Utopia
Posted on November 26th, 2007 by Jose Ignacio Sanchez
Ok here is the dealio or dealeo; I was doing the vocab for TSL and I came upon the word utopia and it is defined as an ideal and perfect place or state where everyone lives in harmony and everything is for the best-but this definition didn’t satisfy my deep seated need to know what it truly means. I just wanted to see if we could start a little discussion about what a true utopia is and what it would take to create a utopia in this world.
Filed under: Uncategorized and
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I would first suggest an investigation into its etymology, of course. Maybe Wikipedia… (look up Mr. Sir Thomas More). That’s background.
Then there are the utopian projects of the 19th century–Hawthorne was one of the participants.
[Reply to comment]
So I found this really awesome etymology website and this it what it had to say about the origin of Utopia.
“1551, from Mod.L. Utopia, lit. “nowhere,” coined by Thomas More (and used as title of his book, 1516, about an imaginary island enjoying perfect legal, social, and political systems), from Gk. ou “not” + topos “place.” Extended to “any perfect place,” 1613. Utopian originally meant “having no known location” (1609); sense of “impossibly visionary, ideal” is from 1621; as a noun meaning “visionary idealist” it is first recorded c.1873 (earlier in this sense was utopiast, 1854). ”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Utopia&searchmode=none
[Reply to comment]
I remember Mr Woods explaining the concept to me, well the class. But he seems to have this effect of talking right to you, as the listener. Utopia’s name literally translates to “having no known location” as Daisy said, but the fact that we define it as a perfect place says something about it; that is a perfect place cannot exist, or it has no known location. He also went into a talk about Arden (forest) from As You Like It by Shakespeare, and then also drew back the roots of “Arden” to Eden and Arcane…or something. Eden because it was perfect until humans screwed up, and Arcane (not sure if it’s this) because it was magical. Anyway, the forest of Arden was a utopia for Rosalind, a character in the play, and it was her way of escaping the harshness of every day life.
[Reply to comment]
Well, in my opinion a true utopia depends on the invididual…what can be a perfect place to one person can be hell and misery to another. Like for example, I know some people’s utopia is church…just the society and the way people act towards each other in church is harmonious, perfect in a sense that no one is focusing on other people, each is in his/her own mindset; yet, there are some that think the church and mass is hell because it is an hour away from their time…same thing goes for other places…like DISNEYLAND…for me it is the happiest place on earth and its my utopia…because there is no violence there, but I know some of my friends wouldn’t dream of having a Disney-like utopia simply because it’s too childish or is stupid..so personally, a true utopia depends on the experiences and attitude of the person
[Reply to comment]
Is there room for individuality or strong emotions?
[Reply to comment]
Utopia translate to “place that does not exist”. Therefore, throughout history, we have given certain qualities of perfection, peace, and security to the idea of utopia, so that one day, the individual will see it as the ultimate goal to attain. In reality, seeing as this place has no location, means that it does not exist in this universe as a physical thing. Nevertheless, it remains vivid as an idea, therefore establishing the theory that a utopia is only a place of perfection in the eye of the beholder (individual person). It is, as Christina Ontiveros has stated, “a mindset”. In saying that, there exists multiple utopias, one for each individual who believes certain qualities to be the ultimate reward. The truth is that man is not perfect, in fact far from it, therefore cannot exist in a single “perfect” society of so many ideas. So… utopia, as once stated above, is created in the mind of the individual. *Please do not comment on my using of the word society*
[Reply to comment]
Well if you want some examples of a Utopian empire thats gone wrong you can check out books like 1941, Utopia, The Giver, Brave New World, and even movies like The Island. Examples is history include what Hitler tried to do and what countless others have attempted. If you really want to know what the deal is then look up Baron De Montesquieu the writer of Utopia.
[Reply to comment]
A utopia can exist – in your mind. Since each person’s perspective of utopia differs, to force one person’s idea onto everyone is wrong. But if, in your imagined utopia, people could could freely express themselves and be individuals, then it would exist. But why would you need utopia for that? You can do that already
Seeing as how the original etymology indicates that it used to mean, “having no known location” makes me wonder why we bother to try to characterize it by associating it with a name or place. Maybe it’s that nameless place inside yourself that doesn’t need a name!
You make me smile. Maybe you should go visit Tibet. I’m sure you’ll find something utopia-like there!
[Reply to comment]
I’m surprised no one has mentioned THE LORD OF THE FLIES yet. It is basically a novel set in an Edenic paradise without any form of corruption from existing authority (ie., parental) structures. How has your reading informed your ideas…?
Daisy, thank you for the etymology. Very nice. I would also like to add that the ‘U’ in Utopia could also be ‘Eu’ (sounds the same) which means ‘good’. So the name itself is a pun.
[Reply to comment]
While so far, everyone seems to suggest that a Utopia cannot exist, I would like to disagree. The word itself, for sure cannot exist by definition, but a Eutopia! Perhaps I am too much an idealist in this respect, but if a couple can form a harmonious group where everyhting is for the best, why not maximize it to an entire society? Of course, there might be differences within a society, but if an idealist like myself considers a strict definition of society-a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests, common to the point of perfection.
I hope that makes sense.
[Reply to comment]
I did not say that a Utopia does not exist, I just meant that there cannot exist a set Utopia for all the people in the world. My belief is that there is a Utopia that everyone strives to attain in their lives, there own perfect world. What is interesting to think about is that we all know that there can never be a perfect world with perfect endings, etc., yet we always strive and try our hardest to reach perfection, to reach a time in our lives when everything around us is perfect, thus focusing all of our energy into reaching our Utopia…
[Reply to comment]
A Utopia can never exist mainly because if everything were perfect, the monotony would kill us all. It is the diversity and spontaneity that makes life worth living. Be glad that we don’t live in a perfect society! Huzzah!
[Reply to comment]
Laughing out loud…=)…Huzzah! That is a funny word. Well, the reason for why life is spontaneous and full of diversity is because everyone is trying to attain a perfection in their lives. I believe a Utopia can exist, as long as someone believes he or she is living in a perfect world….all according to the eye of the beholder.
[Reply to comment]
So going over Brandon’s last comment there is no way for a utopia to exist do to the monotony that would follow the creation of it. So in that is another question: Is the suffering and the horrible “surprises” that happen worth living through? And if so then there should be no complaining about them if they are so necessary.
[Reply to comment]
Ok. Should suffering exist in any Utopia?
And has anyone discovered the Utopian projects of the 19th century that Emerson and Hawthorne participated in?
[Reply to comment]
Mr. Eldridge,
Is the Utopian project Brook farm and the Fourierist movement?
[Reply to comment]
Okay, here are my two cents. I figure that a Utopia can exist. However, given that human behavior is what it is, that Utopia would only be able to contain at the most one person. No arguing, no contradictions, no leadership problems. The will of the people (or more accurately, the person) is always expressed. You could possibly pull it off with a couple. But as soon as you start adding more people to the equation, the concept begins to run thin. People disagree and argue, which doesn’t sound Utopian, and the problem of leadership rears its ugly head (Lord of the Flies is a great example for that). So in theory it is entirely possible, but in practice, a Utopian society cannot work.
[Reply to comment]
To answer Jose’s question, individuality cannot exist in order to have a perfect utopia, although it will as it is human nature. Individuality implies that one is deviating from the actions of others, thus it is contrary to the ideals of a utopia.
[Reply to comment]
Yes, Daisy–good work. Especially Brook Farm. Do you have any insights?
[Reply to comment]
history of Brook Farm:
1841- established in West Roxbury (Boston)
- all the members of the farm were equal there was no social classes, everyone did equal work and had equal education opportunties.
1843-1845ish:Brook Farm had a leading role in the Fourierist movement after the influence of French socialist Charles Fourier.
-It was also called Brook Farm Phalanx.
- It had a newspaper called “The Harbinger”.
1846- the phalanstery(the central building) burned down and the farm was abandoned shortly after.
[Reply to comment]
I also looked up the etymology of Phalanx because i was curious and it helped me understand more about Brook Farm.
“1553, from Gk. phalanx (gen. phalangos) “line of battle, battle array,” also “finger or toe bone,” originally “round piece of wood, trunk, log,” of unknown origin, perhaps from PIE base *bhelg- “plank, beam” (cf. O.E. balca “balk;” see balk). In anatomy, originally the whole row of finger joints, which fit together like infantry in close order. Fig. sense of “number of persons banded together in a common cause” is attested from 1600 (cf. Sp. Falangist, member of a fascist organization founded in 1933).”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Phalanx&searchmode=none
[Reply to comment]