Utopia Assignment
Utopia's meaning stretches back from the Greek language. It is separated into 'u' ('no') and 'topia' ('place/land'). Utopia, from that etymology, is a word that describes a 'no-place', or a place that does not exist. Utopia is also referred to as 'Eutopia', in which the 'Eu' translates into 'good/ideal'. So that's 'good-land/place' which equates to, when taken in consideration with the definition of Utopia, a 'non-existent good place'.
Utopia Eutopia
'u' 'topia' 'eu' 'topia'
'no' 'place' 'good' 'place'
'no-place' 'good-place'
An example of a historical attempt at creating a Utopia would be the North American Phalanx, located in Monmouth County. From 1841 to 1856 the NAP existed on 673 acres, and flourished, before its downfall. Its main philosophy and design was concocted by Charles Fourier, which primarily was dedicated on labor related socialism.
The average population of the Utopia ranged from 120 to 150 throughout the fifteen years it existed. Each of the citizens of the commune were called 'associates' by each other, and were brought into the community through a fairly organized procedure. Firstly, the associate 'joins' the community for a thirty day trial. After the trial the soon-to-be associate remains at the commune for a provisional one year period. At the end of the year the whole community votes whether to keep the new associate.
Nearly every associate came from middle to lower tax brackets, and were usually trades-men/-women. Also, most of the citizenry were from the north eastern areas of the USA. Everyone was separated into one of the six groups when they joined the community. The six groups were agriculture, domestic affairs, social planning, manufacturing, livestock and education. Each group designated a leader, and the said leaders met every evening to discuss policy and/or ideas for the community.
Government in the commune was a democracy. Everyone voted, and voted in mini-elections for directors, a president, a vice president, and a treasurer. The twelve directors had staggered elections (meaning that they didn't have one massive election where all the leaders were chosen, and had one director individually chosen/replaced yearly), and held office for two years.
It worked. The commune worked well for the twenty-odd years of its existence. Generally, compared with the average of the nation at the time, the NAP associates had a much higher standard of living. However, due to things outside of their control, they were eventually destroyed. The dissolution of the community happened over the final few years. Initially the issues that crippled the commune were the divide in opinions about abolition of slavery, and women's rights. Then, in 1854, a fire caused roughly $10,000 in damage.
NAP's insurance company was bankrupt, too, at that specific moment and the commune was unable to recoup from its losses. Soon after the fire, in 1855, the commune voted to sell their 673 acres. With members leaving from the divide in the Abolitionist issue, along with the women's rights issue, the fire was the final nail in the proverbial coffin.
Plato's The Republic can be described, primarily, by the following word: justice. A Utopia is, since it is the perfect nation, a just nation. Plato’s Socrates described a Utopia as a place where "[The] soldier, that of the producer, and that of a ruler. If a ruler can create just laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be just."
If the Utopia is Just then everything else follows. If the leaders of the Utopia are just in their laws, and if their minions follow their just rulings, the Utopia is functional. However, since justice is devised from personal preference and opinions, there is a range of possible just Utopias.
Plato gives three polar views on the idea of a 'Just Society'. Thrasymachus, a sophist, said throughout the earlier chapters that justice is something that belonged to the strong. If one was strong then they possessed justice since they could control others into their form of justice.
Socrates, the polar opposite of Thrasymachus, says that "Working at that which he is naturally best suited," and "To do one's own business and not to be a busybody" (433a5-433b). Basically, when taken in context, Socrates points out that justice is for the benefit of the whole, rather than the single man.
Then Glaucon, with a more critical spin on justice, gives his input. Glaucon says that men, without consequences ('justice'), will abuse the world in any way they can. He supports this with the story of 'Ring of Gyges', where a man finds a magic ring that turns him invisible. Through using the ring the man kills the king of his homeland, takes the king's wife as his own, and becomes the king. He made his justice through breaking the rules of others.
So a Utopian state would follow its type of justice. Embracing Thrasymachus, Glaucon, or Socrates would most likely be troublesome. Thrasymachus is true, in a sense, when seen through a critical perspective. Thugs and gangs, through violence, do control a lot of the world's populace. The USA's might over the world through violence also establishes its control over others.
Glaucon, too, is true. Glaucon's Gyges has been taken advantage of many times through-out history. Humans have been killing each other in secret for ages, and have been committing atrocities as long as they felt they would receive no punishment. Stalin knew that he'd never get retribution from his people when he sold off their food supply to pay for industrial goods. His people starved, and he never received an ounce of justice from his followers.
Socrates has the least 'positive' examples. Whenever someone attempts to “do good” for the rest of society their attempts are normally fruitless. Tommy Douglas, the Father of Medicare, created public healthcare in Saskatchewan. However, due to the creation of the health care system, Canada has become divided in its opinions over private/public health care systems. When looking out for the whole of society something, or someone, normally causes some great unrest in the whole being looked after.
Justice is too loose of a topic. It can be debated about, turned about, and analyzed into non-existence. However this lone fact remains true: a just society is a Utopia. If the people are happy, everything is taken care of peacefully and rightfully, the Just Society in question is a Utopia.
Plato points out that "[if] a ruler can create just laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be just." It may leave open the topic of the soldiers and producers being ignorant of justice, but if the people believe they are on the receiving end of a just leader’s justice they’ll be living in a Utopia. A Thrasymachus leadership may be seen as brutal and wavering by outside viewers, but to the soldier and the producers the Thrasymachus justice ideal may be the Utopian ideal. It’s the same for Glaucon and Socrates.
If the producers and soldiers are completely happy the society is a Utopia. From that idea then, the idea of having a Utopia is completely in the people's perspective. Whenever a Utopia, real or fiction, is created the people truly believe that their good-place is a Utopia. In George Orwell’s 1984 Oceana is shown to be a Utopian state in which everyone loves Big Brother. Through their perspectives being changed (doublethink, anyone?) they perceive their existence as being Utopian.
Another general characteristic of a Utopia, be it historical or fictional, is that the people of the society are all equal. No one is above each other, and no one can exercise almighty control over another. In the NAP everyone was deemed equal associates. The lotus eaters, in the Odyssey, were also 'equal' in the sense that no one had control over them (excusing the lotus).
Along with that, nearly every Utopian society had/has a great emphasis on a 'guiding light', 'heroic ideal', 'model', or an 'intellectual leader'. Plato's envisioned philosopher-kings or the NAP's Charles Fourier would be examples of the 'light bringers'. George Orwell's 1984's Big Brother was the model of Oceana, and even Lycurgus of Sparta could be considered 'light bringers', as well.
Inability to adapt, too, seems to be a large commonality amongst Utopias. The fire that happened on the NAP's commune smashed it to tiny pieces, and no one tried to glue the shards back together. It just died. Another example of a Utopia being unable to adapt would be Lycurgus' vision of Sparta, which was eventually thrown into the ashes of history through it being destroyed.
Another similarity would be the organized 'levels' of a Utopian society. Basically a society would be sloshed into three groups: the soldier, the lawgiver, and the producer. Plato explores this topic rather well, with his text 'The Republic', when he comments about the segregated levels in the final chapters of the book. He makes the point that society is made of "[The] soldier, that of the producer, and that of a ruler. If a ruler can create just laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be just." The NAP separates their populace into several groups, which had been noted earlier.
However, there are some very large differences between Fiction and Historical examples of Utopias. Fictional Utopias are normally viewed through the lens of an 'outsider', or someone who is looking at the Utopia in a critical light. For example, in 1984, the whole story is in the view of the protagonist. When there is an actual attempt at a Utopia the 'view' of the place is usually quite blurry. Normally, when looking at a historical Utopian state, the written down information and contacts with the society would be, obviously, biased.
There are several problems I'd be faced with when creating a Utopia:
1). Creating a Nation-State: My first and foremost problem would be to create "a sovereign state inhabited by a relatively homogeneous group of people who share a feeling of common nationality."(-Dictionary.com). In my Utopia everyone would have to be united, firm, and just in the ways they do things. In a heterogeneous society that would be impossible. Simply look at Canadian or American politics. There are people on the left, right, center, and in every single direction on the left-right scale. There is just too much diversity, and the massive bell curve of those societies does not give their respective countries/governments the appropriate backing for any important global moves.
2). Sustainable Development: The second problem my Utopia would face would be sustainable development. Development is the constant increase of a society's wealth, population, standard of living, and overall happiness. I, frankly, have zero idea how to create a Utopia that could solve every need of the populace. From food, to porn, to furniture, to travel.. It would be insane in my opinion to try and plan the logistics of a 'perfect nation'.
3). Start Up: Another problem I would face would be actually finding the land, the people, and the money to set up my Utopia. I realize that there are certain ways to generate the cash (taxing the populace or creating a mini-mall in the Utopia, for example). But the massiveness. How can a Utopia stay stable, and remain in growth, if the said Utopia is already perfect? There would be no strong urge to push the Utopia to its limits and to its upper-most potential.
Finding the land would be intensely difficult. If I set up my Utopia inside of another country my laws/Utopia would be constantly fiddled with by the government of the country. The NAP had to follow the laws of the USA, and several other small communes of the 1970s had to adhear to the ruling of their respective governments.
Creating Utopias have been done. In my belief every intelligence hardworking person, who has had exposure to the data surrounding Utopias, has been disenfranchised by the thought. The NAP failed. Soviet Russia failed. Cuba is in an obvious rut. The Iron Curtain has been melted into computer parts. There are simply too many examples of failures to create 'ideal lands/places'. It’s a depressing situation for anyone seeking to create a Utopian society, in my opinion.
4). Adaptability: I wrote earlier that the NAP, and other Utopia attempts, failed due to their inability to adapt to situations. The challenge for me, in creating a Utopia, would be that I would be very hard pressed to create a system in which my nation can adapt to any stimuli. Democracy is a slow system and is filled with corruption. A dictatorship is normally distant from the people’s wants/needs. Communism normally ends with lethargy and overall discomfort from the people.
These political systems are just too malfunctional to work in a Utopia. Canada has a mix of Socialism (limited public programs, crown corporations), and Capitalism (free market). I believe a Utopia would have a mixture of the said three types of governments. Vincentville would most probably have certain aspects of Communism, where certain products are supplied to the populace, of a Democracy, where handling of delicate issues (see point 1 and 5) are addressed by elected officials, and of Despotism, where I-or another person-would insure the safety of the Utopia through a balancing and restricted hand.
To say it simply: I’d be boned. To create such a balanced system would be a huge bureaucratic drag.
5). ‘Perspective’ Of My Utopia: A major challenge would be to create a nation-state in which the people are happy, and believe that they are happy. In 1984 Oceana used abusive methods to tame and push their followers into a ‘euphoric’, ‘fanatic’, and ‘loving’ state. I would not be able to do what O’Brien did. My people would eventually find themselves unhappy with my unadaptable (see point 4)
6). Suppression of Society Shattering Issues: The NAP was destroyed, primarily, because of the split over the Slave Trade and Womens' Rights. 1984's Oceana is threatened by intelligent individuals who are smarter than the average stick. Issues will eventually come to my Utopia and thrash it into tiny pieces. Democracy slew the dragon of Britain, and Bolshevism bulldozed more than 2/5 of the world's countries in revolution. New ideas and new thoughts shatter kingdoms and nations. It, frankly, isn't a matter if the said nation is a Utopia or not: ideas will eventually come a knockin' at my door.
Come to think of it my Utopia would not be a Utopia. It'd be too restrained and limiting or too liberal and ‘free’. If a Utopia is 'free' and liberal, then the Utopia would quickly fall to pieces from being unable to retain order (NAP, 1970 US Communes, ect..). If the populace is too restricted the people would, after a period of unhappiness, revolt and overthrow the supposed Utopia. It's depressing.
View User's Journal
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/407/avatar27sr.jpg
 |
Humbra
Community Member |
