If someone were to describe a society where the government is overbearing, the citizens have very little freedom, and humans lose their individuality, one would immediately describe this as a dystopian society. Another society though that would provide for its citizens, the sciences and arts would flourish and the populace is generally happy, this society would immediately be classified as a good one. The first situation at an extreme would be a dystopia, similar to 1984 by George Orwell, and the second would be considered a utopia, similar to Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. The problem with these two very opposite extremes is that they are the same society. The difference as it shall be proven to be is that of perspective. We will first discuss the common traits of a utopia and whether or not a utopia is even possible. Then we will show using that information how a utopia and a dystopia are simply a matter of perspective.
Psychological egoism is a very cynical idea for human motivation. Psychological egoism states that humans will only act in their own self-interest, even when acting in the well being of others, it is to make themselves feel good for example. We will not be discussing whether this is the true human motivator, but many philosophers believe it to be true. Thomas Hobbes, famously known as the author of the Leviathan which established the social contract theory is a believer of psychological egoism stating in Leviathan, “No man giveth but with intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the object to every man is his own pleasure.” In Thomas More’s Utopia, one of the main characters, Raphael, even states, that sometimes a King will act in his own self-interest, even though he is supposed to be serving the people and making their lives, not his own, better. Any form of egoism, whether it be psychological (where humans act as we just described), ethical (where humans ought to act in their own self-interest), or rational (where the rational action is where someone gains the most), is the reason why a utopia cannot exist. As long as humans are egoistic, a utopia cannot exist as we will never work for someone else’s benefit.
In each utopia, the citizens of the country worked for the betterment of the country instead of for themselves. History has shown us that this system of government tends to fail, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea for example have all had (or still have) this style of government and a common trend among these countries is either a collapse or a large amount of dissatisfaction amongst the population. Humans naturally need a desire to be different; our individuality is a large part of what makes us who we are. If everyone has the same access to the same things, we lose a part of what makes us human and eventually end up revolting or at the bare minimum changing the government style. In each utopia, the citizens worked for the government, private property was nonexistent, and everyone acted in the interest of others. In order for this to occur and not cause a collapse of government, there’d need to be a large degree of control (as is the case in North Korea for example), or there will be a collapse (such as the Soviet Union).
Similarly to selfishness, humans cannot be happy forever. In each utopia, we saw all the citizens were generally happy. They had no complaints or further desires for a better life. They felt they had everything they needed. While a great concept, it is entirely the opposite of how human nature actually is. Humans are inherently dissatisfied with their current situation no matter how good it may be. Human condition today is guaranteed to be far better than it was a thousand years ago, yet daily we hear stories of people unhappy with their current situation. Whether it is their job, their family, debts, anything, all of that is comparatively better than it was a thousand years ago. Even if you have no struggles, there is still the ever-present dissatisfaction in the idea of wanting extravagant new things or experiencing new places. This struggle of always wanting something better is part of the reason a utopia cannot exist. Throughout history, humans have been aiming to lower their struggle as much as they can; it is instinctually a part of who we are. Even if we were to live in a perfect society, with all of our wants accounted for, we would still want more.
There is yet another human trait that prevents us from creating utopias, and this one is arguably the most important trait: curiosity. Humans are naturally curious creatures, we have the ability to wonder for the sake of wondering, create for the sake of creating, and so much more. We learn not because we have to, but because it is our desire to learn new things. But these actions are against the creation of a utopia. As shown in the utopian works of Genesis, Utopia, The Republic, and many others, a large degree of control is necessary to maintain the utopia. With that control, a large amount of censorship and even direct lying is necessary to keep the utopia from collapsing. The Republic even acknowledges this and Plato creates a “Noble Lie” to keep the utopia going. In the utopias we have read, outsiders are not allowed into the utopia. Wouldn’t such a perfect society be willing to indulge others in it if it is so perfect? Outsiders are not allowed in for the sole reason that if an outsider were to see how much control, censorship, and lack individuality there is among the citizens, he’d probably single-handedly cause a revolt among the citizens as soon as he tells them about the freedoms he has in his society.
A large amount of ignorance, a huge amount of control, and humans’ inherent selfishness and dissatisfaction all prevent a utopia from coming about. In order for a utopia to actually be created, humans would have to undergo a huge evolution that changes our mindset so drastically that we’d lose our curiosity and the selfishness that is ever present in our lives.
So far, we have talked about the reasons why a utopia cannot exist, but we opened up with stating that there is little to no difference between a utopia and a dystopia. George Orwell’s 1984 is one of the most well known pieces of dystopian literature. 1984 is told from the perspective of a defector who sees through the lies told by an oppressive government. This government would rewrite history anytime they were wrong, lied to the people, and were in a constant state of war. The government was the controller of the media so there also was a large amount of censorship. There was so much censorship the government even came up with their own language that had their own approved words.
We can compare this dystopian work to the utopian works of Genesis, The Republic, and the classic utopia, Thomas More’s Utopia. Starting with Genesis, God created a perfect world for Adam and Eve to live in with the only restriction being they couldn’t eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. As soon as Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they gained knowledge and realized they weren’t actually living in a utopia. In Genesis, God did the same things Big Brother did in 1984, he withheld information from Adam and Eve in order to preserver this “utopia” he created. In The Republic, Plato is even more blatant about the lies he tells, he even goes so far as to call the lie about the different classes of people the “noble lie.” In More’s Utopia, the islanders don’t ever leave the country and in order for foreigners to come in, an islander has to show foreigners the way, otherwise they will get killed by the rocks in the water, but are the islanders doing this for security or to keep other ideas out? By keeping foreigners out, they are making sure that the citizens don’t get ideas from foreigners that could ruin the utopia they have set up.
The parallels don’t stop there; in 1984 everyone wears the same clothes, which suppresses the individuality among people. Along with the clothing, the houses everyone lives in are the same. The only difference is the layout inside the houses. This according to the book is to create unity amongst the people, which is just another way to control the population. This way, anyone who goes against the party will also be going against social norms and be pressured to behave. In Utopia though, everyone also wears the same clothes, lives in the same house, and have the same jobs. Why is it that when Orwell does all these things, it is considered dystopian, but among every other example, the society is considered a utopia?
The reason for this apparent double standard is simply a matter of perspective. Consider the Allegory of the Cave, also in Plato’s The Republic. Typically not used to show situations of utopian societies, it is used to show how humans would find something outside their realm of knowledge incomprehensible. Though, say that the people living inside the chain are in their own utopia. They have all the desires satisfied because that is all they have ever known. When someone leaves the cave, they realize that what they had was actually dystopian and that what is actually good is outside the cave. What was once a utopia for the cave dweller now becomes a dystopia even though nothing has changed on the inside. In any of these utopian works, the citizens of the utopia are the cave dwellers, and a foreigner would be someone who has escaped the cave.
It is because of perspective that 1984 is a dystopia and Utopia, Genesis, and The Republic all tell stories of utopias even though they tell the same story. In 1984, there is one character named Tom Parsons, he is the opposite of the main character Winston. Where Winston is questioning and unhappy with his situation, Parsons accepts everything the party tells him without questioning and is generally happy. If 1984 were written from the perspective of Parsons, 1984 would be a utopian work, because what can Parsons be upset about? All his wants and desires are accounted for because he knows nothing else. A story told from his perspective would be equal to Utopia told from the perspective of one of the citizens. In terms of the Allegory of the Cave, Parsons would be one of the cave dwellers, and Winston would be someone who has seen outside the cave. Ultimately nothing has changed between the two, just what one knows allows them to perceive their society to be different.
Humanity’s current level of thought prevents us from being able to truly have a utopia. A utopia would require the suppression of things that make humans human. Regardless, it doesn’t even matter if we can even make a utopia, every utopia we have studied has suppressed what makes humans human, lied to it’s citizens, and done much more that would be considered dystopian. What it comes down to is perspective. If a citizen perceives his society as perfect, it’s a utopia, but if one other person perceives the society to be terrible because of the censorship and the suppression of humanity, it’s a dystopia. Is it so bad though to be Parsons?