This isn't really a non-standard vocabulary, it's a more-or-less standard vocabulary in the domain of discussing utopias. I think it's reasonable to expect some

This isn't really a non-standard vocabulary, it's a more-or-less standard vocabulary in the domain of discussing utopias. I think it's reasonable to expect someone writing about a topic to have an understanding of society's ongoing discussion about it. If I read an essay on consciousness, I expect the writer to be familiar with how the term has been defined by philosophers past; if a friend tells me they've regained consciousness, I have no such expectation. That being said, I don't think the author of this piece is using a complete layman's definition of the word either: >Likewise, dystopias are inevitably totalitarian: to achieve a perfect society, nothing can be beyond the reach of the state. This discounts anarchist utopias entirely, and any argument against the attainability of an anarchist utopia makes it all the moore utopian. The author seems to be using a shoddy, half-baked definition created for the purpose of this article.