Summertime and the livin’ is easy. Bye everyone! I leave you with this year’s Grizzly@Adams Super Summer Classic: George and Ira Gershwin’s lullaby “Summertime,” from Porgy and Bess. To hear Billie Holiday sing this standard, click here. Ella Fitzgerald also has a fine version of the song. Amy Winehouse’s version is not quite in the same league, but still worth a listen. For an acid-rock version, try this one from Jim Morrison and the Doors. And for the 1959 film version, click here.

“Your daddy’s rich and your ma is good lookin.’” Now that’s poetry.

Previous Super Summer Classics include “Summersong” by the Decemberists and “Hot Fun in the Summertime” by Sly and the Family Stone. Read more!

Senior Seminar. Here are your final exam questions, everyone — right after the jump. Remember, the exam is 10-11:50 a.m. Thursday, May 7. Feel free to contact me if you have questions about the questions.

Sarah Joslin: You have written that “in a utopia…it’s absolutely necessary for one’s free will to be absolutely authentic, not some synthetic illusion pulled over the eyes by a manipulative government — this would indeed be an anti-utopia. Censorship lands smack in the middle of this conflict. It’s necessary for individuals to have free range for expression and development of identity, but it’s also necessary that these individuals don’t stomp all over their neighbors in the effort.”

So say we all. But censorship is not only a matter of what one is allowed to express; it’s also a matter of what is allowed to hear and read. And children in particular are typically prevented from hearing and reading a great deal, and this censorship exists precisely in order to limit the child’s free will. The most obvious example of this sort of thing is what we politely call a “religious upbringing.” I’ve never known of a religious parent going out of their way to expose their child to ideas that would undercut that child’s faith. Paradoxically (or nonsensically, or hypocritically), the parent wants the child to “freely” choose the faith even as the parent prevents the child from weighing the arguments against the faith or experiencing the potential spiritual joys of some other faith. In this sense I would say that every parent and every school and every church is a censor of the first order.

Would you agree? If not, why not? If so, is such censorship a problem? If it is a problem, what should we do about it?

Anthony Guerrero: You argue in one of your comments that “the degree in which Plato proposes censorship is disgusting, and would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.” I agree. Plato’s Republic is not in any sense a liberal democracy. The Republic might well be a valuable exercise in philosophy, but as a blueprint for an actual society it can only be read as a dystopia.

My question concerns the nation we have today. Please think about the Constitution as it exists right now. Suppose that we do not change it a bit, and that we continue to abide by it faithfully. That is, we continue to have a First Amendment, a Fourth Amendment, etc., and our government actually does respect the rights guaranteed by them, and we continue to elect our representatives and senators and presidents as we do today, and so on. Is it possible that under those conditions the United States might turn into a dystopia? Explain.

Gregg Porter: In one of your comments you compared “Socrates’ idea of the ideal state” to what sounds very much like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: “Once the process of extra-uterine fetal development is perfected, society might indeed be able to raise legions of anonymously-parented children for its military, workforce, and general needs. All that without having to be pestered with troublesome emotional bonding….”

Sure. It’s easy enough to name some of the things we don’t want to use biotechnology for. It’s equally easy to name some of the things we do want to use it for (say, to cure cancer). What’s not so easy is to develop a set of bioethical guidelines to help us distinguish good from bad uses of biotechnology more generally. Not so easy — but that’s exactly what I want you to do for the final. Enjoy.

Lacie Paulson: You’ve written that “Socrates’s idea is anti-utopian,” in no small part because “[t]he women have no choice in who they marry.” Of course, marriage practices vary considerably from culture to culture, and to see how that might matter to our understanding of utopia, here’s what I want you to do. First, familiarize yourself with the myth of Shangri-La, one of the West’s most popular images of utopia. (Wikipedia describes Shangri-La as “a mystical, harmonious valley, gently guided from a lamasery, enclosed in the western end of the Kunlun Mountains” and as “synonymous with any earthly paradise but particularly a mythical Himalayan utopia — a permanently happy land, isolated from the outside world”).

Next, look into the actual marriage and family structure of the real Himalayan kingdom of Tibet, starting here. Describe Tibetan polyandry to the class in some detail, then address the question of whether such marriage practices are intrinsically inimical to human happiness, and then compare and contrast Tibet to The Republic.

Rob Warden: My question for you is easy to ask but (I hope) not so easy to answer. Do you think transhumanism would lead inevitably to dystopia? Why or why not?

Sheth LaRue: You note in one of your comments that “eugenicism is still occurring today, maybe not as blatantly as it once was, but still occurring nonetheless. A quick search will find a number of dating websites for ‘perfect’ genes - although now it’s more about brains than brawn. There are even sites where you are judged before you can join…. Was Socrates all that insane in suggesting genetics be used as a starting point for choosing a mate?” At your suggestion I checked out BeautifulPeople.com and was suitably appalled — and jealous. But why are we appalled with this sort of thing? Is there really anything wrong — ethically, morally, religiously — with people systematically seeking out what they consider the most attractive mate possible? Isn’t BeautifulPeople.com right when it says that “it may not be politically correct, but it’s honest”? Finally, would a ChristianBeautifulPeople.com be possible without being an oxymoron? Why or why not?

Beth Tantanella: After commenting on the utopian family structure proposed in The Republic, you note rather archly that Socrates “is just thinking about the good of the community” and ask, “What is wrong with that?” Well, what is wrong with that? More specifically, what’s the best way to balance the good of the individual against the good of the community? If you haven’t done so already, please read Ursula Le Guin’s utopian story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and come to class prepared to summarize it and explain its significance in the utopian tradition.

Ashley Pacheco: In one of your comments you insisted that for a utopia to be a utopia it must be utopian for “all society.” At least for us today that makes sense: true utopia cannot rest upon an exploitative social hierarchy. The society must be ideal for all its members. But what if a society were to achieve that ideal not by accommodating everyone but simply by getting rid of those it doesn’t want? What if Hitler had succeeded in making Germany into his planned judenfrei utopia — I mean, what if post-Holocaust Germany really were utopian, at least in its own eyes, but only because there were no Jews left there for it to oppress? Or what if Israel were to succeed in creating its ideal Jewish state by excluding all the Palestinians? Getting rid of the “others” with whom part of a society is in conflict obviously simplifies the task of achieving utopian perfection.

I trust we can see the problem with predicating utopia on ethnic cleansing. But isn’t that in a sense what Charlotte Perkins Gilman does in Herland — create a feminist utopia by getting rid of all the men? Sure, it’s not as if the Herlanders killed the men themselves, or even wanted to. The men are eliminated by other, fully acceptable means, but the result is the same: a society free to perfect itself because it no longer has to deal with a “troublesome” element.

How can Gilman be defended against the charge that she takes too easy a way out, creating her utopian society by means of what might be called “gender cleansing”? Read more!

American Studies. Here you go, folks: final exam questions after the jump. Remember, the exam is 3-4:50 p.m. Thursday, May 7. Feel free to contact me if you have questions about the questions.

Gregg Porter: In one of your comments you cited Mount Rushmore as a particularly obvious instance of the cultural construction of nature. After directing us to this clip of Superman II’s General Zod doing to the United States what the United States did to the Sioux, you reminded us of the Crazy Horse Memorial, which, in the words of Chief Henry Standing Bear, aims to remind “the white man…that the red man has great heroes, too.”

That got me to thinking about the 1990s controversy over the placement of a large Christian cross just outside of Auschwitz. Please read this excerpt from Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll. Then compare and contrast the cross at Auschwitz to the sculptures on Mount Rushmore as examples of the geographical inscription of cultural hegemony.

Matt Felton: In one of your posts you lamented that kids today seem “disconnected from nature.” But why is that disconnection a problem, exactly? Given that most forms of outdoor recreation cause at least some harm to nature, isn’t it better if people just connect with nature via the Discovery Channel?

Erin Throckmorton: You’ve written that “consumers will never be able to be green completely.” Sure, not completely green — but there are plenty of people who believe consumers should at least try to be more green. Please read up a bit on consumerism, anti-consumerism, green consumerism, and Green America and report back to us on the current prospects of saving the planet by harnessing the powers of the marketplace.

Dorothy Medina: In one of your comments you described the beauty of the “pristine, rugged mountain country” surrounding the San Luis Valley. You wrote also of the local shepherds who graze their flocks here every summer. Please draw on your own experience and compare and contrast local sheepherding today to that described 150 years ago by John Muir in My First Summer in the Sierra. Pay particular attention to Muir’s description of the shepherd Billy — does that description strike you as accurate and fair?

Jacob McClure: You’ve indicated that you think “[c]onservatism, in its true meaning, would seem to be the most congenial to environmentalism.” Please read up on the political philosophies of conservatism and green conservatism, then check out Republicans for Environmental Protection, and then come to the final prepared to discuss the prospects for a conservative environmental politics in America. Why do you think environmentalism has for so long been seen almost exclusively as a “liberal” concern? Is there something intrinsic to American conservatism or the Republican Party that prevents them from going green? Read more!

American Lit II: As promised, here are your final exam questions. Remember, the exam is 1-2:50 p.m. Tuesday, May 5. Feel free to contact me if you have questions about the questions.

Kenneth Babcock: You have observed that “[o]ne of the main differences between The Age of Innocence and O Pioneers! is the difference in how the authors give women power. In O Pioneers!, Cather gives Alexandra power by making her a strong and smart individual…. [I]n The Age of Innocence, Wharton’s female character is powerful by deceit. May is subtle and very smart about getting the things that she wants. She plays Newland Archer for a fool. She even has May sarcastically tell Newland, “It did go off beautifully, didn’t it?”

Please continue what you’ve started here by comparing and contrasting May Archer and Alexandra Bergson in more detail, paying particular attention to how they do or do not exercise power. Then do the same for May Archer and Ellen Olenska. Finally, let us know what, if anything, you conclude from these comparisons.

Melissa Slemp: After pointing out that O Pioneers! and The Age of Innocence are both “stories of families who are struggling” and that both “involve romance on some level,” you claim that “The Age of Innocence is a better novel simply because it captures the conflict between men and women. It really shows the games that we play with one another and the lengths we will go to to find and receive love.”

I think you’re right that O Pioneers! does not turn on a “conflict between men and women.” But what is the central conflict driving Cather’s novel? And why is the conflict between men and women so special that you would cite it as the key to the superiority of The Age of Innocence?

Night Hawk: In one of your comments you wrote that you “like The Age of Innocence because it relates a little more to what I have seen in lives of people today. Many people today put on acts to please other people even though it isn’t really who they are. In O Pioneers! people are struggling to get what they want and to improve their lives, which is also what people do these days, but I haven’t noticed it as much as people putting on acts to please other people.”

Your comment got me thinking about the idea of authenticity. Consider Henry James’s characters Frederick Winterbourne (who seems to be one of those who “put on acts to please other people even though it isn’t really who they are”) and Daisy Miller, who is always just herself. It seems to me that Daisy Miller, at least in this one respect, is like Alexandra Bergson. Then there’s Alice Walker’s character Dee Johnson, aka Wangero Leewanika Kemanjo, from “Everyday Use,” who seems about as fake as they come. And then there’s the (authentic) Gracie Mae Still and the (inauthentic) Traynor or “1955.”

Given the frequency of this type of character pairing — authentic vs. inauthentic — in American literature, and given the current popularity of expressions like “Keep it real,” I’m thinking maybe Americans are obsessed with authenticity. But is authenticity even possible in America today? Is anyone truly authentic any more? What is authenticity, anyway?

Jerry Montoya: You wrote that “[o]verall Wharton's novel is not as great as O Pioneers!” Fair enough. You go on to note that Newland Archer and Alexandra Bergson “both seem to be thrust into a life that they didn't choose for themselves.” But hey, aren’t we all? You add, “the main characters share a longing they have to be more intimate with the people they truly love.” Again, don’t we all?

It’s the first of these two ideas — the idea that we find ourselves thrown into circumstances we didn’t choose — that I want you to explore in your answer. The German philosopher Martin Heidegger uses the term thrownness to describe something like what you’re talking about. Read up a bit on “thrownness,” explain the concept to the class, and then let us know how you think it might help us understand some of the more memorable characters we’ve encountered this semester.

Lifeguard: You’ve written that Roxana of Pudd’nhead Wilson “is truly an interesting character. She seems so real…. I really felt for her. I [was] always wondering what and how she will come back into each setting.” I think you’re onto something important here — namely, the way our personal investment in Roxana carries us through the story. We don’t care all that much whether Tom is brought to justice for his crimes. We don’t much care what becomes of the Italians or whether the townspeople ever understand the true intelligence ov Dave Wilson. We care about what happens to Roxana. Without her, Pudd’nhead Wilson is just a clever satire. Whatever power the novel has is almost all due to her.

Would you agree? If so, do you think the novel is weakened by the fact that the ending has so little to do with Roxana? Explain.

Jonathan Andujar: I liked your observation that, despite their many differences, Beyonce and Roxanna have at least one thing in common, namely the way they both wind up “commanding the attention of the white men in the audience.” There is, of course, a long and tortured history of, shall we say, problematic relations between white men and black women. What is suggested about that history and those relations by some of the other works we’ve read this semester?

Erin Throckmorton: In one comment you wrote that Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Roxana is “the best part of the book. Very strong and you have to admire her indeed!” I would say much the same about Aunt Rachel in “A True Story.” Please compare and contrast these two memorable characters, and let us know what, if anything, you conclude from these comparisons.

Diedre Mark: In a comment about Allen Ginsberg’s “A Supermarket in California,” you wrote that “Ginsberg is asking America where she is going and asking Whitman what he thinks of it all.” Okay, but why Whitman? What’s the significance of the fact that Ginsberg appeals to Walt Whitman in this poem rather than, say, Henry David Thoreau or Benjamin Franklin?

James Williams: In your essay on James Baldwin’s “Sonny’s Blues” you noted one critic’s claim that the story is a “cautionary tale about the dangers of ‘hip culture’ and addiction.” In response you compare Sonny’s heroin addiction to “a Cuban refugee making a raft out of empty soda cans and attempting to make it to Florida.” I understood you to be saying not that using heroin is good, but that Sonny’s heroin use tells us something good about him. It signifies the fierceness of his desire for something better than the ghetto offers him. As you put it, “It’s about paying whatever price is necessary to create light in a dark place.”

Yes: to create light in a dark place. Baldwin of course uses light and dark metaphorically throughout the story, right on up to the final paragraph, where we read that the nightclub patrons sit “[i]n the dark,” that Sonny sits “in the indigo light” of the stage, and that the drink the narrator has bought for his brother “glowed and shook above [Sonny’s] head.” What do you suppose Baldwin is trying to accomplish with this light/dark imagery? Read more!