Technological Visions of Utopia
IHUM 58
Fall 2007
MW 1:15-2:05, Bldg. 320-105

Jennifer Barker, Post-Doctoral Fellow
jlbarker@stanford.edu
Office hours: M/W 12:00-1:00 (Sweet Hall 310)

Joann Kleinneiur, Post-Doctoral Fellow
joannk@stanford.edu
Office hours: T/R 12:00-1:00 (Sweet Hall 315)

Mark Sander, Post-Doctoral Fellow
sanderm@stanford.edu
Office hours: M/W 12:00-1:00 (Sweet Hall 322)

Dana Sherry, Post-Doctoral Fellow
dsherry@stanford.edu
Office hours: M/W 11:00-12:00 (Sweet Hall 315)

Melissa Stevenson, Post-Doctoral Fellow
melissas@stanford.edu
Office hours: M 12:00-1:00, T 12:15-1:15 (Sweet Hall 315)

Course Description
Throughout history, philosophers have speculated about the nature of the "good society" and how to achieve it.   Although earlier writers had offered their own views, Sir Thomas More gave a name to this ideal society that has now become part of common language: utopia. In the almost 500 years since More's Utopia appeared, changes in society--including enormous advances in science and technology--have opened up new possibilities for the utopian society that More and his predecessors could not have envisioned. At the same time, science and technology also entail risks that suggest more dystopian scenarios--in their most extreme form, threats to humanity's very survival. This course looks at several works that consider how literary visions of society have evolved with the progress of science and technology. The readings begin with the origins of the genre to explore the evolving history of utopias from Classical times to the late 20th century.

Course Goals

The programmatic goals of a fall IHUM course are to develop students' abilities

• to read closely;
• to think critically;
• to recognize the possibility of different readings produced by approaching texts from different disciplinary perspectives;
• to learn effectively from lectures; and
• to engage in sustained intellectual discussion

The specific goals of IHUM 58 are:

• to give students a sense of how utopian visions have evolved in response to advances in science and technology;
• to encourage students to see how political, economic, and cultural perspectives help shape perceptions of the "ideal" society;
• to help students understand how influential utopian and dystopian narratives continue to resonate in cultural, scientific and political debates today;
• to develop students' skills in identifying and analyzing central narrative templates and tropes that have informed utopian and dystopian forms of imagination;
• to break down the barriers between Stanford's "techie" and "fuzzy" cultures by applying the critical tools of literary analysis to texts that have intrinsic interest to scientists and engineers.

Required Texts (in chronological order):

• Thomas More, Utopia. Ed. Robert M. Adams. New York: Norton, 1992. [1516]
• H.G. Wells, The Time Machine . New York: Signet Classic, 2002. [1895]
• Fritz Lang, Metropolis . 1927.
• George Orwell, 1984 . New York: Signet Classics, 1977. [1949]
• Marge Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time . New York: Fawcett, 1976.
• Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash . New York: Bantam Books, 1992.

Assignments
Failure to complete any one assignment will result in a failing grade for the quarter.

• A 3-4 page paper, due Monday, Oct. 15.
• A 4-5 page paper, due Monday, Nov. 12.
• Cumulative final exam, on Monday, Dec. 10, 8:30-11:30 a.m.

Grading

The final grade for this course will be calculated from the following weighted components:

Grading Guidelines

Essays: IHUM courses foster rigorous inquiry and critical thinking and promote effective written argumentation.

A range: This paper is outstanding in form and content. The thesis is clear and insightful; it is original, or it expands in a new way on ideas presented in the course. The evidence presented in support of the argument is carefully chosen and deftly handled. The argument is not only unified and coherent, but also complex and nuanced.

B range: This paper's thesis is clear; the argument is coherent and presents evidence in support of its points. The argument shows comprehension of the material and manifests critical thinking about the issues raised in the course. The paper is reasonably well written and proofread. The argument, while coherent, does not have the complexity, the insight, or the integrated structure of an A range paper.

C range: This paper has some but not all of the basic components of an argumentative essay (i.e., thesis, evidence, coherent structure): for example, it may offer a thesis of some kind, but it presents no evidence to support this thesis; or it may present an incoherent thesis; or it may simply repeat points made in class without an overall argument. Such a paper is usually poorly organized, written and proofread. A paper will fall below a "C" if it lacks more than one of the basic components of an argumentative essay.

Section Participation: IHUM courses are mandated to encourage vigorous intellectual exchange, the expression of various viewpoints, and the ability to speak effectively and cogently. Participation in discussion will be evaluated on the following guidelines, which stress the quality rather than the mere quantity of contributions to discussion.

A range: The student is fully engaged and highly motivated. This student is well prepared, having read the assigned texts, and has thought carefully about the texts' relation to issues raised in lecture and section. This student's ideas and questions are substantive (either constructive or critical); they stimulate class discussions. This student listens and responds to the contributions of other students.

B range: The student attends and participates consistently in discussion. This student comes to section well-prepared and contributes quite regularly by sharing thoughts and questions that show insight and a familiarity with the material. This student refers to the materials discussed in lecture and shows interest in other students' contributions.

C range: The student meets the basic requirements of section participation. This student is usually prepared and participates once in a while but not regularly. This student's contributions relate to the texts and the lectures and offer a few insightful ideas but do not help to build a coherent and productive discussion. (Failure to fulfill satisfactorily any of these criteria will result in a grade of "D" or below.)

IHUM Section Absence Policy
More than two section absences will severely affect a student's participation grade. If a student has a prolonged illness, varsity athletic competitions, or a personal situation that might lead to more than two absences, the student should contact his or her Teaching Fellow before missing section. Under certain conditions (such as varsity athletic competitions or prolonged illness), a student may be provided an opportunity to make up the work missed in section.  Note: insufficient section attendance will result in failure of the course. 

Course Policies
Late papers will be penalized 1/3 of a grade per day.

Provost's Statement concerning Students with Disabilities
Students who have a disability which may necessitate an academic accommodation or the use of auxiliary aids and services in a class must initiate the request with the Office of Accessible Education's Disability Resource Center (DRC). The DRC will evaluate the request with required documentation, recommend appropriate accommodations, and prepare a verification letter dated in the current academic term in which the request is being made. Please contact the DRC as soon as possible; timely notice is needed to arrange for appropriate accommodations (phone 723-1066; TDD 725-1067).

The Honor Code
Violating the Honor Code is a serious offense, even when the violation is unintentional. The Honor Code is available at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/judicialaffairs/guiding/honorcode.htm . You are responsible for understanding the University rules regarding academic integrity; you should familiarize yourself with the code if you have not already done so. In brief, conduct prohibited by the Honor Code includes all forms of academic dishonesty, among them copying from another's exam, unpermitted collaboration and representing as one's own work the work of another. If you have any questions about these matters, see your teaching fellow during office hours.