The Utopian World Championship

Aisling O' Beirn: ASKING DIRECTIONS TO UTOPIA

Summary: show/hide

Summary

Different models of Utopia have been proposed, discussed and tried down the centuries. These ranged from the physical and spiritual to the Spartan and authoritarian. There have also been endeavors at liberal and communal models and even plans for an elite ‘laissez-faire’ economic system on an idyllic island. Descriptions of utopian scenarios outline possibilities for physical spaces and ideological, conceptual constructs. Many models were built on the presumption that one could directly reference and even regenerate a once golden and idyllic age, whether or not it truly existed. This suggests the possibility of visions for the future being constructed on idealisations (and perhaps misrepresentations) of the past.

Conflicting Utopian proposals result in a contradictory situation where one person’s Utopia may well be another’s anathema. There is no consensus on what Utopia is, except perhaps that it is contested. Non the less Utopian ideals have impacted upon society. Given these problems is there a point to presenting another model that will invariably be loaded with personal value judgements and therefore be contested?

Utopia, formally defined as ‘no place’ has been hugely influential in Western thought yet despite the definition people continue to propose Utopian scenarios. ‘No Place’ presents the possibility of creating an idyllic place. Utopia therefore could be read as a term that defines a model for creating a physical, ideological or social construct.

This definition not only begs the question of how it might manifest, but also of how one might get there, highlights the need to examine the situation in terms of ‘way finding’. Utopia therefore poses a navigational problem where navigation is employed as a strategy to question and critique ones environment both physically and politically.

Rather than seeking impossible consensus I propose using this model of navigation to discuss Utopia as a contested local. This paper will focus on cartography as a tool of navigation. I will draw a parallel between cartography and Utopia as something more than tools for charting physical and ideological scenarios. This will take the form of a series of questions that attempt to examine some of the problems posed by mapping and Utopia building.

These questions will be formulated by considering cartography as a conceptual methodology used by navigators and Utopians alike. My hope is that this may provide a helpful framework for looking at other political constructs.

Previous page | Next page | Page: 3 of 9 |
Jump to page:

Page 3

Thus the cartographers’ role is that of editor in that they are obliged to find a clear and effective method of presenting particular material in as universally readable a form as possible. (9) This is often at the expense of other information, not deemed relevant to the function of the map. Cartographers have to choose methods of representation appropriate to the function of the map. Cartography becomes as Dodge and Kitchin point out, a creative act as much a scientific methodology for representing and charting territories. Not unlike myth making it should be approached with circumspection. Utopia building could be said to fit this type of a creative process too, where methods of representation are bound in with the proposed function of the final Utopian model.

Methods of representation are often very politically telling. Maps, by addressing specific issues address specific audiences. This indicates that there is also an onus on the maps’ reader (10) to be able to discern the document as a finite tool with limitations borne out of political circumstances. Monmonier, in How To Lie With Maps’ presents conventional map users with a set of pragmatic guidelines to enable them to decode information with an awareness of both the effectiveness and limitations of the formal visual language and code of the cartographer. (11) An equivalent framework would be of help for analysing any prospective Utopian plan. However it might be of assistance to pose another more conjectural question when approaching these problems. Does information presented in either cartographic or Utopian plans relate to physical space, conceptual constructs or both?

If a cartographer has to choose methods of representation that fit the function of any given map or plan it seems probable that a Utopian might have to adopt a similar strategy. Either project will have inherent in it the value judgements of its creator and by it very nature must result in a contested outcome. Utopia like cartography is contested. Different maps can present diverse ways to read the same information, Utopian models present varying and often conflicting ways to achieve an ideal social framework. A Utopian proposal becomes contested when someone feels the need to present another Utopian project.

Maps delineating proposed borders between two regions are very obvious examples of contested documents. If the border in question is contested as it is with all conflicts, then the territorial demarcation presented by the cartographer will undoubtedly serve to reveal their political reading of the situation. Weizman notes how there are numerous maps depicting a range of suggested allocations of Israeli and Palestinian territories and that these documents are presented as an integral component of proposed resolutions to this Middle Eastern conflict. (12) They are maps that propose a physical territory for the Promised Land, which itself is an ideological and spiritual as much as a physical proposition. Are these then maps of Utopia?

Previous page | Next page