To blast this apart, please mail bombs to - hit
The concept of the utopia acts as one form of future speculation that tries
to define human destiny. This, though, conflicts with a very strong
tradition of individualism in western society. In many SF stories an
attempt is made to realize what a perfect construct of a society may be,
but I want to argue that these idealizations are not meant to be ideal, but
only as constructs to be used in showing possibilities. Granted, this is
often the function of SF as a genre, but if so, why not have a utopia that
works perfectly. Is there one? And if not, why? Writers seem to see
utopian societies as one direction in which humanity can go, but the end
result seems to always be stagnation for the human race. If the case is
hopeless as a suitable outcome, why does this paradigm remain consistent
through much of SF? One advantage of representing this type of community is
in creating an other in reference to modernized societies. Can a way be
found in which progress continues in a utopian society, for this seems to
be the biggest fear that is created from such collectives, with such a fear
possibly stemming from our own western traditions. Involved in this
debate between the individual and collective is the concept of progress and
who is better able to get humanity there. I'm dealing mainly with three
points (1) that the concept of utopia has come to mean something different,
since its introduction, into an ideathat no longer means the perfect place (if
it ever did), (2) is there room in this semi-idealistic society for the individual
(3) in terms of societal evolution, is the utopia what progress is geared toward.
Also, in the finished project, I will need to define the conceptual ideals, and
problems therein that are involved in the utopia, and in progress, but here only
in regards to the utopian ideal.
A utopia can be seen as an imaginary place that has ideal aspects. It seems
that the idea has evolved into the search for a place for the modernized
individual in an advanced society. I want to present that the idea of the
utopia is not meant to be one of perfection. Even in Thomas More's Utopia,
there is a loss of individual freedom for the benefit of the society. One
can't travel without permission or discuss politics outside of the senate
or the popular assembly. This being the case, one can see that there has
always been conflict between how to retain freedom and identity and have a
functional, semi-idealistic society. Can we, being raised in a modern, western
society, realize a utopia that works, and if not, is it our tradition that holds us
back? There is also the problem of narrative construction when dealing with
the utopia. A criticism has arisen in early utopian promotions that character
and plot have been sacrificed in order to promote utopian ideals through
didactic speeches and manifestos. The utopian world is experienced through
revelations of the principle character, rather than experiencing through a
character that already exists in one. This happens in the early utopias of
More and William Morris. Possibly, these earlier utopian constructions
were set up as immediate attempts to reform society. Later utopias,
specifically in sf, now seem to act more as reevaluation tools, rather than
recommendations. I think this is one way in which the present day utopias
function to act as reconciliatory models for the individual and the
society.
There is a definite conflict between the idea of the self as an individual
and as that of a larger group. I want to use Heinlein's _The Past Through
Tomorrow_ , specifically the character of Lazaras, as an example of western
individualism that refuses any societal constraints. Also, there is a
strong sense that with the advent of a collective, mankind will lose its
will to create and only lounge about and do nothing. This factor of
absorption of man's will into another (the collective) is extremely
unpleasant to the mainstream thought of our society. Is this why the idea
of the utopia often does not appeal to one of western society? Also in
Heinlein, there is the idea that people, taken as a whole, are not intelligent
enough to lead themselves and move forward. They need specific,
incredibly talented and intelligent people, to leadthem in their forward
progress.
Progress for the individual takes on different aspects than those that
apply to the progress of the collective. The individual remains in a kind
of isolation, within his or her own world. The aspects of the individual,
such as, desire, curiosity, are what provides the forward progress that
seems to define humanity and gives us a history. Without anything
interesting happening, there is no need to be interested in the past, and
so time, and the accomplishments of the previous individuals, lose meaning.
This, I think, are some of the individualistic ideals that are being held up to
the light in Heinlein. Delany offers a quote which states "Utopias offer
consolation." This implies that the ideal of hope, which is implied in the
concept of the utopian society, does not really exist as such, but is only a
desire that will always be unfulfilled. This also backs up the notion that the
utopia is not the end to which man strives, but instead acts as a promise
that civilization can achieve a better situation than its present status,
but also as a guide where not to end up.
If there it is true that a utopia has not been devised that will agree with
everyone, then have all past utopian concepts been there to show the way
not to go? The utopia of the future, whether it be that of the individual, the
collective society, or a combination of the two acts as a search tool in
helping to define our own society. Where do our sympathies lie, and are
individual desires more important than the needs of the collective? Can
the individualism that exists in western society accept a utopia? There is
something about the idea of a utopia that draws our attention; the thought
of bringing about our own Eden. Is this progress? Can the utopia be
beneficial to society and to the individual. There has to be a desire to
live this elision life for it to occur so frequently in SF, or is the
utopian model just there to act as an other to our own world.
Texts
>From skimming Le Guins dispossessed, and reading some of the criticism on
it, I want to use it as my example of a utopia in SF, but since I haven't
read it yet, I didn't include it in my commentary.
Heinlein's The Past Through Tomorrow
"Towards an Open-Ended Utopia" Science Fiction Studies. vol 2. 1984
James, Edward. Science Fiction in the Twentieth Century. New
New York. 1994.
"Extrapolation" Wu, Dingbo. "Understanding Utopian Literature".
with references to Thomas More and William Morris