As I have mentioned before, I am particularly interested how Utopia and The Republic deal with the same aspect of a perfect society. We know the concept of Utopia’s idea of everyone essentially being the same. In Utopia, people are required to do a certain amount of time doing things that contribute to society. In The Republic, in a perfect society, all the people are urged to have the same morals, however everyone has a different place in the society by selection. The real question is, which type of society creates a better society for people to live?
For those of us that haven’t read the The Republic, let me tell you about it. In this “perfect society,” citizens concentrate on what make a person a good person. There are 3 types of good. The first is a good we want for what it actually is, for example enjoying something. The second is a good we want for its consequences, for example being healthy. The third is a good we want even though it is a burden, because of its consequences, for example medical treatment when sick. Citizens are expected to be good people, and choose justice over injustice. In the “perfect society” depending on how “good” people are, they are chosen for different jobs. The leaders and guardians have the highest social status in society.
Guardians are the protectors of the society that keep it peaceful and safe for citizens. Children are taught the characteristics that guardians should have at a young age. As they get older they are chosen for guardian status based on their success in certain criteria. You might think that this sounds similar to our society. Don’t you think this sounds similar to our society? If you do well in school, or internship, don’t you usually get a good job?Here’s the catch. Once you have your place in society, it is your permanent place. If you are a worker, you will always be until you are too old, if you are a guardian, you have to train new ones.
So now I ask you, what do you think of these two different societies? What are the pros and cons of each?
I like that you brought an outside work into the conversation here. I read "The Republic" a few years ago for a poli sci class so I don't remember much of it, but I do remember disliking the lack of social mobility. The idea of being put into one job or position for your entire life seemed extremely confining. What if you were put into the wrong thing? I started college as an Econ major and I absolutely hated it, bu I was able to switch out into English and now I'm much happier. Imagine if I had been stuck doing Econ for the rest of my life. For that reason I would defiantly have to say that I prefer the other choices over the Republic.
ReplyDeleteThis post really got me thinking about the overlaps between the two kinds of literary societies. There really is not a large difference between their outcomes. Because they possess such different ideals it would be expected that their societies would be drastically unlike one another, but this is not the case. In fact, both societies lack social mobility and personal freedoms. If I had to choose a society, I would choose one more like the one in The Republic because even if my life is determined for me, I would still want to feel like I have control over my own destiny and life, even if that power really does not belong to me.
ReplyDeleteEven though there isn't much occupational mobility in The Republic, I still think that the way the Republic's occupations are set up is better than Utopia. At least in The Republic, citizens' hard work and good character count toward them getting the best jobs. I think that in Utopia, there's no opportunity for ambition, since citizens are simply placed where the government deems them best suited. However, the fact that there is no mobility once citizens are placed in the occupations they worked hard for is a definite downside - at least in Utopia you can switch around crafts if you request it, and you can get a diverse experience of jobs.
ReplyDelete