Humans and Utopia: Would We Make the Cut?

I have spent a great deal of thought on the structure of a utopia, however I have recently noticed I have been failing to consider the nature of the inhabitants of this 'place'. If utopia is an idealized version of our current environment, then the people who occupy the utopia must also be an upgraded model of us (I like to call these fictional people ‘the Human 2.0’). The analyses we have been forming of utopian societies in our readings are heavily based on our own experiences. I do not see anything wrong with this, however it’s important to consider the fact that our class is a miniscule portion of the world’s population that happens to be alive in the year 2017. While each of us is quite unique, we all occupy the same classroom for a period of roughly 2 and a half hours per week on a college campus of 2,000 students in the city of Frederick, in the state of Maryland, in the United states of America on the planet Earth. We share more similarities with each other than we do differences.

Raphael’s account on Persia’s treatment of thieves would probably not work well in Frederick, Maryland in the year 2017. This doesn’t mean that it can’t work ever. We discussed the argument “but what if you are a reformed thief released back into society and your neighbor doesn’t like you” in class and agreed that this is a possibility in our society. Humans can’t exist the way they do now in a utopia, or it would quickly turn into a dystopian teen novel plot line. This is where the Human 2.0 comes into play.

One of the most curious descriptions of Utopia in More’s book came from Raphael on page 59.  He says, “…no town has any desire to extend its territory, for its citizens consider themselves to be cultivators, not owners of what they hold.” This statement is a stark contrast to his earlier narrative on monarchy where he proclaims, “[princes] care much more for how, by hook or crook, they may win fresh kingdoms than how to administer well those they already have (p.32).”

I’d speculate citizens of utopia would be very similar to us Human 1.0 models, however they would also be resistant to the pursuits that tempt us and ultimately cause unhappiness and destruction in the present society. I do not think that humans as we exist currently are inherently bad, however when we allow pride, greed, wrath, envy, sloth, lust and gluttony too steer our actions, we can end up with a planet that doesn’t look all that different from this one:

(warning: some slightly disturbing content is contained in this video)

Here we see a powerful narrative by artist Steve Cutts on the egocentric nature that a capitalistic society can create. My first thought when I watched it were that it was quite extreme, until I realized that maybe it isn’t that absurd if humans were to continue down the destructive path of competition we seem to be on. Competition between different species as well as members of the same species is natural. On a certain level—take Raphael’s tale of competitive gardening for example— it can be quite healthy for a population.

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.

Controlling the Narrative is Controlling the Masses

My original idea for this post was about global food distribution--something that blogger Noel Jones did an excellent job of explaining earlier on this site. Noel mentioned that we produce enough food to feed the planet, but we currently don’t have the means to distribute the food to the people who need it. I absolutely agree with everything Noel has to say about the topic and strongly recommend reading the post here.

 One method that is being developed to combat the global food insecurity crisis are genetically modified organisms, more commonly referred to as GMOs. The phrase is at the forefront of a long contested battle between science and public opinion.What many people don’t understand is that the goal of genetic modification is to create abundant amounts of vitamin-packed food that take less chemicals to produce and can even last longer on the shelves of supermarkets.

pic.twitter.com/at1nGeNWh7

— jesse Williams. (@iJesseWilliams) January 22, 2017

In a perfect world, scientific evidence would reign supreme over the noise of public opinion. Most opposition aimed at GMOs and other technological advancements in society is the result of misinformation and fear. People absolutely have the right to be suspicious of new discoveries. In fact, I encourage people not to take every single article they read on a topic as fact. There are many people who push agendas designed to capitalize on the polarization of consumer opinions, simply because there is money in playing both sides of the field.

 I’m talking about monopolization of the agricultural industry by companies who produce and market both ‘conventional’ and ‘non-GMO’ food products.We have seen this across many aspects of industry, surprisingly with items as common as eyeglasses and as important as EpiPens. In my utopia, it will be illegal for privately owned corporations to mask their ownership over all aspects of production of a good or service as the illusion of choice. The fact that this is allowed in our country today shows that the greediness of few outweighs the needs of the majority. I picture a utopian society as the complete opposite of this. Understanding the ideologies behind these corporate giants is key to combating them. As part of my push towards utopia I will advocate for mandatory courses in marketing and mass media production. It’s important to understand the tactics that are used in advertising, as well as why they are effective if we are going to move past them towards an enlightened society.

 

Another step that I would take is to outlaw all fear mongering, sensationalized, inaccurate, and ‘click-bait’ forms of media. I strongly feel that the field of journalism should focus on integrity and truth. Given the amount of satire news sources that exist globally, I’d say that many other people are fed up with the current state of news and media in America. The messages being portrayed to us are currently a controlled narrative by people who profit from the scared and under-informed. In addition to this, I would aim to turn privately owned news outlets and journals in to publicly owned and operated thought collectives. The technological advancements of the past decade give those with access to the Internet a platform from which to share a positive, widespread message. My favorite example of this is an online magazine created by a sixteen year old girl.

In the words of Alice Walker, "the most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."  Give people the agency to make choices about the products they buy, the discoveries they feel are important to their communities, and the information they want to share, and they will prosper.