The Unachievable Utopia

            The conversation in class this first week of intensives has been focused on different interpretations of utopian models. Of the few blueprints we have read and discussed there has been a constant disagreement about whether a model fits our definition of a utopia. The problem with this is that we all have different ideas of what that definition is. I believe a utopia would be a place where there would be no currency, no individual advantages, no egotistical people, no political issues, no hunger, and everyone lives equally among each other in peace. The society described would be too perfect to exist because human nature would get in the way.

            When reading and discussing pieces like More’s Utopia and Montaigne’s Of the Cannibals I concluded that none of these would be considered utopias according to this definition. This definition implies that a utopia is unachievable. A perfect balance of all things and people is impossible. In every society, whether real or fictional there are inequalities and discriminations. If we ignore the idea of a utopia being unattainable and begin to notion how a society could prosper, following all of these attributes, then human nature would be sure to crumble any hope. Characteristics like love, hate, jealousy, ignorance, and self-interest would not support any utopian society. If a utopian society were to thrive all citizens would have to be brain washed, as to take emotion out of the decision-making process in the best interest of the people and community as a whole.