This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Argue a case, either for, or against, the value of using utopianism as a method in planning the future of a modern city of your choice. The essay is about Auckland and is by Kasey Zhai, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.
Utopias are classified as destinations that are brimming with human ideals not yet limited by the existing boundaries and conventions that already define society. Consequently, the sheer existence of utopianism relies on those who view the future with hope rather than fear and believe that the implemented improvements and transformation of everyday life are not only feasible but beneficial to humanity. While utopian thinking is necessary within the infrastructure of any city to allow communities to develop and advance into the future with a particular vision to strive for, in the twenty first Century, utopianism has little value to the planning of the future of a modern city such as Auckland, New Zealand.
It is unreliable to aim for utopia as the ultimate goal for Auckland as New Zealand is a country that is globally recognised and viewed by emigrants to be the optimum location of settlement. In the nineteenth century, British colonists sought New Zealand in the longing of an envisioned future that was “more deferential, less industrial, and more decorous” than the reality that they found themselves in (Bassett, 1990). Auckland, among other major cities in New Zealand, was seen to be an escape from the over populated streets and financially uncertain lifestyles that were found in Europe. Thus, to many, New Zealand became a utopian paradise in itself – it blossomed with the promises of opportunity and allure of prosperity that tempted foreigners away from the social and economic problems that were present in the realities of their own countries. While New Zealand did not contain the makings of a perfect life, to many, it held the certainty of the beginnings of a better life. This appeal has not deteriorated nor diminished since the nineteenth century; the same qualities have differentiated New Zealand as a country to immigrants, attracting a range of foreign cultures that has resulted in the vast range of ethnicities that reside in the country today. Therefore, the city’s unique social framework requires flexible and sustainable planning practices that are not fixed or stationary, qualities that utopia fails to deliver.
Utopias often consist of fictional imagination and will strive for anthropogenic perfection that does not allow for communities to develop and change as social circumstances do. This is one of the flawed characteristics of utopias that make them not only ineffectual, but setback to urban planning in Auckland City. A single solution of idealistic perfection cannot be defined in Auckland where such a range of expectations and ethics dwell. As a result of Auckland’s culturally diverse demographics, it can be expected that one individual’s perceptions of ideal circumstances will not satisfy those of another as each arrive in New Zealand bearing not only their own unique culture, but the hopes of fulfilling their own personal dreams and aspirations too. This array of culture results in a range of varying expectations that cannot all be met under the structured regime that utopias tend to impose upon society. Not only do different cultures prevent a unified way of thinking within society, but the utopian ideal is a reflection of existing circumstances (Davis, 1981). These will never be the same for two individuals, as what is beneficial is often subjective to personal opinion; thus, utopian thinking is considered an irrational approach (Popper, 1963) to city planning as the plans of a perfect city cannot be agreed upon and obtained, nor achieved with the means that are available. When conflicting opinions and ways of life are suppressed, the symptoms of an ethnocentric society are likely to emerge. When Europeans first arrived in New Zealand in the early nineteenth century, the desire to secure New Zealand land for orderly settlement (Bassett, 1990) conflicted with that of the ecocentric values and beliefs that were held by Maori. Maori tribes had consented to share their land with the British in the hopes of gaining social advancement from the technologically superior foreigners (Gorst, 1864), however these desires were disappointed as private property rights were formed and ownership over land was claimed for the purposes of colonisation. As described by Claudia Orange, New Zealand was no longer considered as a Maori society in which a place had to be found for the British, but a settler New Zealand in which a place had to be found for the indigenous beliefs and traditions held by Maori.1 The collision of Maori and European that were apparent in the nineteenth Century are the results of the attempt to integrate two cultures under one party’s definition of idealistic circumstances. It illustrates that for two or more cultures to live in immediate proximity of each other in harmony proves difficult when the utopian visions of one culture are forced upon others. Striving for utopia has little value to the future of the Auckland as it is not possible to achieve an agreed definition of perfection in the present time that will satisfy all who inhabit the city, and unrealistic to assume that this vision will remain unchanged throughout different generations. It is within human instinct to constantly seek for something better than what is obtainable; a utopian destination will never be reached as society’s visions and expectations of perfection constantly change with the surrounding environment (Sargisson, Sargent, 2004).
Although utopian thinking stimulates advancement and progress, once implemented, utopias tend to unify and engineer society to function by means that are believed to be ideal (Pinder, 2005). Due to its very nature, utopian societies inevitably enforce discipline and control; the blueprints of utopia tend to ignore the prominent characteristic of original sin that is present in mankind, denying humanity the basic instinctive need to live naturally (Davis, 1981). Political utopias that are implemented within societies in the hope of reaching perfected welfare are not necessarily as beneficial as they appear in logical theory. Restrictions that are thrust upon any society bear the possibility of violence and more suffering, resulting in social conditions that are less desirable than those that were initially present. (Quoted in Judith Binney, Judith Bassett and Erik Olsen, (1990). The People and The Land: An Illustrated History of New Zealand Te Tangata me Te Whenua) In light of this, Popper (1963) believes that as man strives for his own ideal, he will “invariably crush his Utopianist competitors who do not share his own Utopian aims and who do not profess his own Utopian religion.” Auckland is particularly vulnerable to this assertion; while violence stands at the extreme end of the spectrum, social unrest and disruption can result from the attempt to fit such a range of cultures into a single frigid framework of how society should function. As it is not possible to satisfy each individual need while attempting to control the lives of so many, utopianism, in all of its envisioned paradise is not the solution to eradicate society of the problems it is faced it (Popper, 1963). As it is within human nature to act on one’s own freewill as individuals, the reinforcement of a utopian society often bears the same consequences and qualities of leftist ideology and communism (Pinder, 2005). Such criticism was given to Le Corbusier’s urban vision of the Radiant City that consisted of a geometrically arranged cityscape and the segregation of the elite and lower classes. Le Corbusier’s designs, although reasonable on a conceptual level, is not compatible in practice as it assumes that society is not resistant to change and that people can be controlled. This assumption is not limited to the Radiant City, but applicable to the theory of utopia – this idealistic approach to planning is not suitable for a modern city as it assumes that people and places are manipulable at will (Bingaman, Sanders & Zorach, 2002), and fails to recognise that society and urban neighbourhoods cannot be unnaturally contained; Kojin Karantni describes the notion of utopia as the attempt to irrationally establish order and structure in what by nature a world or chaotic activity2. Society, both in and out of Auckland, cannot be confined and restricted for an indefinite amount of time and be expected to function without the presence of social disruption. The enforcement of utopian perfection is not compatible with tendencies of human nature as it intends to create a set of values that bind society in uniformity and eliminates real people in the real world, which will consequently defeat and counter the purpose of prioritising the delivery of contentment to society and reducing social conflict.
Utopianism denies society the ability to make small incremental changes of improvement that happen naturally over time, but instead seeks for instant transformation. New Zealand’s attraction to foreigners as the promise of a new beginning subjected the country to a range of social experiments; these plans often do not take people within society into account and fail to predict and foresee the impact they create in a broader and long term context, utopian visions are fixed and unreactive to change, however, people are not. The implementation of the drastic changes that utopias hold will often bear high risks regarding urban sustainability, as there is no guarantee or even reassurance that the vision installed is compatible with the society it is thrust upon. When European settlements first appeared in the nineteenth Century, colonies were planned in what was regarded as systematic and scientific colonisation (Bassett, 1990), however these otherwise logical plans of settlement did not consider the different financial capabilities of British immigrants. (Quoted in Amy Bingaman, Lise Sanders and Rebecca Zorach, (2002). Embodied Utopias ) This resulted in those who could afford land in planned colonies living with the luxuries of schools, churches, elected local governments and refined social intercourse, while others were denied these services and live in less desirable, less appealing circumstances (Bassett, 1990). The implementation of a supposed ideal had resulted in segregation of rich and poor, subjecting the two classes to different circumstances much like Le Corbusier’s Radiant City had intended. Often by excluding certain groups within society through segregation, some of the most basic human rights turn into privileges; problems such as these are often difficult to pick up in the blueprints of utopia. Society is too fragile to become subjective to social experiments of instant transformation in the hopes that one will be successful, effective and sustainable planning is an on-going process that must be developed through time. Utopianism acts as an irrational approach towards city planning, it strives for social perfection, yet it does not grant the power for society to change and develop the physical environment to their changing needs, but rather forces communities to adapt around a single structured and rigid framework. In relation to city planning, it is unreasonable to assume that the ideal will appeal to generation after generation; meanwhile it is just as impractical to demolish an existing society only to re-create each generation’s vision of perfection as this will, inevitably change over time.
Although utopian thinking encourages improvements in society to be made as it pushes the human race to open new ways of thinking about the future that stimulates advances in urban planning, the preferable futures that utopias represent are often dreamscapes that fail to keep up with the fast moving mechanisms of real societies. Political utopias are often too systematic, too logical and clear cut as they are made up of black and white simplicity that holds little value to the modern cities of today’s day and age that consist of infrastructures of shades of grey. The ultimate downfall of utopias is that they fail to incorporate and consider the qualities of real people and the unique nature of civilisations; it is irrational to assume society will stand still and remain unchanging. Not only does utopianism hinder urban development, once implemented they have the tendency to eliminate real people and creative thinking; utopia as the ultimate goal is not sustainable or suited in the modern cities of the twenty first century.
References
Bassett, J. (1990). The Pakeha Invasion. In J. Binney, J Bassett, & E.Olsen (EDs.), The People and The Land: An Illustrated History of New Zealand Te Tangata me Te Whenua. New Zealand: Allen Unwin.
Bingaman, A., Sanders, L., & Zorach, R. (2002). Embodied Utopias. New York, United States: Routledge.
Davis, J. C. (1981). Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing, 1516-1700. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Fishman R. (1997). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Fank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier . Cambridge: MIT.
Pearson, W. H. (1958). Attitudes to the Maori in some Pakeha fiction. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 67(3), 211-238. Retrieved from http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/Volume_67_1958/Volume_67,_No._3/Attitudes_to_the_Maori_in_some_Pakeha_fiction,_by_W._H._Pearson,_p_211-238/p1.
Pinder, D. (2005). Visions of The City. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sargent, L.T. (2012). Utopianism: A Very Short Introduction. New York, United States: Oxford University Press
Sargisson, L., & Sargent, L. T. (2004). Living in Utopia: New Zealand's Intentional Communities. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Sinclair, K. (1980). New Zealand declared a British colony. History Today, 30(7).
No comments:
Post a Comment