ABSTRACT
So far we have dealt with relatively small segments of language: sentences and complementary paragraphs. That’s because this is a step-by-step guide. Now it’s time to think about managing larger structures. Again we will begin with some analysis. The mini-essay that follows concerns an entirely hypothetical (indeed, virtually nonsensical) topic; it’s important at this stage for you to think about the process of writing rather than the content. There’ll be plenty of time to think about the needs of your particular area of study when it comes to the subject-specific sections at the end of this book. The topic for this essay is:
Imagine that the government intends to bring in a law stating that everyone should live in apartments of exactly the same size. What would be the consequences, and would they be advantageous?
In most countries, people are used to seeing houses and apartments of many different shapes and sizes, made from a variety of materials, and reflecting the social and economic circumstances of the people who live in them. Such variety arguably makes life more interesting, as well as providing an index of people’s control over their environment. But what if things were different? What if, as in some countries, everyone had to live in apartments of exactly the same size?
‘Exactly the same size’ – not necessarily apartments made of the same materials, furnished in the same way, or contained in identical buildings. The motive for such a law would be humane, not simply bureaucratic. There could be almost as much variety in the urban environment as there is now, but with a more even distribution of that scarce resource, space. Human beings are territorial creatures, so that an unfair distribution of space arouses envy and other undesirable, anti-social feelings. If living space were standardised, most people would feel happier with their lot, and be less inclined to worry about their status relative to others.
25There would be a number of important practical consequences were a government bold enough to enact such a policy. People’s social habits would change: fewer people would want to spend their leisure time at home, so bringing business to places of public entertainment, encouraging outdoor recreation, and fostering a greater sense of community, especially in larger towns. This, in turn, might bring about a general reduction in crime. There would be economic benefits, as well: greater efficiency in the use of domestic fuel (there could be definitive guidelines about how best to heat the home), growth in the construction industry, more work for people engaged in decorating and furnishing apartments, and so on. There would also be a greater concentration of living space, resulting in more land being available for recreation and agriculture. The advantages would be enormous.
Naturally, some unpleasant consequences would follow, but these would be outweighed by the benefits. People in larger houses would have to surrender some of their living space to accommodate other families, but they could be compensated for this by the government. Some historical buildings might have to be changed dramatically, but they could conceivably be retained as museums, with the people who lived in them being compelled by law to accept visitors. It is possible that there would be an overall decline in population, since people who wanted large families would be deterred by limitations on space, but this might be offset by the number of people given a permanent apartment for the first time who could then start families. All of these drawbacks would be negligible compared with the advantages.
Overall, if everyone lived in apartments of the same size there would certainly be greater social harmony and contentment. The example of countries such as Sweden and Japan, where inequalities of living space are much less evident, and where crime is much lower, underlines the benefits of standardisation. The losers from such a system would be those who could afford to lose, while society itself could only gain.
