rest of society is advancing so rapidly and so much technology is being advanced for the individual. That is why many kibbutzim have introduced private property in their societies however it is limited in that members have small personal allowances so people cannot afford to possess so much. This has attracted populations to return the kibbutz as they know that they can retain certain material objects that hold special meaning for them.

The population of kibbutzim have fluctuated due to the many changes in values that have occurred and economic situations that have developed over time. In the beginning they were solid communities that helped people establish themselves in a new place. Later on the population dropped as industry developed and then later on the economy struggled. Recently, as kibbutzim began to shift away from their traditional socialist structure people have been more attracted to their affordable lifestyle. The way the structure of kibbutz society evolved since its founding caused its membership population to shift frequently.

Works Cited

Lubell, Maayan. “The New Rise of Israel’s Kibbutzim: More Young Families Opt for Communal Life.” Haaretz, June 03 2015. Accessed November 10 2015

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.659277

Warhurst, Christopher. “The End of Another Utopia? The Israeli Kibbutz and Its Industry in a Period of Transition.” Utopia Studies (1994): 103-121.

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Jessica Nadel

Property and Injustice

Society is founded on a hierarchy; certain groups of people are valued above other groups of people as exemplified by the distribution of private property. This injustice damages the quality of life for many people because they experience discrimination based on other’s negativity. More and Rousseau are both fascinated with how this inequality emerged. They are also both interested in finding a lifestyle that might avoid this injustice and create happiness for the most people. More and Rousseau argue that property is the cause of inequality in the world, but Rousseau believes that the only way to quell this has already passed meanwhile More is hopeful that he can create a solution. More’s analysis of happiness is more structured and specific than Rousseau’s because he generates a blueprint for a happy society rather than depending on an ideal image from the past.

Both More and Rousseau agree that property is the origin of conflict. More argues that private property is problematic because goods are never dispersed equally and that creates an immediate social hierarchy. He explains that “everything is shared among very few” people which leaves the majority of people struggling to survive (More 46).  Then unfortunately, only people who have been given certain advantages can live comfortably. Rousseau agrees that private property is the immediate cause of injustice in the world. He argues that the first person who created the concept of property introduced inequality and all of its evils to the world. He explains that as soon as man could possess something “many quarrels and fights were born” over these possessions (Rousseau 112). Rousseau sees that these possessions not only trigger the emergence of a social order but cause other terrible, cascading results. Property also brings out a plethora of negative traits in man like jealousy, greed, and materialism. More and Rousseau both recognize the issue of private property but their ideas diverge in how they react to this social issue.

More looks within himself to figure out how to create a happy society. He uses his existing knowledge to formulate a prototype for a functioning society that will generate the most happiness for the most people. He looks at how societies have functioned in the past and how they have failed and he sees that things began to crumble when private property was created. In More’s Utopia he describes the societies he has explored in search of a happy place as exemplified by the travels of Raphael Hythloday. Hythloday is a character that has traveled the world and lived in various countries and analyzed their government structures and values. He is disappointed in all of the places he visits and is only pleased when he reaches a place called Utopus which is More’s hand-crafted society. More notes that the “one and only path to the welfare of the public is the equal allocation of goods” (More 47). He resolves that if this change in private property can be enacted, then people will be treated fairly and receive equal opportunities. More argues that people will only be happy when they are in a new place where a different social structure can be implemented.

More is optimistic that he can create a harmonious society by alleviating the challenges created by inequality. More believes that the way to combat this problem is to restructure society and eliminate private property altogether. He proposes creating a place where everyone lives off of communal resources. In everyday life private property is never distributed equally and thus only a very small percentage of people have the chance to experience stability and happiness. Meanwhile if people could live in a way where there was always shelter and enough food and resources then there could be the most happiness for the most people. More lays out a detailed plan that explains job assignments and housing situations that could allow the community to be sustainable and harmonious. More even accounts for why people would not be greedy because “there is plenty of everything [so] no one need fear that no one would want to ask for more than he needs?” (More 68). He explains simply that when people live in a place where their work provides for the whole community, more people have the potential to be happy. This plan eliminates private property so people share goods which helps to do away with the bad traits man developed. It would also maintain equality and keep people generally happy.

Rousseau also examines history to look for a point in time where people were happy. His unique approach looks to man from his earliest state and all the way through evolution. In his search for the happiest point in time he is looking to see where inequality emerged which in turn created discontent. In his process he examines natural man who lived purely to survive because he did not have the capacity for thoughts or memory. He then looks further into the development of man as he acquires thought, language and skills and is able to pinpoint an exact moment where inequality emerged. He comes to the conclusion that “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of land” and claimed it as his own, created property, establishing inequality (Rousseau109). From this first instance of inequality Rousseau then proceeds to describe the development of man in terms of justice, government, and society. From that point on all of man’s developments are dark because they are tainted with the evils that inequality generated. From these observations of the history of man Rousseau challenges himself to figure out when man could have been the most content.

Rousseau argues that the moment in time when most people felt the most fulfilled was between their natural state and their developed state. After analyzing the development of man Rousseau does not see a future for happiness, instead he looks to the past and says man has already prospered. Rousseau notes how before natural man possessed property, he was happiest because he had no cruel intentions nor any thoughts at all besides a will to survive. In this empty state he caused no major problems. However, while natural man was uncomplicated Rousseau understands that without comprehension man could not be truly happy either. He believes that man during the “period of development of human faculties, the golden mean between the indolence of the primitive state and the petulant activity of our own pride, must have been the happiest epoch and the most lasting” for the human race (Rousseau 115). Rousseau envisions during this time period a nuclear family living in a simple shelter as they communicate, perform tasks, form memories, and continue to learn new skills. Man was developing mentally and he was learning but man still had few possessions so he was neither greedy nor evil because he did not yet know enough act malevolently. In this moment, man was advanced enough to have a concept of his happiness and store it as a memory yet he was still not exposed to evil. For these reasons this must have been his happiest period because he was living a stable life yet he was still uncorrupted by the possession of excessive property.

While neither of these moments in time are particularly realistic, More’s blueprint for creating a happy society is meticulous meanwhile Rousseau’s concept only exists as a memory from the past. Rousseau’s argument that man peaked at an earlier time is a valid argument, however it is completely beyond our reach because he has found a happier place in the past. He does not think in terms of the using ideas from that happy time in the past to create a prosperous society in the future and instead continues to commemorate what has passed. Meanwhile More’s plan while extremely idealistic is thoughtful and detailed. It gives an exact plan for how to form a harmonious society simply by establishing a lifestyle based on communal resources. More’s thoughts about society are both creative and scrupulous while Rousseau’s happy society is nothing more than a vision from the past.

Many may argue that Rousseau’s vision of happiness is more realistic than More’s vision, because it is more simplistic but neither vision is practical. More’s ideas are well-calculated however he never illustrates a method of implementing  a Utopian society. He even uses a metaphor in Utopia and explains that Hythloday cannot even locate the island of Utopia and only arrives there by accident. The society of Utopia is clever but inaccessible just like the theory of creating a harmonious society. He is creative in structuring an island without private property but he never elaborates on how to achieve that type of lifestyle. Rousseau’s elementary vision of happiness exists within a small family before there were many diverse ideas or possessions. The idea of living with so little and being happy is intelligent but it is also incredibly theoretical and exists only as a thought. While Rousseau’s thoughts are less complicated they are still not sensible. Neither Rousseau nor More generate realistic ideas about society.

More and Rousseau disagree on when man is in a state of contentment. More provides an alternative to the corruption found in everyday society meanwhile Rousseau says man is doomed to experience corruption because he has already experienced the highest level of happiness. They agree that private property is toxic and to remedy that one must phase it out. Private property creates large socio-economic disparities that are pernicious for the population. If people could all live life on an even playing field then much of the world’s evil would be eradicated.

Word Count: 1645

Works Cited

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on Inequality (London: Penguin, 1984)

Thomas More, Utopia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001)

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Jessica Nadel

In Plato’s Republic Plato makes an attempt to create a lifestyle in which everything is just. He believes that if everything is just than there will be happiness and harmony for the whole community. In this work, Plato uses Socrates and his dialogue to break down ideas about justice and details about how to form a utopian society. In the creation of this society, Socrates develops the role of the guardians a group of outstanding individuals who are in charge of defending the city. Socrates presents the guardians as a group of people that live an egalitarian lifestyle that will ultimately allow them to live happily. After analyzing the text, I have come to the conclusion that the guardian lifestyle does not ensure nor even promote a happy lifestyle for the guardians.

Plato presents the guardians as the most impressive people in society whose job it is to enforce justice in Kallipolis. They put the city’s best interests before their own. Socrates crafts the system so that people are well evaluated before they are selected to be guardians. Aside from the fact they have to be physically fit and musically trained to ensure a diversity of skills, they must also live in a unique way. Their main job is to defend the city from enemies, but they must also maintain peace within the city walls. Their outward demeanor must also be very specific. Socrates argues that “besides being spirited” the guardians should also be intellectually well-rounded (Plato 375e10). If a guardian is spirited, it means he will have the passion to defend his people. Additionally, if he is philosophical he can be intelligent about the decisions he makes and be certain about what will truly benefit everyone.

In Kallipolis the guardians live communally without private property. This lifestyle allows the guardians to always have enough resources so that they will survive but also never have anything in excess that will distract them from their work or create a social disparity. Socrates believes that “wealth and poverty (…) makes for luxury, idleness, and revolution” because people are never content (Plato 422a1). In order to combat the problems that money brings the guardians will live differently so that they can enforce justice. Communal living and the elimination of private property are the things Socrates suggests to allow the guardians to be happy and prepared for their jobs. His argument is that if people are not focusing on communal possessions than they have more time to focus on their community, relationships, job, etc. all things that really impact someone’s happiness.

While the guardian lifestyle is unique in its living arrangements, it is a lifestyle that is not ideal for keeping the guardians happy. Communal living is good for creating a community but it also involves a lot of sharing and people’s access to only necessary resources. If communal living was the only practice that these guardians knew then maybe it would be accepted but they can see people living in their own city who are allowed to possess private property. Adeimantus makes this exact argument that this lifestyle might “not (be) making these men very happy” because compared to the producers who receive a salary and can purchase material goods the guardians have nothing and they may become very jealous (419a1). Another problem with this lifestyle is that the guardians are forced into their job based on their skills and not their desire to do their job. It is hard to keep people happy when they are not doing what they like and it is impossible to imagine that every skilled person is content with being a guardian. The system for family life is also controversial and could also leave people upset. Many people like to have just a few close relationships with their family but the guardian family system forces people to have a huge family which provides fewer opportunities for close connections. For all of these reasons, it is easy to see that the guardians may be dissatisfied about the way that they have to live.

Coming from the other side, there are still several reasons why this communal lifestyle could truly contribute to the overall happiness of the guardians. Firstly, they are a highly selective community of the brightest, most talented individuals who are passionate defending their city. Since they are a group of honorable individuals united in the mission to defend their city it is likely that they will work well together. Another important benefit of this communal lifestyle is that there are always enough resources to sustain themselves and yet there is never any jealousy or wealth disparity because there is no private property. These lifestyle choices are really important because they create happiness for the guardians and also contribute to the utopian vision.

These arguments are valid and yet it is impossible to ignore the huge potential for discontent amongst the guardians. Guardians are supposed to be happy and live justly yet that is impossible when their lives are not even created on a foundation of justice. If Kallipolis is to be founded on equality, then it makes no sense that the guardians are chosen selectively. Instead guardians should be selected using job rotations that would allow for everyone to get an equal opportunity to have an important position. Additionally, the foundation of the guardian work ethic is completely unjust as it is all based on lies. Socrates realized the challenge of creating a strong work ethic in an egalitarian community so he said “we will tell them that they have gold and silver of a divine sort in their souls as a permanent gift from the gods” so that they will work hard and gain motivation from this honor bestowed upon them by the divine (Plato 416e4). This calculated lie leads me to believe that the guardians could never be truly happy as everything that keeps them motivated is false. In addition to motivation, ambition is a major factor in keeping people productive in life and this communal lifestyle does not have room for people with that characteristic. There is no room for growth or change for the guardians which is a major reason that they could never live happily the way that Socrates describes.

After evaluating both arguments I am certain the guardian lifestyle does not allow for the guardians to reach their ultimate level of happiness. Some benefits of a communal lifestyle are a strong community with a consistent store of resources. The problems with the guardian community however far outweigh these benefits. Seeing as they can watch their fellow citizens prosper and they themselves have no room for growth makes it impossible for the guardians to be content. In truth the guardian lifestyle appears to be so unjust that it puts a hole through Socrates whole designation of Kallipolis as a utopian community.

Word Count: 1179

Works Cited

Plato. Republic. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2004)

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Jessica Nadel

Is Tristan realistic in creating a movement to make change in the labor industry?

I believe that Flora Tristan is naïve and uninformed as she tries to make change for the laborers. She hardly takes into account the way the proletariat will react to her plan. The workers are uneducated and unaware that they could have a better future. When Flora Tristan, a stranger, approaches them with a passionate call to action it is understandable that they would be overwhelmed and not in support of her plan. For these reasons Tristan is not realistic in creating a movement to make change in the labor industry.

One of the first barriers that she faces is that the laborers are not intelligent enough to understand her proposal in Worker’s Union. She sets out on a tour of France to meet with different groups of workers so she can explain her plan and get them on board. The problem is that people do not understand what she is saying. For example, at one of her first meetings a man read her writing out loud and he “understood nothing” (125). He did not understand the concept of an association of working men which is something she saw as a simple concept.

Tristan does not care enough about individual workers to incentivize them to join her movement. This is a problem because the only way a labor movement can be started is if working class individuals are willing to ally themselves with Tristan. Unfortunately, she is too invested in the cause to take the time to understand the workers. She is so impatient with the laborers that she makes ignorant statements such as, “It is to the principle that I am dedicated, and not to indviduals.—Individuals are unintelligent, conceited, stupid, ignorant, and insolent” (128). She speaks so negatively about the workers and does not even try to understand them. The workers are uneducated and are not even able to comprehend the language of the plan she is putting forth. Thus, it is easy to understand why working class individuals would be hesitant to work together with someone who makes such patronizing statements. She is simply not patient enough to make the best of this situation.

Another reason that this movement could not be successful is that proletariat were not even aware that there is the possibility of having better working conditions. Many of the workers that Flora speaks with are living tough lives but they are not aware that there is anything better out there for them. The workers had never considered forming a union and what positive results that would bring for them. Until the workers truly understand the benefits, Tristan will find her movement challenging. She travels on a boat and interviews the workers and she “found on the boat not a single prospect for conversion” (130). I can understand that it would have been challenging for these workers to quickly support Tristan’s plan because the idea was so new to them. People need to be passionate about making change and it takes time for that to develop.

For all of these reasons it is not likely that Tristan will be able to start a movement to make change for the working class.

Works Cited

Tristan, Flora. Utopian Feminist: Her Travel Diaries and Personal Crusade. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

I pledge that I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Jessica Nadel

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.659277
Are people more inclined to move kibbutzim because they no longer exhibit the communal values that they were founded on?

Kibbutzim were originally founded based on two principals: zionism and socialism. The pioneers were intent upon living in Israel as well as creating a community with shared property and values. In the past few years following economic problems kibbutzim have lost many of their members. However, recently there has been a resurgence in membership and spirit as well as a change in the values of the kibbutz. The current structure of the kibbutz embodies some communal values developed during its founding but much of that has been eliminated and more members have moved on to kibbutzim as they have become more privatized.

Possession of private property is a value that did not exist on original kibbutzim but is a phenomenon that exists today. Originally kibbtuzniks lived in a community where they owned nothing and yet they owned everything. They would live in houses and wear clothes and eat food that the whole community owned. A recent development is that people can own their own possessions including things as big as their houses. For members of a kibbutz “salaries go to the kibbutz and members either get half the sum back or an allowance” which gives them the opportunity to purchase private goods (Lubell). In the past the income kibbutzniks generated at work would provide enough resources for them to live. Now people want more than their basic resources and they can now purchase that as they are no longer required to turn their full income over to the kibbutz community. This has incentivized people like Viner-Shwarzbard to return to the kibbutz she grew up on since she can now maintain certain possessions she acquired since she left the kibbutz.

Kibbutzim used to employ all of their residents in their agriculture and various businesses but now people are not required to participate in kibbutz employment. Now “in most of the communities, members no longer have to work largely in kibbutz-assigned jobs for a modest monthly allowance. Instead, they can pursue their own professional paths and earn their own wages, a portion of which may go back to the kibbutz” (Lubell). Allowing people to work outside of the kibbutz in whatever career field they choose is exciting but it also eliminates a lot of the principles of communal living. People like Nir Ortal can pursue a career they are passionate about like working for a start-up company and still gain the benefits of of a community. In a communal lifestyle all of the members of the community participate in the upkeep of the tasks that need to be done including housekeeping, cooking as well as the businesses the community owns together. In the modern model of the kibbutz this has been partially abandoned and that eliminates a sense of community and hard work that the communal lifestyle generates. However, it also allows people who are passionate about their jobs to be a part of the kibbutzim community.

Kibbutz appeal was in decline and much of the reason that kibbutz following has increased is due to the privatization which makes kibbutz life more appealing. Prospective residents are eager to experience a rural lifestyle in a close community that is different then their lifestyle. They are excited to experience the perks of communal life without having to commit fully to abandoning their possessions because communities have moved away from most of their founding principles.

Works Cited

Maayan Lubell, “The New Rise of Israel’s Kibbutzim: More Young Families Opt for Communal Life,” Haaretz, June 03 2015, November 10 2015

How does Rousseau justify that man is best in his natural, uncivilized state?

Rousseau argues that man is best in his natural, uncivilized state. He argues this by comparing savage man to civilized man and revealing how many problems civilized man creates compared to savage man. Natural man has many talents and a tendency to avoid conflict which makes him promising compared to civilized man who gets involved in many conflicts.

Firstly, in terms of physical strengths and capabilities, uncivilized man is far superior.

Man is strong and capable because he is forced to use his own might to accomplish certain tasks that enable his survival. He is said to have “all one’s forces constantly at one’s command” which makes him unbeatable if he were to fight civilized man in his unarmed state (82). Additionally, while uncivilized man does not have a wealth of possessions, he is naturally equipped to brave the elements, for example in the winter if man is cold he will grow hair to keep himself warm and he will also be resourceful to find goods that surround him like fur. In contrast civilized man is reliant upon possessions which makes him lazy and unable to solve problems with the same wit as uncivilized man.

Man in his original state is so simple that he wants nothing but to survive. Wants and desires lead people astray from their instincts and they can cause people to act without thinking. Rousseau uses the example of how people develop illnesses from making silly choices like eating unhealthy and staying up late just to satisfy illogical desires. He argues that for civilized humans “most of [their] ills are of [their] own making” (84-85). Meanwhile natural man has no desires, he only has instincts. He encounters no problems and he creates no problems for himself because he is so simple. He has no desire to be selfish or competitive and thus he can remain triumphant in society.

Savage man is content to wander and survive meanwhile developed man constantly looks to make progress. Rousseau argues that man’s decision to enclose land for private property is the cause of all social problems. He notes “how much misery and horror the human race would have been spared” if people could have just continued sharing the land (109). Meanwhile savage man never desires property for himself so he never creates any social problems. Savage man’s ability to share is important because it avoids creating disparities between people who own land and people who do not.

Since he is so easily content, savage man does not waste his time with leisure. He does not know enough to do much else besides wander and survive. Meanwhile civilized man with all of his developments has time for leisure. This spare time gave him the chance to develop commodities which were “the first source of the evil” because it placed value on possessions and created a social disparity (113). Unlike civilized man savage man has no possessions and still he is content.

Uncivilized man’s passive demeanor makes him far superior to civilized man. His physical strength and inability to be selfish peg him as a model citizen.

The exhibit source helps give the reader a more informed perspective on sixteenth century politics because it presents opposing viewpoints to everything that More critiques in society. This allows the reader a chance to understand whether of not More’s criticisms of society were valid. More believed that a utopia would be the way to solve problems with society because creating a place where people have no private property could be harmonious. Meanwhile the article “On Private Property, Riches, and Poverty” notes that there are problems with society but it still says that living communally is not an effective lifestyle and that it is necessary to have private property. These two sources have contrasting views on how to make society the best that it can be.

The article argues that private property and the unequal distribution of wealth is okay because a person can “be rich without being out of the state of grace” (249). In other words, people should not make judgments about the rich because they can still be good people. The article argues that wealthy people should do charity and give back to the community but they also have a right to be rich and enjoy some of those benefits. More contrasts this argument directly and says that it is unjust that wealthy people who work in such idle jobs “live luxuriously and splendidly in complete idleness” meanwhile other people have to work so hard for so little.

Their arguments completely diverge on the topic of distribution of wealth. The article poses the concept of redistribution of wealth equally among a population. The exhibit source says that even the poor “would be so little enriched by what [they] received that [they] would still not be much more than beggar(s)” and the wealthy would be reduced to almost nothing (249-250). Essentially there is just not enough wealth in the world to put everyone at a happy medium so instead the article suggests that at least some people should have some wealth and happiness because there are always going to be people who have to struggle. More says the exact opposite and uses the example of a famine year where if a person were to collect all of the grain from the rich “you would find so much grain that if it had been divided among those swept away by starvation” they would not notice a difference because their surplus is so excessive (133). More in contrast believes redistributing resources is important because there are enough resources for everyone to get by so that nobody starves.

Another point the article makes about wealth is that the luxuries that the rich spend their money on are important because they employ other people and help them make a living. If people were not buying so many products than there might not be enough jobs. More counters that immediately and says that “a blacksmith or farmer works so long and so hard” and yet they receive so little payment for this hard work (131). In a sense More is saying that maybe the wealthy could just put the money they are spending on unnecessary luxuries towards the lives of these hardworking people and who could work less rigorous hours and still be able to survive.

The fact that this article so directly opposes More’s viewpoints helps me get well-rounded information on the state of 16^th century society. I think that being more informed because I have heard multiple viewpoints helps me as a reader get a better idea as to whether or not I support More’s critique of society.

Hexter presents the first argument in the article and contends that More wrote about utopia from the perspective of someone “who was at the same time a deeply committed Christian and a social revolutionary” (3). He believed that More wrote the second book of Utopia from a Christian humanist perspective. Hexter explains that More was tricky and developed this major ironic paradox. He says that although the utopians were described as pagans the irony is that “their way of life stamps the nominal pagans of Utopia as true Christians” meanwhile the Europeans can be closer equated with Christians (6). Hexter argues More is showing not telling that this lifestyle is the best for a moral Christian to live in. He is showing that while they are not practicing Christian rituals they are instead living a virtuous life and according to this movement living morally is the most important thing.

Bradshaw counters this argument and says that this is a big stretch and More did not intend to create this paradox.  He says that if More intended to create this paradox then scripture, Christian practices, or even Jesus were not aspects of Christianity that More found to be necessary. It is true that Christian humanists wanted to reform the church and move the church away from emphasis on rituals toward a larger emphasis on virtuosity but that did not include eliminating the most important texts from Christianity. Bradshaw points out that Erasmus one of the most famous humanists dedicated much of his life to translating a bible. Thus as a Christian humanist he would not have seen an ideal Christian society as a place that has no bible. Erasmus would have commended a more virtuous society but no Christian humanist would say that “virtue somehow subsumes the Christian revelation as if to say ‘virtue is Christ’” because there are more components to Christianity than morality (8).  Bradshaw acknowledges the intelligence of Hexter’s claim but he points out that Christianity without its scripture is not Christianity and it is not what humanists intended to create if they were to reform the religion.

Bradshaw also finds another hole in the Christian humanist argument in regards to communal living. Christian teachings show that communal living is not seen as something that people should strive for if they want to be the perfect Christian. Bradshaw points out that the doctrine of the Fall says that “with the corruption of human nature through sin” it became necessary for individuals to possess private property (15). The whole basis for utopia is communal living and yet the doctrine of the Fall says that people are too corrupted by sin to live in this way. Bradshaw brings his argument together by pointing out that More could not be suggesting that utopians were living as ideal Christians if Christian doctrine does not accept communal living.

Bradshaw’s final argument is most similar to the argument that Fenlon presents. Fenlon, like Hexter, comes from a humanist perspective and believes that society needs to be reformed. Unlike Hexter he does not attribute More’s writing to a Christian perspective. Fenlon attempts to explain a point of confusion in the book which is why More the character would critique the society the author More has created.  Fenlon says that creating an ideal society like utopia is an honorable task that More has taken on but it is just simply impossible. He says that trying to correct European society “by reforming the state (is) an illusory” goal because there will never be a perfect society (18). Fenlon is arguing that More thought that the humanists should have realized their goal was impossible. Bradshaw notes this argument and sees this validity yet he explains this conflict as More trying to reconcile the feasibility of this plan with its idealistic components. Bradshaw understands Fenlon’s argument that this society would be a challenge to create but he believes that More was not saying it is impossible to create this state but that it would be a challenge and that there would still need to be a “constructive and continuing dialogue” before there is any possibility of creating a utopia (27).