Clark Omo

17 February 2019

Burying the Self: Restraining Individuality in Utopias

Utopias possess a somewhat disturbing tendency to sideline and ultimately bury the concept of individuality in their constructed societies. Often this proclivity takes the form of overregulation of personal expression in any form of medium, along with the systematically rigid and binding methods of their living conditions and methods. That being said, several of the works so far studied in this course possess this aspect in one way or another, which is where my interest in the topic originates. Utopias, theoretically, are supposed to be civilizations that are perfect in every aspect: they promote a high sense of value and purpose amongst its citizens, practice laws that are fair and balanced in every aspect, are ruled by just and intelligent men and women, and are environmentally sound and lack any sort of internal conflict or power struggle. Basically, they are societies that everyone would want to spend their lives in and anyone that did not was, at the least, mad. Stipulating that this definition is indeed the case and Utopias truly are flawless societies, then I am interested in what methods they employ to ensure equality, and, if they do, what are the costs, if there are any. The Utopian literature so far studied seems to relegate individuality to a state of nonexistence. With this being so, what exactly are the methods that Utopias employ to squelch individuality and reduce its influence upon their inhabitants in nearly every outlet of society?

One method employed by Utopias to ensure the entombing of individuality within their societies is by promoting a sense of social and collective welfare and prosperity over that of the individual and private realms. Mark Featherstone comments on this in his book Planet Utopia, where he traces the development of Utopic ideals in capitalistic societies, such as the US. Featherstone explains from Winnicott, that such societies declare that “imagination, creativity, and thoughts of the new are not simply the property of the individual genius, but rather experiences that are enabled by groups that create secure spaces to allow them to happen” (2). Featherstone however takes another step further, saying that the modern methods of security and safety limit and confine creativity (3). Featherstone then moves into the promise of the utopic proffered by capitalistic societies, saying that societies in which “a population living in precariousness, tossed about on the ocean of capitalism, is more likely to accept security measures—which insist upon a particular concept of normality, limit their ability to think otherwise” (3). Promises of security, according to Featherstone, breach upon the individual’s ability to think for and express themselves, ultimately transmogrifying into the pervasive and somewhat cliché concept of Big Brother.

For Featherstone, a society that tries to protect its citizens through censorship and other such methods stifles the individual’s mind, thus preventing individuality from becoming a serious threat to the establishment. Featherstone broaches on this subject further, saying that a Utopian instance occurs when “the lack of possibility for cultural expression able to challenge the capitalist orthodoxy tips over into blind rage and the acting out of frustrations concerned with the fear and uncertainty of living in a global risk society which seems devoid of a human future” (3). According to Featherstone, societies that overregulate with security, such as that of the capitalistic in its endeavors to keep its populace safe from the uncertainties in which it thrives, take a shovel to the concept of individuality and bury it in safety measures.

In addition to promising stifling security measures, Utopias also possess a penchant for being extremely specific in many of their societal practices and a rejection of private property, as well as an attention given to a very particular type of architecture. Alyn Griffiths, in her article for CNN, examines the problem of maintaining individuality in modern architectural designs. Griffiths quotes from architect Daniel Libeskind the following “’Individual expression is what makes people different from other animals…It's what defines us as a species and yet, increasingly, individuality is a dirty word in architecture’” (n.pg.). Individuality, as Griffiths explains, makes it difficult and impractical for architects to make unique structures, especially with a “’design by committee’ approach that devalues the architect's role” (n.pg.). Individuality creates obstacles to practicality as Griffiths explains. A design that is more universally acceptable and possesses a much more utilitarian purpose is the preferred construction method of many of these Utopian societies according to Griffiths. In addition, as Akush Kapur explains, many of the leaders of the many attempted Utopian societies over the years are described in Kapur’s article as “a colorful cast of prophets, dreamers, and narcissists [who] preach against private property and possessions as they jealously guard their own” (n.pg.). As Kapur and Griffiths allude to, there exists an internal animosity against the individual and his ability to possess land or even abide in a living space that is different from the rest of the community, as problematic and obstructive.

In addition to architecture and security, some utopic communities, such as the Oneida community in New York, practiced rigid social doctrines and rituals that essentially made each individual member of their community conform to single system of behavior, effectively limiting their abilities to make unique choices or express any sort of individual divergence. The Oneida community came into being in 1848 under the leadership of John Humphrey Noyes from Brattleboro, Vermont (Hillebrand, n.pg.). Noyes and his followers, the creators of the Oneida Community, adopted a form of “Biblical Communism” which “’included all property of family living and associations’” (n.pg). According to Hillebrand, the Oneida community, by means of the elimination of private ownership, attempted to bring its members into one body, rather than maintain a mosaic of individuals. From here, the Oneida community became a simple village of three houses, a store, and a small chapel (n.pg.). At this point, Noyes began to implement the more radical of his communal ideals and policies, resulting in severe persecution and accusations of adultery (n.pg.). The policies he implemented were highly intrusive into the private lives of the citizens of the community, and included such areas of life such as male sexual intercourse (Male Continence Doctrine), the status of married attachment and the demand that every member of the community be married (Complex Marriage) and the administration of virgins throughout the community and their integration into Complex Marriage (Ascending Fellowship) (n.pg.). Furthermore, the Oneida Community also saw fit to regulate the status of men and women in regards to their social position, thus giving them equal status in the administrative committees (n.pg.). As the history and doctrines of the Oneida Community indicates, the private life becomes nonexistent in a Utopian community. the powers that control that community regulate the behavior its members to ensure a cooperative and collective state that works together to further its goals, just as Noyes used the Oneida community to further the coming of the Millennium (n.pg). Individuality then is of secondary importance (or perhaps of no importance) to what the community, as a singular organism, wants.

As my research indicates, the status of individuality in the Utopian community is of nil importance and is essentially removed from their societies altogether. Members of a Utopian community find themselves manipulated into exchanging their privacy in return for security, residing in a population center whose very layout is designed to eliminate individual uniqueness and replace it with universally satisfying construction that bears more practicality, as well as submit themselves to the intrusive and highly regulatory doctrines propagated by religious stricture that dominate their marriage lives. So far, the case is not looking good for individuality and free will in the Utopia. All the civilizational and authoritative structures, from the statutes that define livelihood to the very physical buildings in which its citizens reside, oppose the notion of individuality in the name of practicality, control, and conformity. What remains to be seen then are the costs and effects of such orders imposed upon a group of people, and whether or not individuality can still be found at all within a Utopian society, and, if so, how does this remnant cope with the intrusive and dominating laws of the dictatorial command.

Works Cited

Featherstone, Mark. Planet Utopia: Utopia, Dystopia, and Globalization. Routledge, 2017.

Griffiths, Alyn. “Individuality in Architecture: Will We Ever See Buildings Like These Again?” CNN Style. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/daniel-libeskind-individuality-architecture/index.html. Accessed 17 Feb. 2019.

Hillebrand, Randall. “The Shakers/The Oneida Community.” New York History Net. http://www.nyhistory.com/central/oneida.htm#link. Accessed 17 Feb. 2019.

Kapur, Akash. “The Return of the Utopians.” The New Yorker. 3 Oct. 2016. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/03/the-return-of-the-utopians. Accessed 17 Feb. 2019.