The Importance of Perspective

One of the most distinctive attributes of modern culture is the sheer scale of diverse representation and individuality. Coming from drastically differing environments and biological foundations, everybody has a unique outlook on life, shaping various opinions across a broad spectrum of topics. I think that it is this variety in perspective that makes a practical definition of a utopia or dystopia so difficult – most people have a general sense that a utopia is an idyllic society and a dystopia is one that is heavily flawed, but more specific classifications are much less definitive. While the textbook definition of a utopia is fairly straightforward, describing it as a society that is either truly flawless or simply perceived as perfect, many people have different interpretations of perfection, thus leading to many differences in the analyses of supposedly utopian societies, as well as different opinions on whether or not a utopian society is actually achievable. The strict definition of a dystopia is even less concrete – simply referring to a society in which suffering is prevalent. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and the line between a simply “bad” society and a true dystopia is very blurred.

It is because of this spectrum of different perspectives that a society can be considered utopian by one individual, while simultaneously being viewed as a dystopia by another. Take the World State from Brave New World, for example. While most of us have been conditioned to accept certain rights as essential for living a tolerable life, others that are less focused on freedom and individuality may view the World State as less dystopian. After all, if everyone is happy, does it really make a difference how it is achieved? I personally don’t think that the World State is nearly as dystopian as it is usually criticized as being, though it also isn’t quite a utopia. Imagine being born into the society, without any of your current beliefs or preconceived notions. If you were never accustomed to certain inalienable rights, you wouldn’t see them as nearly as important. A member of the World State would most likely be focused on only one thing – happiness. Even if this happiness is achieved through supposedly artificial means (from our point of view, I don’t think that it is an objective fact), does it even matter? If our brain perceives soma as happiness, is it any different from other methods of having fun? In the end, I think that the only reason why the World State receives such vehement criticism from readers is because of the perspectives that each one has already developed. Is anything objectively bad or objectively good? I think that the absence of a true defining factor of good vs. bad is what makes a utopia practically impossible to define at a societal level, leaving it as more of an individual classification.

Furthermore, I believe that the potential diversity of these person-by-person definitions prevents a utopia from being realistically achievable beyond a personal level. The variability of perspectives makes it too difficult to actually create a substantial community that shares identical ideologies. Even if two people think that they have the exact same perception of a utopia, there will almost certainly be slight discrepancies that will emerge, inevitably leading to some level of disagreement and conflict. Our opinions are also adaptable by nature, ensuring that even if you can establish a supposedly perfect utopia, gradual changes in belief could eventually tear it apart. Ultimately, I think that humans are simply too unique and distinct to coexist in perfect harmony, making a utopian society effectively impossible.

However, I have by no means fully fleshed out this topic, and there could be plenty of flaws in my argument, so what do you guys think? Are there situations where a utopia is actually achievable? What do you think of the role of perspective in determining a utopia? Is there actually an easier way to define a utopia?

-Brandon