Imagine a utopia...

When I first read Ursula Leguin’s The Dispossessed I thought that she wanted readers to leave with the feeling that Anarres was truly a utopia. But, now I am not so sure if a utopia is even possible. The argument about the possibility of the coexistence of utopian society and individual freedom, and the role of government in a utopia, particularly struck a chord with me.

A utopia is a perfect place, a paradise, an ideal society. So what does this ideal society entail? Does it mean that everyone is happy? Does it mean having an unlimited supply of everything a person could every want, wealth, sex, leisure, meeting George Lucas, mountains of donuts and coffee? Or is it perfect for every individual because each individual has the freedom to do what he or she wants to do? Leguin’s presentation of a utopia, Anarres, was the latter. Society on Anarres was based on the Odonian ideal of freedom that a person should be free to do anything they want as long as it does not harm anyone else. But, is this not a limit on individual freedom? What if a person was a sadist? Sadists derive joy in harming others; and should they be prevented from achieving happiness in a perfect world? Farmers love rain because it nourishes their crops, but I despise rain. In a utopia, should it rain to please the farmer or never rain to please me? I would love to be dictator of the world, but I’m sure that I am not the only one. Who then would rule the world in a utopia?

In the words of James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But, men are not angels. Leguin touches upon this issue in The Dispossessed. Even the “utopia” of Anarres has its fair share of problems. Even in the perfect world there are those people that want more, for example, the power-hungry Sabul. When famine strikes, more people are shown to have negative qualities; as their inherent survival instinct and selfish human nature emerge, they fight with other Anarrastis for food. Is it possible, therefore, to have complete freedom of the individual in a utopia? Or does individual freedom need to be limited by the existence of a government?

A government could serve the function of maximizing individual happiness by ensuring that its citizens have the optimal amount of freedom without hurting anyone else. That concept is similar to the one of having a center in Anarres, monitoring the society, making sure that every individual can exercise freedom without harming others. Everyone would be happy with this type of government, so they would all think the place was a utopia, or a paradise. Or not. Would they resent not having complete freedom, as the protagonist of The Dispossessed, Shevek, does? Would the government outgrow its function and not allow individuals to maximize their freedom? Remember that government is run by humans who are not free from their intrinsic human nature. As Alexander Hamilton said, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

It does not seem likely that a utopia can exist without individual freedom, the freedom for each individual to engage in what Thomas Jefferson called “the pursuit of happiness”. But, can individuals exercise freedom without the presence of a government? Moreover, can both complete individual freedom and government exist at the same time, given human nature? Maybe that is what Ursula Leguin was trying to tell us; that a utopia is not possible. For the sake of the happiness of the human race, I hope not.