The Shangri-La Myth

A couple of weeks ago, I got to see the remastered version of Lost Horizon on Turner Classic Movies.  I had never viewed the film before, but it provided a wealth of insights into liberal and utopian thinking.

During the Great Depression, James Hilton’s novel was enormously popular.  It told of a hidden valley sheltered somewhere in the Tibetan Mountains, where peace and prosperity provided a model that the rest of humanity should emulate.  Only this form of social organization would save the world from self-imposed destruction.

So well-known—and admired—was this vision that when President Franklin Roosevelt was asked from whence the Doolittle raid on Japan had been launched, he replied that the planes had taken off from Shangri-la; that is, from Hilton’s fictitious valley.

In any event, I was impressed how nonsensical this paradise was.  Much like Sir Thomas More’s original Utopia, it was a place that never was or could be.  What was more, it dramatized the absurdities of socialism and communism.  Anyone who paid attention could see the eerie parallels.

To begin with, in an early reel, Ronald Coleman, the movie’s star, explains his pacifist philosophy.  If only an army would lay down its arms, any potential invader would be humiliated into doing the same.  Its soldiers would immediately realize that war was illogical.

This was articulated in 1937.  By then, many people feared a second World War.  Although this attitude was understandable, in the very next year the Nazis marched unopposed into Czechoslovakia.  The Czechs had been forced to put down their guns, but this did not induce Hitler’s troops to set down theirs.  So much for unbridled romanticism.

Anyway, after Coleman and his companions arrived in Shangri-La, they were put up in a fabulously comfortable palace.  The natives, who were unfailingly attentive, then served them sumptuous meals and dressed them in brocades.  At no point were these recent arrivals asked to do any meaningful work. 

The locals, it must be added, lived down in the valley in what amounted to huts.  They also labored as farmers, herders, and porters.  All seemed to love their work, while none appeared to have a supervisor to over-see their efforts.

When Coleman asked why they were so happy, he was told it was because they owned no property.  With everything held in common, no one was envious of anyone else.  Colman then inquired about sexual jealousy.  Here the answer was that happy people are well mannered and hence do not fight over such things.

As I was listening to this explanation, I could not help but be reminded of the realities of hunter/gatherer societies.  These folks also owned very little, but the murder rate among them was much higher than among us.  Moreover, much of this was due to sexual rivalries.

I also realized that this small valley had limited resources.  The inhabitants had enough to eat, but what if the population outgrew this supply?  If love were essentially free, wouldn’t they eventually reach its limits?  What then?

As for governing this earthly paradise, it was in the hands of what amounted to a European philosopher king.  There was no democracy.  But neither was there coordination between the citizens.  Somehow—by osmosis—everyone knew what to do.

In More’s original Utopia, all of the citizens were equal.  This did not, of course, include the slaves.  In Shangri-La, however, there were no slaves.  Nonetheless, a firm social class divide was in evidence.  The Europeans and their representatives were privileged, whereas the Asiatic natives were docile subordinates.

In socialism too, everyone is supposed to be on a par, while in communism there is not supposed to be any government.  In fact, every collectivist society has had a hierarchical divide.  The party apparatchiks always get to live in bigger houses, eat better food, and wear more luxurious clothing.

In other words, the equality of these societies is just as fictitious as that of Shangri-La.  So is their purported prosperity and freedom.  Novelists can make up any universe they desire.  They can say their characters are happy when in actuality they would not be. 

It is the same with socialism.  Its proponents can create attractive word pictures, but that does not mean these can ever come into being.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University