Utopia is a Process Rather Than a 'Place'

Jake’s comment about utopia being a metaphor for single person transitioned perfectly into the reading of St. Augustine, leading me to believe he is a plant by Dr. MB to manufacture continuity. The idea of a utopia being a spiritual state for a human being rather than a place is one that sparked my interest long after class dismissed yesterday. On page 108 of The Republic, Socrates summarizes important qualifiers for a utopia: moderation, courage, wisdom and justice. I want to explore these requirements and how they could reflect a single human being in addition to describing a well-organized society.  

 Moderation

    

The first utopian characteristic Socrates emphasizes that for a utopia to function productively, there should be an agreement between the ruler and the ruled. We also see the themes of self-control and moderation woven into the narrative. On page 106, Socrates even says,” isn’t the expression ‘self-control’ ridiculous? The stronger self that does the controlling is the same as the weaker self that gets controlled, so that only one person is referred to in all such expressions.” If a utopia requires an agreement between the ruler and the ruled, it is possible for a person who is described by Socrates as being the controller and the controlled in regards to their own desires, emotions and reason to reach their own enlightenment. 

Courage and Wisdom

      

Miranda also made a valid point in class about how she believes utopia to be more of an ongoing process than a destination. This key component of utopia widens the definition of the word to be able to go beyond a ‘place’ towards something that is more like a realization. St. Augustine never uses the word ‘utopia’ but he writes that a man, whether he be a Christian or a philosopher, desires to reach ‘ultimate good,’ though for the former it comes through God and the latter aims to achieve it through itself. Socrates writes that the soldiers of a utopia should be able to distinguish what is to be feared from what isn’t. St. Augustine and Plato probably have differing opinions about what is considered harmful to the utopian states they have each described, but each understands the need to defend their own values when they are under attack.

Justice

Socrates describes justice essentially as each member who has a different function in society sticking to their own affairs and not meddling in the business of others. This is a systemic view of utopia, and one that can be compared to the systems of the human body. Imagine if your liver decided that it wanted to try to do the job of the heart and vice versa. You would have two organs designed for certain tasks doing something that is far less efficient than the way that the system was originally structured. Socrates poses that justice is achieved when every child, woman, slave, freeman, craftsmen, ruler and ruled each stick to their own roles in a society. I believe that a single person can be all of these—after all, each of us was once a child, each of us has masculine and feminine qualities, each of us is dependent on something (be it caffeine or something more serious), each of us is autonomous, each of us has a specialized skill that is unique from everyone else, and each of us is both the ruler and subject of his or her own soul.

An Internal Utopia

St. Augustine's utopia greatly differs from many of the others we have seen in that it is one that is essentially attained in one's self. By this I mean that the utopia is not necessarily a specific place that is created (like Plato's Republic for example), but rather a spiritual journey that brings a person's soul to this peaceful "utopia" which in turn would make everyone live in perfect harmony. St. Augustine's utopia is one that is more easily and realistically attainable than others we have studied; all you have to do is choose to follow this spiritual path.

Despite these differences, the utopia presented here still shares some common themes with the others. The concepts of truth, justice, and desires are all mentioned in this book. One quote that stood out to me was: "the desires of the flesh oppose the spirit" (pg 854). It seems to be a common idea in all utopian literature that people's desires need to be maintained, because that is often the cause of problems. From our discussions, however, it seems that we all seem to be in agreement that the idea of suppressing our desires is more dystopian than utopian.


 My final thought is on a quote from page 861:

"For when men cannot communicate their thoughts to each other, simply because of difference of language, all the similarity of their common human nature is of no avail to unite them in fellowship."

Although St. Augustine mentions language here, this applies to more than just differences in language. Even when a common language is spoken, a difference in culture is enough to have this same result. We see this way too often, throughout history and even today. It is the cause of racism and wars and many other problems in our world. It is a very critical reason as to why a utopia has been unattainable. Some people just can't seem to get past the differences enough to realize that underneath we are all the same.  

Augustine's "City of God": More Than a Manifesto?

Augustine's text is clearly one that advocates Christianity, but is there more to be understood than just Bible verses? What does this text add to the conversation about Utopia?

He provides us with two cities in his discussion: the City of God and the Earthly City. The City of God is, of course, a place outside the earthly, mortal realm, and the Earthly City is merely the one we all currently reside in. There are a few key differences between the City of God and the Earthly City:

1. The Earthly City is full of evil and misery.

2. There can be periods of happiness or peace in the Earthly City, but the City of God one is one of eternal peace.

3. Unlike the Earthly City, you have to earn your way into the City of God.

Based on Augustine's discussion of the City of God, it may easily be viewed as a Utopia.  It's a place stripped of everything bad, and not only are its citizens living in peace--they're living in peace forever.  This sounds pretty unimaginable (a no-place, if you will), but also pretty great (who wouldn't want to be at peace for all eternity?).  Augustine argues that Utopia cannot be achieved in this life, but the next.  Those that believe they can achieve complete happiness on their own are considered delusional. This is in part due to human imperfection and sin; the Earthly City was created to determine the perfect citizens for the City of God.

There is one interesting difference between this Utopia and the ones commonly found in literature: entering is a privilege that must be earned.  This raises the question, should a true Utopia be inclusive rather than exclusive?  Although there isn't anything in the definition of Utopia that rules out the possibility for exclusiveness, the idea just doesn't feel right to me.  For a Utopia, I've always envisioned a society where all people -- any people -- coexist in perfect harmony.  By introducing a higher power to which all people obey and respect, Augustine suggests that people will begin a journey that leads to a perfect self without sin.  Those that do not share this belief live in ignorance, according to Augustine, and thus are not suited to live in a Utopia.

Plato Republic Miranda

In Plato's Republic, Socrates explains how excess wealth and excess poverty are two problems the people will not be allowed to experience. He justifies that extreme wealth will result in the craftsmen becoming lazy and not fulfilling their duties, and that extreme poverty will result in denying the workers money to sustain their lives. Essentially, having too much or too little of wealth has the potential to cause damage. This concept connects to the idea of 'moderation' that is brought up earlier in The Republic. There appears to be an ongoing trend in The Republic that moderation is a key component towards reaching a Utopia. If there is not a balance, then the society is not in a Utopia because too much or too little of one thing can cause damage.

The idea that there needs to be a balance in a society in order for it to be good for the state is particularly intriguing. In Omelas, the child was the one part of the city that made it not perfect. Everything in the city was theoretically characteristic of a Utopia, but the child's suffering offset everything. It is interesting to consider how something like poverty, which has an inherent connotation of being bad, could actually be good in moderation. Without having the good and bad exist, how can there be balance in a Utopia? Would there be something to measure a Utopia as a Utopia if there was not something that is not perfect to reference it against? For instance, in our society we know what is good because we also know what is bad. However, that in itself also varies across cultures and ideological beliefs. How can a Utopia be a Utopia without taking the concept of balance into consideration?

Reading The Republic and repeatedly seeing the word 'moderation' leads one to believe that perhaps Utopia is not a destination but a journey. Since so many people were leaving a place like Omelas, but some of those people also stayed, perhaps there is more than one Utopia existing at a time as well. When that is taken into consideration, maybe Utopias are personal. In other words, maybe the idea of making them a society is impossible since know two people can think and agree on everything the exact same. That would suggest we do not have individuality. Is a Utopia maybe a slow convergence of consciousness where everyone becomes 'one' then? It is confusing where the line between balance and individuality should be drawn.