Some thoughts on Seattle after reading In Utopia by J.C. Hallman
In October of 2009 my family and I moved from Philadelphia to Seattle. It’s been two years and I still feel a bit in limbo, as though it’s been my first day here for years. I was excited to move to Seattle because of the novelty, its newness. Although, I’m not sure why I wanted to leave Philadelphia. I loved Philly - I still love Philly - although it’s very easy to say that when you are 2800 miles away from home. And yet where is my home? Home is such a strong word, rife with cliche, metaphor, and too much sentimentality. Shouldn’t it be simpler than that? Shouldn’t it be where you are now? Does it have to be fabricated? Or even intellectualized? Seattle was my idea of utopia. It was exciting that Seattle was not Philadelphia. Seattle was thousands of miles away. Moving to Seattle felt like moving to a new country without having to learn a new language and I moved here with only seeing Seattle once for about 24 hours. I spent the six weeks we had between deciding to move and actually moving creating my own Seattle Utopia. When I got here, I realized I wasn’t the only one.
I couldn’t help but think of my transatlantic move when reading J.C. Hallman’s In Utopia, which describes six different modern utopias. From pleistocene rewilding, which intrigued me the most especially because Ted Turner was indirectly involved, to Front Sight, a civilian combat training facility, as well as a few less extreme utopias: a megacity in Korea; the origins of the Slow Food movement, which is not only a novel way to approach the idea of a modern utopia (through food) but also just a fantastic piece of travel writing; a cruise ship where you can own your own apartment; and Twin Oaks, a 40 year old ‘intentional community’. What stuck with me is the idea of an intentional community and left me with a lot of questions: What exactly makes a community intentional? Why should a community be intentional? Can it be a community if it is intentional? What, then, is a community? I am no anthropologist (although I took an anthropology course in college from a professor who looked eerily like Kevin Costner) and I haven’t read More’s Utopia and, therefore, may not be the best person to answer my own questions.
Hallman wants to believe in the intentional community, that a utopia can and should exist. And, yet, in the end he questions whether More’s Utopia was a joke for those who wanted a utopia. For shame if you wanted to believe in a utopia! (Shame on me for not reading it!) While I like the idea of an idealized community - a happy, cohesive lifestyle - I don’t believe in it. Maybe I’m too much of a cynic but ‘intentional’ communities, and I don’t just mean Twin Oaks but all utopias, lack authenticity. Twin Oaks has been around 40 years; you could imagine some authenticity, history, roots in a thriving commune. But intentional communities don’t make room for the two most important aspects of a community: freedom and diversity. Free will - diverse free wills - lead to the organic growth of a community which, in time, makes it cohesive. While that may seem an obvious conclusion, it doesn’t seem apparent to those within ‘intentional’ communities. To me, the idea of an intentional community is an oxymoron.
How is that related to my moving to Seattle? It may not be related at all. And then maybe I just can’t get my head out of the East Coast. Seattle seems like a young city. Everything is new: homes, architecture, infrastructure, laws, sports teams, even much of the populace. Many of the city dwellers are transplants like myself. We’ve moved here to create a different or better life for ourselves and families. For me it feels as though everyone had the same feelings as I did before we moved: a new place, a fresh start, with like minded people. Sounds nice and safe. Instead it can be very isolating (Seattleites know all too well the infamous “Seattle Freeze”.)
I do think that since Seattle is a city of transplants, it creates a city with short roots. We came to this beautiful city (I will always be amazed at how beautiful Seattle is) with similar ideals but I don’t feel like I’m a part of anything greater than my own ideals. (Key word, here, being *greater*. I have a wonderful circle of friends - people I’d like to stay friends with even if we (or they) don’t stay in Seattle.) But I’m not sure how to become a part of the collective ‘Seattle’. I recently read an op-ed piece in the NYT about how individual actions (i.e. using reusable grocery bags, etc.) will not help the environment only collective actions (i.e. changes in economics, Congress, etc.) will. The article reminded me of my conflict with Seattle: “So why bother recycling or riding your bike to the store? Because we all want to do something, anything. Call it “action bias.” But, sadly, individual action does not work. It distracts us from the need for collective action, and it doesn’t add up to enough.” This is why I don’t believe in utopias. Individuals create utopias where as people - collectives, if you will - create communities.
