Evening sun passed through the Parthenon, casting a two-dimensional lattice upon which Plato walked. The philosopher muttered quietly to himself, gesticulating in moments of thought that coalesced around the notion of an idyllic city state. His mentor and friend Socrates, was long dead, executed at the hands of a democratic mob, and it was now against his memory that Plato formed his ideas. The state was not simply a governing body, it was the cultivator of citizens, a parent, a mentor, and guardian. A state did not a great people make. A great state with great institutions made the citizenry. It was therefore with some irony that Plato extolled the higher virtues of human intellect and deplored anything that might pollute the mind. The people, it seemed, were agents of great intellectual potential, but could not be trusted with self-governance (Crawford, 2007). It’s unlikely that Plato included himself amongst those requiring a parental guardian, however. He, after all, was the author of the idea. If only everyone possessed his capacity for intellectual reflection, society might well enter the utopian bliss he sought to create. This inherent selfishness would be mirrored thousands of years later by Marxist revolutionaries like Stalin and Castro, who used such utopian ideas to propel themselves into positions of elite power. Indeed, neither Stalin nor Castro had any intention of condemning themselves to a life of dreary factory work. The revolution and utopia itself were about them. The legions of proletariat were simply useful idiots in a personal quest for power. This essay examines utopian concepts in politics, society, and social media, and explores the thesis that utopian thinking is inherently, perhaps unavoidably, self-serving, and narcissistic.
Much like its Marxist incarnation, utopias are dramatic asymmetries in power masked by curtains of egalitarianism. The Marxist manages to hide this fact in plain sight, notably excluding the elite in their blistering ripostes of capitalism and instead focusing their ire on the bourgeois. Plato was similarly partial to authoritarian governance. As Yves Charbit notes, “[T]he statement that Plato was concerned with ‘equality’ is debatable, and at the very least, should not be understood in the sense of democratic equality. For him, Sparta, not Athenian democracy, represented the most accomplished political model” (Charbit & Virmani, 2002, p. 211). Plato’s guardians, an elite cadre of intellectuals, skilled in logic and unpersuaded by passion were the center of an exclusive upper tier of society. Guardians were imagined to possess the virtues sought in an idyllic citizenry, most notably wisdom and reason. Only warriors were similarly esteemed, and both were privileged in the community (p. 223). While Plato never explicitly identifies himself as a guardian or a warrior, these ideas are products of his inner dialogue and suggest that his ideal state reflects his self-image. Plato’s utopia, therefore, is his utopia. It not only reflects his values but demonstrates the requisite arrogance to presuppose his values on others. Plato presumes to know what is in everyone’s best interests and withholds the ability for citizens to make such decisions for themselves. In fact, such presuppositions are demonstrated in today’s politics, social movements, and popular culture. They manifest in populism, communism, and identity politics. At the center of these dynamics, however, whether group-based or individual, is an inherently self-centered motivation.
Utopia, exclusivity, power, and revolution are inseparable. Utopian concepts also employ universally simplistic thinking. Sadeq et al (2011) write that utopian thinkers portray the idyllic state as a living reality, enjoyed by all citizens. The end-state is so obvious, they write, that it is taken for granted and with little thought about how it would be implemented or maintained (pp. 131-132). In other words, utopia simply works and almost magically so. More’s vision of a feudal labor system where everyone works the fields (p. 138) captures this quite well. In More’s idyllic state, however, he fails to question the basic assumption that trade work holds equal value – or any value – to all people. Such a society might be quite dystopian for large numbers of people, yet this possibility doesn’t enter into More’s thinking. Therefore, much like Plato’s managed society, one must ask whose utopia More is describing. Has he based his imaginings on empirical research and collective study or is he simply articulating what would make him happy.
Similarly flawed thinking manifests in utopian concepts of power and hierarchy. For example, in a study of narcissism in right-wing populist movements, researchers Golec de Zavala & Keenan (2021) write that members of populist movements see themselves as exceptional and entitled to privileged treatment. They view themselves self-righteously as the only true representatives of national interests. Narcissistic populism, they write, is not about social justice and equality but rather, entitlement and privilege (pp. 2-3). This collective narcissism blends with individual perceptions of self, and personal status is often the underlying motivation for broader nationalist concerns (p. 2-4). In this way, the left and right wings share common ground. For example, Betty Glad (2002) writes that Stalin and Hitler both displayed grandiose yet insecure perceptions of self. Describing both as malignant narcissists, possessing superegos with insatiable appetites for personal glory. Stalin portrayed himself as the creator of a communist world order while Hitler envisioned himself the founder of a pure Germanic utopia, often comparing himself to Jesus (pp. 2, 5, 20). While each of Stalin, Hitler, Plato, and More sought to advance their vision of an ideal state, Hitler and Stalin wrapped their personal motivations in national political movements. It’s important, therefore, to consider whether individual narcissistic behavior manifests at the group level and how each might influence the other.
To begin with, utopias are collectives of sameness. This uniformity was captured quite well in the 2014 film The Giver (Noyce, 2014), which depicts a utopian society of egalitarian equality, surveillance, and tightly controlled social norms. Society is governed by a single matriarchal authoritarian (Meryl Streep), whose knowledge of life before utopia is debatable, but whose singular authority is not. In their paper on narcissism and political affiliation, Hatemi & Fazekas (2018) summarize such political narcissism, writing that political ideologies and attitudes are not just about how one should live, but demanding that all others live the same way. This arises from a definition of narcissism that is not simply being concerned with oneself but is an agglomeration of self, views of others, modes of thinking, and motivations that guide behavior and become part of individual identity (pp. 873-875). Golec de Zavala & Keenan (2021) arrived at a similar bidirectional conclusion, noting that collective narcissism merges group and personal identity, often compensating undermined self-importance with group affiliation (p. 4). In other words, narcissistic behavior not only manifests at the group and individual levels, but each interacts with the other.
Such interactions are evident in today’s social media landscape. Consider the microblogging site Tumblr, for instance. Andre Cavalcante (2019) likens the site to a “queer utopia” and users describe it as a “queer bubble” where one can lose themselves and fall into a black hole (pp. 1715-1716). Tumblr, like all utopian concepts, represents a type of safe space. One where conformity and lack of dissenting opinion are expected. For utopians, safe spaces are synonymous with ‘people like me’ which mirrors the uniformity of sameness expected in utopia. For example, Cavalcante writes that Tumblr is a vortex of similar thought and is nearly devoid of dissenting opinions (pp. 1727-1729). This sameness extends to the use of language as well. For example, users of Tumblr note that there is no need to defend concepts or words and that the site’s queer voice drowns out non-conforming views (p. 1727). This conformity and the loss of self suggests a merging of group and personal identity through common language, experience, and thought as summarized by Hatemi & Fazekas (2018).
Like spatial utopias, digital utopias possess revolutionary ideation. Cavalcante (2019) for instance, reviews prior research indicating that users of digital utopias are not merely content with behavioral and political change, but seek to bring about social revision as well (p. 1723). They carry an expectation of group accommodation. As one user put it, “people [on Tumblr] get it. And if they can, everyone else should” (p. 1725). This collective self-consciousness closely parallels the collective narcissism observed in right-wing populist movements by Golec de Zavala & Keenan (2021), noting that collective narcissists are driven by a belief that their group is unique, exceptional, entitled to privileged treatment, and insufficiently recognized by others (pp. 2-4). Furthermore, Hatemi & Fazekas (2018) write that with respect to identity politics, the demands for attention, benefits, and implied superiority arguably reflect the exhibitionist dimension of narcissism, that is, the expectation that greater attention be paid to one’s wishes, needs, opinions and values (pp. 874-875). Finally, the proclivity of some members to speak on behalf of the group, prefacing statements with ‘As a…’ followed by their identifiers, further suggests narcissistic self-importance (p. 876). More critically, such statements position the speaker at the center of the group and at the head of an impromptu hierarchy, drawing attention to themselves and away from the issue. The utopian thinking embodied in identity politics, therefore, represents the narcissistic traits observed in both Marxist and populist visions of the ideal.
The self-centered nature of utopian thinking can lead to xenophobic tendencies. For example, although Plato’s utopia allowed for contact with the outside world, he expressly sought to limit external interactions (Charbit & Virmani, 2002, p. 209). The sequestration of utopia, however, is common in spatial, cultural, and religious conceptions of society. Travis DeCook (2022) writes that the nature of utopia necessitates not only a separatist purity but an expulsion of all that threatens its order (p. 213). This intolerance is captured by today’s safe spaces, echo chambers, and xenophobic policies on both the right and left, from modern border policy in the United States to legislating cultural difference in Quebec as advocated by Charles Taylor (Gutmann, 1994). It’s represented in popular culture through films like Elysium (Blomkamp, 2013), where utopia is visible from Earth but separated by the vacuum of space. It’s captured in religious concepts where Heaven is separated from humanity both physically and temporally.
More interesting is what these attempts at utopia say about us. Charles Taylor’s essay on politics of difference offers one perspective. Writing on the notion of legislating difference through law, he says, “the goal of [such laws] is not to bring us back to an eventual ‘difference-blind’ social space but…to maintain and cherish distinctness, not just now but forever” (Gutmann, 1994, p. 40). Just as the literature cited by Cavalcante (2019) suggests, utopians are not satisfied with equal recognition and tolerance. There seems a clear desire for advanced social status and an equally clear disinterest in equal treatment. Taylor’s appeals to distinctness are actually a summons to group identity and sameness. In this respect, he seeks to elevate the in-group (French Quebeckers) over the out-group, non-French speaking Canadians.
It’s not surprising that an inherently self-centered paradigm would produce broadly corrosive pressure on society. Stalin and Hitler illustrate the far ends of such extremes, however utopian thinking fails such tests on theoretical grounds as well. As DeCook (2022) writes, More’s utopia utterly fails in its mission to form a better citizenry through state institutions by not only creating worse utopians, but also worse non-utopians. It is a fundamental contradiction, he says, that utopians claim to abhor the dimensions of money, violence, and greed, yet depend on those vices in others for their very survival (pp. 210-215). In this vein, it is debatable whether the utopias of Marxism, populist nationalism, or identity politics, have created better citizens. Certainly, the aspects of intolerance, cancel culture and doxing, are authoritarian and unbecoming of a morally higher ground. Charles Taylor’s (Gutmann, 1994) desire to preserve the French-Canadian culture through law bears similar reflection. It is undoubtedly the version of Quebec that he remembers, not that of someone else or of another time that defines his ideal state. In summary, it’s clear in the examples reviewed here that utopians are not simply satisfied with equal recognition under law and social norms, they are interested in the self-centered acquisition of status and power both for themselves and for their group.
Any closing discussion must acknowledge certain limitations. To begin with, utopian thinking is not necessarily a group attribute. For example, Golec de Zavala & Keenan (2021) note that narcissism predicts nationalism, but nationalism does not predict narcissism (p. 4). A populist might simply agree with a political alignment but not for narcissistic reasons. Similarly, a Tumblr user is not a narcissistic utopian simply for engaging in an online community. In fact, many users cited by Cavalcante (2019) acknowledge the lack of diverse views on Tumblr as a problem. Cavalcante himself calls the limited range of opinion and the potential to inhabit an echo chamber the biggest risks to the Tumblr community (pp. 1727-1729). Finally, it bears special notice that observing narcissistic characteristics is not tantamount to making a clinical diagnosis of narcissism. The thesis of this paper is that utopian thinking is inherently narcissistic and self-serving, not that all utopians are narcissists. In that, the evidence seems strongly aligned with the hypothesis. The deeper question, however, is whether utopian thinking is unavoidably narcissistic and whether that’s all bad. South African scholar Sabelo J Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) argues that the Cartesian subject (Descartes’ I think therefore I am) replaced God with self and positioned man at the center of the universe (p. 85). While Ndlovu-Gatsheni intended this birth of narcissistic thinking in the context of racism and identity politics, it can be extrapolated further as a universal point of reference for technocratic and atheistic utopian forms, like Marxism. In the absence of a higher power, the self becomes paramount. While this doesn’t wholly describe the paths to narcissistic utopias, after all, many western religions position humanity as the object of God’s attention, it offers some intriguing food for thought. Finally, it must be asked whether utopian thinking has any value or whether it represents a grave threat to society. Certainly, the losers in Stalin’s revolution would argue the latter. Indeed, collective narcissism can represent real dangers to democracy. On the other hand, majority rule can be slow if not impossible to change. Bringing about social revolutions like gay marriage, women’s and civil rights arguably require the hard leadership that only narcissists provide. Therefore, the presence of narcissistic traits in utopian thinking is likely both a feature and a bug. Not all thinkers are narcissists, yet to suppose our ideal state is the perfect state for all requires narcissistic qualities.
In summary, narcissism appears to play a strong role in utopian thinking. This manifests as a need for recognition at both the group and individual levels and persists across political affiliation. Narcissistic qualities are observable in the utopian concepts of Plato and Charles Taylor and in the digital and physical spaces. Finally, while being affiliated with a utopian community or movement does not make one a narcissist, it is clear that the sun still orbits the earth in utopia.
References
Blomkamp, N. (Director). (2013). Elysium [Film]. QED International, Kinberg Genre,
Alphacore.
Cavalcante, A. (2018). Tumbling into queer utopias and vortexes: Experiences of LGBTQ social
media users on Tumblr. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(12), 1715-1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1511131
Charbit, Y., & Virmani, A. (2002). The Platonic City: History and Utopia. Population (English
Edition, 2002-), 57(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/3246608
Crawford, T. (Ed.). (2007). Plato. Tudor publishing company.
DeCook, T. (2022). The charming circle: identity in utopia, unethical practices, and Augustine’s
two cities. Moreana, 59(2), 208-219. DOI: 10.3366/more.2022.0126
Glad, B. (2002). Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power. Political
Psychology, 23(1), 1–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792241
Golec de Zavala, A. & Keenan, O. (2020). Collective narcissism as a framework for
understanding populism. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(2), 1-11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jts5.69
Gutmann, A. (1994). Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press
Hatemi, P.K. & Fazekas, Z. (2018). Narcissism and political orientation. American Journal of
Political Science, 62(4), 873-888. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26598789
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2018). A world without others? Specter of difference and toxic
identitarian politics. International Journal of Critical Diversity Studies, 1(1), 80-96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/intecritdivestud.1.1.0080
Noyce, P. (Director). (2014). The Giver [Film]. Tonik, As Is Productions.
Sadeq, A. E., Shalabi, I., & Alkurdi, S.H. (2011). Major themes in Renaissance utopias. Asian
Social Science, 7(9), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n9p131