How do we define a utopia?
Throughout
this semester, I have been curious about how we should define “utopia” in society.
My interest in this question arises from the idea that the same society can
exist as both utopia for some members, and dystopia for others. Perhaps these
pockets of dystopia are what enable the utopia for others. Is the relationship
between utopia and dystopia a zero-sum game, where if one end increases in magnitude
for some group of society, the other end increases for another? Is it possible
to conceive a utopia, in which no groups are sacrificed for the good of others?
This is an
idea that we have both talked and written about in class. When I consider this
question, I think the way we define a “utopia” is key. As such a general term,
individual definitions of what a utopia is can vary wildly. If you see your utopia
to mean that you possess everything; that you own money and land and resources
and power over others; that you hold a position atop a hierarchical, aristocratic
system; then, your utopia unavoidably indicates a worse experience for others
around you. By having, others cannot have. Your power means that other people
are under it. In this definition of utopia, the existence of yours means the
lack of in others.
Thankfully,
this is not my definition of utopia. There is a strong element of egalitarianism in how I see
utopia. Maybe there wouldn’t be billionaires then. Maybe the restrictive utopia
of the super-rich would have to be sacrificed. But really, I don’t think anyone
is being limited in any real way. A fundamental aspect of my utopia would be
that everyone would have their basic needs covered. This includes physical necessities,
such as food and clothes and shelter. This also includes the basic mental,
emotional, and educational care and support that everyone needs. I am not quite
how this will be provided for everyone. From here, people would have not only
the freedom but also the means to pursue their own life and happiness, and
search for their own sense of meaning. In this case, I think that it’s possible
that better for some does not mean worse for others, as we wrote about in
class. If the successes of individuals and communities are shared, then we can all
move forward together.
I don’t
that a utopia that exists by oppressing certain groups within that society is a
utopia, no matter how utopian life is for however big a majority. I think the
suffering of any group in society diminishes the experience of us all. Utopias can’t
exist in individuals or oligarchies. They can’t hinge on a proportional
existence of dystopia. I think the pursuit of utopia without this principle can
become a dangerous thing. I also think that this definition of utopia is harder
to achieve. But if we’re striving for utopia, we should go all the way.
In response to your question about the sacrifices of a utopia, I do not believe that any society could function without any compromises or conflicts. The individuals of a society will never agree on a singular, utopian vision, simply because everybody is different and unique. Egalitarian societies might satisfy the majority of a population, but I don't think that they will entirely satisfy everybody. As far as I can see, sacrifices will always be necessary in pretty much every situation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Brandon that people would have to make compromises in order to function in a utopia, I don't think that takes away from the utopian aspect, at least not in the way this post puts it. If you think about it, right now in our society we have to make compromises to keep a certain order, and we are certainly not a utopia, so I think we would be able to reach a common ground where the compromise would probably not be the reason why the utopia does or doesn't fail.
DeleteYour definition of a utopia is very similar to what I also wrote about for our reflective writing in class. My utopia would likely not be sustainable if there were people who were excessively rich. It is true that it would be worse for those people since they wouldn't have billions of dollars, however, worse doesn't mean that they'll be miserable. They'll still be compensated well for their work, but extreme wealth would give them the power that could disrupt an egalitarian society.
ReplyDeleteI agree essentially completely. A utopia that is not a utopia for all of its members doesn't seem like a utopia to me, and seems like it would be likely to include fewer and fewer of its members over time. Take Gilead, founded in part by people like Serena Joy, who are now themselves being put under the boot. Or take people like Mustafa Mond in BNW, who is at this point oppressing himself along with everyone else in his attempts to maintain his 'utopia'.
ReplyDelete-Sasha
I agree that a utopia for one does not mean an utopia for all. Even though the Alphas in Brave New World were having a great time, the Gammas and Epsilons were not. But it gets a little trickier when we take into account that they were socialized and genetically engineered to accept and enjoy their positions in society. From outside looking in, it seems like a dystopia, but from the inside looking out, who knows. I think that the concept of a utopia disappears as soon as there is inequality, compromises, or sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteI like how you describe the relationship between utopias and dystopias. And I think it's interesting that you define utopias by a baseline of good, rather than by some dizzyingly awesome standard (e.g. someone saying a utopia is where everyone gets fed vs someone saying a utopia is where everyone eats as much cake as they want). It makes utopias seem grounded in the real world, and, as you said, feel more difficult to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI think it's an important point that a utopia would mean a different thing for everyone. What is a "perfect" world will always depend on who is creating that world and what they believe is "perfect". Therefore, what is a utopia for some will never be a perfect utopia for others, because inherently people believe different things are important in a "perfect" world. Still, I believe that a "perfect" society for some, doesn't mean that life has to be bad for others. I think a utopia for me would also mean that people have some sort of equality and are treated equal.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a utopia isn't a utopia if a certain group of people are suffering. But I think that's why achieving a utopia is extremely difficult. In the world that we live in today, one's having inevitably leads one's suffering in most cases. It takes sacrifice to get what we desire for in life. I actually see a lot of comparisons between my ideal utopia and yours. Your utopia is realistic and isn't some fairy tale.
ReplyDeleteThe differing views of what a utopia is demonstrates exactly why one can never be conceived. Unless you have a small population of people that share the same exact views and beliefs, you're always gonna have contrasting ideas. Since a utopia is so hard to picture, its also pretty hard to write a novel about them. That's probably why every novel is centered around a dystopian type society as opposed to a utopian.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are exactly right that the definition of Utopia varies from person to person. The problem with your definition of a Utopia is that there is no incentive to do anything. How will you incentivize working hard without the incentive of doing any better than anyone else? As such, nobody would work hard and the society would collapse because the basic needs for everyone would not be able to be provided.
ReplyDelete