What do you think?
Rate this book
The Story of Utopias
This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1922
51 people are currently reading
970 people want to read
About the author
Lewis Mumford
153 books321 followersLewis Mumford (October 19, 1895 – January 26, 1990) was an American historian and philosopher of technology and science. Particularly noted for his study of cities and urban architecture, he had a tremendously broad career as a writer that also included a period as an influential literary critic. Mumford was influenced by the work of Scottish theorist Sir Patrick Geddes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
November 8, 2022
This is going to be less a review and more of a companion piece. This book was written in 1922 – quite a while ago. Mumford provides a series of snapshots of utopian visions that range from Plato’s Republic all the way up to what were presumably the utopian visions of the ‘present day’ – in as far as 1922 was the present day – where utopia was mostly defined by wealth acquisition. I’m not going to follow Mumford’s text too closely here. I’m going to talk about things I’ve been thinking about recently regarding utopias and dystopias. If I get a chance, there might be something of a series of reviews on books on this topic in the next little while.
I think there have been three major phases of utopian visions. The first, like so much else, starts with Plato. You are supposed to go, ‘oh yeah, everything is a footnote to Plato’.
Plato’s Republic is a real utopia. Not least since it clearly was never meant to be implemented. The word utopia has, effectively, two meanings. It literally means ‘no place’, but it sounds a bit like the Greek word for ‘good place’. In fact, it is ‘good place’ that is referenced in the opposite of utopia – that is, dystopia – that means bad place. No place is important to remember here, because utopias aren’t meant to exist – at least they are not currently meant to exist. And for Plato his republic was never supposed to exist – it sat outside time and space. But Mumford makes the point that utopias play an important role because they act as a lodestar – something we use to navigate towards. We can never reach the star itself, but the star still brings us to safety, to where we need to go, if we point our ship towards it. As such, Mumford sees utopias as essential for humanity and the human condition.
Which is ironic in a way because after Plato there are 2000 years with no utopian vision. Well, of sorts. There was Christianity and so therefore a vision of utopia in the sky – and this utopia still exists outside of time and space, not unlike Plato’s. Whatever heaven is, the entry fee remains very high.
Thomas More’s Utopia is similar to Plato’s in as far as they are both based on agrarian societies, and both are essentially ‘communistic’ – at least in the sense that they are based around ‘families’ – although these are families we wouldn’t quite recognise ourselves. This idea is mentioned in Graeber’s in his 5000 Years of Debt. That is, that families are almost always communistic in structure. You don’t ask for the proper exchange value of your labour or expect a return for gifts given from members of your family. However, in other forms of society, this is exactly what you do. So, if you are thinking of setting up an ideal society and that it is going to be basically communistic in structure – that is, where people are treated according to their need, rather than simply following some calculation of their worth according to what they themselves have contributed, then the closer that society appears to be like a family, the more chance it has of working.
Most utopias have been socialist or communist visions of a future world. Whether they have been based on agriculture, craft guilds, modern technology – they are mostly premised on a principle of sharing.
If the first phase of utopias existed outside of time and space, the second phase can be understood as being based on the myth of Tantalus – the son of Zeus who was punished for eternity to be hungry and thirsty and yet to also be surrounded by food and water. It was just that the food and water always moved away from him as he sought to reach for it. This is the vision utopia in the second phase – almost within reach, but always just beyond us. This includes multiple early visions of socialism – from people like Robert Owen through to Karl Marx. In many cases, the visionary declared that the time was just about ripe for social change. That the level of development of the productive forces was such that we could now move into a new era of social life, where work could be reduced to a minimum. In fact, sometimes all of the material conditions for the promised utopia were actually realised within a generation or two of the proposal. But while all of this was realised, the actual utopia never, itself, came to life.
Keynes said at one stage that his grandchildren would only need to work 15 hours per week and their main problem, after centuries of being convinced of the importance of work, would be to find ways to occupy their time in something other than the boring drudgery of labour. It is important to note here that this is pretty close to the only vision of a future society Marx himself ever proposed – that is, that his future ideal society would be one without a division of labour – and so, people wouldn’t need to be a plumber or a hunter or a merchant banker, but rather would seek to develop as many of their talents as might be humanly possible. This idea of utopia allowing us the opportunity to become ‘fully human’ was never realised in any of the ‘socialist’ nations, nor was it presented even as an active agenda item for any of them either.
The point is that there had been a shift – from the first phase, where utopias were other worldly, onto the second phase, where utopias were understood as being immediately realisable. In many cases, people went off to Peru or elsewhere to set up their own small utopian communes. Again, these were almost always communistic in their aspirations.
There has been a significant change in late modernity. One that involves a shift towards visions of dystopia over utopia. A lot of this comes from science faction – in the sense that science fiction often looks at how the world gets into trouble. Think Mary Shelley and Frankenstein’s monster – of technology running amok. Neil Postman says that the two defining dystopias of our age are 1984 and Brave New World. We quite like 1984, since this is the totalitarian vision splendid – with a jackboot stomping on a face for all of eternity. But we like this vision because we in the West believe we defeated the two totalitarian societies it appears to have been based upon and therefore, as horrible as those type of society were, ultimately good conquered evil and so on.
But Postman notes that Brave New World was at least as horrible a dystopian vision as 1984 – but one that rules and overcomes human curiosity by stimulating our pleasure, rather than our pain. We have instant gratification in this world, but that amounts to the same as total suppression of free thought. If you can convince people to never expend energy in reading books, you might as well have banned the books – the end result is much the same. Most of our dystopian visions are based on 1984 – think Brazil, The Matrix, The Handmaid’s Tale, Bladerunner. But perhaps the more terrifying dystopia is the one we are living in, where people are taught to read, only to never actually read for the rest of their lives. Where people who do read books are likely to read the equivalent of comics. Remember Marvel films appear to be for adults.
The question then becomes, when was the last time you saw anything in our culture that resembled a utopian vision? The only thing I can think of is Star Trek, a future society that looks a bit communistic, given it is without a currency and so on, but something that was made in the 1960s. We don’t seem to do utopian visions any longer.
A while ago someone wrote a comment under one of my reviews saying that it was good we no longer had utopian visions, as they always end up drowning in blood. But it seems to me that if we don’t have a vision of what the future might look like, how it might become better, it isn’t clear how we will ever make the future better than the present.
And there is the problem. The Road to Serfdom sets out our current dilemma, I think. Hayek in that book makes it clear that there is only one true path – that of radical free market fundamentalism. Any deviation from that narrow path would inevitably lead to totalitarianism – and slavery. This became Thatcher’s ‘TINA’ – there is no alternative. Well, if there is no alternative, we already live in utopia. If there is no alternative, then there is no need to think of how we might improve society – because, by definition, this is as good as it gets. And then we can all do a Fukuyama and talk of ‘The End of History and the Last Man’.
I think the third phase of utopia is upon us. It is a utopia that is no longer placed outside time and space, or even nearly within reach. Utopia is now, it is the present. We live in what feels like the final moments of Walter Benjamin’s description of The Angel of History – where the future is a pure dystopia – a dystopia with bodies piled upon bodies. Climate change, the threat of a war with China or Russia or Islam or whoever else, the threat of refugees from everywhere, pandemics, viruses, computer crime, surveillance, AI, robots taking our jobs, unaffordable housing, unaffordable medical care, just about everywhere we turn the future confronting us is worse than the present. In fact, when people were recently asked in the West if their children would have better or worse lives then they have had, they invariably say worse.
The future is a dystopia. But the utopia we see now is in the present. It is the life of the obscenely wealthy. The 0.001%. The people who have yachts that sail into other yachts like Matryoshka dolls. They have multiple houses in multiple world cities. They live in ‘the space of flows’, never quite belonging anywhere. They have everything they want on demand. Our utopia is to be these wealthy people. Our current utopia is anything but communistic. In fact, it can only exist for me if it does not exist for you or for people like you. It is the utopia of infinite selfishness. A selfishness born of a knowledge that tomorrow itself does not exist and we need to grab life now with both hands.
This is a dark and horrible vision – but I think one that demands we need to reclaim utopia from those who have dragged it into the present. As such, I think Mumford is right – we need a utopian vision, otherwise we are condemned to the world as it is. A world deeply unequal and where those with the most try to convince us that there is no alternative.
I think there have been three major phases of utopian visions. The first, like so much else, starts with Plato. You are supposed to go, ‘oh yeah, everything is a footnote to Plato’.
Plato’s Republic is a real utopia. Not least since it clearly was never meant to be implemented. The word utopia has, effectively, two meanings. It literally means ‘no place’, but it sounds a bit like the Greek word for ‘good place’. In fact, it is ‘good place’ that is referenced in the opposite of utopia – that is, dystopia – that means bad place. No place is important to remember here, because utopias aren’t meant to exist – at least they are not currently meant to exist. And for Plato his republic was never supposed to exist – it sat outside time and space. But Mumford makes the point that utopias play an important role because they act as a lodestar – something we use to navigate towards. We can never reach the star itself, but the star still brings us to safety, to where we need to go, if we point our ship towards it. As such, Mumford sees utopias as essential for humanity and the human condition.
Which is ironic in a way because after Plato there are 2000 years with no utopian vision. Well, of sorts. There was Christianity and so therefore a vision of utopia in the sky – and this utopia still exists outside of time and space, not unlike Plato’s. Whatever heaven is, the entry fee remains very high.
Thomas More’s Utopia is similar to Plato’s in as far as they are both based on agrarian societies, and both are essentially ‘communistic’ – at least in the sense that they are based around ‘families’ – although these are families we wouldn’t quite recognise ourselves. This idea is mentioned in Graeber’s in his 5000 Years of Debt. That is, that families are almost always communistic in structure. You don’t ask for the proper exchange value of your labour or expect a return for gifts given from members of your family. However, in other forms of society, this is exactly what you do. So, if you are thinking of setting up an ideal society and that it is going to be basically communistic in structure – that is, where people are treated according to their need, rather than simply following some calculation of their worth according to what they themselves have contributed, then the closer that society appears to be like a family, the more chance it has of working.
Most utopias have been socialist or communist visions of a future world. Whether they have been based on agriculture, craft guilds, modern technology – they are mostly premised on a principle of sharing.
If the first phase of utopias existed outside of time and space, the second phase can be understood as being based on the myth of Tantalus – the son of Zeus who was punished for eternity to be hungry and thirsty and yet to also be surrounded by food and water. It was just that the food and water always moved away from him as he sought to reach for it. This is the vision utopia in the second phase – almost within reach, but always just beyond us. This includes multiple early visions of socialism – from people like Robert Owen through to Karl Marx. In many cases, the visionary declared that the time was just about ripe for social change. That the level of development of the productive forces was such that we could now move into a new era of social life, where work could be reduced to a minimum. In fact, sometimes all of the material conditions for the promised utopia were actually realised within a generation or two of the proposal. But while all of this was realised, the actual utopia never, itself, came to life.
Keynes said at one stage that his grandchildren would only need to work 15 hours per week and their main problem, after centuries of being convinced of the importance of work, would be to find ways to occupy their time in something other than the boring drudgery of labour. It is important to note here that this is pretty close to the only vision of a future society Marx himself ever proposed – that is, that his future ideal society would be one without a division of labour – and so, people wouldn’t need to be a plumber or a hunter or a merchant banker, but rather would seek to develop as many of their talents as might be humanly possible. This idea of utopia allowing us the opportunity to become ‘fully human’ was never realised in any of the ‘socialist’ nations, nor was it presented even as an active agenda item for any of them either.
The point is that there had been a shift – from the first phase, where utopias were other worldly, onto the second phase, where utopias were understood as being immediately realisable. In many cases, people went off to Peru or elsewhere to set up their own small utopian communes. Again, these were almost always communistic in their aspirations.
There has been a significant change in late modernity. One that involves a shift towards visions of dystopia over utopia. A lot of this comes from science faction – in the sense that science fiction often looks at how the world gets into trouble. Think Mary Shelley and Frankenstein’s monster – of technology running amok. Neil Postman says that the two defining dystopias of our age are 1984 and Brave New World. We quite like 1984, since this is the totalitarian vision splendid – with a jackboot stomping on a face for all of eternity. But we like this vision because we in the West believe we defeated the two totalitarian societies it appears to have been based upon and therefore, as horrible as those type of society were, ultimately good conquered evil and so on.
But Postman notes that Brave New World was at least as horrible a dystopian vision as 1984 – but one that rules and overcomes human curiosity by stimulating our pleasure, rather than our pain. We have instant gratification in this world, but that amounts to the same as total suppression of free thought. If you can convince people to never expend energy in reading books, you might as well have banned the books – the end result is much the same. Most of our dystopian visions are based on 1984 – think Brazil, The Matrix, The Handmaid’s Tale, Bladerunner. But perhaps the more terrifying dystopia is the one we are living in, where people are taught to read, only to never actually read for the rest of their lives. Where people who do read books are likely to read the equivalent of comics. Remember Marvel films appear to be for adults.
The question then becomes, when was the last time you saw anything in our culture that resembled a utopian vision? The only thing I can think of is Star Trek, a future society that looks a bit communistic, given it is without a currency and so on, but something that was made in the 1960s. We don’t seem to do utopian visions any longer.
A while ago someone wrote a comment under one of my reviews saying that it was good we no longer had utopian visions, as they always end up drowning in blood. But it seems to me that if we don’t have a vision of what the future might look like, how it might become better, it isn’t clear how we will ever make the future better than the present.
And there is the problem. The Road to Serfdom sets out our current dilemma, I think. Hayek in that book makes it clear that there is only one true path – that of radical free market fundamentalism. Any deviation from that narrow path would inevitably lead to totalitarianism – and slavery. This became Thatcher’s ‘TINA’ – there is no alternative. Well, if there is no alternative, we already live in utopia. If there is no alternative, then there is no need to think of how we might improve society – because, by definition, this is as good as it gets. And then we can all do a Fukuyama and talk of ‘The End of History and the Last Man’.
I think the third phase of utopia is upon us. It is a utopia that is no longer placed outside time and space, or even nearly within reach. Utopia is now, it is the present. We live in what feels like the final moments of Walter Benjamin’s description of The Angel of History – where the future is a pure dystopia – a dystopia with bodies piled upon bodies. Climate change, the threat of a war with China or Russia or Islam or whoever else, the threat of refugees from everywhere, pandemics, viruses, computer crime, surveillance, AI, robots taking our jobs, unaffordable housing, unaffordable medical care, just about everywhere we turn the future confronting us is worse than the present. In fact, when people were recently asked in the West if their children would have better or worse lives then they have had, they invariably say worse.
The future is a dystopia. But the utopia we see now is in the present. It is the life of the obscenely wealthy. The 0.001%. The people who have yachts that sail into other yachts like Matryoshka dolls. They have multiple houses in multiple world cities. They live in ‘the space of flows’, never quite belonging anywhere. They have everything they want on demand. Our utopia is to be these wealthy people. Our current utopia is anything but communistic. In fact, it can only exist for me if it does not exist for you or for people like you. It is the utopia of infinite selfishness. A selfishness born of a knowledge that tomorrow itself does not exist and we need to grab life now with both hands.
This is a dark and horrible vision – but I think one that demands we need to reclaim utopia from those who have dragged it into the present. As such, I think Mumford is right – we need a utopian vision, otherwise we are condemned to the world as it is. A world deeply unequal and where those with the most try to convince us that there is no alternative.
November 1, 2025
This is a highly perceptive tour of history’s half-imagined, partly realized ideal worlds that have shaped European-rooted societies. Most of the more influential envisioned worlds are highly complicated, but their ideals are simplistic. The attempts to realize those dreams expose blind spots or side-effects, and Mumford’s critiques are penetrating. I want to share a few good ones:
“People are not members of a community because they live under the same system of political governance or dwell in the same country. They become genuine citizens to the extent that they share certain institutions and ways of life with similarly educated people.” (pp. 39-40)
[Concerning the “Country House” ideal life, later known as suburbia,] “Culture came to mean not a participation in the creative activities of one’s own community, but the acquisition of the products of other communities. …. Each separate Country House was forced to obtain for its limited circle all the elements that were necessary to the good life in a whole community.” (pp. 205-206)
“As common possessions of the community dwindle, the private possessions of individuals are multiplied; and at last there remains no other community than a multitude of archaic individuals.” (p. 210)
“Knowledge is a tool rather than a motor; and if we know the world without being able to react upon it, we are guilty of the aimless pragmatism which consists of devising all sorts of ingenious machines and being quite incapable of subordinating them to any coherent and attractive pattern.” (p. 282)
“People are not members of a community because they live under the same system of political governance or dwell in the same country. They become genuine citizens to the extent that they share certain institutions and ways of life with similarly educated people.” (pp. 39-40)
[Concerning the “Country House” ideal life, later known as suburbia,] “Culture came to mean not a participation in the creative activities of one’s own community, but the acquisition of the products of other communities. …. Each separate Country House was forced to obtain for its limited circle all the elements that were necessary to the good life in a whole community.” (pp. 205-206)
“As common possessions of the community dwindle, the private possessions of individuals are multiplied; and at last there remains no other community than a multitude of archaic individuals.” (p. 210)
“Knowledge is a tool rather than a motor; and if we know the world without being able to react upon it, we are guilty of the aimless pragmatism which consists of devising all sorts of ingenious machines and being quite incapable of subordinating them to any coherent and attractive pattern.” (p. 282)
August 24, 2023
Cilj ove knjige izrazito je plemenit, iako se ne slažem sa svim zaključcima o određenim utopijama. Djelo svakako ispunjava svoju namjeru, daje pregled utopija da bi nas suočilo s lažnim utopijama koje su zaživjele u našem društvu i potaknuo nas da im i sami kritički pristupimo. Kritika ideala Nacionalne Države po mome je mišljenju propala jer trenutno vlada ideal globalističke utopije, koji također očito ne funkcionira. Druge dvije utopije u punom su zamahu: utopija neograničene potrošnje (konzumerizma) i utopija besposličarenja u bogatstvu. Poziv znanosti da djeluje s umjetnošću, otkrivanje da znanost bez moralnog usmjerenja ništa ne znači, to je ono što mi ukazuje na plemenite namjere autora. Na taj način, i on ovim djelom stvara novu vlastitu utopiju.
December 26, 2019
Ο Μάμφορντ αναλύει όλες τις ουτοπικές κοινωνίες που προτάθηκαν και τους λόγους που απέτυχαν. Ο Μάμφορντ ήταν ένας φωτισμένος και ανοιχτόμυαλος επιστήμονας -φιλόσοφος,είναι μέγιστη ευχαρίστηση να διαβάζεις τα βιβλία του. Πίστευε στην ουτοπία της ανασυγκρότησης η οποία όμως θέλει τη συσχέτιση και τη παράλληλη ανάπτυξη της επιστήμης με τον πραγματικό κόσμο. Κλείνω με μια φράση από το βιβλίο: Από γενναιόδωρα όνειρα έρχονται ευεργετικές πραγματικότητες. Η ουτοπία είναι η βασική αρχή κάθε προόδου και η απόπειρα για ένα καλύτερο μέλλον
January 20, 2008
Concerning himself with utopias of escape and utopias of reconstruction, Lewis Mumford takes a hard look at the utopian dreams that people have had throughout the ages. Mumford holds these stories up against our own world and shows that there really are no simple solutions without work and effort. Anything else is just day-dreaming.
January 26, 2024
Un llibre molt interessant -sobre tot la introducció teòrica- sobre la utopia. Començant pel joc de paraules de Tomas Moro d'utopia com a no-lloc i com a lloc-millor (eutopia), Mumford ens mostra, a partir de la diferenciació entre utopies escapistes i de millora, com el nostre món és la construcció utòpica d'alguns. A més a més, fa un recorregut ràpid però bo per totes les utopies, des de la platònica a la socialista, investigant com varien els discursos i els focus d'atenció de l'humà al treball.
October 13, 2025
"cualquier concepción adecuada de un nuevo orden social debería incluir el escenario, los actores y la obra. El hecho de que nunca hayamos logrado pasar del cambio de escenario es una señal de nuestra inmadurez"
[Este libro se publicó por primera vez en 1922. Desde entonces, la utopía ha muerto (en más de una ocasión)]
Un libro precioso con geniales reflexiones sobre el papel de la ciencia, la verdad, el arte y la belleza en la sociedad.
[Este libro se publicó por primera vez en 1922. Desde entonces, la utopía ha muerto (en más de una ocasión)]
Un libro precioso con geniales reflexiones sobre el papel de la ciencia, la verdad, el arte y la belleza en la sociedad.
March 3, 2025
Lewis Mumford would have been a great quality-content youtuber.
April 27, 2020
The walk-through Mumford led his reader in the various (or not so various) utopias probably deserved three stars, but the last three chapters added another to this book.
By re-focusing on the social issue of his time through the lens of his criticism of the contemporary partial utopia or anti-utopian sentiment, Mumford has touched so many interesting contradictions consciously and unconsciously.
At certain points he spoke like a prophet, and I believe he is right to point out the lack of true "scientific" inquiry of social fact in ideological charged social sciences, the problem of over-specialization of a science (and consequently also technology) detached from the benefit of community, and the "art for artist sake", or the culture industry as Frankfurt philosophers would later describe it, that prevents people to increase their aesthetic capability of perceiving and thinking about a better world.
Nonetheless, Mumford reserved too little space to elaborate his vision, and the book ended with an ambivalent and vague advocacy on some sort of local corporatism. Hope I will later found more intriguing thought in his magnum opus: Technics and Civilization.
By re-focusing on the social issue of his time through the lens of his criticism of the contemporary partial utopia or anti-utopian sentiment, Mumford has touched so many interesting contradictions consciously and unconsciously.
At certain points he spoke like a prophet, and I believe he is right to point out the lack of true "scientific" inquiry of social fact in ideological charged social sciences, the problem of over-specialization of a science (and consequently also technology) detached from the benefit of community, and the "art for artist sake", or the culture industry as Frankfurt philosophers would later describe it, that prevents people to increase their aesthetic capability of perceiving and thinking about a better world.
Nonetheless, Mumford reserved too little space to elaborate his vision, and the book ended with an ambivalent and vague advocacy on some sort of local corporatism. Hope I will later found more intriguing thought in his magnum opus: Technics and Civilization.
July 3, 2014
Most of the utopias presented are quite boring and repetitive, so this would work better as a consultation book, but not the way the information is organized. Could have done quite well without reading it.
March 29, 2025
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 17, 2016
Historia de las Utopías es un volumen de consulta más, sin analizar profundamente las motivaciones que llevan al hombre a elaborar los mundos ideales.
Read
July 25, 2025Reading utopian literature is something of a guilty pleasure of mine, so I enjoyed the overview of some of the more famous utopias mentioned here.
That said, during the last two chapters Mumford kind of gets a little too focused on personal views that sort of distance from the main concept of the book as a story of Utopias. It’s still interesting but it feels a little different compared to the rest of the book. Important to keep in mind that this book came out in 1922, so there is some eugenics, and a brief mention of homosexuality being considered an illness. Still worth reading overall, and while his writing can be a bit tricky at times, I do think he brings up some good points, for example: him expressing the need for science to also keep in touch with the “human”, for its own sake so it doesn’t devolve into doing things solely for the purpose of just “doing science”.
I don’t think the “national myth” of the nation-state is going to go away anytime soon, however, and I don’t think getting rid of it would necessarily stop all war and conflict, for, I think human nature is pretty consistent across time and likely won’t ever change either, unless if maybe through technology or some sort of unethical method.
Add-on: it is interesting too how he describes Dystopias at some points without using the actual word Dystopia. He just calls them “bad utopias.” Interesting especially considering We, 1984, Brave New World, etc, did not come out yet.
I also wonder what he would think of today’s world, with the Internet. Would he say that the internet started as a utopia or, is/was utopian in intent? Would he consider it to be nowadays more of a dystopia? Some questions to consider I suppose, that I can’t really answer.
That said, during the last two chapters Mumford kind of gets a little too focused on personal views that sort of distance from the main concept of the book as a story of Utopias. It’s still interesting but it feels a little different compared to the rest of the book. Important to keep in mind that this book came out in 1922, so there is some eugenics, and a brief mention of homosexuality being considered an illness. Still worth reading overall, and while his writing can be a bit tricky at times, I do think he brings up some good points, for example: him expressing the need for science to also keep in touch with the “human”, for its own sake so it doesn’t devolve into doing things solely for the purpose of just “doing science”.
I don’t think the “national myth” of the nation-state is going to go away anytime soon, however, and I don’t think getting rid of it would necessarily stop all war and conflict, for, I think human nature is pretty consistent across time and likely won’t ever change either, unless if maybe through technology or some sort of unethical method.
Add-on: it is interesting too how he describes Dystopias at some points without using the actual word Dystopia. He just calls them “bad utopias.” Interesting especially considering We, 1984, Brave New World, etc, did not come out yet.
I also wonder what he would think of today’s world, with the Internet. Would he say that the internet started as a utopia or, is/was utopian in intent? Would he consider it to be nowadays more of a dystopia? Some questions to consider I suppose, that I can’t really answer.
October 8, 2022
Bien argumentado, fácil de leer y con una visión muy interesante sobre la utopía, esto no es tanto una antología sobre el género utópico como un ensayo sobre el valor de soñar y tratar de alcanzar algo mejor de lo que existe hoy, pero siempre desde el conocimiento y la sensatez, manteniendo los pies en el suelo.
Como dice Mumford, incluso los castillos en el aire necesitan cimientos, y aunque la utopía no exista en la realidad, eso no le quita cierto valor en cuanto a que inspira a los hombres a buscar algo más.
Como dice Mumford, incluso los castillos en el aire necesitan cimientos, y aunque la utopía no exista en la realidad, eso no le quita cierto valor en cuanto a que inspira a los hombres a buscar algo más.
May 17, 2024
A.I., YouTube & Wikipedia will tell you this story, so you don't need Lewis Mumford.
Thought-leaders have been inventing utopian societies for centuries: for example,
Saint Thomas More (Lord High Chancellor of England) imagined that (in a utopian society)
"..precious metals are held in contempt:
gold is used to make chamberpots & chains for slaves..".
So, that thought-leader approved of slavery, but disapproved of precious metals.
I didn't bother reading the whole book.
Thought-leaders have been inventing utopian societies for centuries: for example,
Saint Thomas More (Lord High Chancellor of England) imagined that (in a utopian society)
"..precious metals are held in contempt:
gold is used to make chamberpots & chains for slaves..".
So, that thought-leader approved of slavery, but disapproved of precious metals.
I didn't bother reading the whole book.
January 2, 2026
La edición en español de Pepitas de calabaza es una joya estilística. Solo por eso (y por un mínimo interés en el tema de las utopías) entré a leerlo.
El análisis hecho por Mumford es buenísimo, sobre todo porque no peca de ingenuo. Él sabe que la cosa no es tan sencilla, sabe que no es tan fácil decir "la utopía es el sistema perfecto". Por eso, como él mismo dice, su libro es un tratado anti-utópico.
El análisis hecho por Mumford es buenísimo, sobre todo porque no peca de ingenuo. Él sabe que la cosa no es tan sencilla, sabe que no es tan fácil decir "la utopía es el sistema perfecto". Por eso, como él mismo dice, su libro es un tratado anti-utópico.
December 6, 2020
Es un placer leer a Lewis Mumford, por el cómo y por el qué. Es oportuno recordar que el mundo tal y como lo conocemos es un invento humano. Cómo tal, lo podemos, y debemos modificar, pensar, diseñar, en pos de lo que consideremos que es la vida buena.
Espero acordarme de este libro en el futuro y volver a él de vez en cuando para darme cuenta de que hay otros mundos posibles.
Espero acordarme de este libro en el futuro y volver a él de vez en cuando para darme cuenta de que hay otros mundos posibles.
March 28, 2025
The first half of the book is a history, with the last half being synthesis. I really enjoy Mumfords writing style, and there are some wonderful passages and social commentary. I think there was a missed opportunities to go deeper into philosophical connections, especially with many references to the classics.
March 12, 2025
Un libro para todos los públicos, sencillo de leer y sin sin mucha profundidad filosófica. Esto tiene tanto de bueno como de malo, dependiendo de lo que uno busque.
En todo caso es muy recomendable como introducción y primera lectura de la cuestión utópica. Recomendado.
En todo caso es muy recomendable como introducción y primera lectura de la cuestión utópica. Recomendado.
Read
April 30, 2021A great introduction to Lewis Mumford's thinking. Not strictly a book on utopias, but rather on what a utopia can be versus what it should be.
June 22, 2021
Overview of a few Utopian works.
February 15, 2022
Muy bonito y muy buena introducción al género, aunque es cierto que al final se vuelve engorroso y que deja sin mencionar muchos títulos importantes como Erewhon.
January 10, 2025
Enlightening overview of a neglected subject.
May 20, 2025
Ch 11 and 12 are very good
January 13, 2025
This was essentially a book in two parts. I really enjoyed the first where he goes through utopias of the past, from Plato to Thomas More and many others that I had not previously known. Good stuff, definitely worth reading. And then there is the second part of the book. I recommend just skipping it altogether. It's devilishly difficult to read language-wise, I constantly had to check the dictionary, and even then there content is just badly aged. This book is a hundred years old and things he theorizes about have long drive been tried and disproven etc. I get the second part, but the problem with writing about future utopias, is that with time it's just not going to age well. Read this book, just don't feel bad if you don't feel like finishing it. The first part deserves to be read!
September 30, 2024
Un repaso de cómo y por qué hemos inventado futuros mejores sobre el papel y su influencia en cualquier nuevo camino hacia la Utopía que pudiéramos emprender.
April 16, 2017
I picked this book to read because the first analysed utopia is Plato's Republic (which I love) and I am a fan of dystopian literature, so I wanted to know more about the opposite (or origin).
This overview of Utopian worlds is not just a collection of stories, structures of previous Utopias along with historical, social and economic conditions which influenced the writers to create them; Mumford also explains why were most of those worlds flawed and impossible to achieve. Not to write just for the sake of writing, the author also provides constructive criticism and advice on how to start creating Eutopia in real world. (Hint: Mahatma Gandhi described it in simpler words).
The Story of Utopias was published in 1922, before Great Depression, Hitler's climb to power in Germany, and before devastation of WWII caused by Nazi's systemic and bureaucratic evil in concentration camps or new weapons of never before seen power and magnitude. Even without these two major events in 20th century Mumford pictures a pretty correct picture of post-WWII society in Western world and even the destruction and self-destruction currently caused by rise of nationalism-driven (far-right) political parties and their use of the nation as a powerful myth on which they build fear and distaste for anything different. And he sees no bright future if the things keep moving in that direction.
Another interesting point in this book is the analysis of times and reasons when Utopia stopped being a distant imaginary island and became a possibility of our own future - even if those societies wouldn't really be a society where a modern person would like to live. On a large time-scale of human history it took only 61 years for Edward Bellamy's heaven to become George Orwell's hell (this is where utopia is no longer the opposite of dystopia - it becomes the origin). Technological achievements of mankind are indisputable, but our minds and sets of values clearly didn't follow this progress, and this fact was just as clear to Lewis Mumford in 1922 as is in 2017 when any human being looks back on cruel laws and practices we've abandoned in the meantime. Or goes through the list of those we still have to abandon or at least improve.
And while we can feel proud that modern society acknowledges the importance of work-life balance and has a more holistic approach to career, human life, even mankind there is still plenty of areas for improvement and one cannot help but notice that same criticism can apply to modern political parties as it did in 1922. The irony is that in 95 years since the publication of this book we've either started using or improved plenty of inventions from 19th century utopias described here, but we still refuse to implement the most obvious tool for improvement.
This overview of Utopian worlds is not just a collection of stories, structures of previous Utopias along with historical, social and economic conditions which influenced the writers to create them; Mumford also explains why were most of those worlds flawed and impossible to achieve. Not to write just for the sake of writing, the author also provides constructive criticism and advice on how to start creating Eutopia in real world. (Hint: Mahatma Gandhi described it in simpler words).
The Story of Utopias was published in 1922, before Great Depression, Hitler's climb to power in Germany, and before devastation of WWII caused by Nazi's systemic and bureaucratic evil in concentration camps or new weapons of never before seen power and magnitude. Even without these two major events in 20th century Mumford pictures a pretty correct picture of post-WWII society in Western world and even the destruction and self-destruction currently caused by rise of nationalism-driven (far-right) political parties and their use of the nation as a powerful myth on which they build fear and distaste for anything different. And he sees no bright future if the things keep moving in that direction.
Another interesting point in this book is the analysis of times and reasons when Utopia stopped being a distant imaginary island and became a possibility of our own future - even if those societies wouldn't really be a society where a modern person would like to live. On a large time-scale of human history it took only 61 years for Edward Bellamy's heaven to become George Orwell's hell (this is where utopia is no longer the opposite of dystopia - it becomes the origin). Technological achievements of mankind are indisputable, but our minds and sets of values clearly didn't follow this progress, and this fact was just as clear to Lewis Mumford in 1922 as is in 2017 when any human being looks back on cruel laws and practices we've abandoned in the meantime. Or goes through the list of those we still have to abandon or at least improve.
And while we can feel proud that modern society acknowledges the importance of work-life balance and has a more holistic approach to career, human life, even mankind there is still plenty of areas for improvement and one cannot help but notice that same criticism can apply to modern political parties as it did in 1922. The irony is that in 95 years since the publication of this book we've either started using or improved plenty of inventions from 19th century utopias described here, but we still refuse to implement the most obvious tool for improvement.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews