Utopia Is Just A Dream - Or Is It?!

The perfect world? What does that look like? We have countless books and movies exploring what it in fact could look like, although ironically, most of them turn into dystopias… and there are many reasons for this. 

Merriam Webster’s definition of “utopia” is as follows: a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions

The person who first coined the term utopia was English humanist Sir Thomas More, who published a book titled Utopia in 1516. It compared social and economic conditions in Europe with those of an ideal society on an imaginary island located off the coast of the Americas. 

“There’s quite literally no place like utopia.{...}More wanted to imply that the perfect conditions on his fictional island could never really exist, so he called it “Utopia,” a name he created by combining the Greek words ou (“not, no”) and topos (“place”). The earliest generic use of utopia was for an imaginary and indefinitely remote place. The current use of utopia, referring to an ideal place or society, was inspired by More’s description of Utopia’s perfection.” –Merriam Webster

Funny, isn’t it? Personally, I think there are two problems with the idea of a utopia. 

1. What constitutes an ideal place to ME might be VERY different to what an ideal place may look like for the next person, and–

2. The concept of the nowadays general idea of a utopia is utterly flawed… and here is why:

Most people I’ve ever had a discussion with over the idea of a utopia feel the most important aspect of it would be peace, meaning everyone treats each other in a loving manner. Love, here, is the key aspect. OK, on the surface this makes a lot of sense. Who doesn’t want that?! Right? Well, let's look at that. What is love? The dictionary gives you the superficial stuff associated with affection and desire. I want to dive a little deeper here.

My definition of love is: 

To continuously connect with and integrate that which was previously apart from me.

What do I mean by that? 

Love is a peculiar experience in that it goes through an ever-moving process with something or someone previously unfamiliar to us, at least on some level. We “fall” in love, we’re not born in love. We encounter something or someone that strikes us for whatever reason, and so we choose to connect with it or the person. We want to know them better, spend more time with them. Love is the process of integrating something or someone into our life, filling an aspect within ourselves we were previously unaware of. On the flip side, we can also “fall out of love” such as we see in divorces. Behind love is an intense urge to connect.

Here are some famous people with similar definitions (**sidenote: not necessarily an endorsement for other views they may carry):

Albert Ellis (American Psychologist)

• Love is an unconditional, rational acceptance of the other person, without expecting them to meet unrealistic standards.

1. Emmanuel Levinas (French Philosopher)

• Key Idea: Love is the response to the Other’s absolute difference — it involves caring for and recognizing the Other’s needs and humanity without trying to dominate or possess them. Love, for Levinas, is a way of encountering the world and others without reducing them to familiar categories.

• Quote: "Love is a responsibility for the Other that is not reducible to friendship, desire, or knowledge. It is not the fusion of two subjects, but a face-to-face encounter that respects the radical alterity of the other."

2. Martin Buber (Austrian-Israeli Philosopher)

• Key Idea: Love involves recognizing the Other as a "Thou" — a person to be respected, engaged with, and integrated into our life, but not consumed or reduced. It is a recognition of the "otherness" of another person, and through love, we enter into a deep connection that honors their difference and uniqueness. Love is the transcending of egoism and a way of integrating the otherness of another into one’s own life in a relational, reciprocal manner.

• Quote: "Love is the encounter with the Other, and in this encounter, the self is transformed, transcending its individual limitations and finding itself in communion with the other."

3. Hegel (German Idealist Philosopher)

• Definition of Love: Hegel’s conception of love is rooted in his dialectical philosophy, where love plays a role in the development of the self-consciousness of individuals and the realization of freedom. For Hegel, love is the process by which two separate individuals or subjects transcend their separateness and come to recognize themselves in the other, thus integrating the "other" into the self. This integration of the other is necessary for the fulfillment of both individuals.

• Quote: "Love is the unity of two, which at first appears as the unity of separate individuals but in which both are transformed in such a way that they become a new whole, a unity that transcends the difference between them."

5. Søren Kierkegaard (Danish Philosopher and Theologian)

• Key Idea: Love is not just a feeling or an attachment but a moral commitment that integrates the individual into a larger, divine context. Love here is about self-transcendence, integrating both the self and the other into a higher, more universal form of existence.

• Quote: "Love is not a feeling, but a principle. It is the self's ability to choose the other, even when the other is different, and to recognize the other as the highest good."

So, back to my previous point that I think the idea of a utopia is flawed… If love is the cornerstone of a utopia, then we are already living in a potential utopia. I say “potential” because in many ways it is unrealized. “Unrealized” because the issue simply is that we are unwilling to move TOWARD one another. The opportunity for a utopia is already there. Always has been, always will be. We unfriend the people we’ve known for years over a comment or a particular view or belief. We despise “the opposite” and recluse ourselves into an echo chamber and blindly follow the propaganda circling within. Continuing that way, we’ll never EVER experience a “utopia.” As Thomas More stated, utopia is no-place. A utopia is essentially a state of being, a mentality, and it can be created in an instant and broken down in an instant. Building a utopia relies on varying degrees of courage and reaching over into the “unknown” and trying to understand it. That act in itself is loving. It does not mean you have to “love” the “other side,” it’s the persistent effort and opening-up to consider another one’s views that creates this loving notion - the act of serious consideration and respect (NOT arguing and/or trying to convert the other person). It becomes a process of edging closer and closer together (positive polarization) by respectfully listening, communicating, exchanging thoughts, compromising, rather than moving further and further apart (negative polarization). Ironically, as you withdraw from “the other” and step deeper into your own echo chamber, you’ll eventually find yourself so far on the outskirts of “your side” that you now represent the very thing you hated (which is why in America both political parties are currently calling each other nazis). It’s like bending over backwards so far, you become the very thing you initially felt was “opposite” from you. This leads to self-destruction in some form or another because it is self-consuming, or a very rude awakening. “Positive polarization” is moving TOWARD the “other” and shortening the distance between until it becomes a little “dance” (represented so famously as the little black and white dots within the yin yang symbol - they represent motion/push-and-pull or a persistent exchange) - this represents infinite growth. Utopia is that very process - positive polarization. You engage in a “dance” with that which is outside of you.

In the above illustration you see that it doesn’t matter if your foundation is based in love or fear, moving AWAY from the “opposite” results in negative polarization.

Here is another way to look at this:

A lot of people misunderstand “positive polarization” as the act of focusing on that which you consider to be positive. The problem with this is that it is YOUR perception of what’s positive. Guess what? The “other side” thinks THEY are the positive ones. So, who’s to judge who’s positive and who’s negative? You may think that’s obvious but it’s not. Take as an example a shooter killing multiple innocent people. That’s wrong, and we are all quick to call them evil. Then, we find out (if we allow ourselves to step into the “other”) that the shooter was abused as a child and developed severe mental issues. It DOES NOT excuse what this person did, BUT it explains it and now we can enter a dialogue as to how we can prevent childhood trauma, etc. It’s a matter of perspective and the only way to move forward is to move TOWARD each other. If either or both sides move away from the other, we broaden the distance, increase hate, and eventually end up in extreme points (as seen above in the last “circle” illustration).

So, if we want to live in a utopia, we start by trying to understand that which is “outside” of us. The further apart it is from us, the harder understanding may be. If that’s the case, we start with something that isn’t THAT far outside of our views. We try to understand it, step into its shoes, research, be open, and above all, be honest with ourselves. We have to be our own refs and call ourselves on our own shit. If we want to learn about our political opposite for example, we won’t find the right material in our little echo chamber. We need to approach it from the other side. And we can’t wait until “they” make the first move either. Doing that is still negative. What if our move toward “them” sparks a realization in them?

If we can’t because we think “they” are wrong, awful, evil etc., then we can’t blame others for not getting our own utopia, because experiencing utopia is dependent on YOUR act of love. We are failing at the most fundamental level - love. And guess who’s in need of the most love? Typically those we despise the most.

Thanks for your support!!