Dystopia vs Utopia — My take on what the ideal/unideal world
As an avid fan of Brave New World and dystopian literature, when I was asked to make a podcast show for work — i know directly what topic i want to do. Initially, a book review, now a podcast dedicated only to the genre.
Intrigued by what going on today around the world — climate change, forest burning in Amazon, the rise of the right-wing and authoritarian regime, economic war — we cannot deny that it’s more and more like what we fear in dystopian fiction.
Utopia and the rise of Dystopian literature
Dystopia first arises as a response and critic of utopian literature. As utopia provides promises and picturization of an ideal world — dystopia, act as the otherwise: satirical warnings of how unideal and frightening world is.
Utopian concepts such as Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Atlantis, El Dorado, The Land of Cockygne have been flourishing before medieval times. Thomas More able to coin the name of the genre in 1615 — through a book with the same name. He the term adopts utopia from Greek ‘eu’ and ‘topos’ which means no place to imply that there’s no such place as an ideal/perfect world.
For Indonesian readers, you can listen to a further explanation on the 1st and 2nd episode — i focuses on a general look and history of both Dystopia and Utopia.
My important take after diving into this genre (subconsciously at first) is everyone's definition and picturization of ideal/unideal is different. Thus i randomly spread the survey that was answered by 33 people under 30s — and the insights are illustrated as follows.
Utopia and Dystopia in the eye of the common
Which Utopia that you want to live in?
There are so many picturizations of Utopia and it includes different perspectives: economic utopia, a world where everything is equal, a futuristic world with advances in tech and science, to heaven as we taught in religion.
One of the first questions that I ask the respondents is which of the provided choice best fitting their ideal world? Here's what they gotta say:
Rank 1st among the other six is nature. One that I personally will choose too. Mother earth has gifted us with various pleasures — a beautiful ocean, a green skyscraper in the form of hills and mountains, magnificent forest that is filled with breathtaking plants and animals. It is such a shame that the beauty, by time, deteriorated in the hands of the human beings — and seeing a utopia where everything is restored to it’s prime is a utopia that is not to be missed.
Rank 2nd is the socialist country specifically Scandinavian countries — true, the fact that the countries exist means that it’s no utopia. But for the voters, who are Indonesian, could resonate so much to the Scandinavian beauty. The scenery to the government system is the closest ‘ideal world’ that most could imagine.
Sharing 3rd place is heaven (in the perspective of religion), a futuristic world, and an equal world. Come last is material wealth.
Reaching Utopia
In this particular section, what i want to highlight is that reaching utopia needs sacrifices. and HUGE-scale changes.
Most voted for the elimination of social tradition and norms. An interesting take will be: many agreed that there are so many bad traditions that exist. One that not provides order, welfare, and happiness to all but instead victimizes them. I can list countless examples really: patriarchy, beauty standard, ageism, female castration, cannibalism (tribes still do this yes) and many more. I’m 100% on board to erasing such tradition — but sometimes reaching utopia also means erasing good tradition. Despite there’s no such standard to determine what’s a good tradition and what’s bad. Famous literature like Brave New World and 1984 shows that even family values can be eradicated for the sake of reaching a perfect ‘state’.
Some will also sacrifice their privacy and freedom of movement through an extensive (and ofc, evasive) surveillance system. It’s interesting that some are willing to choose this. Because well, i initially thought that privacy and freedom are everything for Millenials. Some of my friends quit Facebook after the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke out, some still cover their laptop cams after knowing that high-tech guy and government can hack into it easily. Being constantly watch is pretty scary and taking away our privacy. Something that each of us is supposed to have.
On the other side, if it’s a very systematic utopia with systems and policies that need to be complied with by society, perhaps surveillance is an approach to maintain order. A trade-off that people are willing to take to achieve welfare and peace. And in a utopia that the government/system really is benevolent then the surveillance system will be positive addition — stopping terrorism before its time, prevent and tackling domestic violence and much more.
The third choice, again a very shocking choice, is government propaganda and manipulation. Like what Plato illustrates in Republic with ‘Kallipolis’ — certain manipulation is essential to make sure that there is no defiance in the system. It makes sure that there’s no retaliation or dissatisfaction from the class system through the myth of the metal — so that people feel content on where they are placed in the society. This is a very interesting view offered by the Greek philosopher.
Align with the above explanation, we also have a class system. In several Utopian pieces of literature, the class system is important to divide roles in society. Kallipolis do so to make sure that there are scholars, leaders, protectors, and producers that exist in society.
All of the above — are sacrifices and approaches that one needs to take (or suffer under) to reach Utopia. Reaching Utopia needs a significant leap. For example, If we want to see earth surviving from pollutions to see our Utopia, perhaps the government needs more than passive policy as we see today — or if we want to have our own Kallipolis, maybe we need caste that makes sure society function at its best.
Utopia v Dystopia
Defining the two is no easy job. Everyone is very subjective in what is ideal and what is not ideal.
Thus from what I read, I believe that there’re two approaches of both Utopia and Dystopia:
Utopia where it’s very systematic but restricts one’s freedom or a utopia where there’s no system and rules but can’t guarantee our freedom.
But why in both choices there’s a ‘but’ (downside)?
The majority choose a systematic world although it has to sacrifice their freedom. Under a systematic world, there’s a system that we need to comply with — most utopias require you to be selfless and compliant, no matter what you think or believe you need to prioritize state/collective values above all. I contend that there’ll be arguments and resistance, some will want to prioritize their needs and values.
Because: there’s no such thing as universal agreement — where people 100% agree on something. We can reflect on climate change, there’re many who fought for it but many are still against it and calling it a hoax like dear President Trump. Thus even in utopia, your freedom of thought is at risk. Some will say it’s okay if it’s for the better and greater cause.
Fewer people choose a totally free utopia. Like the Land of Cockygne, where there’s no system or rules, and you can do as you please. This again has its consequences.
Total freedom means that people will are everything to them — some respondents feel that it means that other people's rights could be threatened and harmed. Since there’s no system whatsoever, it means that there’s no protection to individuals' rights too.
Even if there’s a justice system (informal), this could also mean the justice would not be an objective and reasonable justice but rather justice according to powerful individual or majority (that not necessarily fair). Thus why, in a free utopia, no policy could be equal to chaos. And relatively harder to maintain peace itself. Land of Cockygne, for example, has no moral ground and is centered on worldly pleasures to an extent that coercive sex is allowed because sex = pleasure, something that everyone has to have on that land.
Now that you may realize — My question in itself is not really a utopia. Under a very ideal definition, in Utopia supposedly there’s no but. Then again, these questions are made under the hard truth that human imperfection shall exist even in a perfect world. Remember Adam and Eve in Eden? Yup.
The majority choice of Dystopia — aligning with what the majority choose in Utopia — is the contrary of Utopia: a world without a system filled with chaos.
I can imagine the systemless world is where there's constant war, global scale natural disaster (Waterworld anybody?), the rise of blood-hungry machines, or maybe zombie virus breakout? A little imaginative here, no regret to that.
But i can understand the rationale: people prefer to live under oppression rather than a chaotic state. In an oppressive totalitarian state, you have choices but you won’t have as much choice in a chaotic apocalypse. Without a system there, you have now a law, safety net, or escape — you have no options to punish someone when they harm your rights or we’re back to being barbaric and take the matter into our hands.
The other option is a perfectly systematic world where you are oppressed and living in misery (like right now? Nah). Why it can also be a dystopia? When the rulers and elites are evil — they will do everything to maintain their power.
Example: 1984, with history manipulation, limitation of languages (and to some extent thoughts), surveillance, and class system (outer and inner part) — we cannot deny that the system (that supposed to lead to the greater good) can be a platform to provide benefits to few people through victimizing society at large.
And that what on reality happening too — China with Social Credit System, there’s one instance where investigative journalists that uncovered high profiled corruption and crime by the officials, get locked up in his apartment and city by the bad credit (due to the government manipulation). Someone who was supposed to be cheered by the whole country, instead he’s getting exiled. (See more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViswN602_k).
So, what’s a popular characteristic of a dystopian society in itself?
Losing humanity and empathy is the most voted. Many believe that humanity and empathy are what defines us and differentiate us from animals, thus losing it — we might as well lose the meaning of life. Losing humanity not necessarily mean we become barbaric, but it can be as simple as being uncaring and turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Many do so these days, continue on with their routine and pretend nothing happens with Syria, West Papua etc — if we stop caring for others, what even makes us human?
Losing one humanity also could be caused by shallow pleasures. In Brave New World with Soma (an anti-depressant/psychedelic that keeps people happy) — is an essential example of how through shallow happiness one could be lost and drown in their own ‘freedom’. They don’t know what truly being happy and sad really means consequently losing the essential meaning of life — they’re so individualistic that they do not care about one’s death or sadness, they just care for what they should do in their workplace and pleasure itself.
The second is war and violence. War and violence are what inspire most dystopia— the condition that no one wants to live in: politically and economically unstable, soldier marches to war and lost their lives, safety threatened constantly. The description is a perfect description of the dystopia itself.
Third, we have famine and poverty. Later followed by all reasonable fear of how dystopian society works.
Other opinions, most is interesting, is how dystopia indicated not only by macro factors (governance, famine etc) but also at an individual level: bullying, racism, religious interpretation goes wrong (“mabok agama” that leads to intolerance) — all happening under the respondents' observation.
So yes, dystopia might not be caused by the government, evil corporations, or terrorists. It might as well be caused by you — individual behaviors and actions could create a dystopia for others. Micro-aggression has substantial consequences on others. Being a victim of racism and identity-based hate comments, for example, is not a place where everyone wanted to be (exactly what dystopia means).
But what reflected on the choices is that: people’s opinions and priorities on what are more menacing is different from one another. Again, assuring my assumption that dystopia is subjective from one to another.
Utopia v Dystopia: The Implicit Question
Utopia and dystopia impose one important question. The one question that still haunts me until this day after I read Brave New World: what will you choose freedom or stability? — Both can’t come hand in hand, one must be sacrificed.
In this literature, we are faced with the circumstances where: if one chooses stability (by complying with the system), one will lose their freedom of choice, movement, and thinking — if one chooses freedom (and chase their passion), one will risk their stability (financially, socially, etc).
Almost in every book of dystopia, we encounter this issue. Katniss and Tris (in Hunger Games and Divergent) have the choice to be stable with being ignorant and play the game along with — where they can, spoiler alert, survive the system. Instead, they make the choice to be free, Katnis succeed but risk her mental health and love, while Tris well ugh…died. Or Winston (in 1984) can just be a decent clerk for the Ministry of Truth and not act upon her attraction to Julia — instead, he chooses to rebel (not quite literally but well, you get the point). I can list more — but at this point, you understand what I say.
This is why i involved this question in the book. The answer is as follows.
I always thought the younger generation cherishes freedom over others. But turns out more champion stability.
Maybe with what going on today, people prefer to be safe rather than to be free. Safe in terms of economy, social, etc — a smooth sailing life. Rather that than pursuing a passion that risk your financial and mental health — because we can’t deny it takes a significant toll on your life when you have a low paycheck that is barely sufficient to your need or your parents disagree/unhappy with your choice of career.
I (considering my career option to pursue financial stability instead of passion) will say stability — but i won’t lie, i would love to have freedom too. But life had so many limitations and we cannot get all that we wanted.
My opinions on how freedom and stability cannot come hand in hand were also contended by several respondents. Saying, there’s stability (happiness) in freedom and how we can leverage both to maximize our happiness (know when to be free, know when to be stable). Interesting takes on the questions.
Some remain pessimistic (like me) by reflecting on human egotistical traits and how in practice, each stood on the other end of the spectrum.
Some stood in the grey area — where we perhaps can be in the middle of the spectrum, quote:
Possible, if it’s in the middle of the spectrum, on star wars there’s a thing called grey side — with the grey side order “There can be no chaos without order, no good without evil. Such is the way of the universe. The Force flows through us all, in all of its peace and passion. This, the Gray Jedi believe, and by this, we shall live…”. In my opinion, this is what truly ideal considering the limitation of the human beings. Like the concept of black and white in Bali — points that too extreme will destroy the related essential traits. Ex: when people look for freedom wholeheartedly then on that point he no longer free.
Conclusion
I guess there’s more that we can discuss, but I'll save it for later ;)
In the end, this article just reaffirms differences of opinion in regards to what is ideal/unideal.
Last words: You don’t need to dream of a utopia, you can make one by yourself. Not by creating an island/governance that is perfect, but by creating progress or being a decent human being. That way you also not creating dystopia for others.
Indonesian readers, you can listen to my podcast for more perspectives, literature reviews, movie reviews, and whatnot.
