Lauren Rayne

10 March 2019

Utopia: A Dystopia in the Making

Utopias exist. That is an irrefutable fact in both fiction and real life. Utopias exist (as far as I can tell) for three reasons: as a precautionary tale, as a common ideology of a few, or as a movement against a particular government. Though, is this a good thing? Utopias are destroyed for the same reason dystopias are destroyed, and that is because there will always be individual thought. Therefore, are not utopias just dystopias waiting to happen? Margaret Atwood, a famous speculative fiction author, is quoted saying “Every Utopia—let’s just stick with the literary ones—faces the same problem: What do you do with the people who don’t fit in?” That is my exact question: What do you do with the “thinkers” in utopic societies, the ones who want more, or for argument's sake just want to be different? To answer these questions, I looked up Katie Parnian’s “The Perfect Utopia: a Contradiction in Terms,” Haylie Unger’s “Desire: the Drive and the Destruction of Utopias,” and Sarah Coronado’s “A Look at the Members: Collective and/or Individual” midterm and research post submissions in order to discover the actual difference between Utopias and Dystopias.

The study of dystopian societies is fairly straight forward, they are bad. Though, that begs the question: If dystopias are bad, then aren’t utopias good? Each of these writers explore the functionality of a utopian society by questioning its “good” name. Haylie Unger comments on the suppression of desire and the individual desires that are either curbed or eliminated altogether in utopias. The suppression of the individual’s desire in utopian novels is a common theme, but Unger wonderfully exposes the paradoxical element to “suppression,” and that is a utopian society is also described as a product of human desire. Unger gives an example of the suppression of human desire by alluding to Herland, and the removal of children from their mothers at birth. To me, this does not seem like a society that has individual thought; rather it is a society that is exposed to one idea and must succumb to that idea, much like a dystopian society. Katie Parnian in her essay poses a similar adversity to the supposed “good” nature within Utopian societies, where she argues that it is taken for granted that others are either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to achieve the same ideals at the same levels (Parnian). Apparently utopian societies—in fiction—follow a narrative of moral axioms that are seemingly indisputable and derive from the “desires” of few, then remain, due to a collective cult-like following (i.e. Herland).  

Utopian societies seem to have a problem with identity, whether it be the individual or the collective. Just as Parnian says, “one person’s utopia could easily be another’s dystopia in that the societal needs and desires are not similarly matched to every ideal system of perfection.” A dystopian society is a group’s “ideal system of perfection” just like a utopian society. Is there any difference between Ecotopia and Anthem? Or are they just different examples of someone’s ideal system of perfection? In Ecotopia there is an assumed unity in the community, though we only get to see the white race and their rules. This exclusion of race makes it very difficult to view Utopia’s as “good.” Then, on the other hand, there is Ayn Rand’s Anthem, where the failure to sustain Utopian ideals through the values and ambitions of each individual inevitably leads to a failed utopia or dystopia (Parnian). The failure to sustain utopian ideals is the direct result of an individual thinker moving away from a collective thought. Therefore, it looks like if Ecotopia were to be around a little longer, the different groups within would either rebel or oppress their inhabitants through some type of authoritarian rule. The same applies to Herland as well, where just one individual—take a mother who just lost her baby—decides to go against the collective “norm.” If this were to transpire, then it looks like this utopia has now become a dystopia according to Parnian and Unger’s insightful examinations of individual desire surpassing collective thought.

Furthermore, it seems as though individual desire within a literary Utopia is similar to the individual desire within a literary Dystopia. Sarah Coronado questions the “good” in utopic societies by addressing collective identities, and how these assigned collective identities eventually subside, and that is how the society unravels. Furthermore, she explores the importance of merging collective thought with individual thought, stating that “collective identity impressed upon members of a cult or utopian group cannot be sustained. But also, that an individual identity is not the reigning champion” (Coronado). Essentially, it appears to be a “cocktail” mix of the two, which has yet to be shown to me in utopian literature. Therefore, for utopias to actually be deemed as “good,” then I think it is important to question collective identity, while also promoting just a little more individual identity. Like Coronado said, too much of both is not good for any society, and the “good” within utopian societies is what I am looking at here.

So how are we supposed to look at utopian worlds as a “good” representation of society when they implement the same rules as a dystopia? After reading these different takes on utopian fiction, I have come to find that there is no “good” version of a utopian society, rather there is just “one” version of a utopian society, and that “one” version benefits only one and not the collective. Utopias appear a little less exciting than dystopias, but from what I found, it is only because they have not had their inevitable experience of either a collective or individual rebellion yet. Overall, individual desire both creates and destroys, but without individual desire there is no hope for the “good” or the “ideal.” Therefore, to me, a utopia represents the “good” of an individual’s desires. 

Part 2: Abstract Ideals that Represent the Very Real

As I signed up for this course, I did not have any prior experience with the Utopian genre. Other than a couple YA novels, my knowledge was quite limited. I have always found myself looking down on genres that explore the unreal or the fantastical elements of life. Though, over the course of this semester, I have come to find that the utopian genre is not just “silly” make-believe worlds, but rather they are worlds crafted with such precision and with such a particular focus, it is hard to not get wrapped up in them. Utopian worlds and what they represent hold a special place within the literary canon that comments on social conventions in a way no other genre can. The author who is willing to create a utopian world provides the reader with a distinct vision of our reality that we as humans could either imagine or not imagine, but whatever world we are presented with, is a world worth exploring. For me, a utopia is not some “ideal society,” but rather a utopia represents the very real problems current societies are having in an abstract way. There is a literal element to utopian societies that critically comments on the world in which we as readers live. Utopia is defined in the dictionary as a “paradise” or a “perfect community,” and I find that to be disingenuous to what a utopia ultimately represents, which is a literature of ideas that cannot be subjected to a fixed “perfect” world.  

This “literature of ideas” can be a finicky concept to understand, because is not all literature a literature of ideas? Though, when it comes to the utopian genre there is no other way to describe it. As such a specific genre that encompasses so many concepts it is important to recognize that they are “ideas” that comment on real issues in modern society (i.e. politics, gender roles, religion). Utopian societies ask the reader to not “read about it” but to “be about it.” In other words, utopian literature invites the reader to actually imagine their society as being a potential reality. Therefore, utopian literature is engaging in societal discourse that should not be snubbed but welcomed as a true from of political engagement.

Historically, utopias are a reactionary response to current events within a specific society. Utopias are not limited to literature, rather utopias as the “ideal” has been a concept dating back centuries. While Thomas More did coin the term “Utopia,” he by no means was the first to invent the concept of it. Humans always want “better” or “more,” and when humans are seemingly stopped from doing so rebellions arise. These rebellions, for the sake of understanding, show a collective human identity that supports something that most would describe as “unreal.” That is my understanding of it; people can say “I wish we lived in a world where the only food is candy,” and that would be deemed as unrealistic, though it is the unrealistic that causes the most reaction within societal discourse. That is exactly what utopian literature does, is it starts a discourse between educators, students, and people alike about the “unreal” commenting on the very real. The literature we as a class have read so far supports this. In Herland there is this bond of “motherhood” that is only represented by women for women. That idea seems ludicrous to the average person, but it comments on issues post-Civil War America, where women were pushing through the oppressive lens by starting their own collective thought now seen as “feminism.”

Phrases such as “it will never work” or “what a stupid idea” are not productive within utopian literature discourse. For example, Ecotopia is by far the most relatable text we as a class have read thus far. Therefore, to look at this text as a potential “go green” escape from evil capitalistic America is understandable, but it is not real. Ecotopia highlights and comments on essential problems within the United States, and that is the extent of it. In order to engage with utopian literature as a field of study, it is important to distance reality from fiction, while also being able to identify the essential social commentary. For example, in Ernest Callenbach’s Ecotopia, the protagonist William Weston comments on America’s problems, where he notes shortage issues that essentially led to the secession of the West coast:

These problems exacerbated the general U.S. economic depression of the period, speeded up our chronic inflation and caused widespread dissatisfaction with government policies. Moreover, Ectopia still poses a nagging challenge to the underlying national philosophy of America. Ever continuing process, the fruits for industrialization for all, a rising Gross National Product (10). Problems that arise such as this happen every day on a global level, and it is disastrous to many families and communities, especially in third-world countries. Therefore, Callenbach takes current social issues with countries that are dominated by capitalism and exposes key flaws within that system. These flaws may not necessarily be fixed by solutions such as he mentions above, though it is a critical social event that needs to be exposed and debated. Overall, through examples such as these, it is apparent that utopian literature is nothing to be dismissed, but is a literature worth exploring, especially as a form of political and social discourse.

          Utopian fiction, while commenting on very real events, also cherishes the romance narrative. The quest mythos, where a heroine and hero fall in love despite all the obstacles is very prevalent within these utopian societies. In Herland, Vandyck and Ellador partake in the romance narrative, where Vandyck “saves” her from a land of just women in order to bring Ellador to his world. This “new” world, so to say, seems magical to Ellador. Therefore, Vandyck is essentially her “knight,” and Ellador is the beautiful heroine that needs saving. At the end of Herland, Ellador says, “For if I am to go with you to your country, we may have 'adventures by sea and land,' as you say [and as in truth we did], and it might not be at all safe for a baby. So, we won't try again, dear, till it is safe—will we?" (Chapter 12). Therefore, while utopian fiction creates a world worth analyzing critically, there is still the romantic element that presents itself as a constant sub-genre.

This sub-genre also finds itself within dystopian literature as well. In Ayn Rand’s Anthem there is the romance between Equality 7-2521 and The Golden One. This romance is romanticized just like any quest myth romance is. The Golden One is highly underdeveloped and her own importance to the story is to function as the one that receives Equality 7-2521’s affection. Within these utopian and dystopian fictions, the motif of “damsel in distress” is quite apparent. So far in the semester almost every postmodern utopian or dystopian story is narrated by the male hero, and during his adventures he comes across an unsuspecting female needing a “rescue.” The exception to that rule is Ecotopia, but even then, with the inversion, there is the romance quest mythos. Therefore, even in a world carefully constructed to oppose social conventions, the one social convention that remains a constant is love. As for Thomas More’s Utopia, the romance narrative strays, for this story poses almost a “how to” create a utopia. The elements of adventure, war, and passion are still there, but the romantic narrative that embodies love within the quest myth is not. Overall, it seems as though the sub-genre of romanticism is more prevalent within postmodern work (Though, we will see if that remains true as the semester progresses).

          Utopian fiction, as previously mentioned, engages in political and societal discourse while also creating a narrative that captures the romantic nature of the “quest myth.” Initially coming in to this course I did not know what to expect, but I certainly did not expect that to be my findings in utopian literature. I viewed utopian literature as a literature of the abstract and impossible, but that is not true. Over the course of the semester I have come to find that the abstract and the impossible are just ways of looking at reality without being too particular. In every text read thus far there is a convention that is in desperate need of exploring, and by creating a world that explores it, the author has made strides towards the “ideal” world. This is what I find so incredible about Utopian literature, not the “craziness” of it, but the not crazy parts that depict the real instead of the “ideal.”

          Utopian fiction is abrasive and off-putting, but that is what makes it current within the literary spectrum. In our postmodern world there are certain issues that people are hesitant to talk about, and one of those issues is identity politics and how it both helps and hinders society. That is what is so interesting about utopian fiction, which is that this genre’s narrative stresses identity of the individual versus identity of the collective. This goes back to my working definition of utopian fiction: the abstract attempting to comment on the very real. Societal conventions and political discourse are intimidating topics, and utopian fiction figured out a way to discuss them by creating a world of the opportune and “ideal.” This allows class discourse to build off each other, while also figuring out what we as individuals deem acceptable within a society.

          Objective 3d questions gender roles and the standards of love in a utopian community. This is something I have expressed great interest in, especially when these standards of love comment on the intended transformation to the “ideal” society. The relation between love and utopian fiction is a frame within the narrative that is not separate, but rather it is embedded within the social commentary. Love (so far) is expressed as a necessity within a utopian society, even in Herland where love is a unified front of “motherhood.” Though, eventually that love is not enough, and the narrative changes its trajectory to accept a heterosexual relationship between different couples. Why is that? I think the answer is because love is a constant and is already an “ideal.” Therefore, if utopian fiction is commenting on politics and/or social issues, then love has to be a part of it. It seems almost wrong to take away love in any society, and especially literature. Though, love does not stand alone in utopic societies, because usually it is secondary to the major themes of the plot, and those themes comment on social conventions and how to better a society as an individual. I want to explore the theme of love within an “ideal” community as the semester goes on, while also examining what “love” does to the political and social commentary most utopian societies tend to address.