Daniel Stuart

June 25, 2013

Utopia As No Man's Land: The Argument Against Utopia

          It is said that wanderlust “is the state of looking for something and almost knowing you’re never going to find it” (Bjork). Much the same sentiments can be translated to search for utopia. So many seek other than what they have, newer places from where they are and better conditions under which they can be nourished. Offered choices of lifestyle and means of maneuverability, the quest for “a more perfect union,” to borrow the words of the U.S. Constitution, is an ongoing undertaking without, seemingly, any indication of letting up. This search for that other, that utopian ideal is a constant pursuit of that “more perfect,” more egalitarian society, the better integrated civilization. The literature studied in this course has led many not unlike myself to examine the possibility for such a supreme model of living. It is a question the individual often asks every day just as the collective comes to demand newer, better modified modes of doing things. Possibility and potential, after all, are the only real necessity for hope. And yet many, also like myself, have come to the resolution that utopia, no matter how elaborately configured, no matter how pragmatically envisioned, can never meet up with the ideal; more to that, it can never sustain even the initiation of such a superlative vision. The following paper will feature analysis of several fellow classmates who similarly feel that the utopia is an unattainable ideal, largely owing to essential truths such as the variability of vision, fallibility of man or the stunting of ingenuity and sustainable development by restrictive ideologies. Examination of each author's analysis and rhetoric will be employed to present a coherent, unified evaluation of the argument for an unattainable utopia.

          In her essay “The Perfect Utopia: A Contradiction in Terms,” Katie Parnian contrasts the idea of a utopian civilization with the idea of a perfect romance, one which endures “happily ever after.” The author relates how she, like “many middle-class Caucasian women,” desired the prototypical American dream: marriage, suburban home, children, etc. (Parnian). This was her utopia, a far cry, she relates, from the independent women of Herland existing within a highly exclusionary society devoid of male interference. The point Parnian is really trying to make is that not all versions of utopia are the same. Later in her essay, she concludes that Herland cannot be an ideal society as it does not offer a place for males though she elaborates little in the way of justification for this, only addressing the unrealistic nature of the situation. She draws another example by contrasting Anthem (a society forcibly ignorant of the past) and More's Utopia with Looking Backward citing the latter's incorporation of historical data into its prevailing ideology, including excerpts between Dr. Leete and Bellamy addressing history as a learning tool. "More's Utopia," she says, "does not have such a basis of comparison, since it [is] portrayed as having been founded in accordance with the same ideals set forth by its founder, Utopus." Hence  it "becomes difficult to imagine how the citizens of Utopia really appreciate or are happy with their ideal society" (Parnian).

          The author concludes her argument stating that no one utopia can satisfy everyone; "the richness and diversity of human individuality" is too great an obstacle to overcome (Parnian). She then suggests an alternative to the physical utopian model with the implementation of internalized spiritual principles, guiding religious and philosophical precepts by which each and every individual may involve themselves with. The essay is a good exploration of the contrasting ways in which humans devise ideal civilizations. It is difficult to foresee how a successful utopia can be erected and sustained when several of the more enlightened literary minds share the difficulty of agreeing on a singular model. Perhaps a more detailed closing argument and conclusion could have been articulated, reinforcing the essay's position and the author's convictions, but there is reason to applaud her rationale.

          Like Parnian, Chrissie Johnston makes a similar case for the impossibility of utopias even if her rhetoric doesn't quite rule out the possibility that such a society could exist. A schoolteacher as well as student studying utopian and dystopian literature, she notes the limitations on personal freedoms, a running theme in texts like Utopia, Looking Backward & Herland, is the primary drawback to a successfully run society. Arguing that "a large portion of the world spends a large portion of their 'free' time and money on pleasures" relating more to self-indulgence, a civilization focused on cultivating healthy leisure activities through things like reading, studying and discourse could never function at a high level (Johnston). The disabling of private ownership and personalized handling of money is not only a drawback--she mentions how students she's taught object to this notion in particular--but an "unobtainable dream." Money has become so much a necessity, a central focus even, of our current society that the implementation of a system devoid of wages, currency and financial industry is largely a conceptual impossibility. The auhor is, however, rather keen on addressing the allure and desirability of such a way of life (her essay's title is "The Attraction to Perfection"), noting how the egalitarian system of educational and professional pursuits paints a nice picture in Looking Backward. Also, there is a wholesome, if sentimental attraction to the rooting out of selfish instincts and desires by the utopian vision, as witnessed in Utopia and Herland where the "feeling of togetherness" fosters a desirable quality in which no one gets left out and where cliques are largely eradicated (Johnston).
          Johnston's essay is largely centered on the literary importance of the subgenre. She overtly states that teaching dystopias prompt more vigor among students than utopias for the obvious reasons having to do with the confrontation of ideas and societal issues. Yet there is an important point whhich is inherent in her essay, even involving the fact that dystopias evoke more of a reaction than utopias, and it's that while the vision of collective utopia is a tempting convention, self-interest and personal ambition have a way of inevitably interfering with the carrying out of such an ideal. Additionally, without independent initiative, the introduction of new ideas and concepts might never come about; the essay mentions Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg as supporting examples sharing the same conviction Equality 7-2521/Prometheus. A fully-integrated, cooperative civilization isn't necessarily impossible, the author seems to say. It's just that the very fact of possibility available to the individual so supercedes the desire for community.

          "For as long as humanity is imperfect, utopia is beyond us . . . ," says the author of "The Hypocritical World of Utopias" (c.n.r.). Utopias themselves are an illusion, partially owing to the fact that their vision (in the literary sense) is always contradicting itself. Taking the gold  example from More's Utopia, the essay argues that the utopians are acting in a hypocritical manner when they discourage the value of precious metals among the populace while privately keeping a stocked reserve to use when necessary. It is a meticulously constructed deception arranged so that citizens of Utopia will not only disavow the desire for private possession and ownership, but that they will willingly part with it should the occasion present itself. To further the point, the very concept of utopia is hypocritical in that it blatantly ignores the fact that "without conflict there is no growth." Life cannot be lived apart from conflict, from a "world full of speed bumps, ups and downs, like a huge roller coaster ride." Much of the argument is on target even if it may overstate several issues and even miss on some points but the case made for a necessarily flawed society is a valid premise. Additionally the author alludes to the brokenness and fallen nature of man in the world, reiterating some of Kate Parnian's convictions regarding the inherently doomed state of the utopian vision. Heaven is the only real utopia, and that only because it is a "completely different ontological experience than we have now."

          Little more than a century ago, the greatest novelist who ever lived lay on his deathbed in an isolated Russian train station. Having given up novels for more noble pursuits, his widespread fame and highly publicized religious and socio-political leanings had prompted the advent of a new socialist utopian movement loosely adhering to his namesake so much so that thousands throughout the world adapted his philosophy of simple living, equal division of wealth, pacifism and nonviolent resistance. Yet the inability to agree on the doctrines and intentions of that one man's legacy largely defamed his legend and nearly destroyed his work. Fortunately for Leo Tolstoy, he would die at the station and not have to endure the quibbling and bickering about who his work should be relegated to for the succeeding years. His wife and his best friend, who had butted heads more than a few times during the author's life, would ultimately take their claims on the great man's life and work to a court where the whole of his estate and a life's worth of writing were settled. Not the utopia, but the very vision for the utopia had to bow to that most hated of adversaries--a bureaucratic institution which fostered a culture of arbitration and divisions. It is still one of the best examples of selfishness and singularity of mind interfering in the proliferation of a (relatively) thriving utopian communal ideal (Parini). Utopian literature is very self-evidently wrought with imperfections and questionable, at best, cooperative policies. It is as easy to poke holes in one theory or another of a civilized paradise on earth as it is to do the same to our current society. For all of the grand schemes of collective production and integrated community, there are as many contradictions, hypocrasies and incidents of self-interest. Perhaps in another life, and to be precise, another dimension of conscious existence, there can be perfection of the utopian ideal, but not in this life.

Works Cited

Bjork. "Wanderlust" Volta. One Little Indian. April 2008

Johnston, Chrissie. "The Attraction to Perfection." White Coursesite. Midterms 2011.

More, Thomas. Utopia. New York: Penguin, 2004.

Parini, Jay. The Last Station. New York: Knopf, 2001.

Parnian, Katie. "The Perfect Utopia: A Contradiction in Terms." White Coursesite. Midterms 2011.

Rand, Ayn. Anthem. Caldwell: Caxton, 2010.