Realisms, Fantasy and Utopia - Essay Example

?Utopia: A concept that cannot exist without destroying the human spirit utopia is somehow negative;…it is most authentic when we cannot imagine it. Its function lies not in helping us to imagine a better future but rather in demonstrating our utter incapacity to imagine such a future - our imprisonment in a non-utopian present without historicity or futurity - so as to reveal the ideological closure of the system in which we are somehow trapped and confined (Jameson: 2004: 46) The nature of Utopia creates a place of non-existence that cannot be seen, felt, appreciated, or comprehended within the framework of the human existence. The experiences of emotions, the nature of every positive being balanced by a negative and with every joy having a sorrow, provides an existence that cannot comprehend perfection. As an example, as human frameworks of understanding have tried to outline the nature of Heaven, the concept has included mansions, streets of gold, and perfect joy within the sight and presence of God. However, mansions and gold have proven to be resources of greed and unhappiness throughout human history and to be in the presence of God would be to stand in stark contrast to pure Grace, the human existence frail and without virtue in comparison, thus there is no way in which a human can understand what it would mean to live in a state of perfection. When trying to imagine Utopia, it is likely that it will change from individual to individual. Thus, Utopia, as it is represented as a community, cannot exist as perfection, a place in which perfect peace and harmony can be found, would not exist. There is little that can be found in this world that represents a one-sided place in which all things are found to have value and elevated meaning to all people who reside in this place. Utopia must be all things to all of its inhabitance, and there has been no place, time, or setting in which this type of nirvana has been reached. Human existence is defined by its struggles, by the way in which one point of view comes into conflict with another. In fact, this type of conflict is necessary for the satisfaction of many people. Thus, a place with harmony and without conflict would be a hell for some people, their ambitions stilted by the inability to engage in conflicts of ideologies. Without those types of conflicts, dissatisfaction would be born of complacency, apathy, and boredom. To find perfection would kill the spirit, thus the humanity of human life would be discovered undone. Therefore, the only type of Utopia that could exist would not be in creating a place that left all people fulfilled and in peace, but one that changed the human nature to no longer have ambition. In this world, bliss would rule the human spirit, thus whatever existed within the space that was Utopia, would allow for harmony and satisfaction. The fact is that Utopia cannot be a place, it can only be a condition of life, a situated state in which the human need to strive and to be in conflict in order to achieve greater achievement and enlightenment was no longer a part of the human experience. Utopia is not a place, thus it cannot be achieved. This type of place is not within the ability of human imagination. To write of existence is to frame a place in which nothing happens, thus there is no story to its existence. Nothing would happen because if it were a true place, if Utopia existed, the people within it would move through their days without highs and lows of emotions. Without these highs and lows, there is no measure of emotional feeling, thus to know joy would not exist because there would be no sorrow against which to measure it. People have understood this through their religious history. Of all things, religion is the ultimate proof that Utopia cannot exist. There is no religion that has been found in the research for this discourse that does not reveal the need for balance. The closest is the Judeo-Christian religion that sets a course of beliefs that intends that the balance of good, the evil that weights the darker side of life, is an adversary that must be destroyed. In most religions, the darker sides of life are given honor and respect, without a belief that they can and will be destroyed. Thus, the balance between the darker sides of life and the lighter are given equal regard. An example of this is in Greek and Roman mythologies where Aries or Mars, the gods of war, respectively, are given the honor of being in Olympus with Zeus. Their diverse natures are not something that is intended to be destroyed, but it is recognized for the ways in which balance contributes to the nature of the universe. In the Judea-Christian philosophies, darker parts of the human existence such as war, pestilence, famine and death, are put into a personification of four horsemen who are harbingers of evil. Rather than being in balance with their counterparts, they are set up as something to be destroyed, a part of life that is in its nature an obscenity, rather than contemplated for the ways in which having the darker side, reveals how brightly the lighter side of life shines. Without having respect for these parts of life, without identifying with the nature of human existence for its extremes, the darker sides of life wins by default. In the guilt and shame that comes from denying the existence of the lower, darker, and less pleasant side of life, the repression creates an oppressed state where authenticity cannot exist. Therefore, there are no terms on which the concept of Utopia can exist. A perfect world would by its nature be imperfect. Thus, trying to seek out its nature will destroy the very inhabitants for which it was designed. Utopia is a tease, a sense of something that should exist but will never exist. It is not within man’s nature to live in bliss because without ambition, which is outside of the state of bliss, there is no movement forward towards the next solution. Without a need for solutions there is no need to keep trying, to keep making the attempt towards a life that is free of hardships. As human experience has come to understand, with each new solution, some new hardship is created. While Facebook helps us keep in touch with people and helps to create a sense of identity that is new and innovative through the concept of the social network, the open door into someone’s life becomes a conduit towards criminality that can include identity theft, or worse, pedophilia. There is no positive that does not have its negative. Thus, the concept of Utopia is not possible to envision. There is no state within the framework of human existence that cannot be exploited to create a negative side, and there is not humanity if innovation does not include the prospect of exploitation that is dark and with malicious intent. As hard as that is to understand, as defiant as that is to the goals of the Judeo-Christian ethics, to find a state of existence within the world is to understand that the balance that is required must be accepted and attended. Without believing that these prospects are important and vital, the world falls into a state of chaos where the belief in perfection and the denial of the need for the shadows, creates an existence tormented by the belief that to be outside of perfection is to somehow be wrong. Thus, the idea of Utopia creates a state in which the thinker has a heightened awareness that of imbalance because of a belief that perfecting the state of nature means eliminating its hardships. The ‘balance’ of Utopia, is thus, the perfect state of imbalance. Politics is the perfect extension of the theories of Utopia as they are made relevant to the idea that there can be no perfection, because in creating perfection one destroys perfection. Marxian theory demonstrates that there is an intimacy between the state and violence, that within the nature of the state is the legitimacy of the use of force, thus providing a legitimized use of violence in a context that is acceptable (Buck-Morss 2000: 4). This reiterates the need for a balance within life. While there is a need for a peace, there is a legitimized need to use violence in order to keep peace. The use of violence is by definition against the nature of peace, however through policing, through military might, and through even the threat of either of those two being used, there is an expression of violence. If there is an expression of violence, there is no true peace, but without the expression of violence, there is no security with which to define peace. Geras (2000), on the other hand, explores the concept that Utopia is the goal of Socialism. In this he states that “A society beyond exploitation is in the realm of the ideal”. However, the idea of a state without exploitation is almost unfathomable. Some form of exploitation is needed in all facets of Earthly life in order to grow and find nurture. Without a plant exploiting the minerals in the soil around it, it will not grow. Without a lioness exploiting her claws and teeth, she would starve. Without the Earth’s climate exploiting the energy of the sun, all would perish. Without exploitation there is no Earthly life, thus that form of idealism is not realistic. Socialist ideals can be reached, but a society that does not allow for exploitation is defined by oppression. As seen in Soviet Russia, it is difficult to provide a communal form of life without suppressing the natural urges of the human state of life. Thus, the idealism of Socialism has always led to more oppression, rather than the release of repression that it promises. There is a positive nature to the idea of Utopia. While in many ways it is negative in the oppressive nature of what it intends, it can be seen as a way of pushing forward the agenda of peace, balance, and tranquility through solutions to those parts of life that oppose them. In order to understand the state of the future, it can be said that “Projecting a better world into the future renders present-day problems more clearly” (Gordin, Tilley, and Prakash 2010: 1). This makes the space in which Utopia exists within human consciousness of imagined existences a positive place in which solutions work without consequences. However, having this delusion provides context for innovation, but believing in it would provide an oppression of the concept of innovation. Thus, as in all things, Utopia states of imagined futures provide the present with a place in which to innovate, as long as it is not believed that bliss can happen as a result. As in all things, imagining the state of Utopia must be done within a framework of balance. In focusing on Utopia, in the way that Jameson has framed its existence, one will be swallowed in the concept of its daunting challenge. The idea of Utoopis is such that in its most authentic existence, the human mind cannot imagine what it will mean. Therefore, Jameson (2004: 46) is correct when he frames the idea as a negative idea. Through the oppression that it brings, through the nature of its perfection and what that perfection steals from the human spirit, there is no way in which to frame a relatable nature of its existence. The human condition is framed by the need for exploration, but if that exploration has nothing but a positive end, there is no risk. This type of understanding for Utopia can be sent in circle after circle of unending propositions in which the end is always the same. Perfection leads to dissatisfaction because of the loss of conflict. If the human spirit is intact, utopia does not exist. The thought of Utopia is a trap that binds those that seek it inside of an oppressed state, nullifying the concept of Utopia entirely. Jameson (2005: 46) was correct when he revealed it as an ideological closure, a trap in which humanity becomes defined. Hardy (1979: 10) describes the state of ‘Utopian’ society well when he states the potential as an example becomes a “world of organic fellowship, where individuals relate(d) to each other in a common system of traditions and mutual ties, to one of commercial bourgeois society, where individuals themselves became units in the new chain of population”. The nature of any state of perfection is that it will fall to exploitation and become a state in which that perfection has become corrupt, by virtue of the needs that will always exist within any type of Earthly existence that is natural and framed within the structures that defines the concept of ‘life’. Life is about the struggle to create its continuance and within that struggle will always exist the threat of its end. That struggle will lead whatever holds life to fight against that threat by whatever means are available, thus the definition of exploitation. Parker (2002: 10) frames utopia by saying the following: “a blueprint for a desired world which is nevertheless located in present day concerns”. It is the location of the idea of Utopia that presents the most negative aspect of its nature: in present day concerns. The concept of Utopia is one where the concerns that plague present life are covered by solutions that are universally correct. In creating a world that is universal, one of the more important concepts of present day life as it stretches towards enlightenment is discounted and eliminated - diversity. It is within the discussion of diversity, within an understanding that the needs of one are not the same drives or needs of another, that the negativity of Utopia can be found. The only Utopia that can exist is one where the human spirit has been so altered that the concept of concern has been eradicated. After all, it is within the concern of problems that the framework for the idea of a Utopia has been conceived. Without problems that plague life, the need for a space for Utopia would not exist. Therefore, Utopia is a dream that shatters and destroys, it replaces the idea of the human spirit with a bliss that takes from humanity its essence. There is not need for achievement if there is no concern driving innovation towards that achievement. Thus, Utopia is a negative, a framework of an idea that cannot exist in concert with human life. Bibliography Buck-Morss, Susan. (2000). Dreamworld and catastrophe: the passing of mass utopia in East and West. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Geras, Norman. (2000). Minimum Utopia: Ten Theses. Social Register. Accessed at http://www.academia-research.com/writer/index.php?pg =ordp&e_id=536443 Gordin, Michael D., Helen Tilley, and Gyan Prakash. (2010). Utopia/dystopia: conditions of historical possibility. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Hardy, Dennis. (1979). Alternative communities in nineteenth century England. London: Longman. Jameson, F. (2004). “The politics of Utopia“. New Left Review. Vol. 25, pp. 35- 54. Parker, Martin. (2002). Utopia and organization. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review. Read More