The Possibilities of Utopian Existence

It is often argued that the ideal existence is one in which we all hold equal views, have an equal existence and live in a world which has equality at the heart of its governance. Authors throughout the ages have written on such topics, thinking that it is important to consider the possibility of such a world. Some, like Plato's Republic or Sir Thomas More's Utopia, attempt to create an idyllic existence for the common man. Others, like George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, highlight the inconvenience of a Utopian existence.

Modern audiences posit the existence of a world state which would protect the interests of the populace and, having given thought to this, there are a number of rational arguments which would suggest that this would not be possible. The first of these arguments is that we live in a world which has a diversification of views and opinions. These views are inherent in our thinking and, with each born child, those views are passed on. It would be impossible for one person to unite all those views into co-existence.

Religion has attempted to do it. It failed.

Language has attempted to do it. It failed.

Government has attempted to do it. It failed.

The second argument is that people have a pre-conceived idea of the perfect world. The argument, or even the possibility that we all have the same image of a perfect world, is open to strong criticism. Christians would support a theocratic world which placed God as the supreme head of our existence. Pantheists would support a democratic world which had a reverence for nature and the universe. Totalitarians would support a dictatorship which had a single man as its head of state.

The two arguments co-exist with one another to challenge the hope of a world state or a Utopian existence. Aldous Huxley suggests that, through a combination of techniques such as brain-washing, eugenics and manipulation, it is possible. George Orwell agrees but suggests other methods of control. Even where people agree, there are differences.

The closest that we have come to a world state or the co-habitation of states is the European Union or the United States of America. The two are accepted super-powers but it would be impossible to reconcile the two into a larger state. Consider the expanding dominance of China in trade markets or India and its ever-increasing population. A democratic state like America could not co-exist with a Communist state like China. The EU could not co-exist with an ever-expanding country like India if it hoped to maintain some structural integrity in terms of its trade and immigration policy.

What we have, therefore, is an ideal which is more a thought than it is a proposal. Sir Thomas More, rather than suggesting a world state that holds the same ideals, restricts the notion to a single geographical region. Again, one applies the arguments and thinks that it is difficult to reconcile the ideas with the actualities. It is considered even more difficult to comprehend when we see that the utopia in Sir Thomas More's novel was conquered by King Utopus, therefore previously having been run differently.

What Sir Thomas More does in his novel is to create the perfect conditions for a Utopia to exist: plentiful resources, a willing populace and the acceptance of a single perspective. Dictatorships have, in the past, achieved this in the past. Hitler created a utopia, but it was a utopia in his own image and, from the outside inwards, it appeared more like a dystopia. Hitler failed because he was not satisfied with his creation. He created a virus that is still remembered to this day.

Utopias are, at best, the fantasies of dissatisfied members of the general public. A utopia is created in our minds because we are not satisfied, because we desire change. Universal change is not possible and so we feel helpless. We construct an inward existence that is more to our needs. The world is not conditioned for a single communal existence. We are not conditioned for that.