Re-designing Cultures: Utopias, Domesticity and the Meaning of Life Nicholas M Stevenson
“In Utopia, where every man has a right to everything, they all know that if care is taken to keep the public stores full, no private man can want anything; for among them there is no unequal distribution, so that no man is poor, none in necessity; and though no man has anything, yet they are all rich; for what can make a man so rich as to lead a serene and cheerful life, free from anxieties” - Sir Thomas More, from Utopia
“Our life dreams the Utopia. Our death achieves the Ideal” - Victor Hugo
1. In which the work is introduced
Utopia, the word first coined in Thomas More’s 1516 novel of the same name, describes a fictional island of communal responsibility where everything is perfect and everyone happy with what they have. He wrote his novel whilst England was in a very unbalanced state and his writings are very reflective of this, but many of the points expressed have transcended centuries and the utopian concept (or certainly an interpretation of it) still inspires a great number of people. The utopian idea is much broader than that of this make-believe island though. It’s an entire way of life, and so has influence on design in all aspects, from city planning (see Le Corbusier’s Contemporary City Le Corbusier) right down to individual artifacts (the iPhone, for example). Designers have historically seen themselves as instigators of change; change which more often than not is an attempt to try and improve the world around us. Without this utopian ideal, design can become stale and recurrent, but can utopias distort realistic thinking and so corrupt the designer into falsified self-beliefs that ultimately generate dystopian actualities and proletarian communities? In this work, the aim is to explore what exactly the word ‘utopia’ can represent in design, and why designing with this in mind can be both a good and bad idea. It also investigates the concept of the ‘realistic compromise Utopia’, how people are generating their own pseudo-Utopias within contemporary societies and the thought that perhaps Utopia as we envisage it now is different from More’s initial descriptions back in the 16th century.
2. In which utopian concept is deconstructed in order to better understand it
Utopia in Thomas More’s novel represents a place, an island in fact. Utopia as a concept derives from this, but in a modern interpretive sense can be split into two specific categories: –That of the material Utopia; an as-yet unrealised place, with objects, buildings, etc that are communally-accessible and universally used –That of the immaterial (personal) Utopia; a perfected state of mind within a morally-just and unified community
The material Utopia is very much a design-based way of thinking. The ideals behind it are not massively dissimilar to that of its immaterial sibling, and the principles remain the same. Material Utopia concerns objects, artifacts and systems generated for universal compatibility and with an aim to make everyone happier. This concept goes right back through history, whether consciously considered or otherwise. In a modern sense, this utopia was envisaged (and brought to the masses) with examples such as the 20th century Soviet empire, or Le Corbusier’s designs for modern dwellings and contemporary cities. However, it isn’t limited to such grand projects/strategies. On a much smaller scale, let us consider the example of Apple’s iPod, and more recently, the iPhone.
Such products have doubtlessly influenced large numbers of people and generally speaking this has been in very much a positive way. Compared with mobile technology prior to the introduction of these devices, their presence within society can be described as somewhat utopian. On the contrary though, this is where the dystopian theory becomes part of the equation. Dystopia will be explained properly later, but let us first consider this using our current example: The iPhone (and iPod) allows communication between users in ways which were previously unimaginable; through usage of apps, messaging and online access the scope of contact is virtually limitless - but what for those without such products? The non-user can find that they not only left behind technologically, but also psychologically.
“I want something for a thousand and one nights” George Bailey (James Stewart) in Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life is the embodiment of the immaterial utopian life.
The fetishism of material objects can lead to an aggressive desire or a self-destructive longing. In short, the utopian artifact generates a dystopian reaction and becomes resented by those unable to buy into its self-assumed utopian bliss. The immaterial Utopia is easier to understand and yet much more difficult to realise; it is that of a universal unity, such as that shown by the community in More’s book. A shining example of the immaterial utopian society is that described in Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life. In the film, the material world is totally unchanged; products and artifacts are in no way dissimilar to reality and remain not tampered-with. What makes this a utopian film is the behaviour of those within
this world. The characters behave with kindness and unquestionable generosity towards one another, and crimes/wrongdoing is either non-existent or simply not shown on screen. Central to the plot is the enlightenment of George Bailey that without him the world would be much worse, highlighting that one person touches so many other lives in a positive way. Perhaps without intention, this furthers the thought that such a society depends on structure and consistency to remain so perfect. Ultimately though, and especially in a contemporary world, the immaterial utopia is more or less totally impossible. Human nature is such that such well-meaning people just don’t exist in these kinds of communities, and those that do are equaled (maybe even outnumbered) by wrongdoers and similar.
3. Is utopia a sensible goal for design and designers?
There is no set rule about whether utopia is a viable design goal and as such it’s a popular subject for debate. There are pros and cons to both sides of course, and these shall now further be explored:
Why utopia is an unhealthy ideal for the designer: The obvious reason for this is that it is simply impossible. One cannot design realistically for a nonattainable future society successfully and subsequently it is very hard for such a designer to be taken seriously or comprehended at all by others. It can be argued that utopia can be achieved in stages, step by step, and we shall touch on this in later sections, but the ultimate target is a moving one with no solid definition. Despite this, many designers have tried to create work which either represents their own utopian vision, or generates a steppingstone toward it. In certain contexts, it would be not entirely inappropriate to consider Apple’s iPod/iPhone here. Invariably though, these designs have failed in their purpose, either partially or entirely. There are numerous reasons for these failures, generally boiling down to human non-conformity and nonacceptance, or overly forceful attempts at integrating the designs.
The subjectivity of utopia (and indeed design) can play a part here; one person’s utopian ideal is another’s nightmare. The Soviet state, for example, saw a future of communist unity in which everyone was given an equallydeserved fair share of wealth (whether monetary or otherwise) but in reality generated a statedriven poverty and hatred. Another challenge that utopia presents to the designer is that of it being such an ever-changing entity. Early visions (at least materially) were totally different from those generated in the early 20th century, which in turn were different to those seen by creatives in the 50s/60s and so on. This can be monumentally distressing to consider and from an outside opinion quite difficult to comprehend why someone would want to design for a situation continually changing and evolving.
Why utopia can be a healthy ideal for the designer: Utopia - even if generally accepted as fictional and impossible – is visionary and about as far as one can get from the malignant banality of day-to-day living. Designing with a utopian vision keeps ideas fresh and eschews the idea of something already being acceptable. The constant evolution of utopia can be a positive thing too; it prevents the designer becoming stuck in a loop and allows them to constantly re-evaluate and redefine their work, something which is healthy for all kinds of creative practice. Aside from this, there is the perhaps more important key theory of Utopia; that of the communally happy society. If design is the instigator of change to improve the world, surely it’d be right for a designer to work towards some form of utopia in which their design establishes or contributes towards this ideology. One could in addition argue that it is not at all wrong to design for fictional goals. It again relates to the dreariness that many people everyday life represents. Perhaps the non-utopian designer is buried too far within routine and standardisation to become unique and inspirational and the fear of this is what drives the utopianled creator on.
Apple’s iPhone offers a utopian level of accessibility and usability, but can lead to dictator-like market swamping and frustration from non-users.
4. In which we consider existing/ previous examples
A Realistic Compromise Utopia in action – In Chicago, thousands of roof gardens have been planted within the city. These micro-utopias aren’t just aesthetically-pleasing. They help reduce baking summer temperatures at street-level in the summer, and aid drainage on rainier, winter days.
There have been (and still are) people who decide to create their own comparative utopias in contemporary societies. These people aren’t desktop designers or arrogant established names, but visionaries who have decided to life their life in a way that (in their mind at least) represents more of a utopia than those elsewhere. Often these communities live in nondescript housing and base their utopias on the immaterial values mentioned previously, but some have taken design more into account, with the construction of things like earthships and similar developments. For the sake of this work we shall call these Realistic Compromise Utopias; that is to say that they embody the principles and ideals of the utopian way of life, but in a way that coexists with the rest of the non-assumed utopian world. The compromise comes in that these communities are often very small, and struggle to stay afloat. They are people who have abandoned the toxicity of life in the ‘regular’ world and formed their own pseudo-utopian lifestyles. Although more often than not these communities eventually disappear as money becomes tighter and the novelty wears off, for the hardened elite they offer something sustainable, ecological and strongly community-centred; key features of the utopian dream.
In essence, it is possible to create a diluted form of Utopia which is both active and continually evolving (for better or worse), but ultimately it is restricted by those remaining within the system of the modern “regular” way that people live. This forms a kind of grey area between the two arguments for and against designing for utopia. On the one hand, it can’t be considered a true utopia, as this is strictly fictional, but on the other, it does stand as a physical, designed embodiment of at least a considerable number of the attributes that we associate with this ideal.
5. Can Utopia even exist as fiction any more?
It isn’t at all hard for anyone, whether a designer or someone with no interest in design, to imagine some form of personal Utopia, so in a way it cannot not exist. But as has been mentioned, these imagined places change, often according to the world around us. Which raises the question: Is our considered Utopia really what we believe it to be, or just the result of a strong material desire? It is the belief of some philosophers that Utopia as a real idea fell apart along with communism in the late 1980’s. People, when faced with the opportunity to be free, chose instead to follow the people around them, leading to a capitalist utopia; which as a result is now generally accepted as being normal.
“Maybe in the 20th century we tried to change the world too much. Maybe the task now is to try and interpret it a bit more” - Slavoj Žižek This idea supports the theory that it is right to design for Utopia, as long as it really is for utopia and not just what the state have told us to want. The current world has subconsciously reached a phase of belief that the developed world already has all the answers and we’re on a gradual path to perfection. This is a comfortable and consistent way of living, but one which in some ways reduces the subjectivity of utopia and adapts a more controlled approach. It also deprives some of the people-centred aspects from the idea. For instance, it is accepted in contemporary society that the community all together idea (although tremendously successful for some things) works to an extent, but generally requires some kind of authoritative mediator to keep things in check. With this in mind one could perhaps say that capitalism has destroyed utopia and made people believe that the only advancements are those they choose. But there’s nothing to stop the dreams of the designer, and subsequently utopian thought still finds a way through, no matter how unrealistic.
On a less severe scale, utopia needs to be considered in terms of size. A global utopia is anything but possible, but a more local utopia can exist easily and comfortably harmonise with its surroundings. It is once these issues have been addressed that maybe individualist utopia can re-emerge and be even more diverse than ever, but will society even be aware of when the boundary has been crossed? Will the boundary ever be crossed? These too are perplexing questions for the utopia-aware designer.
6. In which the work is concluded
To re-address the original question; is it right for designers in the modern world to look to utopia for inspiration and an ultimate goal? It’s hard to ignore subjectivity in this question, but for the purpose of offering a better-formed explanation, it is to be left out of consideration. The answer is perhaps not whether one should immediately try to design for the unattainable, but to first deconstruct and analyse what exactly utopia represents in contemporary society. The boundaries between those who are against the visions of the utopian theorist and those who wish for nothing more than to design to escape the common existence are just too broad. It is only when this is considered alongside the neither-here-northere utopian compromises that we can form a more solid idea of how this new utopian system can be constructed and how we can then discuss and move forward from there. In Fritz Lang’s famous dystopian movie Metropolis, the story concludes by saying that the mediator between head and hands is the heart. The head represents the utopian visionary, ignorant of those around him and arrogant with power. The hands are those of the workers, driven to death by the physical exhaustion of day-in, day-out routine but willing to destroy in order to escape.
Without the immaterial utopia, the material utopia is nothing, and vice versa. Similarly, without taking into account the views and lives of the common society, the utopian designer is uninspiring and no different to the routine they aim to escape. On top of this, it is not until all of these parties (including those uninterested in the design part of utopian belief) come together that anything truly revolutionary can be conceived.
Bibliography and references: More, T (1516, ed. 2008) Utopia, Akasha Publishing http://blog.roughtheory.org/2007/04/25/utopian-cities/ Capra, F (1947) It’s A Wonderful Life Sternfeld, J (2006) Sweet Earth: Experimental Utopias in America, Steidl Žižek, S (2009) The End of Utopia (http://egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/videos/the-end-of-utopia/) Lang, F (1927) Metropolis (unquoted references): Kabakov, I & E (2005) The House of Dreams, Serpentine Gallery Kabakov, I & E (2005) Die Utopische Stadt und andere Projekte, Kerber Veiras, D (2006) The History of the Sevarambians, State University of New York http://retrotogo.com/2009/01/visions-of-utopia-le-corbusier-at-the-barbican.html http://seesharppress.com/utopia.html http://urbanroofgardens.com/menu/roof_gardens.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_garden