Zygmunt Bauman points to nostalgia as a key feature of contemporary utopia. He says that “‘retrotopias’ are currently emerging: visions located in the lost/stolen/abandoned but undead past” (2017: 5). Such retrotopian ideas can be seen in political discourses that praise the “good old days” or the “greatest generation” and call for the restoration of traditional values (whatever they might be). The rise of ISIS, European neo-fascists, the American alt-right, or even Donald Trump’s promise to “make America great again” all show the power and danger of retrotopian ideas.
The ideal (but not necessarily perfect) city stands out as one of the defining characteristics of traditional utopian dreaming, planning and action. Plato’s cities in Republic and The Laws and the actual experience of the ancient Greeks in civic design provide a template that inspires utopian thought to this day. Utopian ideal cities share a number of characteristics. First, the community will have a founder, an individual or group of committed people who receive the credit for the design of its institutions and its very existence. The greater distance in time from the founding to the present in a utopia, the stronger the power of the rules, norms and traditions left behind by the founder(s). The founder will have the kind of personal virtue that allows him or her to reconstruct a society on good principles. Perhaps this is why in utopian literature founders are often mythical or quasi-mythical figures. Second, an ideal city will be practically self-sufficient. This dream of a community that can provide all its needs and wants (which in utopia should be in balance, both for the whole society and for the individual) is rooted in the prejudices of ancient moralists who saw trade and commerce as corrupting. Third, the ideal city will resist change, since change is seen as decay. The Spartans were the object of admiration across ancient Greece, since their institutions seemed to have remained unchanged from time immemorial.
Claeys sees equality as central to utopia. Referencing More’s Utopia, he says utopia seeks “to balance strife by privileging the communal, usually by making property and social classes more equal. … Imagined or practiced humanely, it can teach us the enduring value of love, respect, the cultivation of the individual, even the eccentric and unique” (2011: 8). Making property common or giving all citizens in the community a moral claim on the products of earth and factory provides a common organizing feature of many utopian works. From More to Ursula K. Le Guin, utopian authors create methods of distribution and structures of work that allow all to contribute to the common good and take from the common store. But the equality at the heart of utopia is an equality not just of ownership but of duties as well. Utopia allows for no free riders.
But while equality is a key feature of many utopias, hierarchy and class structures provide another and contrasting feature. In early utopias such as Plato’s, “we hear little or nothing about … the great mass of people who attend to the economic and general life of the community” (Ferguson 1975: 64). Karl Popper says that Plato rests “the fate of the state with that of the ruling class; the exclusive interest of this class, and in its unity” (2013: 83). Many pre-modern utopians saw the need for a class of slaves or serfs to free the citizens from labor, allowing them to pursue a life of total commitment to the state. Orwell’s caste system in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a grim echo of Plato’s ideas.
Utopian thought looks toward a social, political and economic organization for humanity that is self-evidently right to the people who live under it. Utopia is aspiration, planning and action directed toward attaining a more just society. But an honest contemporary utopian will recognize the impossibility of a final answer. To avoid the clear dangers of utopian ideals enabling oppressive regimes, she will aim for utopias that recognize human autonomy and liberty and the dynamic nature of human society. Sargent sums up this approach: “most utopias aim to improve the human lot not by repression but by enhancement, and as long as we do not aim for perfection or eliminate the possibility of change, such utopias can stand up to the all-too-prevalent dystopias of the present” (2006: 15).
Defining Utopian Political Thought
Sargent says, “dissatisfaction is the beginning of utopianism” (2010: 48). But utopian thought must do more than just point out problems. Political thought that merely critiques existing injustices provides no way forward. Utopian thinkers must provide a meaningful set of ideas that might be applied to contemporary society. We should always keep in mind that many things that once seemed impossible are now commonplace. Utopia does not arise naturally. Its creation represents an act of human will that creates a break in history. Consider More’s island of Utopia. The island was once a part of the mainland. It was severed from that connection by the order of King Utopus. What does this mean? Utopian thought and action require a separation from the mundane, from the existing world and its ways of life. Utopian thought seeks to open mental space for new and different understandings of how to organize our lives. In doing so it tries to expand the limits of what is possible and desirable by challenging political, social and economic structures that appear “natural.” So, in Agrarian Justice (1797), Thomas Paine tries to change the minds of his contemporaries about the meanings of property, merit and desert. Karl Marx makes a similar effort, working to fundamentally shift understandings about the relations of labor and capital.
Utopian political and social thought expresses itself in many forms. In some cases, an author will present a highly detailed picture of a non-existent but desirable society, as in Plato’s Republic or More’s Utopia. In other cases, the principles of a radically different and substantially improved society are presented within a critique of the present and an explicit plan for political action, as seen in the Communist Manifesto (1848) or Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom (1962). Situating utopian thought in this way, however, creates the danger of making pretty much every person who has ever advocated for political, economic and social change into a utopian theorist. Determining the difference between desire to reform or transform a society is a difficult task. Perhaps the best way to resolve this problem might be to consider various theorists in light of the questions and concerns that follow in this section. If a theorist addresses those questions and concerns with an eye toward what they understand as positive changes in the mindsets of individuals and in the ideas and institutions that support society, they might fit within the category of utopian thought. (Of course, since all such judgments are subjective, the final categorization of any particular thinker remains speculative.)
Utopian political thought might best be described as a series of questions. As Peter Stillman asks, “what conceptions of freedom, individual cultivation, and the moral or good life undergird a utopia?” (1990: 108). These basic questions naturally expand. We must ask, what is true human nature? What is true justice? What form of political and social organization will allow us to attain our shared goals? For example, how should property be distributed? How should the people be governed or govern themselves? What are the proper relations between men and women? How should children be raised and educated? How should a political community defend itself from internal and external threats? How should a society deal with social dysfunction and crime?
Utopian СКАЧАТЬ