The following agora took place between the 13th and the 26th of September, 2021. The moderator was Patchorisu (Vanzeria). The participants were Sammy23 (New Leganes), and Nociav (Nuswaree).
Patchorisu
I officially announce this Agora open, and we can start with the Opening phase, you may now share your opening statements The Cross-Examination will begin, either when all the participants have shared their answers, or on Wednesday night.
Opening Statements
Nociav
Before we discuss how to spot if we live in one, we have to define what a dystopia is.
A dystopia is usually defined as a terrible place to be. They restrict freedoms that we hold valuable, are authoritarian to a degree we find odious, and have an element of suppressing resistance.
We already run into our first problem. How can we say if we live in a dystopia if it’s subjective? We can’t. But I do believe we can create a set of generalized principles that can show if we are living in a dystopia.
First, determining what’s good and bad is entirely subjective and must be largely ignored. We must instead focus on the actions of a government and if they are characteristic of a dystopia.
Dystopian governments govern in an excessively coercive way. In a regular country, we don’t fear turning around to find a gun to the back of our heads. However, all governments govern using a degree of coercion. This degree of coercion is agreed upon by citizens. This agreed upon coercion is the police force, the red lights we stop at, and the tax bills we pay. We agree that these are necessary, even if we debate how necessary they are.
Accountability is also hugely important. This can be done by democratic elements, a free press, whistleblowing systems, and other ways. Accountability creates transparency, which allows us to know what the government does. We can know where our soldiers are stationed, who they’re fighting, why, where our taxes go to, what our leaders are up to, etc.
The third is allowing citizens to dissent. This can be through informal gatherings, protests, rallies, etc. Citizen dissent can keep a check on government overextension. Using these three elements, I contend that we can judge if we live in a dystopia. These three elements are broad and can be applied by anyone, no matter what political beliefs they may hold.
Allow me to show several dystopias using these three elements.
First, let’s use the world of 1984. The government of Oceania was excessively coercive. Enforced disappearances and all pervasive surveillance kept people in check. The people agreed upon it but it is a work of fiction. A work of fiction isn’t going to be incredibly realistic. Accountability was non-existent. Even the party leaders were hidden from sight. Big Brother may not even exist for all we can confirm. Citizen influence was similarly non-existent. Dissent was harshly suppressed, only support was allowed.
Next, let us examine North Korea. North Korea is similarly coercive, if a little less comical. Nevertheless, whether most people agree to the coercion is impossible to say. North Korean defectors say that people don’t. Accountability is also non-existent. There is no free press, no transparency about government activities, and no truthful information about the leadership. Dissent is criminal and the prohibition is enforced rigorously.
Finally, let us examine 1992 Afghanistan. This may seem like an odd choice but from 1992 to 1994, Afghanistan was the purest form of anarchy to have ever existed in a modern country. The Mujahideen had begun infighting and stopped defining themselves as a single conglomerate. Petty warlords reigned with impunity and reigned terror in their petty kingdoms. This was brutal on the populace who began to detest the brutal coercion of the warlords. Accountability only existed at the end of a gun. And dissent was punished with summary execution. The loya jirga had lost all authority.
To conclude, extreme coercion, lack of accountability, and criminalised dissent are key markers of a dystopia. If these things exist in co-ordination, then a dystopia is likely to exist.
Sammy
People anywhere can argue that they live in a dystopia. Nuswa has presented a list of cases and why they are dystopian societies or countries, against which few people can’t argue their dystopic character. That follows the core definition of “dystopia”, whose etymology indicates “the opposite of an utopia”, the opposite to an ideal place. However, an ideal place can surely be a dystopia for others.
I personally consider I do not live in a dystopia, neither in an utopia, but there are elements of our current society that could not make it a dystopia but be defined as dystopic in themselves.
To begin with, how the current states control every step we take via bureaucracy. It is not coercion, but it can limit the process of carrying an action to a very strict protocol.
Secondly, how our devices as the Internet or smartphones require to indicate our data and then they are usually collected in relation with advertising or cookies, with the original intention to show more customised content but at the same time sending our data to third parties, sometimes with our ignorant consent, others directly without our consent.
And most importantly, the character of our modern society itself, which expects from us certain aspects we do not necessarily agree with but end up carrying on to fulfill those expectations. To study a degree, to get a stable job, to move out and form a family, and most of all, to have everything done in the time expected. It is a hidden and indirect coercion, but one that lives within every single society, no matter what country, political or economic system.
The term “utopia”, in its Greek etymology (literally, “no place”) indicates us that an ideal is unreachable. Probably a full dystopia is not as well, even when we already have very bad examples of past and present societies. However, it is necessary that we understand which elements are utopic and which are dystopic, or to formulate it different and more simply, which are good and which bad.
Patchorisu
Well, since no activity has been done and the deadline has been passed, I shall open the cross-examination phase! You may now ask questions about point that makes you curious, or develop your (already developed) ideas! We will pass to the next phase on Saturday, or when you agree to a consensus!
Cross Examination
Nociav
Sam correctly says that anyone anywhere can argue that we live in a dystopia at any time. Utopias can be dystopias for others.
Now, there are elements in all societies that are reminiscent of dystopias. Heavy bureaucracy and surveillance are frequently given as examples of how our society is descending into a dystopia.
Sam stresses that elements of a dystopia and utopia exist everywhere. So the first question I have is when do these elements result in a dystopia or a utopia? How would we measure them and how are these elements decided? Do you believe that these elements could, over time, gather together to create a dystopia gradually, would it happen suddenly, or could both happen? How would be able to tell the trend our society is taking towards a dystopia or utopia? Could these elements be resisted?
Sammy
Yes, I would state that dystopia-utopia could be a spectrum instead of a sole definition of a system. Different elements together could make a system lean towards a utopia, and others to a dystopia. Contrary to the usual middle terms, the ideal point our systems should reach would be the utopia, however that would be so hard, due to the nature of our human imperfections reflected in our organisation, we probably would be approaching it eternally but not reaching the perfect point ever. One could say the target should be, in that case, ending with the dystopic elements rather than trying to approach a utopia: in my view, we should do that in a more realistic and day-to-day approach, but keeping in mind the target of reaching the ideal (edited)
Now I have a question, Nuswa: since there seems to be people in dystopias completely convinced about how their system is actually an utopia in the examples you present, how could they change their view? What causes them have that view?
Nociav
People have always held strong beliefs and have always convinced themselves that everything fits their beliefs. People will always hold strong beliefs due to individual circumstances. Someone who loves a dystopia might be genuinely supportive of it due to their individual circumstances making them predisposed towards the dystopia’s actions or goals. Propaganda and brainwashing is also a huge factor. As for convincing them otherwise, each person holds their beliefs for different reasons. These reasons are incredibly difficult to understand for anyone else, and often the individual in question as well. To convince someone, you have to get them to convince themselves. Only they know the reason why they hold a belief so only they know when the reason is flawed. All you have to do is open them up to other possibilities for things. I’d like to put forward some questions that I feel need good answers. First, how would elements contribute to a utopia or a dystopia? As in, would they happen gradually, suddenly due to a society wide shock (like a pandemic wink wink nudge nudge), or could both happen? Secondly, how would be able to tell whether our society is heading towards a dystopia or a utopia? After all, changes happen frequently in our society. Mass surveillance was exposed but then privacy laws were strengthened and better security was developed.
Sammy
Society’s complexity, in my opinion, makes it difficult for sudden changes to happen. And even when sometimes they do, as we saw at the beginning of the past year, the process itself is also complex, albeit quick. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan could be described as “sudden”, as it has happened in a few weeks; however, there have been multiples processes of all kinds working behind, in political, military and cultural terms. If those processes, of which some have been developing for several decades, had turned differently, the current result would be different. This is not to say that dystopias are natural or unchangeable processes, since every society can avoid it, but every individual and collective, voluntary and involuntary action contributes to the outcome of the process, may it be sudden or progressive.
Nuswa, you have presented an interesting point on how the individual condition can turn a person favourable to a dystopia. Those people are the ones who usually end in powerful positions, sustaining the system. One could argue that they should be removed from that power and substituted by people against the system so a new one can be born; they could also be convinced about better conditions in a new, fair and “utopic” system; or simply end with those people’s power and the system as a whole and build a new one from the ashes. Which should be the approach that guarantees the smoothest process and the best result?
Nociav
I couldn’t say. In fact, I’m not entirely sure how you could undo a dystopia. The most dystopic societies are those that can’t be defeated. 1984’s end hits a lot harder because of this. For some time, I considered any society that can’t be defeated by a popular rebellion to be a dystopia.
At the very least, it would involve infiltrating the existing system and gaining powerful positions. A rebellion could also work with an extremely capable and charismatic individual leading it. The best hope would be outside intervention like that of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Germany going to war against the allies in WW2, and China opening its markets up to the outside world, allowing greater freedom for its people slowly.
I’d like to press you on your first point. Do you believe that a sudden and shocking event couldn’t cause a dystopia? Germany’s rapid decline into dystopia after defeat in WW1 for example, or the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge through a rapid revolution?
Sammy
It definitely has happened historically, with those examples you present. However, their roots can be and many times are deep, not necessarily in time but in complexity. The disastrous situation Germany found after both a war and a highly impactful economical crisis led to Germany turning into what we all know. A progressive process usually needs time, but complex mechanisms can also be quick.
On your answer Nuswa, I find the statement “the most dystopic societies are those that can’t be defeated” a quite interesting point. I understand what you mean with it, however I would like to emphasize that not necessarily an adamantine society is a dystopia, but the strongest dystopias are built so they can last for decades. However, at some point, they are either defeated or evolve into less dystopic conditions. Does this, and the opposite (dystopias turning into utopias) happen naturally? Or is it a relative matter?
Nociav
As with all things to do with a dystopia or utopia, it’s relative. Different people prioritise different things. One person might want freedom above all else but another might want security above all else. So, it’s impossible for me to say. Nevertheless, as this debate comes to a close tomorrow, I will begin preparing my closing statement for this brilliant discussion we had.
Patchourisu
Well, looks like we’ve reached an end! This was a pretty intense and constructed debate. How would you like to close it? The ball is yours, with a closing statement!
Closing Statements
Nociav
I think we can conclude by saying that dystopias and utopias aren’t clear cut. There will always be someone who genuinely agrees with something we here would define as dystopic and those who would dislike what we here would call a utopia.
So, we have agreed that elements exist that define both such as a lack of transparency in the government (if there is one at all), all pervasive fear, etc. The number of these elements and their combination can determine how far on a spectrum we sit. Not concretely, but in a vague sense that we lie more on one end than the other.
The way these elements can come into existence have many different ways. I believe that they can happen through a long process, such as chronic government mismanagement and cultural shift, or through a sudden shock, like a foreign intervention in the country.
We discussed the possibility of dismantling dystopias and even making them evolve into utopias but I can’t answer such a question. I couldn’t tell you if a dystopia can be destroyed after taking roots or if it could evolve into a utopia. At the very least, the cause of the dystopia would have to be dealt with. For example’s sake, if corruption was the cause then removing corruption should, in theory, undo the dystopia, but I stress that it’s just theory.
I will also stress that not all governments are dystopias just because they can’t be removed. The fact they can’t be removed is a scary thought but most people are aware about their government and won’t allow it to overstep bounds. Thank you Sam for debating with me.
Sammy
In a similar way to my great fellow debater, I need to conclude with the relativity that characterizes political science. There are several elements that can almost unanimously tell us that we live in a dystopia, which have been described above, but inevitably, utopia and dystopia fall into what is “good” and is “bad” respectively. And that, with exceptions, is relative to each one.
Additionally, there is a real risk, by the use of means as propaganda and the potential individual benefits, of defending an evident dystopia to the eyes of anyone on the outside. Critical thought, political awareness and education in values ought to be key elements in forming a society that looks for the benefit of the community while respecting its freedoms. That way, knowing who we are and how our society works, we shall contribute to its development more towards an utopia and less to a dystopia.
Thanks to Nuswa, it has been a delightful agora with him, and to Patch, who has carried their first agora in a wonderful way.
Patchorisu
And I hereby declare this Agora closed, thanks for this amazing discussion!