Around a third of the way through her provocatively poor whistlestop tour of utopian experiments, Kristen R. Ghodsee shares a personal anecdote. At school, her class was made to read Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron." It's a short, satirical piece about a future United States where true equality has been achieved, through multiple constitutional amendments that ensure a lack of superiority across the population. A couple watch a ballet performance on television. The husband is of above-average intelligence, and so wears a radio transmitter against his ear which buzzes intermittently, to keep his thoughts disordered. The dancers on screen are variously clad in masks to hide their beauty, and weighed down with bags of seed to handicap their grace.
Ghodsee's teacher read this short story as a libertarian screed, and a just one: a Randian paean to individualism, and the attendant American dream. That Ghodsee swallows this reading uncritically, and then criticises the story for this reading — "Harrison Bergeron" was apparently entered into some Libertarian Hall of Fame or summat — is, I think, emblematic of the lack of curiosity and intellectual unseriousness that blights the entirety of Everyday Utopia. If you were given the chance, and perhaps approached Vonnegut in good faith, you might consider that the story is, in fact, an argument against individualism, and is instead satirising the vainglorious United States (he did that a lot y'know). Being so blinded by personal exceptionalism, the US government can only consider "equality" through contrived personal handicap, rather than the possibility that it's by living communally and collaboratively, pooling shared resources and skills that we can be emancipated from competition and envy. You might even thing that could be a springboard to further discussion of the communities and "radical alternatives" to traditional society Ghodsee is exploring, as well as the ways in which such experiments have failed in the US for the very reasons Vonnegut is smartly poking bleak fun at. So it goes!
Instead, we're subjected to a delirious sledgehammering of references and short summaries of attempts to reconfigure education, work, family dynamics and living situations, all of them coming with an abundance of qualitative data which tells us nothing of substance bar "some guys did some studies." Occassionally Ghodsee will throw in a personal anecdote to illustrate a concept, but they're almost always unhelpful; her sharing her closet with her teen daughter as an example of divesting from private property, her early experiences of girlbosses thanks to Princess Leia and Wonder Woman (with nary a mention of the latter's co-creator, and his interesting ideas of what a matriarchal BDSM-forward utopia looked like). She's also very Into Plato, and fails to consider any potential downsides to his "Philosopher-King" arrangement of society...weird...
There is little time spent, comparatively, to looking into any of these utopian scenarios in any great detail. It's impossible to gain any sense of purchase, or wonder of inspiration, from them. There is neither the time or space necessary for thought to be provoked; she's already hustling you onto the next destination, worried she won't be done in time for her next tour group.
Perhaps most dismaying of the whole endeavour is that, on occasion, these examples are granted some measure of qualitative reflection: she reports on the actual experience of those who lived amongst these radical communities. And often, it's bad! She briefly notes that some "kids who grew up in American cohousing communities complained about the lack of privacy, the constant gossip, the racial and economic homogenity." She admits that "some adults raised as children in kibbutzim later complained of feeling abandoned when they slept away from their parents, resulting in lasting trauma." Yet for each of these sops to the downside of these alternatives to living, she dismisses them with a insultingly pat "at the end of the day, there are upsides and downsides, and the stats don't lie!"
These are my very smart intellectual issues with Everyday Utopias. It's also true that I bounced off it hard for reasons of personal taste. I can't stand the faux-incredulity that many (writers and otherwise) adopt when talking about things which, while indeed galling, are also widely-known. I nearly threw my book across the room when Ghodsee was performatively aghast at the idea that those who construct property for private sale or rental may, in fact, stand to profit from doing so...it may even be their entire reason for doing it!!!!! WHOA!!!!!! [Milhouse looking glass meme]
A real missed opportunity, both as a popular book on utopias and as a good book generally. Soz!