Thomas More's Utopia
Thomas More wrote his iconic, albeit contentious, book Utopia in the early 16th century. It depicted an ideal island community called Utopia. Due to its status as an island state, Utopia's government imposes strict regulations on its citizens, as well as those who wish to visit the island from the mainland. This essentially places the island under local government lockdown while also avoiding pointless communication with the outside world that can spark an escalation of hostilities. In More's utopia, euthanasia and divorce were socially acceptable practices, there was no such thing as private property or money, and individuals were free to follow whatever gods they pleased. Slavery was also a primary feature of Utopian society, and its population was made from imported slaves and Utopian criminals. Further, privacy was discouraged in order to prevent private gatherings that would promote unrest or plots against the government (Sumner).
More's Utopia: A Mish-mash of Dystopian Elements
Going through all of that, it can be hard to describe More’s vision of an ideal future as anything like a utopia, or ideal for that matter by our present standards. If anyone had read their share of dystopian fiction, it would be hard to miss how More’s Utopia is a mish-mash of various dystopian elements found in classic books such as 1984, a totalitarian government that leaves no room for privacy; Brave New World, a heavily stratified society ruled by Alphas that manages its population through euthanasia and abortion; and The Giver, a society “brainwashed” into thinking they were isolated and far from war in order to create an illusion of peace and effective government. This is by no means an exhaustive list of dystopian elements that have parallels in More’s Utopia, and this is what many find most disconcerting about a book called—of all things—“Utopia”.
Subjectivity and Utopia
If this points to anything, it is to the fact that modern discussions of utopias and dystopias fail to account for subjectivity. If Utopias are essentially “heaven on earth” as envisioned by individuals, then this vision is subject to change wherever one is in history, whatever s/he knows about the world and his/her society, according to the values that s/he holds, and however s/he defines “heaven”. In that sense, our present society which practices abortion, gives significant control to the Federal Government, and is in the cusp of legalizing recreational marijuana is already a dystopia—“hell on earth”—by the standards of Americans many decades back, but it may also be on its way to a utopia for some, i.e. those who hold to More’s version of Utopia.
The Pitfalls of Utopian Projects
If utopias and dystopias are arbitrary in definition, then it becomes easier to understand why utopian projects quickly turn into dystopias, like the Third Reich and Colonialism. These utopian projects were carried out with universalistic intent and force, but only from a particular point of view, one that, historically speaking, has not necessarily been exhaustive, encompassing or correct. The effect is that the Utopian idyll is met, but only temporarily, until dissent arises from affected peoples, cultures and populations that do not share the idyll. True utopias can exist only in closed systems.
Dystopias as Rationalizations of the Present
That being said, dystopias are nothing more than rationalizations of the present through the lenses of the past. Starrs and Wright explore the origin of past and modern dystopian conceptions, and point out that they follow one and the same pattern. They note how: “Conceptions of ‘the’ ideal place resolutely shift to a time untainted by the sweat and corruption of the present. Retreat from the travails of the current day into past epochs, believed simpler and more virtuous, is… primitivism… Within the canonical doctrines of primitivism, perfection is accepted as long gone, and the place of humans is to return—as fast and as drastically as possible—to the clarity, righteousness, and balance of antiquity” (emphasis added) (Starrs and Wright 98-99).
The Cultural Context of Dystopian Novels
Rather than objective observations, claims of dystopia typically arise from discontent about modern societal implements. The dreary visions of dystopian novels, for example, are nothing but projections of the values and fears held by the culture that produced it, at a particular time in history. 1984, for example, was written during the rise of communism and from the perspective of a novelist who believes in the value of democracy and the evil of totalitarianism. As a piece of dystopian fiction, it presents a future void of democracy, and invites the reader to compare his/her present comforts against the totalitarian future s/he reads in the novel. It is nothing but a glorified call to primitivism, a call to seek a time when there were no alternatives to democracy as a standard of government.
Is Utopia Worth the Risk?
So is chasing after a utopia worth it if we risk falling into a dystopia? Is utopia possible? Those questions need rephrasing. “Is making sweeping and lasting changes to societies based on limited and biased views of nation and history a wise course of action?” The answer comes to us much easier: NO.
Works Cited
Starrs, Paul F. and John B. Wright. “Utopia, Dystopia, and Sublime Apocalypse in Montana’s Church Universal Triumphant.” American Geographical Society, vol. 95, no. 1, 2006, pp. 97-121.
Sumner, Mark. “The Good Future: Reclaiming Utopia.” Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/29/1530419/-The-Good-Future-Reclaiming-Utopia. Accessed 19 March 2017.
