Utopian State of Mind

So recently for my Political Theory Class, I read a book called Picture Imperfect by Russell Jacoby; the book discusses the idea of utopianism and the intellectual history behind it. It is a rather interesting read and by far one of the best I've read for the class. So, it got me to thinking: is utopia possible? and if it is, would we want one, because it seems that the creation of a utopia involves control. Utopias, as well, are not the common notion that everyone has of all living in peace; they are the creation of a new order with ideals dictated by a small elite ruling class.

Most conceptions of utopias, while they did have some shared characteristics (respect, peace, love, etc.) they generally were the embodiment of a perfect society by the person writing it or creating it. Therefore, in a sense, a utopia is the ideal society for a group of people with a shared value and view of the world that is reinforced with force by those in power. This calls into the question, as well, of if a “Marxist” utopia can exist, as Marxism is essentially a liberation theology, not tolerant of any form of control that would be necessary to impose a utopian society. Marxism, as interpreted by Lenin and Stalin (though arguably, he strayed far from Marxism), certainly do involve control, as a means to impose an ideology on a population that has just suffered upheaval. For the failed utopian experiments in histoy, this seems to be the trend: tulmultuous historical periods followed by the feeble attempt to impose a new order. Whether it is the Soviet after the Revolution of 1917 or the Paris Commune after the Revolutions of 1848, or as will be discussed further, the Third Reich after the Versaille "Peace."

Utopias are considered social experiments, and in a sense, they are an experiment in the strict sense of the world. Through strict control of all aspects of society, the ultimate social experiment is being conducted; the ideal conditions are imposed by the governing structure and its rules and laws. Utopians attempt this, but largely fail, for as Jacoby quotes Popper, “ the whole ‘cannot be made the object of scientific study’” (54). Hitler, as Jacoby points out, tried to create a society that he envisioned as ideal, along the lines that he wrote in Mein Kampf; all aspects of society were controlled, from dictating the role of the German woman to the role of races and religions. Fortunately, there were enough who did not share that same idea of utopia and actively worked against it. Those who worked against it were those not included in the view of the utopia; an othering occurs in the creation, or attempt to create, a utopia.

The control used by the Nazis was obvious, yet people still succumbed to it, in part due to the desperate state of Germany in the post-World War I period. The vision offered by Hitler seemed far better than the current state; the offer of a better future, a utopia, so to speak, would be impossible to pass up, especially if it meant having to drag a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks down the street to buy a loaf of bread.

The promise of a utopia was accompanied by authoritarianism to create the new society that Hitler envisioned; in a sense, the promise of a utopia acted as a cover for the authoritarianism, for as Jacoby points out, from 1984, Winston mistakenly answers that the party has power for the good of the people when it actually has power for its own end, to simply wield power (11). In this sense, utopias are promised to the people so that those who merely seek to practice and exercise power can do so.

This brings me to an interesting question; what is the utopia offered today? Jacoby indicates that not just totalitarian forces but also “the dangers of consumerism and the manipulations of the human psyche concerned Huxley” (9). This speaks today to the extreme consumer culture and the increasing influence of transnational corporations. Society is directed to be more concerned with what the newest products are and what social faux pas they would commit by not having the latest Playstation. Along with this, as Jacoby laments, is the increasing isolation to retreat inside for play, by children, to an environment that is more controlled and limits imagination and thought. Limiting these aspects of human nature makes us susceptible to malleability and easy to control. Coupled with this are the forces of modernity, which, as seen from Giddens, tends to have a homogenizing effect. In a way, the homogenizing effects of modernization have the ability to create groupthink; we have the same values and attitudes. Are we on the way to a utopia centered on the values of consumerism? If this is the case, then this form of utopia formation is far more subversive.

So then, is utopia desireable? Or is "utopia" as humans have conceived it, impossible or is it even wroing? Especially as societies around the world become more divided and diametrically opposed, is it possible to have enough shared values to create this utopia? In one thread, I argue even further that the long intellectual tradition of utopianim does not describe utopia, but rather a form of social engineering. Perhaps anarchists have it right: maybe utopia is a complete and utter lack of control, leaving us at our own wills to determine how to live our lives.