Utopia vs Dystopia discussion

[Penny]

A spin off thread from the September 2013 SciFi nomination. What's the difference between utopian and dystopian fiction?

[Penny]

I introduced the following definition for utopian fiction:

"A utopia can be defined as an ideal or perfect place or state, or any visionary system of political or social perfection. In literature, it refers to a detailed description of a nation or commonwealth ordered according to a system which the author proposes as a better way of life than any known to exist, a system that could be instituted if the present one could be cancelled and people could start over."

I think 1984 falls into this category since it has a "visionary system of political or social perfection". It doesn't achieve it, but the vision is there. I'm happy to concede since no one agrees with me though.

Other input so far:

Jain wrote: "I'm with Andreas on the categorization of 1984 as a dystopia. First because, as according to the definition of Utopia Penny provided above, utopian literature represents "a system which the author proposes as a better way of life." Orwell was decidedly opposed to the governmental and social systems that he created in 1984.

Secondly, as is revealed later in the book, (view spoiler)

And the reason that 1984 is listed as a Popular Utopia Book is because 114 GR users have shelved it as "utopia-dystopia," i.e. a combined category such as Andreas suggested above."


Betty wrote: "Either a utopia or dystopia can be utopian in its intent, but if the results are better, only then can we say the book itself is utopian. If the results are just perfectly awful, as in "1984," then the book is a dystopia. In fact, Oceania (the society in "1984") isn't really even a utopia in intent, despite its public propaganda. O'Brien makes it clear to Winston Smith that the Ingsoc Party will do anything to maintain its absolute power, with no intent of relinquishing it, and with no intent (in the inner circles) of making anyone's life better."


Flash Beagle wrote: "It may be a good separate discussion, especially since the theme changed, but -- utopia / dystopia - to me they are totally different.

Every dystopia I've read, including 1984 in no way leads one to think it is utopia. Right out the gate you know they are in a nightmare. The 1st page of 1984 talks about Hate Week and Big Brother, there is not even an illusion to utopia.

PS - in 1984 they are not trying to create a perfect society - they are trying to kill individualism: O'Brien's (I think that's his name) - monologue/dialog with Winston."


Donna wrote: "But in 1984 (and Hunger Games and Pure and quite a few of the dystopian novels I have read) they were trying to create a utopian society . . . it just wasn't for everyone. There is a different reality for the privileged elite than there is for the masses. The nightmare isn't real for everyone. "


Flash Beagle wrote: "Every reader has different perspectives. But regardless of their official party line, the only things I saw created were enslavement, genocide, and barbaric games to entertain the bored masses. Considering how paranoid the ones in power are, they are in the nightmare too."

[Xdyj]

I agree with Jain that the distinction between utopia & dystopia is in author's intention, which we can only guess from the narratives. I think in 1984's case it's more or less clear that Orwell is strongly against Oceania's totalitarianism. There are cases when writer's opinion on what is "a better way of life" differs from reader's which would result in unpleasant elements in fictional utopias (e.g. in Utopia) or dystopias that we don't find awful at all.

[Trike]

Utopia implies that the world is good for everyone. Which is, of course, impossible.

I don't see how anyone could view 1984 as a utopia in any wise, because even the ruling class is so afraid of losing power that they reduce the rights of the populace continually. When you have 99.99% of the population enslaved and the upper echelon are paranoid to the point of terrorizing everyone, you aren't anywhere near a utopia.

Larry Niven's short story, "Safe At Any Speed," addresses life in a utopia. In one of the collections he remarks that this story is the only one from Known Space's Golden Age, because nothing really interesting happens.

That's why dystopias are easier to write, and more interesting to read.

[Shomeret]

The conflict in a book that takes place in a utopia would need to have an external source. For example, the utopia is invaded and it must defend itself.

[Baelor]

One should also not dismiss the mythopoieic possibilities of utopias (e.g. the Greek mythological Golden Age, Arcadia).

[Humberto]

Utopia can be eventful. A society, very similar to what we have in the US or Europe could be close to utopia with two things. No greed (a fair income distribution) and an intelligent (no greed) government. Still, as there will always be some greedy, or power hungry, individuals in any society, trouble could come from within.
Utopia is a just society with no material needs. That, to me, means that it could still be subject to internal disturbances. It will always be imperfect.
Utopia can be imperfect and still be utopia.

[Xdyj]

I think for a Utopia to make sense it must be imperfect, & there must be functioning institutions to accommodate future social changes and people's evolving understanding of justice.

[Jenelle]

Lately the trend seems to be (at least in YA literature - which is where Dystopian Fiction seems to be making a comeback tour) to start out in a world that is portrayed at first as a utopia... orderly, organized, people are safe and for the most part friendly... and then main character-person ends up on some sort of journey/quest/coming of age rite and discovers that the world is far darker than most people realize, and that the utopia is, in fact, a very subtle dystopia.

[Jim]

Actually the two original Utopias were not perhaps what we thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia is a good quick guide
The Greeks assumed your Utopia would still have soldiers, even if women and property (but then in their eyes women were property.)
Thomas More coined the name Utopia for his book, it translates as 'no place' and his book might even have been a satire on the England of his time.

So even in concept, a Utopia is not going to be a utopia for everyone. In fact even within the original concept, it seems to have been accepted that one person's utopia was another person's dystopia

[Trike]

Humberto wrote: "Utopia is a just society with no material needs. That, to me, means that it could still be subject to internal disturbances. It will always be imperfect.
Utopia can be imperfect and still be utopia."

Xdyj wrote: "I think for a Utopia to make sense it must be imperfect, & there must be functioning institutions to accommodate future social changes and people's evolving understanding of justice."

But utopia's very meaning is "perfect society." So by definition it can't be imperfect.

It would be impossible, of course, because anything that's imperfect for even a single person in that society would disqualify it as utopia.

Jim wrote: "So even in concept, a Utopia is not going to be a utopia for everyone. In fact even within the original concept, it seems to have been accepted that one person's utopia was another person's dystopia "

Yeah, there's really no way to make a true utopia. There's always a flipside to every argument, no matter how beneficial it may seem.

Genetic engineering to remove congenital defects? "Not natural."

Everyone lives long, happy and healthy lives. Where do the warriors, fighters and murderers live?

Adrenaline junkies like to live life on the edge. There can be no true adrenaline if you're in no danger.

Even if someone can manage to create a society that functions beautifully for 99.999% of people, there's still that fraction who would be dissatisfied for one reason or another. You can dismiss them because you're close enough to utopia, but it's still not the definition of utopia.

[Xdyj]

I think Kim Stanley Robinson, LeGuin etc. have written some "flawed Utopias" in that they conform to the author's political ideology but are not without problems or changes, & their citizens & the various civil & democratic institutions they set up are expected to deal with those problems & changes. They may not fit the original definition but I think they fit the definition of utopia in literature which as mentioned by Penny which is "a detailed description of a nation or commonwealth ordered according to a system which the author proposes as a better way of life than any known to exist".

[Humberto]

There will always be people who are dissatisfied. Maybe with themselves. Utopia is not a definition. It is a social system, that is socially perfect. Not necessarily personally perfect.
Even then, there is no such thing as perfection, only optimal solutions.

[Margaret]

IIRC the subtitle of Le Guin's The Dispossessed is "An Ambiguous Utopia."

[Betty]

Margaret wrote: "IIRC the subtitle of Le Guin's The Dispossessed is "An Ambiguous Utopia.""
Yes, Ms. LeGuin tried to imagine a better society, but she was honest enough and saw clearly enough to imagine potential problems with it too.

That said, I'd still prefer Anarres, as presented in the novel, to Urras.

[Guy]

There is a difficulty with classifying this category, because almost every book I've ever read loosely fits into these two categories.

[John]

Xdyj wrote: "I think Kim Stanley Robinson, LeGuin etc. have written some "flawed Utopias" in that they conform to the author's political ideology but are not without problems or changes, & their citizens & the ..."

This touches a nerve, because I am probably guilty of doing this myself (as at least one reviewer has pointed out); but I don't know that any writer consciously sets out to create utopia per se. Rather, we try to imagine a society of the future that might actually function (well or poorly -- utopia or dystopia) recognizing that the "perfect" society will never exist. In a military analogy, Field Marshall Von Moltke is quoted as saying "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy"... and likewise, it would seem that no planned utopia survives contact with human nature.

On the other hand, in fiction, it is often the flaws in utopia (or the few bright spots in dystopia) that make for interesting reading.

[Jim]

I'd suggest the flaws (or bright spots) are both where Utopia and Dystopia intersect.
And where reality creeps in :-)

[Adam]

There is a certain dynamism in the consequence of words of which their meaning is just one facet. For Sir Thomas Moore Utopia was less demanding than our concept and yet as practically unapproachable. What he actually intended remains a source of quite active discontention. I find Plato's Republic more interesting, because it seems to be less city plan and more intellectual yearning.
The simplest most contemporary source of pseudo-conventional meaning for Utopia is a dictionary definition. (Remember dictionaries are political institutions with sampling methods that have questionable methodological and stats confidence issues, that gather data already expressed and then define trends or augment them. That said, it's a hard job they do and I used to read them often)
The first interesting component and the only one I'm going to waffle about is whether the subject is real or imaginary. An imaginary utopia might be feasible, providing that the author carries their description no further, and undertakes no examination of the Utopia beyond the definition of the Utopia. Thus resolution of the Utopia is entirely dependent on the mind of the reader in all its elements. It seems the consensus amongst us is that Utopia refers to social construction, so I will stick to that.

It was said that the Dyttaens lived in Utopia; that Dyttaen society was perfect in every way. Indeed visitors to that far away place never returned. Possibly if they existed, and we slip passed the problem of accurate reports if no one returned, the Dyttaens might in the novel have a Utopian Society. I can't agree with this even on a theoretical plane.

I quite strongly believe that humanity and a theoretical Utopia are incompatible. As Trike said:

“Yeah, there's really no way to make a true utopia. There's always a flipside to every argument, no matter how beneficial it may seem.

Genetic engineering to remove congenital defects? "Not natural."

Everyone lives long, happy and healthy lives. Where do the warriors, fighters and murderers live?

Adrenaline junkies like to live life on the edge. There can be no true adrenaline if you're in no danger.

Now to contradict myself by shifting the goal posts. A practical Utopia is a possibility, at least theoretically, but it's existence would not be recognizable to our eyes. For it to be achieved the definition of Utopia would have to have moved or else, most plausibly, humanity would have to forcibly adapted in such a way that there was complete consensus and a conditioning to the resulting environment that convinced of perfection. That's not a place where I would want to end up. Here I could support an edited version of Humbeto's opinion that holds its spirit I hope.

“Utopia is not a definition. It is a social system, that [has] only optimal solutions.” In a system of infinite resources all solutions would be optimal and optimal would be meaningless except as a political expedient, but since there most be no discord over the social system by its members and another significant factor I'll come to soon, optimality is largely meaningless. Of course it is only theoretically that we can have infinite resources. In the real World we have tangibles and although many of them are fungible they are all finite. Thus optimality for a practical rendition of Utopia had pertinence. Optimality itself however is not without problems. As a scientist I once was under the impression that it did not, mathematical modelling tends to create that impression especially at a junior level. Consider for example the most efficient size of a tube for capillary action. Then efficiency can be further improved by considering other aspects that facilitate capillary action such as the material of the capillary, etc. However that is efficiency and not the optimality of the sociological context. Economics utilises efficiency with optimum as 'a best possible outcome within a given set of circumstances'. There is an analogy here to the efficiency of the mathematical model with its autopoiety, but there is no equivalence. The mathematical model is a self contained linguistic system that regardless of where it is directed is always self-contained. Sociology and economics are not. Who defines the terms of efficiency and how are interests calibrated? Even if we did away with greed (I'll be shot for this, but for the sake of simplicity) so that we can ignore economic efficiency, how do we come to a consensus on measurement of the physical terms i.e. technological efficiency? Hence, I could agree with Humberto, and then with extreme tentativeness, only if the definition (rather aspiration) of Utopia changed or if humanity were forcibly adapted in such a way that there was complete consensus and a conditioning to the resulting environment that convinced every member of 'efficiency' (I.e. we became robots running the same algorithm). Even then happiness and impulses, if we were still capable of them, would have to be reduced to a desire for efficiency. That's certainly not a place where I would want to end up.

The other important factor that I alluded to was the historicity of the Utopia. It is a feature of the more famous Utopian speculation that Utopian societies do not or cannot recognize historical progression. The Utopia cannot be seen as a step in social development as anything other than a stationary point in social progression. Thus, I can see Penny's point about 1984, this is a society that totally eschews historical progression. However I feel that Utopia has to be more than a stationary point in social progress, it must account for the quality of life for humanity at that point too. Which is the big problem – achieving consensus. Consensus in almost everything and Free Will are, for any human population greater than one individual, quite infeasible to me.

On the subject of can anything interesting happen in a Utopia, I believe it could providing there was a conflict for the protagonists to work through. I think an exposition on utopia could be useful as an instruction manual, but interesting only from an academic point of view. Mostly, like John and Jim, I find flawed societies aspiring towards Utopia interesting. In the case of an unflawed Utopia (given that it's unlikely that an author could write detail about a Utopia which will not impinge on a reader's conception of what a Utopia ought be, but assuming that it is possible) then the incidence of externalities on the Utopia could be highly interesting. Externalities for example might include extreme natural disasters, invasions, imported thought experiments etc.

Onto Dystopia... actually I think you've suffered enough at my fingers already.

[Humberto]

We already live in a 'consensus' society. As I drive along the roads, walk though stores in the malls or watch people at work, I don't see dissent.
Even under huge income disparities people seem satisfied with their lives.
Three factors point to a practical utopia in the near future:
Over productivity. It is clear to me that the world is producing more and cheaper goods and foods. Thanks to technological advances.
War is out of fashion. The last wars have been lost. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (USSR, US), have been lost by both sides (no economic gain - except for a few rogue US Corporations).
Awareness of income disparity. Which will eventually solve the problem of too many goods and too little money in the hands of 80% of the population. There are, and there will be more, goods. It is the money that is badly distributed.
I believe that a practical utopia is possible within this century or the next.
Practical Utopia: a social system where dissent is minimal and can be handled by the courts (not a police state) and with a fair income distribution, leading to a society with no material needs.

[Chinook]

War is out of fashion? Where is it you live in the world that you think that's the case? Also, I think your take on the economic situation is bizarre to say the least. Travelled through parts of the developing world lately? There are some horrifyingly stagnant countries out there were abject poverty isn't ending any time soon.

[Humberto]

War is like income disparity. It benefits very few.
Europe is at peace after thousands of years of continuous conflict.
A social disturbance (Egypt, Syria...) is not war and they are needed to achieve (eventually) fair income distribution.
I live in the present but I can look forward. That is why I write SF.
Bringing a poor country out of poverty is easier and cheaper than invading it.
I am talking about utopia and a 100 years from now.
In the world I live there is only one war. The botched war in Afghanistan where the Taliban were never defeated. All other are revolutions.
Reflecting some future scenarios I wrote my series 'living dangerously in utopia.'

[Xdyj]

War is out of fashion. The last wars have been lost. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (USSR, US), have been lost by both sides (no economic gain - except for a few rogue US Corporations).

It depends on your definition of "side". Afghani warlords & those corrupt politicians in Baghdad are definitely among the winners. & conflicts in places like Somalia still has no end in sight. War benefits very few, but as long as it benefits those that have guns, they'll have enough incentive to carry it on. On the other hand, wars between major powers like those in the last century are indeed becoming increasingly unlikely. As to the Vietnam war, it was won decidedly by the north who successfully kicked out the imperialists & unified the country (and set up a Stalinist dictatorship).

Also, I think in many places in the world at least a few more revolutions are still needed to make them "practical Utopias" in any meaningful sense. Besides that we'll also need to fundamentally change our way of dealing with the environment & international relations, as well as avoid a revival of totalitarianism.

[Humberto]

Xdyj says that the warlords won in Afghanistan and Iraq. They won the civil war inside those countries. The wars were declared unilaterally by Bush (US) and lost by the governments of the US and Afghanistan and Iraq. Later the internal conflicts (which the US was unable to contain) were won by the warlords.
I am convinced that war is not profitable anymore. Revolutions will happen until income disparity is reduced to a satisfactory level.

[Chinook]

War is always profitable for someone. Think blood diamonds or gun manufacturers. And what's going on in many parts of the world has nothing to do with a revolution for income disparity.

I think you need to get out and travel more.

[Humberto]

It is always income disparity. Or greed.
War is a conflict between two or more countries. The word War is misused.
War on drugs. War on poverty. War in Somalia. War in Syria.
I have traveled, but maybe I have not learned enough. I am going to start a fund: Humberto's travels. I have to travel more. Though maybe I should just read more.
Here it is a SF forum. We should think ahead. About tomorrow.

[Gary]

Would a utopian society still have war, crime or disease?

My understanding of the term is that a utopia is the ideal society, but that society need not necessarily be universal. Utopian society would likely tend to spread as its benefits overcome those of less ideal societies, but where it rubbed up against less enlightened societies there would be some sort of friction, wouldn't there?

Further, there would still be police and the structures of civil courts, right? The idea is an ideal/perfect society, but the humans in it remain flawed, so there would still be a need for a justice system.

Similarly, we'd still have the same need for medical services. Or is the argument that a utopia cannot exist without functional immortality?

[Humberto]

A utopian society could still have problems. My take is that at least, it will not have material needs. Good health is important, otherwise it would be an incomplete utopia. Immortality is not necessary but a universal health system (free) is. And medicine will be better in the future, much better.

[Silvio]

I'd define a utopian book as one that describes a society that you're supposed to compare with your own and think it's a lot better (maybe even the best society possible for human beings, but I wouldn't be strict about that). Then a dystopian book would have a society that you're supposed to compare with yours and think it's a lot worse.

I've read that some academics like to call both of those "utopias" and call the optimistic kind a "eutopia." I've also seen the word "heterotopia," which I think means a society which is pointedly meant to be compared with real societies but isn't consistently better or worse.

[Jim]

That's probably a good working definition. Trying to work from first principles just gets confusing :-)

[Steph]

It's an interesting discussion. I see a utopia as the perfect 'natural' society, one ultimately unattainable. Likewise, I see a dystopia as the perfect 'forced' society, which again is doomed to failure.

There's a line in The Matrix about earlier versions of the Matrix itself failing due to being 'too perfect'. I dimly recall there was a joker figure in Arthur C Clarke's The City and the Stars, whose job it was to introduce periods of minor chaos in an otherwise perfect society. It seems society needs a measure of conflict (but not too much!) to survive.

[Jim]

Steph wrote: "There's a line in The Matrix about earlier versions of the Matrix itself failing due to being 'too perfect'. I dimly recall there was a joker figure in Arthur C Clarke's The City and the Stars, whose job it was to introduce periods of minor chaos in an otherwise perfect society. It seems society needs a measure of conflict (but not too much!) to survive. ..."

I think you're right. People who don't have stress, don't achieve. I think the speech from 'The Third Man' is relevant here

"You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

[carol.]

Jim wrote: "In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." "

And some of the best chocolate in the world. ;)

[Kay]

One reason I believe we see so few novels of utopia in last few decades is a growing belief that humanity can't create one. Do we believe any longer that people can live in a totally just and abundant society? I don't think so. We face such critical problems as a human race and aren't being very successful in overcoming them. I think most authors who don't have a huge political axe to grind would rather write about the real human condition than an imaginary heavenly state. Readers today want shades of gray not b/w. As this thread has pointed out, though, some authors may want to set up a utopia to show its flaws. One lovely, horrifying, example of this is American Elsewhere which I *just* finished reading.

[G.P.]

Firstly, let's be clear: we're talking about 'SF'. Oh, yes, we are! If, like Margaret Atwood, the notion that the 'S' stands for 'Science' makes you uncomfortable then feel free to substitute in 'Speculative', instead. It won't change a thing. Except, perhaps, the demographics of your readership....

The Star Trek milieu is a good example of contemporary, utopian fiction: Star Fleet and the Federation depict accomplishments of philosophical and socio-economic ideals. Federation characters represent those striving to become the best person they can be, with their only reward being the sense of achievement itself, since money no longer exists. All socio-economic concerns are resolved within Federation society. The conflict comes from other cultures that have not achieved the Federation's depicted level of 'enlightenment', e.g. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, etc. each of which represents a perceived shortcoming manifest in people of our own world and time (Star Trek is sci-fi, so comparison with contemporary societies is to be expected), e.g. militarism, racist imperialism, and mercantilism and misogyny, respectively. Another source of conflict is often character-based, revealing the struggle of personal refinement and the human condition.

Because the stories are usually about a bunch of people roaming around in space, and their epic-scaled exploits, Star Trek (along with Star Wars) falls into the often-derided sub-genre of 'Space Opera'. I think that may be because, as others have suggested, there's really not much else to write about within a utopian setting other than the fantastic exploits of the utopian citizens, once you've outlined the milieu.

The Star Trek style of utopia, where the advancement of technology and pursuit of scientific understanding is portrayed as leading to an ideal society, is out of favour with a majority of contemporary readers because this degree of optimism in the perceived benefits of advancing science and technology is not shared by most people, who widely acknowledge that these advances, whilst they may make life easier for some, or improve safety, efficiency, etc. have come to create problems of their own: cultural homogeneity, socio-economic inequality, virtual disconnection of people from their community, and the speculated links with child and violent crime incidents, suicide rates, mental and physical illnesses, etc. Readers are generally better educated and globally aware than ever, and our higher sophistication demands more realistic and convincing depictions and explanations in fiction.

A dystopian setting, on the other hand, often offers far more thought-provoking comparisons with our own society. As a result, the setting itself can produce the conflict that makes the writing interesting enough to bother reading it in the first place, and the actions of the characters within it as they struggle against (or simply within) the system add further interest. I believe dystopia is the most valuable tool of science-fiction (or 'speculative fiction' for those uncomfortable with the idea that they are writing or reading sci-fi), inviting comparison with our own world and lifestyle, pointing out (preferably as subtly as possible, without too obvious an agenda on the author's part) the pitfalls that await us in the future if we don't strive now to change the direction our society is taking.

When dystopian literature evolved from modernism to postmodernism, it was no longer acceptable for the author to simply impress his or her personal views or beliefs upon the postmodern reader. Now, the expectation is that the reader is sufficiently perspicacious to arrive at their own interpretation of and conclusion about the text, and that this is just as valid as the author's intended meaning. The story is expected to be both entertaining, at a light reading level, and offer ontological insights at a deeper level. As far as I’m concerned, that’s good news for readers: postmodernisms predilection for double coding just provides a better quality of information to be digested, per novel, than your average, utopian Space Opera could muster. Which is not to say there's no such thing as postmodern utopia....

[Trike]

"To be a science fiction writer you must be interested in the future and you must feel that the future will be different and hopefully better than the present. Although I know that most — that many science fiction writings have been anti-utopias — 1984, as an example. And the reason for that is that it's much easier and more exciting to write about a really nasty future than a — placid, peaceful one." -- Arthur C. Clarke

http://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/...

[John]

Just an observation from many decades of reading SF: Often what is portrayed in the story as a dystopian society results from a failed attempt to create Utopia -- failed because the founders of the society in question had either a narrow view of social perfection or a poor understanding of the social dynamics their creation would produce.

For an example from classic SF literature, think in terms of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. For a movie example, think Logan's Run. For that matter, the society portrayed in 1984 apparently started off as somebody's idea of the perfect society (though obviously, Orwell thought otherwise).

[Cleland]

John wrote: "Just an observation from many decades of reading SF: Often what is portrayed in the story as a dystopian society results from a failed attempt to create Utopia -- failed because the founders of the..."Interesting observation, John. At the risk of making myself look a bit thick, I have to admit that for years I assumed the term 'dystopia' was a coinage conflating the terms 'dysfunctional' and 'utopia'. Your observation, I think, explains why.

[Kay]

John wrote: "Just an observation from many decades of reading SF: Often what is portrayed in the story as a dystopian society results from a failed attempt to create Utopia -- failed because the founders of the..."

That brings us back to original point in this thread, that failed utopias are dystopian... like "1984" and the wonderful SF/Horror book American Elsewhere (that I learned about on Goodreads!) where 50's America is satirized and made horrific.

American Elsewhere

[Steph]

I recently read Plato's Republic, which although isn't SF is a lengthy discussion on how to create the perfect state. Plato had some very clear ideas, many of which - like controlling who can breed with who - we wouldn't place in any modern utopian vision. Yet Plato (and his fellow Greek elite?) obviously felt differently. It's a good example of how the architects of utopias see society quite differently to those who end up living in them.

[Humberto]

A necessary, but maybe not sufficient condition to achieve utopia is an economy of abundance. No material needs.
Hopefully nobody will 'architect' such a society. It will be better if it just happens.
A spoiler, utopia does not mean perfect.

[Cemil]

Kay wrote: "John wrote: "Just an observation from many decades of reading SF: Often what is portrayed in the story as a dystopian society results from a failed attempt to create Utopia -- failed because the fo..."

And I need to add, all utopias are doomed to fail, thus turn into a dystopia. There is always something sinister about utopias.

[Julia]

G.P.'s example of the Star Trek Federation universe as a utopia is a good one.

There is universal health care, everyone has food & a place to live, but militarism and a siege mentality can come back to the society with very little effort-- just one shapechanger put Earth in lockdown in "Deep Space 9." Also, the section 31 subplot that goes through many (all?) of the Trek time frames.

[Smallo]

Don't have time to read all posts so this could be redundant. I think of utopia as a society which solved humanity's major problems (poverty, war, crime, disease). With that in mind the settings in Brave New World and Harrison Bergeron (if I remember correctly) are utopias -- with a price.

I'm actually seeking fiction with utopia settings as mentioned above but utopias without price -- really perfect worlds -- which may be humanly impossible to tell in a narrative sense (even with alternative/postmodern narrative techniques). In other words heaven before the fall -- Neil Gaiman wrote that setting but he introduced a problem -- I want no problems -- again perhaps a story that is humanly impossible to tell.

[Margaret]

Smallo, I don't see why anyone would write such a thing, frankly--not as a story, anyway. If there are no problems, where would your plot come from?

[Humberto]

I have written a series: living dangerously in utopia. With four books separated in time. Utopia is not perfection, at best it is an optimum.
External and internal pressures can affect such a society and change could happen without destroying the utopian society.

[Penny]

This seemed like a good place to mention there was a tie for the utopia/dystopia poll so please go vote in the runoff poll! Thanks :)

[Jonathan]

The focus here toward crafting a Utopia seems to be on social engineering, and creating the ideal society via political tricks and public policies. I put forward that the key problem that will forever prevent the formation of a utopia is human nature.

I vividly remember one of my best professors telling me that the history of mankind is driven by three lures: sex, money, and power. Those that ascend to power are typically very ambitious, and surrounded by others like them that aren't going to be content to play second fiddle. So there's a fundamental destabilization agent, right there.

Also: whose utopia do we establish? A paleo-libertarian's? A communist's? A socialist's? A theocracy? Even some imagined, supposedly-perfect system that hasn't been implemented ever is going to rankle some nerves and drive certain segments within society to rebellion, because you can't please all the people all of the time. One-size-all approaches never work.

I want to add, too, that everyone tends to view history as forward-moving, but I tend to side with the Chinese, who view it as one great circle. The cycle of nations is alive, and will not be denied. One could easily argue that various forms of "progress" dig up and propagate mistakes of the past. I won't get political, but no matter where you are on the spectrum, you've probably seen policies enacted that seem like a throwback to an earlier time, or at least to earlier mistakes.

[Art]

Somehow, utopia seems to be almost unattainable, unless we find some way to siphon off humans' greed and pettiness. I was watching my grand-nieces pre-teen interaction, some teens in a mall, and then a group of seniors in the same mall later. The same bickering and petty actions seemed to be similar in all three groups. How would you suggest we remedy this?

[Humberto]

Greed may disappear (most of it) in an economy of abundance. Under those conditions wealth could be meaningless.
Power could be irrelevant when nobody HAS to work anymore and thus the motivations change. AI and automation would do most of the work.
Pettiness is more difficult.