FA+
Shop
The ideal society: "Zootopia" and political philosophy.
9 years ago
In which i think too much about an animated movie.
Also, possible spoilers for the two people who haven't seen it yet.
The ideal society: "Zootopia" and political philosophy.
While "Zootopia" seems like a typical simple, happy animated feature with your average feel-good message about everybody getting along and everyone-can-be-whatever-they-dream, if you pay attention (or if you're a typical philosophy type and you think too damn much), you'll realise that there's actually a whole lot more going on.
"Zootopia" is actually a quite sophisticated look at various political philosophies that have sought to answer the age-old question: "how shall we achieve the ideal state"?
The clues are all in the names. Puns abound.
First off, "Zootopia" is a pun on Thomas More's "Utopia", a 16th century work of fiction and political philosophy, which was itself based on, and a critique of, the much older "Republic" of Plato.
Although "Utopia" is today understood to mean "an ideal place", this is a mistranslation: the literal meaning of More's original Greek was "no-place". In other words, More was saying that an ideal society was unattainable.
In any case, like Plato's Atlantis (which was never intended to be understood as a real place, but was intended as a fictionalised exemplar of his ideal state), More described Utopia as an island divided up into several districts - which we see in Zootopia's "environments".
The next clue is in the names of the principal protagonists.
Judy Hopps is a pun on the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Exactly as Judy describes in her opening skit, Hobbes wrote that the "state of nature" was one of anarchic savage competition, a "war of all against all" in which the strong preyed on the weak, and there was no place for industry, culture, art or society: life was necessarily "nasty, brutish and short". In order to avoid this violent state of nature, people engage in a "social contract", in which individuals band together in a "common-wealth", pooling their resources for common security. This necessarily involves a tacit agreement from the strong to give up their natural advantage over the weak, and all members surrendering some degree of freedom to the sovereign (be it a literal sovereign or a sovereign state).
Judy's first name, by the way, comes from the Biblical character, Judith, a daring warrior woman who sets out on a lone mission to save her people from danger.
Nick is literally "Wilde", and represents the Hobbesian state of nature: he is solitary and selfish, waging a one-fox war against all. This is not because Nick is innately savage or evil but because, as Hobbes observed, in the state of nature, even when individuals are not actually fighting, they cannot be sure that others will not try and attack them - thus they live their lives in a constant state of mistrust and on guard against one another.
"Zootopia" also references another 17th century work of political philosophy: Machiavelli's "The Prince". Machiavelli dedicated his book to Lorenzo de Medici, whose uncle was Pope Leo - thus it is no accident that it is Mayor Lionheart who makes the Machiavellian judgement to "do the wrong thing for the right reasons". The theme of Machiavelli's work was political realism: princes should do what is necessary - even if it betrays conventional morality - to hold the state together.
Deputy Mayor Bellwether's name is derived from a term for the leading sheep of a flock, which wears a bell on its neck (as she literally does in the movie), and in political parlance, means something that leads or indicates a trend. Bellwether thus represents contemporary poll-driven politics, or populism.
Yet Mayor Lionheart's actions lead to disaster. So do Judy's. Nick's life is nasty, brutish and short. Bellwether is the most obvious villain of the piece.
So what does the film suggest as the ideal society?
The answer, it seems to me, lies in the work which Thomas More based "Utopia" on: Plato's "Republic".
Plato thought that the ideal society should consist of three classes: the Guardians or Rulers, the Auxilliaries or Warriors, and the Commoners or Producers. At the conclusion of "Zootopia", we see exactly that: Mayor Lionheart resumes his natural place as leader, the Nick and Judy assume their role as Warriors enforcing his rule, and the hoi polloi contentedly take their place as Producers.
Although Plato's society was hierarchical, he also assumed that (a very few) people could, on merit, move between classes. Thus Judy, by virtue of her bravery and intelligence, is able to move from being a Producer to being a Warrior.
However, Plato also believed that most people were simply born to stay in their class. Rulers were born to rule. Producers were born to be common people and nothing else. Plato also believed that people were happiest when they stayed were they were born to be: Judy's parents are happy being simple farmers. The very idea of social mobility is frightening to them.
This is where Plato's ideas - the "spell of Plato" as Karl Popper put it, in "The Open Society and its enemies" - have been so dangerously seductive. The idea that only a very special, selected few (naturally, "us") are born to lead, while the great common herd ("them", of course) are just born to do what they're told has been enormously appealing to would-be authoritarians for thousands of years. Plato has been the well-spring of nearly every authoritarian political creed, from Marxism to Fascism.
Which is why we should remember what Thomas More tried to tell us: "Utopia" is "no-place".
The perfect society doesn't exist.
See? Told you philosophy makes you think too much.
Also, possible spoilers for the two people who haven't seen it yet.
The ideal society: "Zootopia" and political philosophy.
While "Zootopia" seems like a typical simple, happy animated feature with your average feel-good message about everybody getting along and everyone-can-be-whatever-they-dream, if you pay attention (or if you're a typical philosophy type and you think too damn much), you'll realise that there's actually a whole lot more going on.
"Zootopia" is actually a quite sophisticated look at various political philosophies that have sought to answer the age-old question: "how shall we achieve the ideal state"?
The clues are all in the names. Puns abound.
First off, "Zootopia" is a pun on Thomas More's "Utopia", a 16th century work of fiction and political philosophy, which was itself based on, and a critique of, the much older "Republic" of Plato.
Although "Utopia" is today understood to mean "an ideal place", this is a mistranslation: the literal meaning of More's original Greek was "no-place". In other words, More was saying that an ideal society was unattainable.
In any case, like Plato's Atlantis (which was never intended to be understood as a real place, but was intended as a fictionalised exemplar of his ideal state), More described Utopia as an island divided up into several districts - which we see in Zootopia's "environments".
The next clue is in the names of the principal protagonists.
Judy Hopps is a pun on the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Exactly as Judy describes in her opening skit, Hobbes wrote that the "state of nature" was one of anarchic savage competition, a "war of all against all" in which the strong preyed on the weak, and there was no place for industry, culture, art or society: life was necessarily "nasty, brutish and short". In order to avoid this violent state of nature, people engage in a "social contract", in which individuals band together in a "common-wealth", pooling their resources for common security. This necessarily involves a tacit agreement from the strong to give up their natural advantage over the weak, and all members surrendering some degree of freedom to the sovereign (be it a literal sovereign or a sovereign state).
Judy's first name, by the way, comes from the Biblical character, Judith, a daring warrior woman who sets out on a lone mission to save her people from danger.
Nick is literally "Wilde", and represents the Hobbesian state of nature: he is solitary and selfish, waging a one-fox war against all. This is not because Nick is innately savage or evil but because, as Hobbes observed, in the state of nature, even when individuals are not actually fighting, they cannot be sure that others will not try and attack them - thus they live their lives in a constant state of mistrust and on guard against one another.
"Zootopia" also references another 17th century work of political philosophy: Machiavelli's "The Prince". Machiavelli dedicated his book to Lorenzo de Medici, whose uncle was Pope Leo - thus it is no accident that it is Mayor Lionheart who makes the Machiavellian judgement to "do the wrong thing for the right reasons". The theme of Machiavelli's work was political realism: princes should do what is necessary - even if it betrays conventional morality - to hold the state together.
Deputy Mayor Bellwether's name is derived from a term for the leading sheep of a flock, which wears a bell on its neck (as she literally does in the movie), and in political parlance, means something that leads or indicates a trend. Bellwether thus represents contemporary poll-driven politics, or populism.
Yet Mayor Lionheart's actions lead to disaster. So do Judy's. Nick's life is nasty, brutish and short. Bellwether is the most obvious villain of the piece.
So what does the film suggest as the ideal society?
The answer, it seems to me, lies in the work which Thomas More based "Utopia" on: Plato's "Republic".
Plato thought that the ideal society should consist of three classes: the Guardians or Rulers, the Auxilliaries or Warriors, and the Commoners or Producers. At the conclusion of "Zootopia", we see exactly that: Mayor Lionheart resumes his natural place as leader, the Nick and Judy assume their role as Warriors enforcing his rule, and the hoi polloi contentedly take their place as Producers.
Although Plato's society was hierarchical, he also assumed that (a very few) people could, on merit, move between classes. Thus Judy, by virtue of her bravery and intelligence, is able to move from being a Producer to being a Warrior.
However, Plato also believed that most people were simply born to stay in their class. Rulers were born to rule. Producers were born to be common people and nothing else. Plato also believed that people were happiest when they stayed were they were born to be: Judy's parents are happy being simple farmers. The very idea of social mobility is frightening to them.
This is where Plato's ideas - the "spell of Plato" as Karl Popper put it, in "The Open Society and its enemies" - have been so dangerously seductive. The idea that only a very special, selected few (naturally, "us") are born to lead, while the great common herd ("them", of course) are just born to do what they're told has been enormously appealing to would-be authoritarians for thousands of years. Plato has been the well-spring of nearly every authoritarian political creed, from Marxism to Fascism.
Which is why we should remember what Thomas More tried to tell us: "Utopia" is "no-place".
The perfect society doesn't exist.
See? Told you philosophy makes you think too much.
Foremost being the interpretation of Nick Wilde's character. He is not so much waging a war against the system in an attempt to return to a more basic state of being, instead he is acting more in a role of being an exceptional individual who is kept down by the system by virtue the system's inability to recognize and elevate those of ability due to a vain attempt to appear fair. Nick, despite his intelligence and charisma is kept down in a world which instead attempts to elevate everyone with the mantra of "Anyone can be anything." That is to say, if he were representative of any philosophical construct, he would be more in line with Nietzsche's Ubermench; those how are born to lead, but are kept from the role out of fear and entrenched nepotism.
To that end, he still fits within the wider context you set forth, but still, I feel it is important to recognize that throughout the story he did not fight the system, rather he turned his abilities to "hustle" the system for his own benefit, as that very system would not allow him to advance via acceptable means to be anything more than a simple hustler.
The other point I am in disagreement with is your interpretation of Atlantis.
I am not claiming it to be real or anything, and truthfully it is difficult to explain its wider philosophical meaning in a short post, but really I would contend that the idea of Atlantis is not so much a vision of an ideal society, but a vision of what occurs when an ideal society loses perspective in a world wider than itself. After all, when reading Plato's Atlantis dialogues you can come to the conclusion that while he spoke glowingly of their military and technological advancement, they were seen as having a deficit of 'spirit.' They were shown as being so advanced and powerful that they were blinded by their own hubris, and thus lost mightily at the hands of the Athenians, before their ultimate fate.
Yes, the Athenians. Now granted, we can argue that of course Plato put that forward because he himself was Athenian, but the wider context is that of all the city states of Greece, Athens was generally considered the most cultured. The one most in line with the 'Human Spirit.' So when looking at it that way, Plato's description of Atlantis is almost literally a story of a God-less Technocracy being brought low by a culture filled with a respect for the 'human spirit.'
Thus he doesn't trust anyone else because he can't trust anyone else: he always has to assume that everyone else is out to get him.
Yes, you're right about Atlantis. My memory was playing false with me there. That actually makes more sense, really, the hubris of the Atlanteans: because hubris, and pretending that savagery didn't exist at all made the shock that much the greater for the Zootopians.
In fact, in her fashion she rebels against the system itself when it comes to light that certain leaders have, effectively, violated the social contract which Zootopia can be assumed to be founded upon (I say 'can be assumed' as they do openly acknowledge that they function via a democratic method of governance). Such rebellion would be contrary to Hobbes' model in that the state, to which all rights have been forfeited in order to protect themselves from the savage state of nature, would be considered just in its actions (effectively in line with Machiavelli) and so she would have no right to over throw the esteemed mayor.
However, this would almost place her squarely line with Locke's ideals on the purpose of the state which is to dole out justice as is perceived by the society, regardless of the actions of the leaders.
I haven't studied political philosophy in so long...If I'm in correct, do let me know.
Still, it is amusing to think that you would effectively have two opposing characters representing opposing philosophies, and then have them, more or less, switch stances near the end of the movie.
Firstly, although Hobbes obviously preferred sovereignty to be invested in a single person, he did not therefore rule out state sovereignty (and therefore democracy, etc.).
Secondly, Hobbes also allowed that subjects had inalienable rights, "true liberties", and ultimately retained a right of self-defense against the sovereign power - particularly if the sovereign power failed in its duty to provide adequate protection to its subjects.
Thus Judy's rebellion wouldn't violate the social contract at all.
As for Locke - hmmm, I hadn't considered him at all! Interesting!
Joking, of course. But still, influential political philosopher who's philosophy could be seen as having an influence on Judy's personality. While recognizing that there was a previous state of nature that was more Hobbesean in description, she seemed to indicate that society evolved past that state naturally, resulting, ultimately in Zootopia. Her naivety apparent in how she seems to believe that others naturally wish to do the right thing, except that social order must be preserved through law and force of the state, which should ultimately work towards the good of the people. I mean, after all, rather than simply passing Gideon Grey's actions as 'natural' she seemed to see them as environmental, and not endemic to society at large.
Yet then, as the movie progresses she comes, instead, to perhaps view the world more through the lens of Hobbes, seeing nature as 'nasty, brutish, and short.' She takes in the idea that there are 'those kind' out there who are simply savage because nature is savage.
All very interesting to think about really. I mean, not sure if that is what the writers were intending, but if you throw in Jungian theory into it, it is possible they were unconsciously creating these characters to act out the very ideas, since those ideas are so entrenched into the culture of western society.
But I might wish to tread carefully if I bring up Jung...just talking about the archetypes shown in Zootopia would take....pages.
Of course I see your points as is, I just enjoy considering additional things as well ^^ Over all, I quite enjoyed reading your commentary and found it insightful. I'm sorry if that didn't come across...which it probably didn't since I was mostly yapping on and on about my own point of view on various things.
Goodness, if the original storyline of the movie had been put out...then your point on how it follows Hobbsian philosophy would be undeniable. Not that I'm saying they are wrong now. Just that with the much more 'happy' themes of the current movie it makes the lines a little more blurry. But, then again, that's the best part of philosophy in practice, it can almost never be applied in so clear cut a manner. Almost always a mixture of multiple, overlapping ideas.
Granted, in the case of the original story the movie could have more appropriately been titled "Zoodystopia."
But yes! In anycase, the final thought of Zootopia effectively representing the idea that the perfect society cannot exist is spot on. To paraphrase Madison, "If animals were angels, there would be no need of governance."
I like that.
I must say, this has been a most enjoyable discussion!
Have you read Mark Rowland's book, "Everything I Know I Learned from TV: Philosophy for the Unrepentant Couch Potato"?
Haven't gotten to flex the philosophy portion of my brain in a long long time.
Have not read that book...though it sounds like it might be pretty interesting. I'll have to look into it.
I came across your page after viewing your comments on Alex Spastic's journal and you and I seem to be on a similar wavelength and you appear to write substantive and thought-provoking stuff so I'm giving you a watch.
It's interesting to see how too many people seem to take merely asking questions as being "attacking". Just as well there's no hemlock around.
It's also interesting, once you've had some training in logic, to see just how few people use anything approaching it.