Podcast Summary — Critics at Large | The New Yorker

Episode: “In ‘Pluribus,’ Utopia Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be”

Date: November 20, 2025
Hosts: Vinson Cunningham (C), Nomi Fry (B), Alexandra Schwartz (A)

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the new Apple TV sci-fi series Pluribus, created by Vince Gilligan, and uses the show’s “utopian” premise to springboard into a broad discussion about utopias in literature, pop culture, history, and politics. The hosts rigorously analyze the show, reflect on the enduring allure and pitfalls of utopian thinking, and debate the tension between individualism and collectivism—with plenty of humor, personal anecdotes, and cultural references.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal Visions of Utopia (00:52–02:27)

• The hosts start by envisioning their own perfect worlds:
  • Vinson: A quiet, depopulated New York City with endless money and leisure spent with friends.

    “All you do all day is walk, stop in at bars and restaurants. Always money in your account…hang out with your friends." — Vinson (C), 01:19

  • Alex: Revisiting her own past (e.g., New York in 1994 or Paris in the ’60s) with the benefit of adult perspective.

    “…maybe like 1994, I would want to go see it from my adult eyes.” — Alex (A), 02:06

2. Introduction to Pluribus and Its Utopian Premise (02:58–10:40)

• Pluribus synopsis:
  • Rhea Seehorn stars as Carol Sturka—a caustic, reluctant “lone bulwark” against a sudden, inexplicable global wave of unity caused by a viral “hive mind” transformation.
  • The new order is peaceful, collective, and relentlessly kind; dissenters like Carol feel isolated and threatened.
  • The hosts note the show’s visual and tonal blend of horror, comedy, and parable.
• Critical questions: Is it a parable against collectivism? An argument for individualism? Subtle AI critique?

  “…is it about…the lone hero fighting the good fight for individualism…or maybe she’s like an annoying American…hanging onto her selfish individuality vis-à-vis something that might be good?” — Nomi Fry (B), 12:31

3. Gilligan’s Signature Style & Thematic Ambiguity (10:46–13:15)

• Vinson praises Vince Gilligan’s blend of genres and visual cues:

  “…partially because of this visual style and also because of the writing, [Gilligan] artfully…skirts the line between somber tragedy and lots of comedy.” — Vinson (C), 11:03

• The show feels like a parable, perhaps echoing the Babel myth; the hosts debate what sort of ideological statement is at stake.

4. The Individual vs. The Collective (13:15–19:28)

• Alex notes Carol represents hyper-individualism within a “Soviet-tinged” collective paradise:

  “...one thing I did think about was Soviet propaganda art…all the workers working together.”— Alex (A), 15:24

• The hosts notice that Carol and the other “unconverted” are pampered, creating a paradox: the hyper-collective system both pampers the outlier and eliminates friction.
• Vinson compares the new entity’s principles to Jainism:

  “They say that they can’t kill anything…They prefer to eat vegetarian…They cannot harm anyone.” — Vinson (C), 18:15

5. The Trouble with Utopia—Historical and Fictional (21:14–29:43)

Childhood Utopias in Literature

• Vinson: The Giver—a society obsessed with “sameness” and the removal of emotion; ultimately revealed as exploitative and deadening.

  “...is this actually a good society that presents itself as having conquered the tumult of difference?” — Vinson (C), 23:22

• Alex: Thomas More’s Utopia and feminist utopias like Monique Wittig’s Les Guérillères:

  “...what if life weren't terrible for women?...Wouldn't that be great? And usually in these utopias, it requires the absence of men.” — Alex (A), 26:35

• Nomi: Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a spiritual, personal utopia.

  “...he is finally home and things will be good for him, finally.” — Nomi (B), 29:28

Real-World Utopian Experiments

• Alex: The Shakers—sexless, communal, spiritually-driven community:

  “...sex as a very anarchic part of the human experience is something that comes up again and again in utopian societies...” — Alex (A), 30:33

• Nomi: Israeli Kibbutz—collective living and child-rearing; benefits and emotional trade-offs:

  “The idea that…women wouldn't be burdened in the same way…was kind of good…but…I don't think it was that great for a lot of people, the children and the parents…” — Nomi (B), 32:00

• Vinson: Liberia as a national utopian experiment for formerly enslaved people, ultimately subject to tragic real world limitations:

  “...has always stood for me as a sort of tragic but also, in a certain way, impressive example of how utopia can really be pursued…” — Vinson (C), 34:45

• Alex summarizes why such projects fail:

  “I think they fall apart because the balance is very hard to sustain. And then…an increasingly repressive form of enforcement is necessary…” — Alex (A), 36:10

6. The Case for Utopian Thinking (37:24–50:14)

• Debate: Is pessimism about utopia itself a self-fulfilling prophecy?

• Vinson references Gramsci:

  “Pessimism of the intellect…optimism of the will…the will to imagine better futures, better possibilities, better outcomes...” — Vinson (C), 38:28

• Nomi: Raises the danger of competing utopias—e.g., the MAGA vision, Thomas Kinkade’s pastoral Americana.

  “...who is determining what this utopia looks like…a lot of people believe in the utopia that Donald Trump has been promising…” — Nomi (B), 41:00

• Alex: Invokes R. Bregman’s Utopia for Realists to ground optimism in progress:

  “...the 40 hour work week became a thing…All the things that we take for granted…took quite a lot of work and collective will to get us to…the place where we are today.” — Alex (A), 43:35

• Techno-utopias are critiqued:

  “The sort of idea of techno utopia, whether it's like Sam Altman and OpenAI or Elon Musk…certainly don't seem to be for the most part acting for the public good." — Nomi (B), 44:24

• Alex sees a "top-down" vs "bottom-up" split:

  “A top down utopia is not a utopia for the people, for the more.” — Alex (A), 46:58

7. The Vitality of Friction (47:06–50:14)

• Nomi and Alex agree that what makes life interesting is friction, difference, and debate, not homogenized “happiness.”
• Vinson: “We can have a unanimity of purpose…which does not equate to a unanimity of affect...the promise of pluralism is precisely that we can be very different…and yet still do no harm.” — (C), 49:06

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It's like a big epileptic fit that everyone is undergoing...and when the fit is over, some people are dead. Other people…are happy. They've all joined this hive mind situation.” — Alexandra (A), 07:30
• “It's kind of a moral question…She realizes that her bad individual feelings affect this new peer group.” — Nomi (B), 10:39
• “I kept on thinking about the Tower of Babel…you think you want a certain kind of perfection, but actually…it is a hell and a nightmare.” — Vinson (C), 11:47
• “That’s what being a person is. It’s doing things for yourself.” — Alexandra (A), 15:44
• “One person's utopia might be another person's dystopia.” — Alexandra (A), 19:26
• “Is this actually a good society that presents itself as having conquered the tumult of difference?” — Vinson (C), 23:23
• “...can any true collective situation be a utopia for people like us who value the needs and wants and, frankly, wrinkles of being a person?” — Alexandra (A), 27:44
• “There's nothing more human than the impulse to constantly try to perfect humanity…” — Alexandra (A), 30:05
• “That balance is hard to maintain, and that's why it makes us feel really seasick inside. I feel it too.” — Vinson (C), 40:01
• “There's a difference between a top down and a bottom up utopia.” — Alexandra (A), 45:51
• “We can have a unanimity of purpose…which does not equate to a unanimity of affect. You know, it's like…pluralism, that great ideal…its promise is…we can be very different…and yet still do no harm.” — Vinson (C), 49:06

Key Timestamps

• 00:52–02:27: Hosts’ visions of a perfect world; intro to the day’s topic
• 03:01–08:27: Pluribus synopsis and premise
• 10:46–13:32: Gilligan’s style, parable structure, show’s ambiguity
• 15:24–19:28: Soviet visual references, collective/individual tension, utilitarian paradoxes
• 21:36–25:07: Literary utopias—The Giver in-depth
• 26:05–29:43: Thomas More, feminist utopias, Close Encounters of the Third Kind
• 30:05–36:32: Real-world attempts—the Shakers, Kibbutz, Liberia; why utopias fall short
• 38:28–41:00: The value of utopian optimism, dangers of exclusionary utopias
• 43:46–47:06: Techno-utopias, bottom-up vs top-down models
• 47:06–50:14: The value of friction, pluralism, and the ideal balance

Tone & Atmosphere

• Conversational, warm, wry, and incisive.
• The hosts riff off each other’s ideas with humor (“Listen, it’s America’s mayor, now and forever.”), emotional candor (“Vincent is weeping.”), and moments of real vulnerability about hope and pessimism.

Conclusion

The episode uses the speculative fiction of Pluribus to probe profound philosophical questions: Can a utopia that erases individuality truly satisfy? Why do real-life attempts at utopia so often implode? Is collective perfection ever possible, or is the very messiness of human difference what makes life meaningful? These big questions are treated with the depth, literary acumen, and critical wit worthy of The New Yorker.

This summary distills major sections and debates, preserves memorable quotes (with timestamps and speaker attributions), and maintains the lively, curious, and incisive spirit of the hosts.