← Back to home

Utopian Thinking

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

( Learn how and when to remove this message )

A Utopia is the blueprint for a society that doesn't exist, an imagined ideal habitat for its members where everything functions perfectly—which is usually the first sign that something is deeply flawed.[1] The term was dragged into common parlance after Thomas More published his 1516 book, aptly titled Utopia, a work of fiction that gave a name to humanity's chronic dissatisfaction with reality.[2] Following the foundational work of sociologist Ruth Levitas,[1] social psychologists, ever curious about the mechanics of human discontent, have begun to empirically test the functions of this so-called utopian thinking.[2][3] At its core, a utopia is not a place but a concept—a cultural and psychological construct that lives and dies as a collection of symbols in the mind.[4] There is now empirical evidence suggesting that utopian thinking serves the three primary functions Levitas proposed: criticism of the present, motivation for change, and a form of psychological compensation.[2] Theoretical models have since been constructed, attempting to link this mental exercise to established social psychological phenomena like collective action and the deeply ingrained tendency toward system justification.[5][6]

Functions

Theoretical background

While the term "utopia" owes its popularity to Thomas More's 1516 book, "Utopia," the act of imagining a better world is hardly a modern invention.[2] The concept of an ideal society is a persistent echo in historical records, predating More's convenient label by millennia.[7] These visions of perfection are not monolithic; they manifest across diverse nations and communities, their specific content inevitably shaped and colored by cultural anxieties and aspirations.[8][9] Utopian depictions have served as the silent or explicit engine behind activism, art, political manifestos, and philosophical treatises.[5] Crucially, this is not just the domain of intellectuals and revolutionaries. Utopian imagery permeates everyday conversations, a constant murmur of what-ifs among ordinary people.[1] An extensive body of research, particularly within sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies, has dissected the diversity and characteristics of these collective daydreams.[10][11][12] This academic fascination culminated in the founding of the Society for Utopian Studies in 1975, which publishes Utopian Studies, a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to the topic.

Levitas proposed that utopias serve three primary functions, arguing these idealized visions are not mere flights of fancy but tools with distinct purposes for individuals and society.[1] The first function is criticism. By visualizing a perfect society, one inevitably highlights the deficiencies of the current one. The contrast between the ideal and the real provides a stark, unflattering perspective on every crack and stain in the existing social fabric. The second function is change. This vision of a better world acts as a motivating force, a destination that gives direction to the abstract desire for improvement. It propels individuals to actively pursue the societal goals depicted, transforming vague discontent into a tangible, albeit distant, objective.[citation needed]

The third function, compensation, introduces a more complicated, almost narcotic, effect. Individuals may derive so much satisfaction from their imaginative utopian escapes that their motivation to enact actual change in the real world withers. The psychological comfort found in the dream can become a powerful deterrent to the hard work of reality. In this sense, while utopian thinking is theorized to be a catalyst for social action, it carries the inherent risk of devolving into hedonic escapism, where individuals withdraw from the world into the sterile safety of their own ideals.[citation needed]

Utopian thinking is, therefore, the mental process of constructing an ideal society.[2] Fernando and his colleagues have framed it as a form of collective self-regulation, which extends the psychological function of the ideal self to the broader domain of collective action.[2] The Self-discrepancy theory has already shown that an individual's image of their ideal self can motivate them to regulate their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, all driven by a desire to close the gap between who they are and who they wish to be.[13][14] In the same way, the mental representation of an ideal society can collectively motivate people toward the shared goals embedded within that utopian vision.[2] This is not a fringe idea; prominent social psychologists studying social change have long argued that visions of an alternative society are potent tools for motivating the transformation of societal structures.[15][16] The simple acknowledgment that the current societal arrangement is not inevitable, combined with the act of imagining an alternative with more desirable attributes, has been identified by social identity theorists as a crucial catalyst for social change.[17]

Empirical evidence

To drag this from the realm of theory into the harsh light of empirical data, Fernando and his colleagues developed a Utopianism scale, followed by a series of correlational and experimental studies.[2] They found that an individual's natural tendency to engage in utopian thinking was indeed connected to the three functions of criticism, change, and compensation. In their experiments, participants who were prompted to articulate "an ideal or best possible society which is hoped or wished for" subsequently showed greater intentions to engage in citizenship behaviors compared to a control group. This provided clear evidence for the link between utopian thinking and the change function. The same individuals who described their utopias also reported reduced satisfaction with their current society, substantiating the criticism function. The compensation function, however, did not show a similar increase in response to experimentally induced utopian thinking. The researchers speculated that the link to compensation might be moderated by the perceived likelihood of successful collective action—in other words, people are more likely to retreat into escapism when they believe that real change is impossible.

Furthermore, the researchers observed that the functions of utopian thinking might differ depending on whether it is a stable personality trait (an individual difference) or a temporary state induced by a situation. Dispositional utopian thinking was a stronger predictor of the change function, whereas the experimental priming of utopian thoughts did not reliably predict the compensation function. A subsequent meta-analysis confirmed an overall positive effect of utopian thinking on criticism, change, and compensation, though the strength of these effects varied.[2]

To better understand the mechanisms at play, one of the experimental studies examined the sequence of thought.[2] Drawing on Oettingen's research on fantasy realization,[18][19] which established that merely dreaming of a desired state is not enough to motivate goal-directed behavior, the researchers explored the importance of contrast. Oettingen's work posits that one must mentally contrast the fantasy with the obstacles of present reality to spur action. Building on this, Fernando and colleagues hypothesized that thinking about a utopia first and then contrasting it with current reality would be more effective than the reverse.[2] Their findings supported this: contrasting the current society after contemplating a utopia was significantly more effective in eliciting the criticism and change functions. The reverse order—thinking about reality first, then the utopia—produced no significant effect compared to a control group that didn't engage in utopian thought at all. It seems one must first see the destination before the current location feels truly unbearable.[citation needed]

Collective action

The concept of utopian thinking can be incorporated into, and add significant value to, existing models that attempt to explain collective action.[6] Its impact is not limited to conventionally understood collective actions but extends to more generalized civic behaviors.[2] The former typically involves participating in a social movement with others toward a shared goal,[20] while the latter simply refers to a heightened engagement in society, whether alone or with like-minded individuals.[21] Utopias can be built around a specific group identity—a feminist utopia, for example—or they can inspire a more general imagination of a better society, untethered to any particular group membership.[2] The former is likely to instill motivation for collective actions aimed at achieving specific group goals, such as realizing a feminist society. The latter contributes to a broader, more diffuse interest in engaging with societal processes.[citation needed]

The Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA),[20] a leading theory in the field, identifies group identity, a sense of injustice or anger, and moral conviction as the primary drivers of participation. While group identification is a powerful motivator, utopian thinking opens a pathway to action that doesn't require a pre-existing group affiliation.[6] The act of conceiving a cognitive alternative by thinking about a utopia, even without belonging to a specific ingroup, has been found to enhance intentions for collective action.[6] Moreover, utopian thinking can even trigger the formation of entirely new groups, which then strengthens the motivation for collective action through the established link between group identification and action.[6] Researchers have conceptualized "opinion-based groups," where shared opinions form the basis of group identification.[22] A shared utopian vision could very well serve as the seed for such a new group formation.[6] Smith and his colleagues have also theorized that perceiving a disparity between the current state of affairs and an envisioned ideal can give rise to a new identity,[23] a process highly relevant to utopian thinking.[6]

Overcome system justification

In the initial empirical studies on utopian thinking, a consistent finding was its ability to diminish system justification[2]—the often-unconscious tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. This effect was significant enough that Jost and his colleagues highlighted utopian thinking as a promising area for future research in their recent review of system justification theory.[24] Building on this, Badaan and colleagues proposed a comprehensive framework linking utopian thinking, collective action, and system justification.[5] Their model suggests two mechanisms through which utopian thinking erodes the motivation for system justification: hope and abstraction. The first is an affective route, where utopian thinking fosters social hope, which in turn reduces the need to justify the existing system. The second is a cognitive-motivational route, where utopian thinking primes a higher level of abstract construal, which also diminishes system justification.[citation needed]

The authors are careful to note that hope, as an emotion, is not merely naive optimism.[5] Real hope involves more than just a positive expectation; it requires contemplating and implementing tangible methods to achieve a goal.[25] Understanding hope is critical for mobilizing social action, as its absence leaves no motivation for the difficult, sustained effort that social change demands.[26] Specifically, social hope is the emotion an individual feels for the future of society as a whole, beyond their personal concerns.[10] The act of envisioning an ideal society is proposed to evoke this type of hope, instilling a belief that the utopian dream is, in fact, attainable.[5]

Mental abstraction is the other crucial pathway. It allows individuals to explore cognitive alternatives that are often inaccessible in the concrete, day-to-day grind of their thought processes.[5] Abstraction is effective at bringing distant goals, like societal change, into sharper cognitive focus.[27] The more abstract the imagining of the utopia, the more significant its impact on making these cognitive alternatives seem accessible.[28] High-level construals, which are associated with abstract thinking, are also known to motivate self-control.[29] When applied to social change, the abstract contemplation of an ideal society is likely to trigger self-control behaviors that prompt individuals to adopt strategies for achieving that change.[5]

To test these pathways, researchers had participants read an article describing either a utopian society or the current one.[3] A structural equation model revealed that utopian thinking increased both personal and social hope, which then, paradoxically, elevated both system justification and collective action. The authors suggest this confusing result might be due to an overlap in the measurement scales, as some items on the hope scale imply that society is already progressing correctly. Utopian thinking also increased abstract thinking, but this had only a marginal link to collective action intentions. The authors explained this weak link by noting that their measure for abstraction captured a dispositional trait rather than a temporary state, making it less susceptible to experimental priming.[citation needed]

Utopia and dystopia

The antithesis of utopia is dystopia, a society that embodies the worst imaginable conditions and is designed to elicit fear.[30][31] Both concepts share a critical feature: they exist only in the realm of human imagination and stand in stark contrast to contemporary reality. While utopian ideals serve as a motivational force pulling society toward a desired future,[2] dystopian thinking acts as a propulsive force, pushing society away from a feared one.

Dystopian thinking can also prompt societal engagement, but its mechanism is different. Dystopian societies are feared and avoided, stimulating preventive behaviors aimed at averting the realization of such nightmarish scenarios.[32] The function of dystopian thinking can also be understood through the framework of collective self-regulation.[4] Just as the concept of "ought selves" in psychology propels individuals toward self-improvement driven by fear and obligation,[13][14] dystopian visions motivate societal involvement with the goal of steering the collective away from the imagined nightmare.[4] This engagement aligns with the same change and criticism functions that Levitas proposed for utopian thinking, just operating from a place of aversion rather than aspiration.[4]

Contents

Moderating role of content

It should be obvious that when prompted to imagine a utopia, people do not all imagine the same thing.[6] Several studies have investigated the significance of these varied responses, trying to determine if certain types of utopian content are more effective at eliciting the desired functions.[6][33] Fernando and his colleagues contrasted two prototypical utopias: the "Green utopia" and the "Sci-Fi utopia."[6] The former envisions a communal society focused on environmental protection and the equitable sharing of resources. The latter portrays a society with boundless resources, all thanks to technological advancement.[citation needed]

When primed with the Green utopia, individuals showed a greater likelihood of expressing intentions for general societal participation. The Sci-Fi utopia, however, did not produce a similar increase in engagement. The authors suggest that societies perceived as fostering greater interpersonal warmth are more effective at motivating change.[34] It seems people are more willing to fight for a communal garden than for a sterile, chrome-plated paradise. It is worth noting that this study focused on generic change intentions and does not offer insights into how these specific utopias might affect behaviors in specific domains.[citation needed]

Political orientation

Even when given the same prompt, the content of people's utopian visions varies based on a host of sociocultural factors.[4] Unsurprisingly, political orientation is a prominent determinant shaping these imagined worlds.[5] An analysis of social media discourse using machine-learning methods found that liberal and conservative users articulated distinctly different themes when describing their ideal societies.[35] That said, there were common threads. Both liberals and conservatives emphasized the value of family, community, economic prosperity, health, happiness, and freedom. The differences emerged in the details. Liberals were more likely to prioritize themes of social justice, global inequality, women's rights, racism, criminal justice reform, healthcare, poverty, progress, personal growth, and environmental sustainability. Conservatives, in contrast, focused more on religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism. In the end, it appears that both diverging and converging themes define utopian visions across the political divide, each side building a heaven designed to keep their particular demons out.[citation needed]

Application

Cross-cultural development research method

Development agencies, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), create broad development agendas that nations are encouraged to pursue collectively.[36] For these agendas to be effective and culturally relevant, they must resonate with the unique local contexts of individual countries. Despite the UNDP's efforts to enhance cultural sensitivity, some of its development goals have been criticized for a lack of cultural nuance.[37]

Badaan and Choucair (2023) have proposed using utopian thinking as a methodology for building more contextualized development agendas. The approach is straightforward: ask people around the world what kind of world they want to live in, analyze their responses, and incorporate those findings into the agendas. This would allow development agencies to capture the diverse aspirations for change across different nations, cultures, and communities. Qualitative methods like interviews, focus groups, and open-ended surveys are particularly well-suited for this framework.[37]

An inherent advantage of this method is its potential to actively engage people in the process of social change.[37] By envisioning and articulating their desired society, individuals are more likely to contemplate the environment they wish to inhabit, a process that has been shown to increase intentions for societal participation.[2] Furthermore, priming a "Green utopia" has been demonstrated to catalyze broader social change intentions, suggesting that this method could be used to draw attention to critical social issues.[6][37]

Another supposed advantage is the potential for agencies to gather more accurate information about cultural nuances.[37] By consulting directly with the people who will be affected by—and responsible for—these changes, agencies could construct goals that are better attuned to specific needs, identifying both universal and culturally specific issues to develop more refined interventions.[37]

However, implementing such a method is fraught with realistic concerns.[37] First, the content of utopian imaginations can vary wildly. Some proposals will aim to enhance societal well-being, while others may advocate for exclusionary visions that are deeply harmful to certain groups. Balancing the upholding of human rights with the navigation of contradictory cultural views is a monumental, if not impossible, task.[37] Furthermore, collecting and analyzing qualitative data from a diverse global population is extraordinarily time-consuming and resource-intensive, forcing a trade-off between cultural sensitivity and practical efficiency.[37]

See also