20th century authors responded to the "death of utopia" in various ways. Some, like Huxley in Brave New World and Orwell in 1984, directly critiqued failed utopian attempts and the dangers of oppressive regimes that crushed individuality. Others, like Palahniuk, saw value in embracing chaos and destruction. Katherine Dunn depicted a loving yet dysfunctional family in Geek Love, finding humor in utopian failure. The diversity of responses reflected evolving views on freedom, humanity's relationship with community, and whether perfection could ever be achieved.

1. CMW313 Q10938541
How 20th
century writers have responded to
the 'death of Utopia'
The concept of utopia is that of great intrigue, an almost intangible worldview that serves as more
paradoxical than it is feasible. The greatest curiosity that surrounds it is how simple of an idea it is, and
yet historically, an impossible dream that has evaded mankind for as long as we have strived for it, as
Margaret Atwood explains: “"Utopia" is sometimes said to mean "no place", from the Greek ou-topos;
others derive it from eu, as in "eugenics", in which case it would mean "healthy place" or "good place".
Sir Thomas More, in his own 16th-century Utopia, may have been punning: utopia is the good place that
doesn't exist.” - (Atwood 2007). In this essay I will be analysing the response of 20th-century authors to
the death of utopia, looking primarily at the novels 'Brave new world' by Aldous Huxley and 'Geek Love'
by Katherine Dunn. The former, a novel directly pertaining to the anti-utopian perspective, the latter, a
more ambiguous exploration in utopian experiments. From the psychology of Utopian dreams and the
philosophy that humanity has evolved into, my essay will explore the definitions of utopian death as well
as the way in which it has affected our literary cultures.
We begin at the greatest human disillusionment toward utopian concepts, that became abundant both
during and after the second world war. A universal catastrophe born of a violent idea for global perfection
that dropped the scales from our eyes and sparked a critical movement that could, perhaps, signify the
next stage of human evolution. In an essay discerning the philosophy behind Utopia, Leszek Kolakowski
introduces the disillusionment with Utopia as seen in the work of 20th century authours: “The great
works of our century are anti-utopias or kakotopias, visions of a world in which all the values the authors
identified themselves with have been mercilessly crushed (Zamiatin, Huxley, Orwell).” - (Kolakowski
1982) From this, one can theorise that while both artists and philosophers have a similar intrigue and
approach to universal philosophies, the former entangles their work in the direct ebb and flow of the
world. Artists can be considered the human philosophers; conceptual and challenging thinkers that place
themselves among the masses, while philosophers try to define the world from a metaphorical pedestal,
removing their person from their thesis, artists indulge and lean into the fleshy, organic mass of
humanity. in order to challenge it. Because of this, the death of utopia resounds a much more personal
meaning and, in extension, creates a more personal result in art. Scarcely will the term “death” be
associated with “utopia” in a lofty, philosophical train of thought, however as humans associate so heavily
with both death and utopia, combining these creates a greater emotional impact, hence the kakotopia
perspective of writers in regards to utopian ideals.
Kolakowski goes on to outline the theoretical paradigms of an exacted utopia, and its impracticalities.
These impracticalities, however, are little more than perfectly realised states of human civilisation;
instead of being unrealistic, they are unfavourable. Their impracticalities lie in the realms of human
transgression, and while many would argue this automatically writes off the notion of utopia, one could
retort, as many have, that this is one kind of utopia, just not one that many would agree with. To begin
with, one needs to define the “death of utopia”; this brings up a number of scenarios or meanings,
ranging from the literal death of the existence of a utopia, death that occurs within, because of or in the
search for utopia, the “death” of an individual's belief in any sort of utopia or the end of a certain kind of
utopia. In regards to the first definition, many have responded by criticising the failed attempts, such as

2. Orwell's criticism of Communism with his novel 'Animal farm'. This notion of utopia ceasing to exist has,
evidently, been the more popular perspective or stance, it falls along the lines of a more literal definition.
However, whether or not this was intended, in illuminating the pitfalls of pre-existing attempts of utopia,
writers serve to create a utopia of their own, within the artistic community; a utopia of enlightenment,
insight, knowledge and concept. It is an intangible notion that, historically has been one of the more
successful utopias, in that it creates change, empowers and fuels the fabric of our society to the point of
fraternal cohesion. In regards to the second scenario of the 'death of utopia', authors such as Palahniuk
have responded by proving that death, destruction, chaos and pain are necessary factors in the creation
and maintenance of any sort of utopia.
In both Fight Club and Guts, Palahniuk outlines the societal pessimism that exists as a result of failed
perfection, and in some cases goes to outline the fallacy in a search for perfection. In the book 'Hope and
the longing for Utopia' by Daniel Boscaljon, the fraternity of 'Fight Club' is described as being: “corrupted
by an anarchic permutation of an abstracted and undifferentiated utopia.” (Boscaljon 231) Yet there are
notes of optimism, it implies that instead of wallowing in this or striving along an impossible path, one
should embrace the chaos, death, destruction and pain that ensues, that this is the one true utopian
society capable of thriving. That we are already on an inevitable road to destruction, instead of trying to
change our trajectory, we should change our minds to embrace it. Theories such as this can be seen
resurfacing in the 21st century, notably in the hit cartoon comedy series 'Rick and Morty', in which
remnants of a failed utopia are abundant and celebrated, almost, by one of the protagonists, and
alternatively, more attune with Palahniuk's literary concepts, a hive mind utopia is destroyed for the sake
of free will, which plunges the world into violence, yet its protagonist maintains that this is preferable as
a utopian construct.
In works like 'Fear and misery in the third Reich', while not a dystopian piece in itself, it demonstrates the
dystopic reality of Hitler's failed utopian regime, and how it directly affected the society it, allegedly,
yearned to perfect. In Brecht's masterpiece both the death of the current existence of a utopia and death
brought about by utopia are present themes; this illuminates the inevitable chaos brought about by such
endeavours. In Huxley's Brave New World, one of the principals in the fictitious Utopia is a tool
implemented upon its residents that creates a “one-dimensional universe”; Herbert Marcuse's novel 'one-
dimensional man' includes the theory of a falsified utopia in the west in which complacency and
happiness are almost forced perspectives, brought about by capitalism. In 'Brave new world' it is outlined
that blissful ignorance is a necessity for societal stability in this Utopia, here we can draw parallels
between the reality of western civilisation in the mid 20th century and Huxley's narrative. The key thing
to note here is that 'Brave new world' was not a response to this reality, as the novel predates this fully
realised one dimensional west by at least 10 years. Can we theorise from this that 'Brave new world' was
a response to the death of utopia based on a prediction of societal progression? It would be too simple to
summarise 'Brave new world' as criticism of the western culture of the 20th century, could one then
imagine a reverse? Perhaps Huxley's intent was to outline a more logical reality in which society can
thrive. Instead of forcing unfortunate, free thinking civilians into slave-like labour and manual, possibly
even degrading work, humans are specifically engineered to fit this role. It is possible that Huxley was
also implying that in order for a universal utopia to exist, free will must be surrendered to an extent, and
it is perhaps mankind's irrational attachment to freedom that creates chaos in the first place.

3. Even in contemporary media we see remnants of Huxley's work and Marcuse's theories of 'one-
dimensional thought'; as previously stated, the comedy series 'Rick and Morty' makes numerous
references to dystopic literature and theories. To unpack the hivemind narrative of one particular episode,
in conjunction with a separate episode on gender politics and biologically engineered species, these two
plainly reference the one-dimensional culture of western civilisation combined with genetically engineered
humanity as a principal in 'Brave new world', the lesson one can derive from this is the ongoing critical
discussion of anti-utopian ideas, as well as the unchangeable fact that in order for mankind to achieve
peace, we must forgo whatever it is that makes us human; as Kalokowski explains: “A feasible utopian
world must presuppose that people have lost their creativity and freedom, that the variety of human life
forms and thus the personal life have been destroyed.” (Kalokowski 1982) There is an interesting cultural
shift worth noting that occurred in the 20th century, one that almost perfectly illuminates mankind's
evolution and explains the artistic response to dystopia and utopia. Prior to the enlightenment period, art
in general scarcely ventured on the subject of utopia v dystopia, instead, society's focus was primarily on
hegemonic stability combined with religious adherence, or lack thereof. In the earliest days of man, focus
was on survival by means of community, gathering, filling the basic needs, as our species grew it became
about exploration, about cultivation, this lead to conquest and sequester, which lead to battle and war, by
this point mankind had felt that they had been delivered a purpose greater than survival, it became about
power, truth, faith and greed, with religion creating a very vocal framework. Eventually, mankind reached
the industrialist era, in which trade took place over security, power and religion became forefront until the
enlightenment period. Reaching the 20th century, and mankind begins to interrogate more, we know the
name of existentialism in our societies and citizens begin to question hegemony. This new point of
evolution indicates an expanse in mental acuity and free-thinking capabilities, dystopia has been
prevalent for thousands of years, so why is it only being given interrogative focus in the 20th century
onwards? Of course, that's not to say it was never questioned before, but not in the mainstream. Is it
simply that it took thousands of years for mankind to have its fill, or was there a mental shift in the way
mankind viewed the world that enabled them to protest it? The rising literary interest in the death of
utopia could be in itself a signifier for social evolution.
Much like Nietzsche's story of the mad man that came to town proclaiming the death of god, pinning us
as the culprits, perhaps it was not the age old imperfection and failure of our strive for greatness that
lifted the veil and brought about artistic criticism, but instead human nature. Utopia begins as a vision, a
vision that, most likely, every human has at one point in their lives. For authors to challenge this notion
in the 20th century is not a challenge of a realised utopia, but a challenge to our desire for one, it is a
challenge of the human compulsion to need something perfect. In 'Brave new world' Huxley illustrates the
change beginning with an individual's natural non-compliance with order, it does not begin with
disgruntled grumblings and a political resistance. In this fictitious world humans are biologically
engineered to comply, so when Bernard Marx proved that the engineering could be faulty, perhaps Huxley
was pointing out a biological shift in humanity. When many imagine the idea of Utopia v dystopia it's
almost instinctive to think of those subjected as brainwashed, yet in Huxley's novel, that's just how
humans are made, how they're born. The 'death of utopia' in this aspect may not be a criticism of societal
regulation in which we are the victims, but instead, an identification that either humans need to evolve
past that, or can be greater than our previous biological selves. I return to the point of our behaviour as
a species through time. In the beginning, our goal was mere survival, yet now, millennia ahead, we've
evolved to thrive and think. Bernard Marx seems to represent that future vision of humanity beyond our

4. carnal, almost robotic selves driven by animal instinct. “We can imagine the universal brotherhood of
wolves but not of humans since the needs of wolves are limited and definable and therefore conceivably
satisfied.” humans have evolved beyond the point of needing a community, one constant in a strive for
utopia is the idea of community, yet what Huxley seems to be implying using Bernard Marx to illustrate
this, is that mankind has evolved beyond the use or capability for communal living. In this we see the
'death of utopia'; a less sombre image that instead of painting the picture of a broken society, we see a
statement of progression, that utopia is a primitive construct that has long been dead, and we need to
move past.
In the novel 'Geek Love', the very title tells the story of the author's own utopia within the confines of
their work. Katherine Dunn comedically recites her journey to catalogue her work in order to spell out
“Atilla”, referencing the Mongolian warlord who's victories are written off through history as vicious
transgressions. Both Dunn's attempts at creating an amusing personal legacy, and her character's
endeavours to retain the legacy of the travelling circus can be seen as failed utopias in their own way.
The general narrative that can be read is remarkably light-hearted, encouraging the audience to laugh in
the face of utopian failure, to roll with the punches of life. Perhaps it is this that shines as one of the
successful paths to perfection. In the early chapters, we can see direct parallels between 'Brave new
world' and historical events that occurred in the name of Utopia; both the proprietors of the story are on
a path to personal success and communal well-being, Aloysius Binewski and “Crystal” Lil turn to extremes
in the face of failure: pushing their bodies to the physical limit to create a literal “nuclear family”. In
Huxley's novel, humans are genetically engineered to fit a single purpose in a similar way. The main
difference would be the tone that Dunn generates; instead of outlining these actions as oppressive,
harmful and dystopic, as Huxley does with his character Bernard Marx, it is seen as a necessary journey
of whimsical experimentation. The children are portrayed as being content with, or even, proud of their
forced deformities, with their parents equally elated. A loving, domestic paradise is illuminated, and it
tells the story of a capitalist silver lining. However, it is made clear that both Binewsky and Lil are hell
bent on raising a freak show, to the extent of cutting out any of their offspring that prove to be useless in
this dream. These seemingly callous actions illustrate the cracks in Utopian societies and frameworks,
which can be considered Dunn's response to the 'death of utopia'. We can derive from this an alternating
perspective of dystopia versus utopia, instead of lamenting over its failure, or criticising the
transgressions, we see a humorous enlightenment toward humanity's dark side.
The death of Utopia incites responses as varied and subjective as the human response to death itself. As
we have seen from the perspectives of both Katherine Dunn and Chuck Palahniuk, a utopia, or lack
thereof, are sources of intrigue, evolution and whimsy. With the latter embracing the chaotic vortex of
destruction, pain and anguish, toying with the dystopian ideals and, almost, dancing on the grave of the
search for perfection. The former portrays a jovial and progressive contemplation of a capitalist utopia,
outlining both the advantages and disadvantages and seems to laugh at the notion of an unjust and
corrupt world. On the reverse, we see responses from authors such as Orwell and Huxley, the former
heavily critical. Orwell's novels read almost as a cry of anguish, a scarred perception that sees historical
attempts of Utopia as dangerous, brutal insults to human nature. Clearly there is held a great importance
for personal freedom and equality, and in the death of utopia, so comes the death of individuality, as seen
in '1984', as well as the death of equal standing, citing 'Animal Farm'. The latter bears more similarities
with Dunn, whilst remaining on the opposite side of the coin. Huxley's portrayal of a dystopian world

5. comes across as more objective, yet clearly a warning of the insidious nature that the 20th century west
thrives upon, as well as opening a discourse on the morality behind genetic engineering. Yet unlike the
others, Huxley's work signifies a turning point for mankind, as outlined above, 'Brave new world' arguably
marks a new dawn in the nature of mankind. As can be derived, the discussion of utopia, or lack thereof,
is almost as paradoxical as the concept itself, and no discernible stance can be delineated. However, upon
analysing the response of 20th-century authors to the 'death of utopia' is that we have reached a new
level of progression. Perhaps the death lies in an old way of thinking, and in its wake, we see the birth of
more personal, individual grounds for Utopia. Upon conclusion I will now pose a question if the death of
utopia means we have evolved to lead a more individualistic life, does this also signify the death of the
community?
Secondary sources:
Atwood, Margaret. "Margaret Atwood On Brave New World". the Guardian. N.p., 2007. Web. 12 Feb.
2016.
Burgess, Olivia. "Revolutionary Bodies In Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club". Utopian Studies 23.1 (2012):
263-280. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Dean, Mike, and George Orwell. 1984. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2003. Print.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Print.
Kalokowski, Leszek. The Death Of Utopia Reconsidered. 1st ed. The Australian National University, 1982.
Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Watson, Emily. "Aldous Huxley’S Brave New World | Quadrapheme". Quadrapheme.com. Web. 12 Feb.
2016.
Wisecrack,. Philosophy Of Fallout. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Primary sources:
Dunn, Katherine. Geek Love. New York: Knopf, 1989. Print.
Brecht, Bertolt, John Willett, and Tom Kuhn. Fear And Misery Of The Third Reich. London: Methuen
Drama, 2002. Print.
Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Print.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Knopf, 1993. Print.
Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996. Print.

6. comes across as more objective, yet clearly a warning of the insidious nature that the 20th century west
thrives upon, as well as opening a discourse on the morality behind genetic engineering. Yet unlike the
others, Huxley's work signifies a turning point for mankind, as outlined above, 'Brave new world' arguably
marks a new dawn in the nature of mankind. As can be derived, the discussion of utopia, or lack thereof,
is almost as paradoxical as the concept itself, and no discernible stance can be delineated. However, upon
analysing the response of 20th-century authors to the 'death of utopia' is that we have reached a new
level of progression. Perhaps the death lies in an old way of thinking, and in its wake, we see the birth of
more personal, individual grounds for Utopia. Upon conclusion I will now pose a question if the death of
utopia means we have evolved to lead a more individualistic life, does this also signify the death of the
community?
Secondary sources:
Atwood, Margaret. "Margaret Atwood On Brave New World". the Guardian. N.p., 2007. Web. 12 Feb.
2016.
Burgess, Olivia. "Revolutionary Bodies In Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club". Utopian Studies 23.1 (2012):
263-280. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Dean, Mike, and George Orwell. 1984. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2003. Print.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World Revisited. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Print.
Kalokowski, Leszek. The Death Of Utopia Reconsidered. 1st ed. The Australian National University, 1982.
Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Watson, Emily. "Aldous Huxley’S Brave New World | Quadrapheme". Quadrapheme.com. Web. 12 Feb.
2016.
Wisecrack,. Philosophy Of Fallout. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Primary sources:
Dunn, Katherine. Geek Love. New York: Knopf, 1989. Print.
Brecht, Bertolt, John Willett, and Tom Kuhn. Fear And Misery Of The Third Reich. London: Methuen
Drama, 2002. Print.
Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Print.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Knopf, 1993. Print.
Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996. Print.