American society is rarely content with its current state. Rather, constantly look for ways to improve and improve the current standard of living. Ideally, these changes should pave the way towards a better future, in which hostility and conflict become virtually obsolete and in which humanity can live with greater unity and peace. Often, such Platonic and futuristic societies are labeled “utopian,” which Lyman Sargent, in his essay “Utopian Traditions: Themes and Variations,” outlines as “generally oppositional, reflecting, at a minimum, frustration with things as they are and the desire for a better life" (1). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, according to Russell Jacoby in his book The End of Utopia, society has succumbed to more conservative views and moved away from its founding utopian ideals. He harshly condemns intellectuals for having lost track of the vigor and innovation that once characterized their goals. Furthermore, it calls concepts such as multiculturalism trivial and meaningless in the context of today's society. Although Jacoby offers a limited vision of how hope and the desire for utopia can serve as a robust engine for societal progress, his vision of life, realized through the radical restructuring of society, involves more than he expects: that is, it overlooks to consider whether humanity and its nature would never be compatible with such a strictly structured society. Instead, his vision is built on his foundational and courageous assumption that “all Americans…have more or less the same desires for success” (Jacoby, 48). In contrast, Isaiah Berlin, in his essay “The Search for the Ideal,” offers a much more sensible and pragmatic perspective. Berlin clearly demonstrates that conflicts, especially social and political ones, will always arise. He argues that instead of focusing on pursuing a determined society through radical changes, which Jacoby so emphatically promotes, society should focus on maintaining its peaceful and composed aspects. In essence, Berlin's essay clearly allows us to see that Jacoby's vision of a utopian society is very unattractive, inconceivable and incompatible with the natural state of humanity, since it dodges critical issues such as war and politics, multiculturalism and rational thinking. The main weakness of Jacoby's argument for radical changes is his naive belief that society, with a utopian structure, should no longer face today's pressing issues such as weapons production, political scandals, and discrimination. He condemns modern utopians for incorporating such revolts and great conflicts in formulating their views on the structure of utopia: "Thomas More dreamed of a utopia without war, money, violence or inequality. Five centuries later the most imaginative futurists foresee a utopia with war, money, violence and inequality” (Jacoby 161). Jacoby, however, fails to provide any concrete evidence as to why he believes society would simply be able to avoid another bloodshed or major economic crisis by living such a utopian lifestyle. Jacoby instead has the static mentality of the pure utopian, whose ideas now do not have the feasibility that they once might have possessed. Towards the end of his book, Jacoby seems to not only imply that this vision of utopia is feasible, but also that it will materialize in the near future: “That day is as distant as ever. Or not? diligent students. No one foresaw the quick endof the Soviet Union in 1989" (181). On the other hand, Berlin claims, "the pursuit of perfection seems to me to be a recipe for bloodshed" (Berlin 18). Berlin, therefore, does not obstinately hide its gaze from last century, awash in frightening and bloody revolts and conflicts, often precipitated by countries attempting to implement major changes, as in the case of the Russian Revolution. The basic reasoning that major changes will always meet some kind of resistance is not a concept that the society has recently adopted, as Jacoby seems to imply. One of the most influential philosophers of the 18th century, Immanuel Kant, used reasoning analogous to that of today's utopian thinkers and intellectuals whom Jacoby so ruthlessly condemns: "From the crooked wood of humanity no straight thing was ever made" ( Berlin 19). Thus, Jacoby's concept of this world – in which political policies cease to arouse controversy, economic markets defy their natural cycles and humanity's innate predisposition towards segregation by interests has dissolved – it begins to falter in the face of more realistic logic and intuition. In his answers to other questions related to certain utopias, such as the increase of work, materialism, a false freedom through technology and the true nature of learning, Jacoby is very inattentive to the heart of the matter, that is, he neglects to contemplate the compatibility of human processes nature under a utopian structure (Jacoby 160-165). Berlin, however, highlights humanity's natural disposition to demonstrate why utopia should be delineated with more care than simply implementing radical changes: “Spontaneity, a wonderful human quality, is not compatible with the capacity for organized planning , of the beautiful calculation of what, how much and where—on which the well-being of society may largely depend" (Berlin 13). In other words, human behavior is not completely predictable. Therefore, in order for human beings to live in a society with such high structure and planning, behavior would have to be essentially predictable, which would generate a direct conflict with the natural behavior of humanity Even Bellamy admits the pervasiveness of this totalitarianism and authoritarianism, to which most succumb. utopias. In a rather weak way, however, Jacoby attempts to discredit this notion by raising other issues, such as "the inability to think courageously", throughout his book, which once again shows his underlying evasiveness (Jacoby 169-170). Berlin, on the contrary, referring to the innate characteristics of man, formulates the convincing argument that utopia would not be a natural way of life but rather an artificial and artificial one, if certain provisions were not made. Therefore, can it honestly be said that society's thoughts and beliefs can be predicted to the point where new policies and changes would appease everyone's wants and needs? Is there a politician who can truly represent all of humanity, or an economic restructuring plan from which everyone would benefit equally? When placed in this light, Jacoby's vision of utopia quickly loses its desirability, because it does not accommodate or take into account divergent points of view. Another front on which Jacoby's vision of utopia fails miserably is the question of multiculturalism, that is, his vision lacks it. Jacoby abandons the possibility of circumventing perhaps many of the inevitable clashes that will emerge with the radical changes he proposes. Furthermore, not only does he remain silent on the issue of multiculturalism, he censures society for even worrying about such concepts when he states that "no guiding vision,.