Categories
Non-fiction

Utopia’s Paradox

I sat in on Rod Knox’s Utopia-inspired seminar yesterday with Noah. It was the semester’s final meeting, where closing remarks were made, and one point came up which needs recording. There is a paradox at the center of one of history’s archetypal utopias: that of Thomas More.

Abraham Ortelius’ illustration of More’s Utopia. Late 16th century. Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

On the one hand is the obvious point– the first lesson everyone takes to be the very essence of utopia– that private property is evil and that inherently greedy individualism must be curbed with the organized and completely equal distribution of resources amongst all. This paints a grim picture of humanity, doesn’t it? That you cannot be trusted if you own something, you cannot trust anyone else who owns something, and yet you must trust whoever is in charge to oversee equal distribution.

When I consider these things, I say, I have a higher opinion of Plato and I am not surprised that he would not deign to make any laws for people who would not accept laws requiring that all goods be shared equally by all. /// In his great wisdom he easily foresaw that the one and only path to the welfare of the public is the equal allocation of goods; and I doubt whether such equality can be maintained where every individual has his own property. For where everyone tries to get clear title to whatever he can scrape together, then however abundant things are, a few men divide up everything between themselves, leaving everyone else in poverty. /// And it usually happens that each sort deserves the lot of the other, since the one is rapacious, wicked and worthless, and the other is made up of simple, modest men who by their daily labour contribute more to the common good than to themselves. /// Thus I am firmly persuaded that there is no way property can be equitably and justly distributed or the affairs of mortal men managed so as to make them happy unless private property is utterly abolished. But if it remains, there will also always remain a distressing and unavoidable burden of poverty and anxiety on the backs of the largest and best part of the human race. I grant their misery may be somewhat alleviated but I contend that it cannot be fully eliminated. /// I mean, if you decreed that no one could own more than a certain amount of land and that there be a legal limit to the money anyone can possess, if some laws were enacted that would keep offices from being solicited or put up for sale, or keep them from entailing many expenses (for otherwise they provide opportunities to rake in money by fraud and spoliation or it becomes necessary to put rich men in offices which ought to be held by wise men), such laws, I say, could mitigate and alleviate these ills, just as applying continual poultices can relieve the symptoms of sick bodies that are beyond healing. But as long as everyone has his own property, there is no hope whatever of curing them and putting society back into good condition. In fact, while you are trying to cure one part you aggravate the malady in other parts; curing one disease causes another to break out in its place, since you cannot give something to one person without taking away from someone else.

Thomas More, extract from Utopia (1516); translated Clarence H. Miller (Yale University Press, 2001) 46-7.

On the other hand, there’s geography. Geography of Utopia itself. There’s a very specific reason this city-state is located on an island: it needs to have a finite border.

If Utopia were located in a river valley or on a plain, one would gain the sense that it could expand, like any typical inland city has done since the Renaissance. Being surrounded by water conveys that this utopia– and ALL utopias– cannot be globally expansive. And this it is meant not only in the physical, built, Roman Empire sense. It is also meant that civilizations with small footprints can have equally global reach, to their own detriment. Once utopia expands beyond a certain point, its border ceases to be a hard line– it becomes porous, bristling, cilia-like. Whatever analogy you choose, it starts interacting with the outside world. Once that happens, it needs to start reconciling differences (in language, trade systems, currency, tons of things) with its neighbors (other utopias perhaps). This inevitably leads to overarching treaties and agreements which establish common ground and, eventually, an entirely new system of rules & regulations– these will undermine the self-sufficiency of a utopia: economically, politically, and culturally.

Utopias have an optimal size, and, unfortunately, are necessarily exclusive and isolationist. Scandinavian countries, today’s best politico-economic examples of nation-utopias, display this isolation both in strict immigration policies and in a rather stilted personality stereotype.

Formula1 driver Kimi Räikkönen’s emotional range. Image via reddit.

The big implication here is what is contained in the name u-topia: Greek for “no place”. For a utopia to be successful, it needs to establish a strict border or frame of reference, outside of which there can be nothing. But the drawing of a frame of reference only works to simplify the calculations: in the real world, every day increasingly so, it is nearly impossible to separate oneself from the rest of the world.

Two latest cases in point:

  1. The AUMF: When the US wanted to retaliate in the days after 9/11, it had to create an executive order vague enough that it would allow it to go after a nationless, borderless group, in a world still dominated by nations– but which would implicate the intervention into countless territories thereafter under the same pretext. Radiolab did a great piece on this and is recommended listening.
  2. G4S: A sign of what a post-nationalist world will look like, this enormous private contractor handles everything on behalf of a nation: from humanitarian efforts to military interventions. Where, then, do we draw the line of who-is-attacking-whom? How do we regulate it, and how do we maintain a sense of order?

The reason ‘globalization’ is still a term wrought with tension is because it conflicts with ‘nationalization.’ Once nations dissolve, then we may see an era rise when the whole of Earth shall be seen as a single homogeneous Utopia, when we will have reached a hard physical boundary (that of outer space) and it may be a while before we reach other utopias out there to destabilize us. Does ‘homogeneous global utopia’ imply that instead of one governing body distributing wealth, each person will be his or her own governing body, living off the land alone, hermetically sealed off, 1 among 10 billion other micro-utopias? This seems more in line with this generation’s celebration of DIY. But can I still trust my neighbor?

By the.vonz.himanen

Ivan Himanen is an architect, urbanist, and researcher based in New York City.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *