Everyday Utopia (sort of) book review
- petersenbri
- May 9
- 5 min read
The graduate students I work with and I recently read an intriguing book. Written by Kristen Ghodsee, an expert on Russia and Eastern European studies, Everyday Utopia chronicles utopian authors and thinkers through the ages. The book project emerged in part from Ghodsee’s interactions with readers of her previous book who claimed that a different society, free from oppression, was not possible. These sentiments moved Ghodsee to think about and research people who have imagined a different society. She felt that the sentiment voiced by her readers, the inability to imagine a different world, represented a primary obstacle to positive social change and she set out to chronicle examples that suggest otherwise.
The term utopia, coined in 1516, literally means, Ghodsee tells us, ‘no place.’ Reflecting on the current situation, utopian thinking imagines something different, something better. Instead, today’s thinkers mostly imagine the same society but with new technology. Hardly a utopian vision. Thinkers across the ages, Ghodsee tells us, have imagined a much different society. These visions often included novel living arrangements – often communal, these examples focused on moving away from patriarchal arrangements, childrearing that included many people, not just biological parents, living in a way that created space for a deep connection with nature, reimagined marriage, moved away from contractual, property based arrangements, and focused on education that helped children learn about themselves, as well as providing a mixture of book learning and practical knowledge.
We chose the book in large part because students today often do not see a positive future before them. Anxiety and depression proliferate, foreclosing optimism or a view that the future could be different, better. The book succeeded in demonstrating examples and visions for living differently, for existing in a world where people and nature can thrive. That proved useful and provocative, especially by bringing in statistics and evidence that parenting in our present societal configuration, for example, decreases well-being for parents. These and other anecdotes broadened our view and provided rich fodder for deliberation and contemplation.
And, yet, we did not love the book. I certainly recommend reading it but something, for us, felt lacking. The way we described it revolved around the reality that the book was written for a general audience. It simply was not academic enough. The term, academic, has mixed connotations. For many, the term is pejorative. Definitions proliferate but the second definition from the Oxford dictionary sums up how many see the term: “not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.” For us, the theoretical has more salience than the practical. The examples throughout the book piqued our interest but we wanted more grounding, a richer explanation as to why utopias do not emerge more often. Every chapter raised many questions for us and we yearned for a deeper, more theoretical interrogation of the ideas and examples presented.
Reading this book raised questions beyond the topics covered. What role does education have in our society? For many, higher education has focused too much on academic matters. Soaring tuition costs have moved universities to demonstrate that the education they offer has value. This has translated increasingly towards career readiness, where universities focus on ensuring that students can clearly see how their education will lead them into a secure, financially successful life after college. English departments have seen precipitously declining enrollments. Humanities programs, in general, find it difficult to attract students and it is not hard to understand why – our society focuses heavily on STEM education as a pathway to success. My undergraduate students, especially women, talk about their experience in K-12 education in which they were told over and over again how important it was for them to pursue STEM education in college.
Perhaps that seems appropriate. Degrees from STEM fields have specific jobs associated with them – think engineers, or chemists – and careers in those fields often have high salaries, relative to those in fields associated with the liberal arts. But should we think about a college education as merely a vehicle to a job and salary? What role does a college education play in our society, beyond the individual? Historically, a college education, in part, was seen as an important societal institution, helping to mold democratic citizens, people with the ability to navigate society and contribute to it. Narrow, technical educations do not necessarily provide these outcomes. Neither do liberal arts educations in all cases. But Ghodsee provides an opportunity to raise these questions, and others. What kind of society do we want? That remains contested, of course, but asking this question helps us to think about the world in a different way and to imagine alternative arrangements.
Higher education as ‘academic’ reflects a view that sees a college degree as less important than in the past. Ghodsee does not take this question on directly but her book challenges the reader to rethink education. As an educator at a university, I found this compelling and important. It made me reflect on why the term academic has such a negative connotation and helped me refine why it remains urgent to persuade others that an academic orientation, one that focuses on a theoretical understand of society, remains so vital. Theory simply means how can we explain the world around us – not describe it but identify the attributes and factors that create the outcomes we see around us. Doing so might not have specific job related characteristics, but it does set the stage for understanding why we have the world we have and how to create a different one.
Ghodsee writes: “Utopian” as I use it simply denotes thinkers and movements that attempted to rearrange the domestic sphere in ways significantly out of keeping with the prevailing traditions of their societies for the purpose of living together in greater harmony in pursuit of either secular or spiritual goals. This quote identifies how her rendering diverges from other utopian writers. She focuses on the domestic sphere. Rather than imagining a different world, separate from our own, Ghodsee challenges the reader to think about their day to day lives and how the structures that confine that space shape not only our lived experience but our thoughts. Although practical and descriptive, not theoretical, the book has profound insights for diagnosing our malaise and ways around it. Often overlooked or simply understood through unchallenged assumptions and norms, the domestic sphere, as Ghodsee boldly argues, represents the site for rethinking how we live. To end, let me quote Ghodsee once again, highlighting a line that resonated strongly with me and succinctly conveys why this book has such relevance in our present moment:
“Once I started thinking about the world not as it was but as it might be, I could more clearly diagnose the problems with my own time and place—and mentally play with possible solutions.”
Comments