Some thoughts on power and utopia
I just wanted to reorganize the idea I said in class about utopias and power. In Brave New World, complete power is in the hands of the Controller, Mustapha Mond, or I guess in a handful of Controllers for the different regions of the world. A utopian society would be impossible if it were any other way, because there would inevitably be dissent that would have to be addressed, and addressing it would take away from the instant gratification and other factors that make up a utopia. I was just thinking that the people in power of a utopia would probably think they were doing what’s best for the society. Do you think it’s possible for society to ever start consciously moving away from utopias, like Berdiaeff wrote, or that people will continue to think “It would be perfect if I were in powerâ€, and attempt to achieve that?
Lindsay wrote:
I think that it is impossible for society to move away from utopias because the individual is always trying to create their own personal utopia. I don’t think that an individual would purposely make their life more difficult in order to stop moving toward a utopia. The controllers of a utopia are doing what’s best for them. They are doing what they have to in order to stay in power and keep their society from rebelling and making their lives harder. The utopia in Brave New World depends on its citizens desire to fulfill their needs and no one else’s. They don’t have children to take care of or parents to please. It would be very difficult to get a “regular” society or a utopian society to move away from a utopia because most people wouldn’t sacrifice their happiness or the fulfillment of their desires for freedom and individuality, which are words that can’t really be defined.
Posted 24 Oct 2007 at 10:16 pm ¶
Jamie Goldberg wrote:
I don’t think people will ever be able to move away from the idea of a Utopia, but different people have different ideas of Utopia. Not all people think that a Utopian society can be achieved only through someone gaining ultimate control and regulating the happiness of society. In fact, many may think a society without rule is achieving Utopia. Therefore, even though people will continue to look for the possibility of creating a Utopian society, their differing ideas on what that means will make it impossible for a true Utopia to ever exist.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 12:54 pm ¶
Holler wrote:
I disagree with the notion that we are continually working towards a utopia. I agree in that we are continually seeking to advance our society and better ourselves, but our actions move towards just that – a more equitable, advanced society, not utopia. There seem to be too many forces in our society that, yes, seek to advance a cause or push technological progress, but not necessarily with a utopian framework in mind.
Perhaps this discord comes from a different understanding of the word utopia; I would have it mean almost a divinely perfect world, not merely a humanly perfect one. In this sense, my reply aligns fairly well with Jamie’s response in that my perception of utopia differs from others. But oppositional perceptions of what “utopia” is do not entirely negate the possibility of utopia. In part, discord prevents a utopian society from occuring, but more so, our flawed natures prevent us from creating a perfect world. We cannot create utopia because we lack the capacity to do so.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 6:02 pm ¶
JakeP. wrote:
If we are considering only Huxley’s idea of “Utopia,” then there would be no need for people to move to or from Utopia, for they are not the ones doing the moving. As I understood it, Huxley’s Utopia is neccessarily a totalitarian state. Not just the conception of a World Controller is totalitarian, but the means by which society is kept stable are totalitarian as well. What most of us seem to have in mind is the Thomas Moore kind of Utopia, where all humanity seems to have agreed to, or silumtaneously segued into, a Utopia. I’ve never read Thomas Moore’s “Utopia,” but from what I’ve read about it, I know that it was intended more as a social commentary than as a sincere hope for humanity’s progress (the word play behind Utopia that Sean pointed out in class makes this obvious.) That kind of Utopia is certainly impossible, but what Huxley is portraying is somehow possible – but only through authoritarian means.
I also feel the need to point out that Samantha writes, “Do you think it’s possible for society to ever start consciously moving away from utopias, as Berdiaeff wrote.” Berdiaeff did not write society; as Sean translated it, he wrote “intellectuals and cultivated classes.” That is quite an important distinction, and I think that it emphasizes the lack of regard for society at large in Brave New World.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 8:00 pm ¶
sean wrote:
This is a great discussion: I’ll just add that we will look at some theoretical discussions of power that relate to dystopian narratives: Althusser, and Foucault, in the next couple of weeks.
Posted 25 Oct 2007 at 10:49 pm ¶
hammad wrote:
I don’t necessarily feel that all individuals have a thirst for power. I feel as if the ideals of contentment and happiness are much more coveted than any material possession or status. However, in our society, often times superficial characteristics (wealth, power, prestige) are explained as the causes of happiness, contentment, and fulfillment. But what if there was a radical shift in thinking, and the ideals I just mentioned remained detached from material possessions? I feel like that’s part of the purpose of religion; believers remain focused on being good people and attaining salvation (whatever salvation to that person means). The very idea of religion seems to be neglected and shunned in Brave New World. Individuals in the novel live for the moment and conform to their genetic programming. I guess it makes sense that the Controllers would seek to maintain the status quo, as they remain detached from the influence of things like religion, which may force them to consider the concept of equity and a more selfless approach to living.
Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 12:40 pm ¶