fsociety://project_init
Welcome to my digital archive. You are now in a temporary queer utopia, one existing between the present and future. Please explore the pages however you want.
“You’re here because you sense something wrong with the world.”
— Mr. Robot, Mr. Robot
“Queerness is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough, that indeed something is missing.”
— José Esteban Muñoz, Cruising Utopia
In the first episode of Mr. Robot, the general atmosphere is set by a simple question asked by Krista, Elliot’s therapist: “What is it about society that disappoints you so much?” The premise of this show asserts a direct challenge to modern-day America as a capitalistic society. The cast attempts to reset on the debts common people face, and release citizens from the wide living gap between the rich and poor. This gap, among other functionalities of this America, are thought to be the result of “social dominance,” which is the need to preserve unequal power relations. Dismantling this power system is one of the many approaches to combatting oppression, considering that many institutions and social practices enable this form of injustice. When you think of an ideal world, many would consider a successful rebellion of this society necessary. The cast of Mr. Robot takes on this challenge, thus attempting to create a utopia. The series asks what it means to desire another world while still being trapped inside this one. However, it approaches the attempt at utopia from different angles, showing that a complete rewrite ignores the past and present, which are both required to create a future. This digital notebook attempts to capture Mr. Robot as a queer technological archive, wherein that queer utopia inside our heads is not just an impossible dream, but a method of survival and a reclamation of power. In a world increasingly organized by technology, imagining these queer futures becomes a way to resist systems that try to define, monitor, and limit queer life.
In Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity, Muñoz argues that queerness is not yet here in the present. Therefore, we must all have the collective feeling of a brighter future for queerness to be fully realized. The concept of a queer utopia is not a getaway from the realities of life, but rather, a call to improve the present as we know it. It exists as a space where people can freely exist and perform as they are, as evident from glimpses in our current present life: “On oil dance floors, sites of public sex, various theatrical stages, music festivals, and arenas both subterranean and aboveground, queers live, labor, and enact queer worlds in the present.” Muñoz also states, “in this instance, I dwell on hope because I wish to think about futurity; and hope, I argue, is the emotional modality that permits us to access futurity, par excellence.” Focusing on current queer spaces and continuing to consider our chances at a better future opens the door for us to move towards that utopia. Such an idea applies beyond queerness, extending towards utopias that are relieved from oppression of any group. Without this hope, these groups may become caught in a feeling of helplessness. As Muñoz continues, “We must never settle for that minimal transport; we must dream and enact new and better pleasures, other ways of being in the world, and ultimately new worlds.”
Outside of a queer utopia, if you try to think of a utopia in itself it likely consists of the intersection between high technological advancements and nature. Writing this in 2026, it goes without saying that advancements in technology are at an all-time high, and multiple utopian-like futures are visualized with that. If queer utopia depends on imagining and enacting worlds beyond the present, then technology matters as it is one of the main spaces where those worlds are built. A utopia might have technology that allows us to optimize energy, live comfortably without damaging the environment, and distribute food, water, and shelter to every person. Socially, unequal systems would be demolished, racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and the like, would be considered things of the past. As of now, these ideas sound dream-like, impossible even. They appear as outrageous goals, too idealistic. Often, attempts towards a utopia are portrayed as damaging, creating a dystopia. To disrupt these ideas, we can look back to the idea of current, smaller utopias. Muñoz describes modern queer utopias as clubs, performances, communities, and spaces. Modern utopias on the technological scale also exist, in new inventions, cures to diseases, and successful attempts at saving the environment. In this sense, modern utopias aren’t necessarily perfect, but are rather hopeful in a reality that opposes these ideas.
In Mr. Robot, every character attempts to reach their own form of what can be a utopia. The core group, fsociety, uses hacking as a method to destroy America’s corporate-based society. However, internally, they are backed by the Dark Army, which is led by the show’s core antagonist, whiterose. There are multiple things to be acknowledged here, for one, fsociety consists of multiple different characters of differing sexualities, identities, and backgrounds. For two, whiterose is a Chinese trans-woman. The groups are essentially working on the same goal; creating a utopia. In their processes, none of the characters are completely moral. However, after the original virtual attack, whiterose’s plan is revealed to be much more. She wishes to create what is, quite literally, a utopia. Her machine is a modified VLHC (Very Large Hadron Collider, to explain it in one sentence, it collides particles to study matter). Fans theorize that it has to do with alternate realities and time travel, creating an ideal world. These are, of course, very sci-fi like concepts. This is only to be expected, considering the technological-heavy focus in searching for better futures.
The machine itself represents time, which is why you had to go past a clock to reach this page. Now, you have entered a mini utopia! A mini-reality that exists as a queer space, only existing inside a technological cloud. Temporary queer utopias have always existed, such as this website, or earlier website groups where queers could communicate. They exist in music, art, and even education. In the world following a successful attempt at whiterose’s machine, we would supposedly be able to exist freely as our true selves, to live how we want, but in a constant state rather than a temporary one. If this shift happened and we were suddenly placed in an alternate, utopian reality, what would this look like to you? Muñoz argues this utopia can only be realized if we dream of it. So what’s included in this utopia? What is your part to play? Maybe your part is to create the technology that advances us as humans, maybe it's to advocate for oppressed groups, or maybe it is simply to continue to dance & dream.
“They’re always by far the most interesting characters on the screen. After all, they live in a world that hates them. They’ve adapted; they’ve learned to conceal themselves. They’ve survived.
…As it turns out, queer villains become far more interesting among other gay characters, both within a specific project or universe and the zeitgeist at large. They become one star in a larger constellation; they are put in context. And that’s pretty exciting, even liberating; by expanding representation, we give space to queers to be—as characters, as real people—human beings.”
Whiterose is, by definition, a queer villain. She lives lavishly, surrounding herself by dresses, worrying about her appearance, performing traits of what would be considered feminine, while also pursuing whatever means necessary to get what she wants. She is also a tech genius, leader of a hacker collective, and masquerades as the Chinese Minister of State Security. She portrays herself as a man when in China, and in America, allows herself to be seen as “whiterose.” Often, in the media, queer people are portrayed as “evil,” outrageous, and damaging. Additionally, in American media, Chinese people are often portrayed as villains due to the ongoing tech-wars. Whiterose as a character is interesting in the sense that she withholds yet also challenges both of these stereotypes by existing as a human representation of identity, by being written as more than just there to show evil–but to show humanity, which consists of love and heartbreak. It is in this way that she is a perfect antagonist for a plotline that is meant to question what we know as normal.
Queer villains should challenge gender norms. Queer villains should challenge the heteronormative lifestyle. Queer villains should exist to show that we are still human, that just like anyone else, we want a better world for ourselves. Whiterose’s character focuses on two main ideas: identity and time. Time, being, futurity. She “surrounds herself with a constant reminder of mortality,” with the knowledge that “there is work to be done.” She pursues a life fit for her true identity, even if that means facing the standard Chinese norms by masquerading as the man she is forced to behave as.
Ian Liujia Tian explains why whiterose’s role in Mr. Robot is so influential, “The story seems to be an allegory for the ultimate threat to Anglo-Eurocentric humanity: tech-savvy, gender-binding, and communist dangers inciting the end of the capitalist empire. Whiterose’s gender nonconformity becomes relevant only when it demonstrates the Chinese government’s oppressions of LGBTQ+ people; otherwise, such gender nonconformity is portrayed as deceitful and treacherous.” An ethnic trans character playing this role alongside an anti-capitalistic plotline is necessary in the sense that it challenges current, harmful cultural norms. That she is not existing solely for trans representation, but as an actual player in the shaping of society. Because she, just like the other characters, are also striving for a utopia, this additionally creates a pathway to visualize queer futures. To further elaborate, BD Wong (the actor of whiterose) explains this in an interview by Matthew Giles on Vulture:
“Usually, when you are an ethnic person or a trans person, in your average, everyday, unsophisticated television show, you are there for that reason. And they clearly justify and overexplain why.
You very rarely see a transgender actor playing the part of a grocery-store clerk without having to say, “Oh, look at that trans person.” They aren’t ready for that yet. They don’t think the nation is ready for that yet. Sam said, “She is transgender, but her transness has nothing to do with anything.” Sam then told me the irony really is that Whiterose is in disguise when Whiterose is a man, and not when Whiterose is a woman. At the end of Wednesday night’s episode, when Whiterose meets with [Evil Corp CEO] Philip Price, Whiterose may or may not be suppressing all of the femaleness of her to have these conversations with Price. That is a very radical concept, which I don’t know if we have ever seen before.”
Queer villains, like her, are evidence that there is something wrong in the foundation of society itself. BD Wong describes her as “radical” because the direct suppression of her identity, as well as how that can destroy the foundation of herself, are uncommon topics discussed in American TV. However, it provides an illustration of the turmoil trans people have to face everyday when living in a world not built for them. Her being a queer villain does not imply that we must be violent to make progress towards a better future, but rather, that it is important to remain true to your identity in a world that is against it.
“The artist strives to reflect the desolation and anxiety that accompanies one’s loss of identity. His message is subversive to many in our country, nevertheless, the work appeals to the masses, and to the individual.”
“How is it that revolution can create such beautiful art? You and I are tracking revolutionaries who have created nothing but turmoil.”
Whiterose and Dom share a unique parallel, in which their non-heteronormative experiences are put on display.
Then, whiterose shows her dresses. These are her dresses; the irony in this scene is that Dom does not know this, as Whiterose is masquerading as Minister Zhang. Her connection, without utopia, is one-sided.
Elliot Alderson, the protagonist of Mr. Robot, asks this question to the viewer in Season 1, Episode 4. It is a question that is meant to uproot trauma, character flaws, and internal battles on identity. Whiterose as a character fails to work until you recognize the deeper meaning behind Mr. Robot, in which you must also understand Elliot’s character. In Detoxing Masculinity in Anglophone Literature and Culture, Miguel Sebastián-Martín describes Elliot as “far from being a blueprint utopian model of masculinity, and even though he is caught in a historical moment of anti-feminist backlash and resurgent reactionary politics, his character arc is nonetheless driven by a “Utopian impulse” which propels him both toward an anti-patriarchal selftransformation and toward an anti-capitalist transformation of society.” He is a key player in the hacker group, fsociety, and while he is not necessarily queer, he is surrounded by those who are, such as his sister Darlene, who plays a role as the deuteragonist of the story. The cross-over of all these characters of different backgrounds form Elliot’s identity while he deals with his own self vs. self identity. Elliot deals with multiple mental health problems throughout the show such as DID, anxiety, and depression. He also has to navigate through substance abuse and his own childhood trauma. It goes without saying that following him as the protagonist creates a complicated, sometimes disturbing storyline. Elliot refers to these as his own “monsters.” Elliot is not considered a reliable narrator, and the viewer often has to fight these monsters with him. These are often referred to as “security flaws,” as the perception of Elliot is often that of a computer, an interface that can easily break without the proper support.
What might our security flaws have to do with utopias, or in specific, queer utopias? Paul B. Preciado, Spanish writer and philosopher, argues that identity itself cannot only be personal, it must also be political, “Either everyone has an identity, or there is no identity.” Elliot’s identity, and battle with his own inner “monsters,” are in itself a political statement; a result of an unfair system, which he later, quite literally hacks. fsociety’s search for a utopia was not a linear process, and it didn’t necessarily completely succeed in the end. What did succeed was Elliot’s self-exploration, his relief of his traumas, and his connection with the people around him. While Elliot struggles with his own self-identity, Darlene had to continue the movement that fsociety tried to create. She strives for the same utopia, using the same approach to “hack the system” in both a literal and metaphorical way. Despite their attempts, the ending results in the same self-discovery revelation. There is a sense of comfort between the two, in their bond and knowing that despite it all, they have survived. The ending of the series reflects on the idea that you cannot create a utopia without first creating yourself, appreciating your identity, and appreciating what you have in the present, pre-utopian life.
Whiterose and Elliot have a clear parallel; they strive for a utopia, but are caught up in their own battles with self-identities. Each searches for freedom in different ways–Whiterose by searching for a way to replace reality, and Elliot by searching for a way to deal with the current reality. Whiterose’s tragedy lies in her disregard for hope in the current reality, and Elliot’s tragedy lies in his inability to manage the current reality. She rewrites reality completely, while Elliot has to rewrite himself. Like Elliot, Whiterose’s existence and motives are inarguably political. Preciado argues that the trans body in itself is a political movement, a statement on performance, “the monster is one who lives in transition.” He uses the term “monster” in a similar way, a piece of your identity, however, his approach is much more freeing. Our monsters are not something that should hinder us, but rather something we acknowledge as part of our identity. If they are part of our identity, that means that like us, they are constantly changing and transitioning. Whiterose’s flaw, and perhaps the reason why her plan failed, is because she approached a utopia as completely rewriting reality rather than adapting it.
“You’re afraid. Afraid of your monster. Do you even know what it is?”
“So what you playing for then? If there's no who, then what's the what? Who's it for?”
“Existence.”
“Dope. Some high stakes right there. So what you waiting on?”
“What?”
“Do you dream, Elliot? You scraping so hard like you ain’t ever asked yourself this before. I said, do you want to be here right now? And I don’t mean like, here-here, but I mean here in a cosmic sense, bro. Like, existence could be beautiful, or it could be ugly, but that’s on you.”
“How do I know which one’s for me?”
“Dream. You got to find out the future you’re fighting for. Sometimes you got to close your eyes and really envision that shit, bro. If you like it, then it’s beautiful. If you don’t? Then you might as well fade the fuck out right now.”
— A conversation between Leon and Elliot, Mr. Robot
Technology has grown at an exponential rate, cyberattacks are at an all-time high, privacy is at an all-time low, and a robot-takeover is starting to sound too realistic. The rise of social media and techno-politics have isolated us, causing loneliness and an increase in mental health battles. Surely, a utopia shouldn’t be so isolating. Yet, technology is not something we can remove, it is no doubt a primary source of our future. Therefore, I ask you to approach technology with an angle of hope rather than fear.
In Digital Queers’ cyberutopia after the end of history, Sam Hunter explores the idea that digital technology can produce a better queer life. A cyberutopia includes a queer utopia; in this dream, digital computing is meant to produce “better living.” In the early 2000s, queer spaces largely existed on the internet. Small, niche website creators could live in internal groups where they could exist as themselves, essentially creating their own temporary utopias. Now, while these websites are not as common, the digital world is still used as a method for queers to organize and communicate.
Dominique DiPierro and Darlene Alderson are key characters in Mr. Robot, and the two characters display a queer relationship inside a world heavily controlled by capitalist systems. To describe their cyberutopias, Darlene uses hacking as a form of rebellion and reclaiming the system. Dom, however, works directly in the system as an FBI agent. Her cyberutopia is her access to information, and her ability to communicate through a virtual space. The break in their cyberutopias comes from their loneliness. Dom feels isolated in an uncaring world, and Darlene loses her stability in that uncaring world. Use of technology does not guarantee the ideal queer utopia if it is still within the system that is against it. This is why the survival of such characters and their ability to share intimacy on screen becomes so important. Hunter refers to ideas from Muñoz from a cyberutopia standpoint, “queerness is a structuring and educated mode of desiring.” Queerness in a cyberutopia is when that desire and identity exists outside of the system. It is their hope in their personal utopias, a path towards a technological world that is no longer controlled by those that seem cruel, that contributes to their survival.
“What if changing the world was just about being here, by showing up no matter how many times we get told we don’t belong, by staying true even when we’re shamed into being false, by believing in ourselves even when we’re told we’re too different? And if we all held on to that, if we refuse to budge and fall in line, if we stood our ground for long enough, just maybe… The world can’t help but change around us.“
— Elliot Alderson, Mr. Robot
