Utopias...

[fajrdrako]

Ottawa Science Fiction Society meeting day. The topic of the month was "Utopia". Hildegarde did an interesting presentation on historical Utopias up until 1915 - Plato, Sir Thomas More, Tomas a Campanella, and so on. Tasia taled about The Disposessed by Ursula K. LeGuin, which I read a very long time ago and enjoyed immensely. Joel talked about books by Larry Niven and Jack Williamson.

I did a presentation on media Utopias, showing the Doctor Who episode of that name. It was fun to watch it again; and I showed a clip from "The Last of the Time Lords" showing the fate of the Toclafane, since it pertained to the Utopia theme. I was happy to be able to do another presentation with Captain Jack, and most of the audience was unfamiliar with Doctor Who, or, at least, with the new Doctor Who. Apparently I'd said something to Tasia about how I was unhappy with the Doctor at the end of "The Last of the Time Lords"; she asked what the problem had been and I replied (among other things) that I thought it wrong of him to dismantle Captain Jack's vortex manipulator. She agreed.

Consensus on the topic of the day was that you can't have a perfect Utopia as long as you have human beings. I am not personally convinced of that; I think it's a failure of our collective imaginations. Not necessarily a bad thing - I am learning to believe in progress nonetheless. But that isn't the mood of the world I live in.

We went to dinner at the Ben Ben restaurant on Somerset; I adore their BBQ Duck Congee and haven't had it in ages. It was wonderful, especially since I'd been suffering a headache that faded when I ate. We talked about books, including Ayn Rand's, and new TV shows. Once again, Sheila was not with us - she's in Rome, New York, this weekend - and the waitress asked where the 'laughing lady' was.

Later, at dinner, I quoted maaseru that the closest thing she could think of to a Utopia in our world was Canada. Sandi disagreed because of current injustices Pat is undergoing in government employment; an interesting conversation.

Why do weekends go so fast? How can it be almost Monday already?

Comments

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Consensus on the topic of the day was that you can't have a perfect Utopia as long as you have human beings. I am not personally convinced of that; I think it's a failure of our collective imaginations.

I think any Utopia that worked would have to be quite non-prescriptive on individuals' ideas, tastes, ways of living, while imposing certain ways of living together. In other words, clearly differentiating between individual and social morality (if you can).

I saw the movie Shake Hands With the Devil tonight at the Bytowne, about Gen. Romeo Dallaire's experiences in Rwanda, and am not feeling truly sanguine about any society staying peaceful right now. (Although at least it did show there are good brave people in even the worst situations.)

We talked about books, including Ayn Rand's

Ah, people saw The Fountainhead on TVO last night? (I saw the interview section after we got home.)

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

The problem is, of course, how to reconcile being nonpprescriptive vor ways of living while imposing ways of living together, which can be very hard indeed to disentangle.

I always disliked "The Disposessed" - not so much the book as the society: a Utopia well down the road of turning into a Dystopia. The steamrollering of people's preferences, inclinations and desires is pretty brutal.

Where all RL attempts have fallen down has been human nature; the communiti4es only work if everybody pulls their weight and is of good will, and it only takes a few people deciding to milk the systgem for all they can get to destroy it. Which is why non-utopian societies have some of the laws they do.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I liked "The Disposessed" because it seemed to me one of the few attempts I have ever seen in fiction to actually depict an anarchistic society. I'm not sure how well LeGuin did with the concent - I'm afraid I don't remember the book very well at all - but I admire the concept.

Since reading A Complicated Kindness by Miriam Toews, I have my doubts about the concept of shunning or exiling dissidents and criminals. Imprisonment seems much less cruel. Perhaps if I read a few prison novels I'd feel differently.

As an anarchist myself, my conclusion was/is that we make our own individual world within ourselves, and then adapt it to the society in which we live, however best we can. But that isn't a society, that's individuals within a society. And the shape of society makes a difference.

One of the points made at the meeting was that one person's Utopia is another person's Distopia. Perhaps the goal should be to make a world flexible enough to compensate for the difference? And how could that happen?

it only takes a few people deciding to milk the systgem for all they can get to destroy it.

I don't think that's true. Any society in the world, however good, still has its share of criminals and trouble-makers, and people who live idly on the work of others. They don't bring down the society, though they may ruin individual lives (including their own). Society is bigger than individuals, which is both its strength and its weakness.

Society has to be big enough, and strong enough, to compensate for that kind of person - and the others who can't take care of themselves, and never could.

I think the real danger is in the madmen and the fanatics - people who want to impose their view of reality on others, when it isn't reality they see at all, just their own delusions. This includes the snipers with voices in their heads, and the suicide bombers, and the warmongers.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think any Utopia that worked would have to be quite non-prescriptive on individuals' ideas, tastes, ways of living,

Yes. Hildegarde made the point that the early Utopias (More, Campabella, Rabelais, etc.) postulated a natural virtue to mankind that would/should kick in if econimic inequality and social injustice were eliminated and education available to all. More's people listened to very short sermons during meals. Seems to me that wouldn't do it.

I'd like to see Shake Hands With the Devil but I'm not sure I have the heart.

Yes, the Ayn Rand conversation was because Andrea (and others?) saw the movie and many of us had of course read it in the past. We were comparing notes. I haven't seen the movie, but no one seemed to think it was any good.

What was the interview section?

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

On Saturday Night at the Movies, TVO does a 30-45 minute intermission session between the 2 (or 3) movies, consisting of applicable interviews -- ones Elwy Yost did many years ago with actors & directors, but also more recent ones with film studies experts -- that help you understand each of the movies. We got home late from visiting family, so that's all we saw: there was one quote that said something like The Fountainhead was dreck (bad dialogue in particular), but still compulsively watchable dreck. They also interviewed actual architects, at least one of whom said the movie utterly infuriated him.

TVO does a really good job with the Interviews section in terms of giving you a better context for the movies and more info about them. Well worth watching.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That sounds interesting! I'd be curious as to why the movie infuriated an architect. (Because architects aren't that flaky?)

I don't seem to ever find time to watch TV movies these days - except with I'm watching with you and friends.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Consensus on the topic of the day was that you can't have a perfect Utopia as long as you have human being. I am not personally convinced of that; I think it's a failure of our collective imaginations. Not necessarily a bad thing - I am learning to believe in progress nonetheless. But that isn't the mood of the world I live in.


Yes. I think it's desperately sad that cynicism seems to be the order of the day, and that people seem to have lost the will to believe that they can make the world a better and more just place. It's worrying that so many seem to be merely "waiting for the barbarians", and no longer believe in civilisation. The only people who seem more optimistic are the barking-mad religious fanatics of all persuasions who want to impose their own rigid creeds.

What was it Yeats wrote?
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are filled with passionate intensity.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think it's desperately sad that cynicism seems to be the order of the day

I do too. When I was young there seemed to be a lot of idealism and optimism around me - I'm thinking of the 1960s here. That suited me just fine. Now people seem to think that idealism and optimism are unrealistic. Which is totally missing the point: things don't get better unless we can and do imagine a better world. It's realistic if we make it realistic.

That Yeats quote seems so true!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

And I'm essentially a child of the '60s. Unfortunately, I spent my late teens and 20s in the '80s. My career has been one of the casualties of Thatcherism, which basically broke the social fabric of this countries and released the boorish 'me first', get-rich-quick system of values.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thatcher's influence didn't spread to Canada, but much the same thing seems to have happened everywhere. I don't know why!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think the same economic gurus, obsessed with privatisation and unfettered free markets, were throwing their weight around, and politicians in various countries took their lead. In the US, they called it 'Reaganomics'.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes. We were all influenced by the same forces. Not to the benefit of the future, either.

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

Several of the interviewees in the media clips said that Utopia is not (or should not be) a thing but a process. (Consider the word "perfection" not as a static goal but as the process of improvement.)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

By which definition, surely all of civilization would be a state of emerging Utopia?

Hmm. There's something odd to me about that definition - Utopia as process - but I'm not sure why. Perhaps it is that it implies that Utopias are discovered like organic entities, or created like art, rather than consciously aticulated and planned? I think (or at least, I think I think) that civilisation is most practicable when it is conceived with some ideal in mind, which becomes a sort of consensus of those participating.

I think "perfection" is an illusion and the word we should keep in mind is "betterment". ("Improvement" would be the same, but sounds a little too schoolteacherish to take seriously.) This is probably another way of restating what you said above.

Love your icon, of course.

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

By which definition, surely all of civilization would be a state of emerging Utopia?

Not all change is for the better.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Not all change is for the better.

No, not at all, and that presupposes certain definitions of 'civilization'. Perhaps it would mean all civilization was emergent utopia or distopia, which makes the playing field - conceptually speaking - rather wide.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yes, because a static society is a dead society. Things have to continue to grow and change.

[maaseru.livejournal.com]

Later, at dinner, I quoted maaseru that the closest thing she could think of to a Utopia in our world was Canada. Sandi disagreed because of current injustices Pat is undergoing in government employment; an interesting conversation.

I said the "closest thing to Utopia", not perfect Utopia. Of course there are injustices - that does not disqualify Canada as the closest thing. And if it does, what other country would then be better?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That was what I replied to Sandi. It made for an interesting discussion. My argument that the injustices we see are breakdowns in the system, not characteristics of it.

Rather like being the victims of crime - you maybe can't eliminate it but you can have a society that minimizes the horrific effects.

And in societies as with individuals, there's always room for improvement.

I'm disturbed the idea that it is illegal to help refugees: that seems to me the opposite of what ought to be Canadian values. Fascist and xenophobic at the same time.