Utopia: the Elusive Ideal

In a previous post I mentioned that I was reading Thomas More's Utopia, and that I would write a review once I had finished. Well, I finished reading it months ago, but it left me with so many questions and new ideas that I simply haven't decided yet what to think of it. I've done a little more research into the history and politics of Utopian experiments and mythology, and-- I hate to say it-- I'm not impressed. The tract record for Utopian experiments is dismal, the mythology is contradictory, and the feasibility... well, there is none.

The modern state of Iran is a great example: during the Revolution in 1979, the Ayatollah and his supporters promised an Islamic, Utopian society. I don't think I need to convince anyone that it didn't work. The Taliban invoked the same ideal in Afghanistan, and the result was even worse! Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Chauchesku, Kim Il Sung... Yup, you guessed it: All failures. Worse than failures-- Monsters! And I didn't even mention the multitudes of religious and cult leaders who have done the same thing through the ages. So how do these men end up at the helm of a populist revolution, and pervert it into pseudo-theocratic dictatorship?

I also recently read Animal Farm, by George Orwell. Okay, Okay, I didn't read it, per se. I listened to an unabridged version of it. That's better than just watching the movie, right? Anyway, it had a real impact on me. Orwell has a way of doing that. I can see why some people refer to him as a "prophet," although he would probably object to being labeled that way, being an atheist and all. It also gave some insight into my question about why utopias fail.

It's discouraging that so many good causes, founded by intelligent and inspirational people who love the human race, have been hijacked by selfish, egotistical, power-hungry, brutal people (mostly men), and turned into a byword and a curse. And I'm convinced that this is the reason why Zion will never exist on earth until there is an immortal, perfected, all-knowing, and ever-compassionate being to oversee it. And if that never happens, I think we can abandon any hope that the ideal society will ever exist. Call me eschatological and fatalistic, but human beings have yet to prove that they can do it on their own very well, or for very long.

The scientist in me says: "We can do it! Science and the scientific method can be applied (already have been in fact) to human behavior, culture, and motivation; to government and society; to agriculture and industry; to energy and the environment; to evolution and the future of mankind! We can take our destiny into our own hands and make it brilliant! We can live peacefully and happily on this planet forever." But then reality sets in, and I remember that over the course of the earth's natural history, there have been half a dozen mass extinctions, and that we are on the brink of another, man-made one. Nothing on this earth, or in this universe, was made to last forever.

It occurs to me-- at times like this-- that most of us really are just doing the best we can, as we always have. It also occurs to me that when a theory, however convincing, takes on a life of its own, and becomes the justification for a mass-societal experiment, that we are on dangerous ground. This is why I am still a conservative, and always will be. I know that life is unfair: that the decisions of a few, powerful, wealthy people affect the lives and livelihoods of billions around the globe, and they (the rich and powerful) give little or no thought to those billions, or the planet they live on. And it infuriates me! But what is the alternative? Socialism, Communism, Anarchy? Thomas Jefferson's "Aristocracy of Everyone?" In theory, it sounds nice. In practice, it's Hell, or it's impossible.

I think about 1984: the scene where Winston is being tortured by O'Brien, and he protests that no matter how tightly the party holds the people in subjection (ie. how hard the boot stomps the human face), eventually the spirit of humanity will triumph over cruelty, and free itself. I know the book didn't end well, neither does Animal Farm, but I don't think Orwell believed that resistance was futile (no reference to "the Borg" intended). It seems to me that, at all times, a system of government should be a skillfully crafted compromise between the people and their leaders, and that it should be a dynamic interaction. I think any theory of government, however well thought-out, must be flexible enough (and humble enough) to admit fault, imperfection, and the need for constant change and adaptation. A system that is absolutely rigid, and assumed to be perfect, can only end badly for the people (like the donkey Benjamin's assertion in Animal Farm, that, "Life will go on as it has always gone on, that is, badly...").

I think reading Orwell, and More's Utopia, has given me an answer to my search for truth, and helped me formulate some sort of political philosophy: that there is no "correct" political philosophy, not yet anyway. There are correct principles: cooperation, compassion, respect for human dignity, respect for the environment, hard/honest work, justice, autonomy, etc. For any government to be effective and praiseworthy, it must honor these principles, and others. As always, the Devil is in the details.

Just as the process of evolution has yet to produce a perfect organic creature, human beings have yet to create an ideal state. But evolution has produced us: a creature intelligent enough to understand the process that created it. We are not perfect, by any means, but we have the necessary tools to survive, thrive, and even be happy on this indifferent world, in this indifferent universe. I think we would do well to be less ideological, and more pragmatic as concerning politics: to have our principles and cater to them, but to remember that we don't have all the answers, and we're in this together. I think I'll give up dreaming about utopia, and start thinking more about my family, and my neighbor.