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.

Is Ignorance Really Bliss?

There is a common and well known phrase; "ignorence is bliss." What it means is that, often, one is happier when they do not know certain things. This is the case because if you don't know about something, then it cannot bring worry to you. A life without worry would be perfect, utopian.

An example of such a utopia born of ignorance is found in the community known as the Shire in JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The inhabitants of this place, hobbits, know little of the outside world. They are unburdened by the troubles of the other races in their fictional world. Whilst there are wars and evil rings of power in the world, the hobbits do not know of them. They do not worry about the troubles of elves, men, and dwarves. They live off their land and keep mostly to themselves. They are a gay, and merry people who are happy in their ignorance with few worries and even fewer of any significance. Left to themselves, and without influence from the outside world, they would go on thusly.

Holes eventually present themselves in the fabric of their utopia, as is inevitable. The first comes before the previoulsy mentioned books in their prequel, The Hobbit. One of these happy people, Bilbo Baggins, becomes restless and embarks on a quest with a group of dwarves. On this quest he aquires one of the rings of power and brings it back with him to the Shire. Long afterwards, trouble follows it. Evil forces present themselves and hobbits are drawn into the conflicts of the other races. Eventually, the hobbits are enslaved and their their countryside scarred by industialization, although they are later freed.

This is an example in which the idea of a utopia based upon ignorance of outside troubles is clearly shown to be impossible. While it might seem good for a while, it will inevitably fail, as will other attempts at creating a utopia.

In one of the pictures above, two hobbits are shown leaving their happy home and all that they know behind as they are drawn into the conflicts of other that were previously unknown to them. In the other, an evil being is looking upon the shire, as it could not go on forever being unknown to all entities of darkness.

In Short

It is time now to review the main overall concept that has been described thus far regarding the question we started out with; is a utopia what we want?

We have explored in depth the attempts at utopias of the Garden of Eden and of communist systems. Both involved restrictions on the freedom to choose. Communism has been applied as a form of totalitarianism and therefore involves many restrictions of freedom. This is because it is based on the idea of a unified commune and not on individuality. The Garden obviously was not so oppressive, but even its own singular restriction was too much for humans to be happy.

These two examples of supposed utopias show that utopia is generally attempted through suppression of at least some freedoms, and that humans do not like this. These examples suggest to us that humans prefer freedom to make their own decisions to knowing that others are making their decisions for them. Any attempt at creating a perfect society or utopia which involves encroachment on freedom or oppression is clearly destined to fail.

A final review of communism as a Utopia

One last fateful flaw in the theory of creating a perfect, Utopian society through communism that will be discussed here is that it goes against natural human behavior.

Humans lives are largely goal oriented, and their happiness rests heavily on the satisfaction of achieving goals. If some one's goal is to become a world famous professional musician, then becoming one will make the person very happy. The goal will also serve as an important motivator. It is because of that overall goal and the pursuit of it that the individual will be driven to practice hard and take lessons. This hard work is necessary for them to acquire happiness through satisfaction. When they reach the pinnacle that they have longed for and dreamt of for so long, they can look back on the difficult path that they traveled to get there and be satisfied that it paid off.

If a big English assignment is assigned to a student then they can set a goal to do well on it knowing that it could have a considerable implication on their future. This goal and the benefits that it could grant them, as well as the desire not to do poorly on the assignment, will drive them to put forth a great deal of effort. After a month of hard work nearly every day, the resulting grade designated for their efforts determines how happy about it they will be. If they achieve their goal and get a perfect grade as a reward for their efforts, then they can look back on the hard work that went into it and be satisfied and happy. If they are given a lesser grade, then they may become crushed and crestfallen with a feeling that all the hard work was for nought. It is the potential of having this result that serves to motivate them to work hard to avoid it.

Moving back to the idea of communism, it has no classes and no upper echelons of society to reach. There are no goals that can be set to work hard and achieve those lofty positions. No matter how hard an individual works, they will be no better off than if they had worked less hard. If two people are working side by side on a farm, and one is twice as productive and twice as hard working than the other, he will receive no benefits for his work. The two workers will remain just that, two workers, working side by side in the same field the next day. There is no possibility for "success" so there are no goals to be set based on being successful. With no goals to achieve, there is no motivation to work hard and everyone will become unproductive. With low productivity, there will come a decay in the society and it will crumble.

The driving forces of society are the aspirations of its people to achieve their goals and experience either "the thrill of victory, or the agony of defeat."* This is the result of humans' competitive nature. Communism cuts out social competition, and so cuts out motivation for its citizenry. It is doomed to decay and cannot succeed as a "perfect," Utopian society.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-RumbnQZTE

Communism upon further review

It was previously discussed that attempts at a utopian society via the grounds of communism have numerous shortcomings. In addition to their requiring governments which lead to instability, they are generally installed by force against many people's will.

Communism must be put in place one way or another. Due to its communal, classless, one size fits all, nature there are always people who will oppose its being put in place. These are the people who occupy the higher orders of the previous system. They have often worked hard for their elevated position in society or are accustomed to a comfortable life. It is those of the lower orders who are discontented. They are very likely to spring at an opportunity to gain equality with those more fortunate than themselves. This is all exemplified by the cultural revolution of China. There was a violent uprising of the lower working classes which led to an oppressive time under the leadership of Moa Zedhong. This led to the former upper class being shunned and discriminated against by the the newly hightened workers. From the beginning there was unrest and resentment, and the result was clearly far from utopian.

Communism as a form of utopia

There are a number of examples of communist governmental systems both past and present. None of them can be attributed with a great deal of success as far as creating a perfect society or utopia is concerned. The basis of communist systems is that there are no social classes and everything is communally owned. This is meant to elevate such problems as greed and inequality. Theoretically, this should work and make everyone happy. There are however, several problems which arise from this theory when it is applied.

One of those problems is that in order to keep such a system running smoothly, there must be some higher authority in the form of a government. This ends up being a totalitarian government with one central leader. Having this higher level of authority immediately brings up a problem. Communism is based on being classless. How then, can there be a governmental ruling class? Unless the entire world was included in the scheme, some governmental rulership is necessary to deal with other people and countries, and so the system cannot exist as it is meant to. This also creates the potential for a power struggle and for civil unrest. If every single person is not equal, then everyone will want to be one of the ones with more power. Even if there is not a power struggle, the leaders generally become corrupt and begin only to think of their own happiness and not the good of the common people. For this reason, the society usually ends up crumbling or the original goal of communal happiness is lost in greed.

The humans of the Garden of Eden had very near to perfect settings and they still gave it away for a piece of fruit. This indicates that it is due to human nature that utopias do not work the way they are meant to. There is no circumstance in which all humans will simultaneously be happy. The concept of everyone being different and unique means that people have different interests and different things make them happy. Something that one person enjoys, some other people will not enjoy. A system cannot be constructed which satisfies the wants and needs of all people at once.

It is also natural for humans to be curious, which is likely why those in the garden took the forbidden fruit is they were curious about it and about why it was forbidden. The same applies almost every where else that rules and restrictions are made. If it is it forbidden to enter a certain room, one is made curious as to why. They begin to wonder what is in it that is such a secret. Well, one quick look wouldn't hurt.... The only potential way to avoid rules being broken is to avoid making rules. This would not work either because of everyone's conflicting interests. People could not be happy with no rules, and not everyone can be happy with certain rules. These things make it impossible to create a society in which there is no unhapiness.

A good example of this concept can be found in the theory behind, and the trials of using communism as a political system.

A deeper exploration of the garden

In the previous post, the grounds for this blog were laid out and the concept of utopia exemplified by the biblical Garden of Eden. As was previously explained, this place was very near to perfect with only one flaw in its setup; the garden had a tree the fruit of which the humans were forbiden to partake of. Seemingly, this was not a particularly difficult command to obey when the choice was to enjoy a lush, beautiful, land of plenty or to eat the fruit of one tree.

As is made apparent by their failure to obey, there was something more deeply wrong than the tree's existance. Even the serpent who tried to convince them to eat this one piece of fruit should have easily ignored as it appears obvious to us that it was trying to trick them. They did not ignore its trickery, and chose to eat the fruit. There are two explanations for this failure:

1.) One explanation is that of human nature. The humans were naturally curious about the fruit and are naturally imperfect, thus they ate the fruit out of the inept flaws in their character and to quell their curiosity. As the saying goes, "curiosity killed the cat," and here it got humans kicked out of paradise.

2.) A second explanation is found in and of the choice they made, and that they had the opportunity to choose. With the ability to choose comes the responsibility of choice, and the resulting opportunity to choose wrong. From the point of view of an onlooker, the humans chose wrong.

While the humans seem to have made a bad decision causing them to be thrown out of the utopia of the garden, was it really the wrong choice? Within the "perfect" community, they had their choices made for them, as it was chosen for them that they would not partake of the forbidden fruit. This lack of choice that made the utopia continue to exist can be seen to have been its downfall, and raises a question; do we want the stability of being in a community/society in which our choices are made for us in order to keep us from becoming unhappy, or do we want the ability to make our own choices and accept the responsibility and troubles that arise from them?

What is a utopia?

As this is dedicated to views of and relating to utopias, it is first necessary to lay down the fundamental description of utopia upon which it is based.

A utopia is a community/society that is free from such things as conflict, malicious violence, and dissent. Due to this fundamental lack of ill intent and unrest, it is often considered to be "perfect" and devoid of unhappiness. Perhaps the best and most accurate example of this entity is given by the Bible in its description of the Garden of Eden. This wondrous place was quite literally described as paradise. The first humans created by God were placed in the garden, intended to live in happy harmony with all the other animals and plants that were present there forever. The concept of sin itself did not exist in this land. This place of seeming perfection is what is meant by utopia.

The problem with this concept of perfection lies in the underlying problems which inevitably arise whenever something seems to obtain this quality of perfection. No matter how good something initially seems, there always is some snag or hole in the system which ultimately causes it to unwind. This can be displayed by continuing with the biblical example of the Garden of Eden. Even this paradise created by God himself, was doomed to unravel by means of some small failure in its set up. In this case, the snag occurred when a serpent, also believed to have been the devil, provoked the original sin. While the humans were intended to thouroughly enjoy and tend to the garden, God's only restrictive command was that they avoid eating the fruit of one particular plant. It seems as though this would have been an easy request to obey in order to remain in paradise, however, the deceptive serpent was able to convince them to partake of the forbidden fruit. When God discovered this disobedience in spite of all he had given them, he cast humans out of the garden forever. That even in these incredible circumstances the apparent perfection failed suggests that perhaps it is not possible to achieve utopia, and that the idea of utopia itself is merely a deception.