INTRODUCTION At its most general, “utopianism” refers to various ways of imagining, creat- ing, or theorizing about alternative and often dramatically different ways of life. It derives from the word “utopia” that was coined by Thomas More as the name of the imaginary country he described in his book Libellus vere aureus nec minus salutaris quam festivus de optimo reip[ublicae] statu, deq[ue] noua Insula Vtopia, published in 1516, now known as Utopia. The word is derived from the Greek, but also used in Latin, with “u” or “ou” meaning “no” or “not” and “topos” or “place,” but More punned on “eutopia,” or good place. “Dystopia,” or bad place, was added in the eighteenth century but came into common use only in the twentieth. A number of other subgenres have been identified since then. On the definitional problems, the editors propose slightly varying ac- counts. The first is Sargent’s: The following definitions, among others, were proposed by Sargent in 1994 and are now widely used:1 Utopianism— social dreaming. Utopia— a nonexistent society described in considerable detail and normally located in time and space. In standard usage “utopia” is used both as defined here and as a synonym for “eutopia.” Eutopia or positive utopia— a nonexistent society described in considerable detail and normally located in time and space that the author intended a contemporaneous reader to view as considerably better than the society in which that reader lived. Dystopia or negative utopia— a nonexistent society described in considerable detail and normally located in time and space that the author intended a contemporaneous reader to view as considerably worse than the society in which that reader lived.2 In addition, in 1986, Tom Moylan proposed the critical utopia, which is very widely used: Critical utopia— a nonexistent society described in considerable de- tail and normally located in time and space that the author intended a contemporaneous reader to view as better than contemporary society 1 Claeys_i_530.indd 1 11/21/16 4:45 PM but with difficult problems that the described society may or may not be able to solve and that takes a critical view of the utopian genre.3 Although these subgenres are the most widely used, there have been a num- ber of others proposed, like the critical dystopia, but none that are in common usage. Gregory Claeys writes: The term “utopia” is susceptible to such a large range of useful and sug- gestive meanings that reducing it to any one is unhelpful. Every discipline sees in utopia a semblance or shadow of itself, its alter ego, so to speak. Here psychology, sociology, literature, political thought, and other subjects over- lap and interpenetrate. The authors of the main study of the subject, Frank and Fritzie Manuel, write of a “utopian propensity” that is grouped around seven major “constellations” and describe “the heart of the utopian fantasy” as lying in the “myth of a heaven on earth.” Emphasizing the “pluralism of the commentary,” they stress the “partial validity” of many angles of enquiry into the subject, while not privileging one approach.4 In the best account of later modern utopianism, published in 1987, Krishan Kumar also concludes that “a strict definition of Utopia would serve no useful purpose.”5 It thus remains an “essentially contested” concept where no fixed definition as such is attainable. In moving away from the common-language usages of the term (“perfect,” “impossible”), however, we should in the first instance avoid confusing utopia with four things it is not, or which it should not be reduced to, though literary utopias, communes, and ideologies may have components of each element present in them. It is not, solely, however, a literary tradition; not a branch of theology, despite the close proximity of images of paradise and ideas of the millennium to much utopian thought; not a state of mind, a feeling, impulse, or principle, especially of the Blochian ideal of “hope,” or of a psychological wholeness achieved by superseding alienation; and, finally, not a synonym for progress in general, or merely making society “better.”6 These boundaries indicate disagreements respecting even some of the most common definitions of utopia. The idea of utopia as a “social dream” origi- nated as early as 1886 in the writings of the secularist G. W. Foote and has been used by many later writers. The sociologist Ruth Levitas describes utopia as “the desire for a better way of being and living.”7 But to the author of the chief study of early modern British utopianism, J. C. Davis, “the concept of ‘better’ is too imprecise, vague and subjective, so the emphasis on ‘dream’ carries with it difficulties of its own. For it can ambivalently mean fictional, unreal or im- practical.” Instead, Davis argues, “The utopian mode is one which accepts defi- ciencies in men and nature and strives to contain and condition them through organisational controls and sanctions.”8 Kumar comes close to this evidently 2 Introduction Claeys_i_530.indd 2 11/21/16 4:45 PM realist description in asserting that “Utopia is a secular variety of social thought. It is a creation of Renaissance humanism.”9 In this view the utopian polity has thus usually stood closer to a republican model or paradigm than any other. It has not usually been restrained by the idea of Original Sin, which has ham- pered aspirations for social improvement throughout much of the history of the Christian West. It may both formally and psychologically have aspects of a “social dream” about it, in the senses of speculation, thought experiments, projection and extrapolation, imagined futures and/or forecasts. But it may be more helpful to restrict “utopia” to the less fantastic forms of the genre. For utopia has often been seen as something realizable, if only on a small scale, by real human beings. Where utopia is projected—on remote islands, in lost civili- zations, in galaxies in space, or underground— is here less important than how the new social order is described, how it is introduced, and what it demands of human nature. Respecting utopian fiction, a “realist” definition that takes these factors into account stresses that utopias are imaginary societies defined by the predominance of some form of enhanced sociability, or strengthened sense of community. The majority of such works are tracts on social and politi- cal thought cast in fictional form, sometimes with fairly thin plots. Often they propose egalitarianism, though this is usually combined with some form of hi- erarchy, elective or otherwise. Commonly they limit property holding or enjoin community goods, and “cooperation” has been used to describe social owner- ship of enterprises without any communal component, and the “cooperative commonwealth” is a common description of late nineteenth- century utopian aspiration. A greater stress on the value of individualism, however, also comes to characterize the tradition from the mid- nineteenth century. A realist definition of “utopia” is particularly useful insofar as students of utopianism need to address problems related to the three domains or “faces” (as Sargent terms them) of the wider subject, where generalizations that hold for ideologies, communal movements, and literary texts are necessary. This presents additional problems not evident when literature is the sole focus. The concept of “dystopia” presents still further definitional problems. It is sometimes conceived as a “bad” or “worse” place. Some disaster novels appear to fit the bill here, though a focus on social and political content is more char- acteristically dystopian. The same logical problems present themselves here, too, as with utopia as a “better” place: Worse than what? Worse for whom? We need also to distinguish anti- utopias, which result from failed attempts to create utopia, and dystopias, which grow out of existing social, political, and economic trends. In both cases, however, some group may well benefit from the dystopian scenario. Somewhat more precise, thus, is the description of dystopia is “a utopia that has gone wrong, or a utopia that functions only for a particular segment of society.”10 Here we get some sense, too, of portrayals of Introduction 3 Claeys_i_530.indd 3 11/21/16 4:45 PM one person’s utopia being another’s dystopia. (To extreme individualists, like the anarchist William Godwin, all groups are dystopian.) It is also helpful to stress that many dystopias can be conceived as portrayals of societies where individuals are alienated from each other, and destroy “society” by undermin- ing institutions of mutual support.”11 This can also be conceived as a contrast between estranged and enhanced sociability. Such alienation in the modern period typically stems from rampant technology, extreme social and politi- cal collectivism, or some combination of both (Huxley, Orwell). However, there are exceptions here too, both in communities and in fictional utopias (for instance those influenced by Herbert Spencer). Here a maximization of individuality is sought, though this too is conceived as contributing to rather than detracting from sociability. But it can be suggested that a spectrum of dystopian scenarios ranges from the prevalence of extreme tedium and lack of innovation to the more horrific imposition of despotism and consequent widespread fear and asociability. Texts may also exhibit dystopias and utopias sequentially, typically where a revolution overthrows an oppressive regime. But the new order may turn out to be less than ideal too. And it is evident that almost every early modern utopia, including More’s, appears as a dystopia to modern readers, through Spartan conditions, the puritanical regulation of amusements, clothing, and so on, the restriction of religious and other private matters, and/or the propensity toward universal surveillance. The concepts of “critical utopia” and later “critical dystopia” were proposed to describe trends in utopian writing in the 1970s and later.