A group is defined as a number of individual parts gathered together and considered as a whole: mult
itudinous stars considered as a galaxy. The interaction between a group and its parts is intricate:
the position of each star slightly affects the movement and spin of the galaxy, and the placement o
f the rest of the galaxy drastically affects each star. Unraveling the causal relationships here ma
y seem a daunting task. After studying the heavens, Jonathan Swift offers his conclusions in the wo
rk of Gulliver's Travels. One of these is the unfeasibility of grouping according to a communal ide
al. Communal star clustering must fail. In explanation, Swift shows that the problems with communa
l clustering are not due to a faulty combustion within individual stars, but to the repercussions ca
used by the interaction of those stars. With the earth as our universe, societal problems are not d
ue to malignity within individual persons, but rather to the consequences of groups and interaction
within that largest of human groups: mankind.
For many centuries, philosophers have argued about th
e best method of clustering stars, grouping individuals within society, and a favorite solution has
been communalism. Proponents include Plato with the 'Republic', Sir Thomas More with Utopia, Karl M
arx and Friedrich Engels with the "Communist Manifesto", and modern day churches (ie LDS) with their
planning of future communal Zion. All these presentations of communalism have certain aspects in c
ommon: community of property (and consequent needlessness of money), contentedness of societal membe
rs, and portrayal of communalism as the method of providing maximum benefit to each member of a soci
ety. Each proscribes communalism as the direction in which future society should proceed. In Jonath
an Swift's Gulliver's Travels, we see a communal order with many of these characteristics. In Swift
's land of the Houyhnhnms, abundance is distributed equally to all, and "where-ever there is any Wan
t (which is but seldom) it is immediately supplied by unanimous Consent and Contribution" (Swift, 23
6). The Houyhnhnms have no need of money, for property is communal, and they are generally content.
Indeed, the Houyhnhnm society would appear to be similar to other communal portrayals in a multitu
de of ways. An important difference exists, however, to distinguish Swift's version from those which
both preceded and followed, making Swift's more the satire and less the futuristic vision. Unlike
other portrayals, the members of Swift's society do not take human form, but instead are cast as hor
ses. This is more significant when we consider that the other societies (non-communal) portrayed in
Gulliver's Travels: the Lilliputians, the Brobdingnagians, the Laputans, Balnibarbians, Luggnaggian
s, etc., all contain members following the basic homo sapien layout. Why the abandonment of human fo
rm for the communal portrayal? One plausible answer is that Swift believes a communal order beyond
the reach of humanity. By placing the members of his communal society in non-human form, Swift symb
olizes humanity's lack of ability to achieve the communal ideal. Mankind's incapability to achieve c
ommunal grouping is further shown through the inhabitants of Houyhnhnm land that do take human form.
The Yahoos indeed represent the antithesis to a communal society. Instead of property and abunda
nce being shared among all, Yahoo's are intensely possessive of all acquisitions. They fight over w
orthless treasures of "shining Stones", hoard them with "great Caution, for fear their Comrades shou
ld find out", and fall into a swoon over their loss (Swift, 227). They quarrel over food and would
rather glut themselves, eating "till they were ready to burst" (Swift, 227) than share. Since each
"Herd" has a rather tyrannical "ruling Yahoo" (Swift, 228), equality is lost. No society could be f
arther from achieving a communal ideal. And by placing the Yahoos in human form, Swift says that co
mmunalism is likewise beyond the grasp of humanity. Can we not, however, strike more to the source o
f the issue? What makes Swift conclude that communal grouping is beyond mankind's capability? One
possibility might be the fundamental difference between an individual and a group, a star and a gala
xy. Individuals exist as innately concerned with their own well-being, as proscribed by evolution.
The passage of an individual's own genes determines that person's fitness and representation in fut
ure generations, and the resulting personal self-concern is necessary for survival. A group, on the
other hand, does not have such help from Nature. A group does not function as an individual making
decisions to the best benefit of all its parts overall, but instead functions as it is: many small p
arts each making decisions to their own benefit which need not coincide with the benefit of the larg
er group. A star does not consult the fate of the galaxy before choosing the nuances of its path.
This decision-making discrepancy is the deficiency that leads to the downfall of a communal grouping
. Communalism assumes that the best needs of society will be taken into account always by each citi
zen. Since this does not occur in the 'real' world, the communal ideal is impractical. The irony, t
hough, is that members of society are individually making decisions to their personal best benefit,
yet this leads to the detriment of all members overall. This phenomenon can be nicely represented w
ith game theory and the 'prisoner's dilemma'. In the scenario, two accomplices to a crime are sepa
rately presented with the choice of whether or not to confess and a punishment structure: if both do
not confess, each gets only two years in prison; if both confess, each convict serves five years.
However, if one suspect coughs up confession while the other does not, the confessor will get no sen
tence while the recalcitrant non-confessor will get ten. Although the best advantage to the group w
ould be obtained if both prisoners were silent (four years total versus ten total in every other sit
uation), game theory predicts that both suspects will confess. From the point of view of one of the
suspects, no matter the decision of the accomplice, the suspect personally will get the least jail
time by confessing (five years instead of ten or zero years instead of two, depending on the decisio
n of the accomplice). Each member of the group analyzes the path to greatest personal benefit inst
ead of the path to the greatest benefit of the group. Yet who can blame the prisoners? Who would v
olunteer ten years in jail in lieu of five? Jonathan Swift appreciated these subtleties, and realize
d that it was not individual malignity in persons, but the ramifications of their interacting in gro
ups that evoked problems he saw so prevalent in the world around him. Swift suggests this in a lett
er to Alexander Pope:
I have ever hated all Nations professions and Communityes and all my love is
towards individualls for instance I hate the tribe of Lawyers, but I love Councellor such a one, Jud
ge such a one . . . and the rest but principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although
I hartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth. (Swift, 264-5)
Swift did not believe that each in
dividual was inherently bad. In fact, as we can see from the above letter, Swift believed in positi
ve qualities of the individual. The object of Swift's loathing, however, was groups of individuals,
the most basic among these being the largest group of all mankind. In the words of Monk, "[Swift's
] hatred was directed against abstract man, against men existing and acting within semi-human or deh
umanized racial or professional groups" (Monk, 315-6). Swift did not view the adverse consequences
in the world as coming directly from the individuals, but from the products of their grouping. We ca
n look to the text of Gulliver's Travels for confirmation of Swift's point of view. A particular clu
e is that despite Gulliver's Travels being a scathing rhetoric and satire on the "degenerate Nature
of Man" (Swift, 41), one cannot easily find specific examples within the text of degenerate individu
als. In fact, throughout the Travels, Swift presents amiable and virtuous character after amiable a
nd virtuous character. From the gentle Glumdalclitch, to the kind Lord Munodi of Lagado, to the aqu
icesing governor of Glubbdubdrib, to the generous king of Luggnagg, and to the wise and kind Captain
Don Pedro de Mendez, Swift gives for his reader's perusal a slew of admirable persons. Even more im
portantly, we find an individual of commendable traits in the figure of Gulliver himself. As descri
bed by Samuel Holt Monk:
[W]e come to like [Gulliver] and to enjoy his company. In all respects he
is an average good man . . . [he] is observant, . . reasonably intelligent, thoroughly capable in a
n emergency, and both brave and hopeful . . at the outset he is full of naive good will . . [and] re
tains his benevolence throughout the first three voyages (318).
For what more qualities could we as
k? He is polite and conscious, and eager to seek out good. According to Monk, Gulliver maintains h
is magnanimous qualities "throughout the first three voyages". Yet even in the fourth voyage, the fa
ct that Gulliver values virtue and wants to become a 'better' person by the emulation of the Houyhnh
nms speaks to his credit. Gulliver's "master" remarks that Gulliver had "cured" himself "of some ba
d Habits and Dispositions" as far as his "inferior Nature was capable" (Swift, 244), but where in an
y portion of the Travels do we see any action of Gulliver purporting a bad disposition or inferior n
ature? Indeed, as a tool in his chastisement against mankind, Swift chose a very virtuous fellow. T
hus, in Gulliver's Travels, we do not see a multitude of evil individuals. Deane Swift, the cousin
of Jonathan Swift, made the point, however, that the "evil nature of man" was the "'groundwork of th
e whole satyre contained in the voyage to the Houyhnhnms'" (qtd. in Landa, 295). Further, the "bulk
of mankind" contains such "notorious characteristics" as "avarice, fraud, cheating, violence, rapin
e, extortion, cruelty, oppression, tyranny, rancour, envy, malice, detraction, hatred, revenge, murd
er, whoredom, adultery, lasciviousness. . ." and so on (qtd. in Landa, 295). This may well be the p
oint being made by Jonathan Swift, but it needs to be qualified. Swift attributes these vices to gr
oups, not to individuals, whom Swift portrays favorably. It is a group of men who seize Gulliver's
ship and cast him aside (Swift, 192). In Balnibarbi, the group of projectors is causing the degener
ation of society. In both Brobdingnag and the land of the Houyhnhnms, Gulliver's incriminating conv
ersations focus upon groups: it is with the group of lawyers, the "whole Race of Politicians" (Swift
, 111) that Swift has quarrel. Swift's satire also extends to that largest and abstract group of ma
nkind. Throughout the four voyages, satirical strains indict mankind as a whole. In the fourth voy
age, these come to the surface with the portrayal of the Yahoos. According to Swift, it is the grou
p of humanity who is malicious. Thus, Swift realizes, and portrays in Gulliver's Travels that group
interaction and its consequences can lead to detriment. The modern fields of group psychology and d
ynamics show the insight of Swift by coming to many of the same conclusions. Swift, however, was no
t without hope. Humanity need not remain malicious indefinitely. Swift wrote to Charles Ford that
his "Travells . . . will wonderfully mend the World" (Swift, 263). Swift appreciated the goodness o
f the individual. And if the individual is good, is there not hope for the mending of the group? I
f the stars continue to burn bright, perhaps one day so will the galaxy.
group defined number indiv
idual parts gathered together considered whole multitudinous stars considered galaxy interaction bet
ween group parts intricate position each star slightly affects movement spin galaxy placement rest g
alaxy drastically affects each star unraveling causal relationships here seem daunting task after st
udying heavens jonathan swift offers conclusions work gulliver travels these unfeasibility grouping
according communal ideal communal star clustering must fail explanation swift shows that problems wi
th communal clustering faulty combustion within individual stars repercussions caused interaction th
ose stars with earth universe societal problems malignity within individual persons rather consequen
ces groups interaction within that largest human groups mankind many centuries philosophers have arg
ued about best method clustering grouping individuals society favorite solution been communalism pro
ponents include plato with republic thomas more utopia karl marx friedrich engels communist manifest
o modern churches their planning future zion these presentations communalism have certain aspects co
mmon community property consequent needlessness money contentedness societal members portrayal commu
nalism method providing maximum benefit each member society proscribes direction which future societ
y should proceed jonathan swift gulliver travels order many these characteristics land houyhnhnms ab
undance distributed equally where ever there want which seldom immediately supplied unanimous consen
t contribution houyhnhnms have need money property they generally content indeed houyhnhnm would app
ear similar other portrayals multitude ways important difference exists however distinguish version
from those which both preceded followed making more satire less futuristic vision unlike other portr
ayals members take human form instead cast horses this more significant when consider that other soc
ieties portrayed gulliver travels lilliputians brobdingnagians laputans balnibarbians luggnaggians c
ontain members following basic homo sapien layout abandonment human form portrayal plausible answer
believes order beyond reach humanity placing form symbolizes humanity lack ability achieve ideal man
kind incapability achieve grouping further shown through inhabitants houyhnhnm land take yahoos inde
ed represent antithesis instead property abundance being shared among yahoo intensely possessive acq
uisitions they fight over worthless treasures shining stones hoard them great caution fear their com
rades should find fall into swoon over their loss they quarrel over food would rather glut themselve
s eating till were ready burst than share since herd rather tyrannical ruling yahoo equality lost co
uld farther from achieving ideal placing yahoos says likewise beyond grasp humanity however strike s
ource issue what makes conclude beyond mankind capability possibility might fundamental difference b
etween group individuals exist innately concerned well being proscribed evolution passage genes dete
rmines person fitness representation future generations resulting personal self concern necessary su
rvival hand does such help from nature does function making decisions best benefit parts overall ins
tead functions many small making decisions benefit need coincide larger does consult fate before cho
osing nuances path this decision discrepancy deficiency leads downfall assumes best needs will taken
into account always citizen since this occur real world impractical irony though individually decis
ions personal leads detriment overall phenomenon nicely represented game theory prisoner dilemma sce
nario accomplices crime separately presented choice whether confess punishment structure both confes
s gets only years prison both confess convict serves five years however suspect coughs confession wh
ile confessor will sentence while recalcitrant confessor will although advantage would obtained pris
oners were silent four years total versus total every situation game theory predicts suspects point
view suspects matter decision accomplice suspect personally least jail time confessing five zero dep
ending decision accomplice member analyzes path greatest personal path greatest blame prisoners volu
nteer jail lieu five jonathan appreciated subtleties realized malignity persons ramifications intera
cting groups evoked problems prevalent world around suggests letter alexander pope ever hated nation
s professions communityes love towards individualls instance hate tribe lawyers love councellor such
judge such rest principally hate detest animal called although hartily love john peter thomas forth
believe inherently fact above letter believed positive qualities object loathing individuals most b
asic among being largest words monk hatred directed against abstract against existing acting semi de
humanized racial professional monk view adverse consequences world coming directly products look tex
t confirmation point view particular clue despite scathing rhetoric satire degenerate nature cannot
easily find specific examples text degenerate fact throughout presents amiable virtuous character af
ter amiable virtuous character gentle glumdalclitch kind lord munodi lagado aquicesing governor glub
bdubdrib generous king luggnagg wise kind captain pedro mendez gives reader perusal slew admirable p
ersons even importantly find commendable traits figure himself described samuel holt monk come like
enjoy company respects average good observant reasonably intelligent thoroughly capable emergency br
ave hopeful outset full naive good retains benevolence throughout first three voyages what qualities
could polite conscious eager seek good according maintains magnanimous qualities throughout first t
hree voyages even fourth voyage fact values virtue wants become better person emulation houyhnhnms s
peaks credit master remarks cured himself some habits dispositions inferior nature capable where por
tion action purporting disposition inferior indeed tool chastisement against chose very virtuous fel
low thus multitude evil deane cousin made point evil groundwork whole satyre contained voyage landa
further bulk contains notorious characteristics avarice fraud cheating violence rapine extortion cru
elty oppression tyranny rancour envy malice detraction hatred revenge murder whoredom adultery lasci
viousness landa well made needs qualified attributes vices whom portrays favorably seize ship cast a
side balnibarbi projectors causing degeneration brobdingnag land incriminating conversations focus u
pon lawyers whole race politicians quarrel satire also extends largest abstract four voyages satiric
al strains indict fourth voyage come surface portrayal yahoos according malicious thus realizes port
rays consequences lead detriment modern fields psychology dynamics show insight coming same conclusi
ons without hope need remain malicious indefinitely wrote charles ford travells wonderfully mend app
reciated goodness there hope mending continue burn bright perhapsEssay, essays, termpaper, term pape
r, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study, college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free r
esearch, book research, study help, download essay, download term papers