Roberto Mordacci
“ Reproductive Utopias and Dystopias:
More,
Campanella, Bacon and Huxley
”
Phenomenology and Mind, n. 19 - 2020,
pp. 22-33.
Many utopias include imaginary
regulations of reproductive practices.
Plato famously imagined that in his perfect State women and
children would be in common and that adequately matched couples would yield a
perfect breed (Republic, 457 c – 460 c). Yet, Plato’s Republic is more an
archetypical image of the perfect State than a real utopia.
Utopias are narratives of a
harmonious and just republic, not thought experiments that seek to project the
proper state of the soul on the “big screen” of a city, as Plato describes his
plan in the Republic (Republic, 368 d).
More’s Utopia and reproductive practices
[ H “U-topia”
του Thomas More ]
Thomas More’s Utopia does not set any a priori rules for the life
of the citizens of a perfect town. It rather reports, through the narrative of
Raphael Hythlodaeus, the customs of the inhabitants of a harmonious and
prosperous community, and then derives from that description the principles on
which the community’s life is based.
The institutions of More’s
Utopia, first published in 1516, are very different from the ones of Plato’s
Republic, especially as far as reproductive practices are concerned.
Utopia is based on a rather
traditional view of the family, with some modern innovations: for example,
priests can get married. Women get married after the age of eighteen, men after
the age of twenty-two. “Clandestine marital intercourse, if discovered and
proved, brings severe punishment on both man and woman” (More, 1995, p. 189)
and on their parents as well. More offers an indulgent reason for such rigorous
moral rules: “The reason they punish this offence so severely is that they
suppose few people would join in married love – with confinement to a single
partner and all the pretty annoyances that married life involves – unless they
were strictly restrained from promiscuous intercourse”. So, the reason for the
punishment is not so much a moralistic condemnation of the offence, but the
prevention of a cause of the fragility of families, which are the cornerstone
of the Utopian society. Apart from this, More does not seem to imply that
marriages are combined, nor that they are totally free. It is likely that his
understanding is that there is no reason for families to make “good” combined
marriages for economic or political reasons, since all citizens are equal and
do not need to have any economic or political influence. In this perspective,
the free sentiments of young men and women are de facto paramount in the choice
of the partner.
Of course, More speaks only of
heterosexual couples; homosexuality is not even mentioned. Family life in
Utopia is dominated by men: women follow their husbands in their households,
serve them during meals and manage the home. Children serve their parents and
also help during meals. Families are large: “Each household (there are six thousand of them in each city, exclusive
of the surrounding countryside) should have no fewer that ten nor more than
sixteen adults. They cannot, of course, regulate the number of minor children
in a family” (p. 135). This means that there is no demographic policy
concerning the number and sex of children allowed for each family: this is a
rather liberal rule for an ideal state, where usually (as in Plato, in
Campanella and in other authors) the overall number of citizens is artificially
kept stable by law.
There is a provision regulating the
demographic balance between the towns, and in general across the island: If a
city has too many people, the extra persons serve to make up the shortage of
population in other cities. And if the population throughout the entire island
exceeds the quota, they enrol citizens out of every city and plant a colony under their own laws on
the mainland near them. (p. 135)
Utopians are allowed to occupy
foreign land as long as the local inhabitants do not occupy or cultivate it:
“They think it is perfectly justifiable to make war on people who leave their
land idle and waste yet forbid the and possession of it to others who, by the
law of nature, ought to be supported by it” (p. 137).
There is no eugenic policy
concerning “good marriages” or “good breed”, as happens, for instance, in both
Plato and Campanella. It seems that More’s utopians can choose their partners
according to taste and that there is no control over the quality of the
offspring.
Yet, there is a rather strange custom concerning the couples
who want to get married. Hythlodaeus says: In choosing marriage partners they
solemnly and seriously follow a custom which seemed to us foolish and absurd in
the extreme. Whether she be widow or virgin, the woman is shown naked to the
suitor by a responsible and respectable matron; and similarly, some honourable
man presents the suitor naked to the woman. (p. 189)
More quickly explains the reason
for such a bizarre ritual, and explains how it replaces the custom of combined
marriage (common at More’s time) with a more “natural” and “realistic”
practice. People who have to spend their whole life together and faithfully
tied to each other should have the opportunity to know each other at least
“visually”.
In fact, More adds:
“We laughed at this custom, and called it absurd; but they were just as
amazed at the folly of all other peoples. When men go to buy a colt, when they
are risking only a little money, they are so cautious that, though the animal
is almost bare, they won’t close the deal until saddle and blanket are have
been taken off, lest there be a hidden sore underneath. Yet in the choice of a
mate, which may cause either delight or disgust for the rest of their lives,
men are so careless that they leave all the rest of the woman’s body covered up
with clothes and estimate her attractiveness from a mere handsbreadth of her
person, the face, which is all they can see. […] Not all people are so wise as
to concern themselves solely with character; and even the wise appreciate the
gifts of the body as a supplement to the virtues of the mind.” (pp. 189-191)
It seems clear that Thomas More
simply thinks of the good relationship between the partners, rather than
thinking of a biologically good match. Private property is abolished in Utopia,
but persons are not considered a property, therefore marriages are protected as
personal relationships, not as “goods” to be shared.
Divorces are allowed in Utopia –
a matter on which More had to reflect seriously, later in his life. His liberal
view on divorce, in Utopia, suggests that the subsequent dispute with King
Henry VIII concerned the authority of the Pope and not divorce per se.
Incompatibility of character can be the cause of a consensual separation, when
approved by the senate after a careful investigation, although divorce is
deliberately made difficult.
Adultery and “intolerably offensive behaviour” are severely condemned:
the violator of the marriage is punished “with the strictest form of slavery”
(p. 191) and a relapse into the same crime is punished by death (p. 193).
In Utopia, slavery is generally
considered a sufficient form of punishment; death penalty is only applied in
the case of harsh rebellion or recidivism.
More’s view on the family is
thus a traditional one, albeit with some consideration for the feelings of the
partners and with the awareness that a marriage can become intolerable for one
or both of them. There exists no eugenics and no communality of women and
children. Spontaneous stable relationships are considered a good thing for the
city, but there is no absolute rule on this.
More’s Utopia is quite
realistic and traditional. It does not advocate a total control of social
relationships and in particular of marriages and reproduction. Utopians are not
expected to yield a “perfect” breed, and their marriages are based on
individual choice rather than demographic policies. Moreover, no technology is
implied in reproductive practices as a tool for social control, not even the
calculus of the best time for matching, or the definition of “best matches”. No
eugenics can be allowed in Utopia and the provisions on marriage are
conspicuously liberal in comparison with the customs of his time, leaving more
room for individual free choice.
The
City of the Sun and totalitarian control on reproduction
Tommasso
Campanella, “La città del Sole”, 1602
[ “H πολιτεία του Ήλιου» του Tommasso Campanella ]
Tommaso
Campanella’s “The City of the Sun” (“La città del Sole”, originally written in 1602) is much less liberal on reproduction. Sexual relationships
are ruled by Mor, one of the Princes
governing the town, together with “The Sun or Metaphysical”, a supreme
spiritual and temporal king with absolute power.
Mor, which means Love (Amor),
takes care of reproductive practices: “He sees that men and women are so joined
together, that they bring forth the best offspring” (p. 15, original text: “con
unir li maschi e le femine in modo che faccin buona razza”).
Campanella repeats More’s
argument based on the analogy between choosing horses and human partners
(“Indeed, they laugh at us who exhibit a studious care for our breed of horses
and dogs, but neglect the breeding of human beings”) but gives it a radical
twist.
In fact, Campanella understands
the analogy exactly in terms of a eugenic policy: More ensures that everything
is appropriate – food, dresses and intercourse – so that “good” children are
delivered. So, rudimental techniques are adopted in order to assure the perfect
result in terms of “good breed”. Campanella says that the inhabitants of the
City of the Sun arrived in their place from the Indies “flying from the sword
of the Magi, a race of plunderers and tyrants who laid waste their country”.
Therefore “they determined to lead a philosophic life in fellowship with one
another”, introducing in their custom the
commonality of women (which was not practiced in their homeland) and of any
good.
The argument against private
property is presented by Campanella precisely as an extension of his critique
of marriage:
“They say that all private property is acquired and improved for the
reason that each one of us by himself has his own home and wife and children.
From this, selflove springs. For when we raise a son to riches and dignities,
and leave an heir to much wealth, we become either ready to grasp at the
property of the State, if in any case fear should be removed from the power
which belongs to riches and rank; or avaricious, crafty, and hypocritical, if
anyone is of slender purse, little strength, and mean ancestry. But when we
have taken away selflove, there remains only love for the State.” (p. 16)
Thomas More would have
strongly disapproved of this connection of marriage with private property. But
Campanella was a monk, and his idea of commonality includes everything: women
and children are “goods” rather than persons. Therefore, they are subject to a
very strict control by the State.
Men procreate after the age of twenty-one, women from the age of
nineteen.
Sodomy is blamed and punished, but rather mildly, at the beginning.
Punishment increases in the case of recidivism, and may even include the death
penalty.
Young men and women exercise themselves naked, like the ancient
Greeks. Meanwhile, their masters observe
and decide who has to be matched with whom:
“The big and beautiful women with big and virtuous men; and the fat
women with slim men, and slim women with fat men, to create an equilibrium”
(p. 46).
The time and the ritual of mating is strictly regulated: it takes
place every three nights. An astrologist
and a physician determine the exact moment of the mating. Priests and wise
men copulate less frequently, but they deserve “the most lively, healthy and beautiful women” (p. 47).
Campanella declares openly that
without natural dispositions there is no moral virtue. For this reason, the
magistrates make the greatest possible effort to create a good breed.
Mothers breast-feed their
children for up to two years, and then give them to the magistrates.
All children are raised
together: at the age of seven, they are instructed in the natural sciences,
then in the other sciences and finally in “mechanics”.
The Metaphysic (not the
parents) gives every child a name. The decisions of the magistrates are
mandatory. If a couple falls in love, they can play and talk to each other, but
they are not allowed to generate (p. 32).
The model for Campanella is
Plato’s Republic, and this text is
specifically quoted in City of the Sun.
Campanella is the first, in the
utopian tradition, to connect the
abolition of property with the abolition of marriage and with eugenics.
Sentimental love is totally
separated from generation, which is conceived as a “public good”.
The communality of women is not
imagined as a freedom to form relationships without marriage. Rather, it is
assumed that sex is for procreation only and that procreation is for the State.
Persons are deprived of their sexual faculties rather than emancipated and
granted sexual freedom.
The utopian character of
Campanella’s City of the Sun focuses
on the abolition of property and on the liberation from hard work and religious
dogmas. Yet, social interaction is dominated by a complete control of
relationships, which serves to promote biological perfection through genetic
politics and through the use of rudimental “technologies” such as a definition
of the number and ways of reproductive acts.
The State regulates the reproductive life of all citizens in meticulous
detail. Violation of these norms is severely punished, and this creates an
atmosphere of terror. Campanella’s utopia is thus a decidedly illiberal one.
When it comes to reproduction, it bears strong similarities with the Platonic
model. Using control, perfection as a goal, and technology as a tool, it can be
defined as a totalitarian utopia, leading to a clearly dystopian society.
Reproduction
in Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis
Francis Bacon, “New Atlantis”, 1627.
Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (originally
published in 1627) also presents generation as a public good, although in a
less eugenic and totalitarian way than Campanella.
A great feast, the Feast of the
Family, “is granted to any man that shall live to see thirty persons descended
of his body altogether, and all above three years old” (p. 169). The feast is
done at the cost of the State. The Father of the Family, called Tirsan,
resolves tensions in the family, settles disagreements and helps those in need.
He also chooses “one man from amongst his sons, to live in house with him: who
is called ever after the Son of the Vine”. The Tirsan’s wife attends the
ceremony in a separate place, without being seen. According to the custom of
Bensalem, the capital of the New Atlantis, “the
king is debtor to no man, but for propagation of his subjects” (p. 170).
Only the sons can serve the
Tirsan. The daughters wait close to the walls. Women are a marginal part of
society.
The narrator explains:
“And because propagation of families proceedeth from the nuptial
copulation, I desired to know of him what laws and customs they had concerning
marriage; and whether they kept marriage well; and whether they were tied to
one wife? For that where population is so much affected, and such as with them
it seemed to be, there is commonly permission of plurality of wives. To this he
said, ‘You have reason for to commend that excellent institution of the Feast
of the Family. And indeed we have experience, that those families that are
partakers of the blessing of that feast do flourish and prosper ever after in
an extraordinary manner. But hear me now, and I will tell you what I know. You
shall understand that there is not under the heavens so chaste a nation as this
of Bensalem; nor so free from all pollution or foulness. It is the virgin of
the world. I remember I have read in one of your European books, of an holy
hermit amongst you that desired to see the Spirit of Fornication; and there
appeared to him a little foul ugly Ethiop. But if he had desired to see the
Spirit of Chastity of Bensalem, it would have appeared to him in the likeness
of a fair beautiful Cherubin. For there is nothing amongst mortal men more fair
and admirable, than the chaste minds of this people. Know therefore, that with
them there are no stews, no dissolute houses, no courtesans, nor any thing of
that kind. Nay they wonder (with detestation) at you in Europe, which permit
such things.” (p. 173)
Marriage, though, is not
conceived as a personal relationship. Rather, it “is ordained a remedy for
unlawful concupiscence; and natural concupiscence seemeth as a spur to
marriage”. Therefore, marriage is treated as a remedy for “a libertine and
impure single life” which makes men marry too late, “when the prime and strength
of their years is past”.
In Bensalem there is no
“masculine love; and yet there are not so faithful and inviolate friendships in
the world again as are there” (p. 174).
Procreation is a serious business for the State, subject to strict
regulation. Polygamy is not tolerated. Marriage cannot take place before at
least one month of mutual acquaintance. Couples can marry without permission
from the parents, but in that case they loses any heredity.
Bacon quotes More’s provision of
letting the couple see each other naked, but disapproves of it, because it
would be difficult to refuse a person after such an intimate knowledge.
Instead, in Bensalem “they have near
every town a couple of pools (which they call Adam and Eve’s pool) where it is
permitted to one of the friends of the man, and another of the friends of the
woman, to see them severally bathe naked” (p. 175).
By this trick, in fact, social
control of the couples is re-established, where More’s provision foregrounded
the couple’s privacy and individual freedom. Bacon’s utopia is closer to More’s
than to Campanella’s, which is closer to Plato’s. Yet, it also treats
reproduction as a public good, to be protected and controlled by the laws of
the State.
Chastity is valued as a
virtue, since it avoids the dispersion of the primal energy in men and thereby
helps to increment the population. This shows that the goal of delivering a
perfect descendance is paramount.
In Bacon’s New Atlantis there is no demographic policy which settles the
average number of people living in the State. Stereotypical anti-feminism is
sharply visible in the description of the role of women during the Feast of the
Family.
New Atlantis is a town for male
scholars, who devote their life to science and whose families act as a support
for their academic activity. Science and technology are the main goals of the
State, as they are in Bacon’s conception of knowledge and society.
Bacon’s utopia is a republic of
knowledge. His text does not describe the forms of government, but, when it
comes to reproductive practice, it advocates an illiberal stance. The
combination of social control and technological drive makes Bacon’s utopia far
less liberal than More’s model. Terror is not used to exert control, so New
Atlantis is not a totalitarian utopia. Nevertheless, Bacon’s emphasis on
control, perfection and technology make it likely that his imagined State would
evolve into a totalitarian society.
Brave New
World as reproductive dystopia
[ Aldous Huxley,
“Brave New World”, 1932 ]
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (originally published in
1932) takes some of these ideas to the extreme and creates a vision of
generation which is a total nightmare.
Huxley’s novel belongs to a rich
tradition of literary and political reflection aiming at showing the undesired
outcomes of social engineering, especially through the use of technology.
Examples of this tradition are the ambiguous A Modern Utopia by H.G. Wells (1905), Evgenij Zamjatin’s We
(1921), Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948 – a rather more
“political” than “technological” dystopia, but where “thought control” by Big
Brother has a preminent role) and Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
(1953).
Aldous Huxley’s novel takes a
prominent place in this tradition, both for its literary quality and for its
clear-sighted depiction of a society dominated by social control, the search
for perfection and a pervasive use of technology. Political control revolves
around artificial procreation and sleep-learning in order to obtain individuals
who are perfectly adapted to their role in a highly hierarchical society.
Reproductive technologies are
essential. From the very first lines of the first page, we are introduced into
a cold, indifferent, mechanic world where reproduction is an industrial and
totally impersonal activity.
We feel cold. But we are also
confused about the purpose of this setting, until its meaning is made clear by
the words “The Fertilizing Room”. This expression says it all. Human
reproduction is clearly not an event, or even an act. It is an industrial
process, in an aseptic environment, guided by the logic of efficiency. Huxley’s
motto is bitterly hyperbolic: “Community, identity, stability” could be
translated into: “State, uniformity, social immobility”.
We still feel uneasy. We need
an explanation, which comes when the Director of the Fertilization Centre
begins his speed. His age cannot be guessed, since in this dystopic London of
A.F. 632 people look about thirty until, at the age of sixty, a sudden decline
happens and leads to a rapid death.
Here are the words of the
Director:
“These,” he waved his hand, “are the incubators.” […] “The week’s
supply of ova. Kept,” he explained, “at blood heat; whereas the male gametes,”
and here he opened another door, “they have to be kept at thirty-five instead
of thirty-seven. Full blood heat sterilizes.” (pp. 17-18)
Suddenly, we begin to
understand the contrast between traditional utopia and Huxley’s narrative. The
Director gives a brief description of the modern fertilizing process; spoke
first, of course, of its surgical introduction–
”the operation undergone
voluntarily for the good of Society, not to mention the fact that it carries a
bonus amounting to six months’ salary”; continued with some account of the
technique for preserving the excised ovary alive and actively developing;
passed on to a consideration of optimum temperature, salinity, viscosity;
referred to the liquor in which the detached and ripened eggs were kept; and,
leading his charges to the work tables, actually showed them how this liquor
was drawn off from the test-tubes; how it was let out drop by drop onto the
specially warmed slides of the microscopes; how the eggs which it contained
were inspected for abnormalities, counted and transferred to a porous
receptacle; how (and he now took them to watch the operation) this receptacle
was immersed in a warm bouillon containing free[1]swimming
spermatozoa–at a minimum concentration of one hundred thousand per cubic
centimetre, he insisted; and how, after ten minutes, the container was lifted
out of the liquor and its contents re-examined; how, if any of the eggs
remained unfertilized, it was again immersed, and, if necessary, yet again; how
the fertilized ova went back to the incubators; where the Alphas and Betas
remained until definitely bottled; while the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons were
brought out again, after only thirty-six hours, to undergo Bokanovsky’s
Process.” (pp. 18-19)
The “Bokanovsky’s Process” is
essentially cloning, which is explained as follows:
“One egg, one embryo, one adult-normality. But a bokanovskified egg will
bud, will proliferate, will divide. From eight to ninety-six buds, and every
bud will grow into a perfectly formed embryo, and every embryo into a
full-sized adult. Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew
before. Progress.” (p. 20)
When a foolish student dares
to ask about the advantages of this arrangement, the Director reacts with
astonishment:
“Bokanovsky’s Process is one of the major instruments of social
stability!” Major instruments of social stability. Standard men and women; in
uniform batches. The whole of a small factory staffed with the products of a single
bokanovskified egg. “Ninety-six identical twins working
ninety-six identical machines!”
“You really know where you are. For the
first time in history.” He quoted the planetary motto. “Community, Identity,
Stability.” Grand words. “If we could bokanovskify indefinitely the whole
problem would be solved.”
Solved by standard Gammas,
unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons. Millions of identical twins. The principle
of mass production at last applied to biology. (pp. 21-22)
Now it is clear why Huxley’s
novel makes us uncomfortable. The whole process of reproduction is controlled
by an ideology.
This is the main difference between utopias and dystopias. The latter are
the imaginative expression of an ideology: a scientific, systematic,
theoretical construction translated into a political reality. Utopias are
exercises of imagination which seek to explore what a good society would look
like, but they are not a derived from fully developed theory.
As Karl Mannheim (1953) has
pointed out, ideology is opposed to utopia exactly because it pretends to be a
scientific, empirical and theoretical conception of society, which leads to a
necessary, controlled, and certified result.
On the contrary, utopias are
not theories: they are narratives, often imbued with irony and jokes. So, they
are not to be taken too seriously.
On the contrary, ideologies
pretend to be the most serious of plans, and any irony is taken as dangerous
dissent. Ideology severs the relation between nature and the State. Nature is a
nuisance. Not only fertility but also sterility are regulated to enable the the
creation of rigid, genetic classes of individuals, who will later be
conditioned by a mechanical, pedagogical system called “hypnopedia”. Social
stability is obtained through a system of ultra-rigid division into classes or
castes. Nature is
replaced by human invention.
Social stability and
well-being are guaranteed because some individuals are bred and raised in a
permanent and accepted form of slavery, designed to increment consumption in
every human activity, so that the market flourishes. This totalitarian society
is the paradise of capitalists, since individuals are conditioned to love
products and goods in every moment of their lives, also during free time.
Huxley understands that extreme control, extreme social engineering and extreme
consumerism are integral parts of a single social and political vision.
REFERENCES
/ - Arendt, H. (1958), The Origins of Totalitarianism,
Schocken Books, New York (new ed. 1966);
/ - Atchison, A.L., Shames, S.L. (2019), Survive and Resist: The Definitive Guide to
Dystopian Politics, Columbia University Press, New York;
/ - Bacon, F. (1999), New Atlantis (1627), in Three Early
Modern Utopias, ed. by S. Bruce, Oxford: Oxford University Press;
/ - Bagchi, B. (2012), The Politics of the Impossible: Utopia and
Dystopia Reconsidered, Sage Pubns Pvt Ltd, London;
/ - Bloch, E. (2000), The Spirit of Utopia, Stanford
University Press, Stanford (original edition, 1918);
/ - Boym, S. (2001), The Future of Nostalgia, Basic Books,
New York;
/ - Brown, E. (2017), “Plato’s Ethics and Politics in The Republic”,
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition),
/ - Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
URL =
/ - Claeys, G. (2017), Dystopia. A Natural History, Oxford
University Press, Oxford;
/ - Huxley, A. (2000), Brave New World (1932), New York, NY:
RosettaBooks;
/ - Jameson, F. (2005), Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire
Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions, Verso, London-New York;
/ - Mannheim, K. (1953), Ideology and Utopia, New York, NY:
Harcourt, Brace & Co;
/ - Manuel, F.E., Manuel, F.P. (1979), Utopian Thought in the Western World,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA);
/ - Mordacci, R. (2020), Ritorno a Utopia, Laterza, Roma-Bari
2020;
/ - More, T. (1995), Utopia (1516), Latin Text and English
Translation, edited by G.M Logan, R.M. Adams and C.H. Miller, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press;
/ - Mumford, L. (1922), The Story of Utopias, Boni and
Liveright, New York 1922 (now: Global Grey Books, 2018.
To άρθρο του Roberto
Mordacci “Reproductive Utopias and Dystopias: More, Campanella, Bacon and
Huxley”
Εμπεριέχεται στο συλλογικό τόμο:
« Human
Reproduction and Parental Responsibility: New Theories, Narratives, Ethics»,
Edited by Simona Corso, Florian Mussgnug,
Virginia Sanchini.
Phenomenology and Mind, 2020
[ εδώ δεν περιλαμβάνεται το
πλήρες άθρο.
Μόνο αποσπάσματά του.]
ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΓΡΑΦΟΣ
[ ανάρτηση 4 Μαϊου 2023 :
Roberto Mordacci
“ Reproductive Utopias and Dystopias :
More, Campanella, Bacon and Huxley ”
άρθρο 2020
Phenomenology
and Mind
ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΣΚΕΨΗ
]
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου