A UTOPIAN APPROACH

LUCY SARGISSON – REVIEW ON A DEMOCRACY OF ALL NATURE: TAKING A UTOPIAN APPROACH

CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO

Lucy Sargisson begins the report by arguing that there are limitations towards developing a utopian approach to nature; it cannot equip us with all the answers or produce blueprints for a perfect world. However, if faced with that challenge, then Sargisson’s approach to the ideal society is a design which can “shift the parameters of what is conceivable”29 whilst considering a “vision of environmental sustainability”30 .

Sargisson attempts to consider the possible appearance of a ‘democracy for nature’ by engaging in a utopian perspective. Some critics may consider this concept useless when we should be focusing on rebuilding our current flawed planet31 instead. However, Sargisson disagrees and argues that reasoning in utopian ways and observing latest utopian

27

experiments can aid our thinking32 when we are faced with obstacles. Likened to Dr Alan Marshal’s theory explained later in the Conclusion, her ambition is not to prove that utopia provides all the answers but rather that it opens up new ways of thinking that help to make the idea of a “democracy of all nature” imaginable. Additionally, despite the critics arguing that utopias defy current social ideologies and way of thinking, visionaries must condemn their current living conditions in order to excite the thought of critical action. So if we consider the future of roof gardens as utopias, we are exemplifying them as “catalysts for change, points of inspiration and vehicles for political critique”33. If this point proves true, then the roof gardens case studies explored in Chapter 4 are fundamentally the exemplars for the future of roof gardens, which are all governed by the inhabitants as much as the local councils (who have significant power in this utopian society).

THE SOLUTION

Suggesting a proposal, Sargisson then suggests we incorporate nature with democratic politics; however the process is somewhat complicated since studying environmental politics also requires studying into the relationships between all living and non-living life. Instead, Sargisson advises that we should firstly eliminate any politics associated with nature and instead focus solely on the interactions and boundaries between human and nature, known as the exchange less inclined in the way of human autism”34 .

28

The next step is to precisely measure and carry out site research for the proposed area of utopian development, whereafter discussions with the community about any potential flaws, conflicts and resolutions are agreed upon and rules are set. Above all, the community dreams of a more sustainable human-to-nature relationship, therefore it is imperative that all site plans and designs are designed to maximise the potential of biophilia for the new community, for example through listening to nature, studying biophilia, acknowledging the users’ special needs and the placement of nature, for example planting away from air pollution and consider site orientation for the best sunlight.

LIMITATIONS

The challenge of “democratising” our relationship with nature remains, in which the author then argues that we should not rely on these utopia “blueprints or models”35, and that these societies adorn “more valuable and less simple functions”36 . In fact, these societies can grant its inhabitants a different approach to their lives, allowing them to reflect on their nonessential luxury and instead offer alternative perceptions of a transformed, biodiverse society.

Sargisson concludes by arguing that the possibilities explored above are a testament that change must happen, but we are also catalysts for that change. Her research aimed to establish potential impediments of utopianism for environmental politics through the analysis of a substantive topic in

29

modern environmental thinking – a democracy of all nature37 .

30