Which is better?

A number of examples have been discussed on the topic of utopias. They support my view that a utopian society cannot be created because of human nature. People are unique and different ideas of what a perfect society would be like. The conflict between these views makes it impossible for a society to keep everyone happy at once.

Communist societies were displayed as an example of changes to government and social class intended to make everyone happy. They were based on the concept of complete economic equality, but this took away the incentive for people to be good members of society. In the Milagro Bean Field War, the small rural town was not very prosperous and had some economic difficulties, but the residents still liked their home and didn't want to leave it.

In Brave New World, science reached a certain level, and was then repressed in order to keep people from thinking too much. Ignorance was meant to keep them happy. Those who became disenchanted with the society were sent into isolated communities with people like them, where they to would be happy. This made it seem like utopia on the surface. On a little deeper level, some unrest could still be observed. One of the people in a position of power, Mustapha Mond, was a "world controller." He was enlightened to the workings of the society and thought that it was good in the sense that people were happy. Deep down though, he was restless and longed for deeper meaning in life.

In all of these examples, as well as the others that were previously explored, some societies seemed on the verge of perfection. None of them were utopias though. A utopia would have to be 100% perfect with no flaws whatsoever, because perfect means to be entirely devoid of flaws. Even one small hole in the fabric of a society can, and will, be exploited and will lead to dissent or the downfall of that society.

People have different ideas about what perfection is. This means what is perfect for one person might not make someone else happy. If these two people were put into the same society, that society could not be a utopia because one of them would not be happy. In Huxley's Brave New World, this problem was avoided through the application of hypnopaedics, a form of hypnosis in which concepts were repeated countless times to people while they were sleeping as children. This "conditioning" gave them the same values as each other. In rare cases however, this conditioning was not completely effective or wore off after a time.

An example of how a society may not be right for everyone is the film commonly used for teaching economics, The Milagro Beanfield War. In this movie, which was written by John Nichols, a small traditional farming town is threatened by the desire of a rich businessman to build a resort where they live. Trouble erupts because the locals resent his idea and fight back. They do not want a resort, and they do not want to leave their homes.

While the businessman thinks that a swanky resort would be perfect, and wealthy tourists would likely agree, the locals think otherwise. They like their small town the way it is and are happy in it. Neither of the opinions was necessarily wrong, but everyone could not be happy regardless of the outcome.

I am not satisfied with Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, because to me it looks like the society in the book is being depicted as one in which there is nothing that can bring it down. This goes against the fundamental assumption I have made that there will always be a flaw that brings down an attempt at creating a utopian society. There are several flaws followed throughout the book, but they are all dealt with, and the loose ends are tied up. Some of the characters even make the decision to deliberately attempt to show the others in their society that they should change. Their attempt failed. Unlike in examples found in some communist societies' downfalls, the citizenry do not unite against society when a leader presents them self. The book, in my opinion, shows a society in which which everyone is happy. This includes the characters who seemed to be unhappy, because they are sent somewhere else to with people of like mind where they will be happy. If everyone within a society is happy, then it is a utopia.

I think that Huxley intended for the book to give people a fear of the possibility that our world could turn into the one in his book if we are not careful. We are meant to be worried so that we won't let it happen. I don't think that he succeeds in that goal. He has instead shown a world where either everyone is happy, or they can be appeased so that they will be happy. I for one, would not mind living in the society he creates in his fictional portrayal of the future. The only problem is that it is just that, fictional. Despite how Huxley's work of fiction ends, in reality, it seems far more likely that something would have eventually gone wrong to upset the stability, as with every other example of attempts at creating a utopia.

Not Quite There

The common people of Brave New World consider themselves to be living in a utopia. In their opinion, "everyone is happy." When they would be unhappy, they take hallucinagens that make them think that they are happy. This satisfies the part of our definition of utopia about there being no unhappiness. There is however, some unrest.



On rare ocations, people grow dissatisfied, and are not happy with what is going on. These people are sent off to islands where they are not restricted by the same bounds as the rest of the society. There is no indication in the text that they are not happy there, so they to satisfy the definition.



There is one character who is not happy with the society and is not appeased and sent to an island. He would appear to disprove the utopian status of the society upon first glance, however, he is not really a member of the society. He was raised outside of it giving him different values and beliefs, so he does not count as a member and cannot disprove it on his own. He tries to upset the balance of the society, but he fails. This further suggests that the society is a utopia.

In the end, John the Savage hangs himself because once he entered the civilization, he could not escape it. This is where the book ends. The book gives the impression upon reading it, that there there are no loose threads capable of bringing down the civilization. All of the characters who seemed to posses the ability to threaten it were dealt with. It appears as though a successful utopia has been created in the book.

Review of Basic Concepts

It has recently become apparent to me that there is still some confusion among reader(s) as to what is referred to by the term "utopia."

As was stated in the opening post of this blog, a utopia is a community/society that is free from such things as conflict, violence of malicious intent, and dissent. Due to this fundamental lack of ill intent and unrest, it is often considered to be "perfect" and devoid of unhappiness. Since then, several examples showing why a community such as this cannot exist have been described.

In the fundamental definition applied to these examples, the defining word is perfection. To be perfect has several different definitions. They include reference to a verb tense in which no specific starting or ending time is given and having both stamens and pistils in the same flower (taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect). Neither of these is applicable, in context, to utopia. Rather, the operating definition is to be entirely lacking of flaws or defects. When this last use of the term "perfection" can be applied to a community or society, it is a utopian society. The examples that have previously been used are demonstrations of how such a society or community cannot actually exist.

Hopefully this clarification of what is meant by "utopia" will serve to clear up any misunderstandings.

Suppression of Emotion

In Brave New World, a utopian society is shown to the reader. You learn how it works, and the feelings of the people living in it. The utopia is explicitly described by one of its highest authority figures as being a society where all of its people are happy. Its greatest strength, and the pride of its citizens, is its great stability. As the story progresses however, it becomes more and more unattractive to the reader. While initially it is to be believed that everyone is indeed happy, some characters are discovered to be uncomfortable and go against the norm. These are the individuals who are just that, individual, so they stick out and have difficulty blending in.

A key component of the stability of the society is the intentional suppression of the people's emotions. They are taught from the beginning of their lives that passion is a sin, rather than a virtue. They are instructed against such passionate things as falling in love, being angry with one another, and especially being sad. One of the ways that they go about this is by training them to be uncomfortable when they are alone. They do everything together so they do not have time to think in solitude and work themselves into a passion by thinking deep thoughts. They are also trained to take a hallucinogenic drug whenever they do not feel happy so that they go on a drug induced trip called a "soma holiday" after the name of the drug.

The authorities who set up the system were aware that feeling no emotions would have a negative affect on the mental well being of the common people, so they developed ways of giving them artificially produced substitutes for emotions such as a "V.P.S treatment" which is like an adrenaline shot, and a "pregnancy substitute" which seems self explanatory. These are not enough for some though. One such character, Helmholtz Watson, feels that he is missing out on something like a hidden reserve of power. He later figures out that he is missing meaning in his work. He is employed as a writer, but lacks strong feelings of which to write about. He grew restless because he had no way of expressing his emotions and felt contained or "bottled up." His life long molding into a mindless member of a society of ignorance left him wanting deeper meaning in his life, but was to ignorant even to figure out that that was what he wanted. The problematic outcome of trying to make a utopia stable by keeping people in the dark is that they will eventually feel empty and become dissatisfied.

Bilbo the Restless

In the previous post, examples from Tolkein's written works were examined. They supported the notion that perfect societies cannot exist where there is only happiness. The perfection of the Shire eventually broke down. Other previously made points can also be displayed in those same examples.

The Hobbit who left his home to embark on a quest to far away places was Bilbo Baggins. It is indicated that he went on many adventures of this nature. The fact that he would willingly leave the Shire hints that he became restless in the seemingly happy place. For one thing, this brings us back to curiosity. The Hobbits, while purposely distanced from them, were at least vaguely aware of the existence of some outside events. Even though most did not care, some were bound to get curious. Bilbo could not delp his desire to see for himself what else was going on. It was his inate curiosity that would bring future troubles opon the Shirefolk.

The other concept that can be seen here, is of Bilbo's restlessness. Even though the atmosphere of his home was jolly and happy, he wanted something else. He was not content with being happily ignorant and needed something more. Just as the people of the Garden of Eden did, Bilbo gave up the shallow perfection of all that he knew, and took steps to discover what else there was other than his foolish happiness.

Another place where this last concept can be clearly found, is in Aldous Huxley's novel, A Brave New World.