Скачать книгу

as foolish dreaming unworthy of consideration by serious people. In this light, the best epigram for this book is the famous statement by the rebellious French students of 1968: Demand the Impossible. Throughout history, utopian political theorists have proposed changes to the human social, economic and political order that seem impossible. And yet, many things deemed to be merely idle dreaming or radical speculation have come true. Utopian thought captures a longing, a desire, a hope, but also a need. Utopians transcend the limits of convention to discover the new, the better, the more just. They seek to “read the future into the present” (Beaumont 2004: 26–7). Of course, this desire has been perverted and twisted in ways that have led to oppression and death for millions of people. We should always remember that human beings have shown a tragic ability to create real-world anti-utopias or dystopias. The Nazi death camps, the Soviet gulag, “re-education” camps, the concentration camps for refugees that appear all over the world in even the most supposedly free countries, “reservations” and “reserves” for native peoples – the list is sadly endless. An honest examination of utopian thought must face that dystopian reality.

      Any student who begins to study utopian political thought faces a daunting yet exciting task. Daunting because of the vast scope of the subject and its enormous and growing historical and philosophical range. Exciting because utopian thought calls forth a desire for a better world and presents the student with a massive menu of choices in terms of what and whom to study and where to place her energies.

      Utopian dreaming expresses itself in many ways. Lyman Tower Sargent (1994) described literary works, intentional communities and social/political theory as the “three faces” of utopianism. This book focuses on the third face. But the reader should be aware that utopian political thinkers have traditionally used fiction as a means to advance their ideas. The canonical works of literature discussed here provided and continue to provide the foundation for the study of utopian thought.

      Keep in mind that any discussion of utopian political thought will be idiosyncratic, reflecting a series of choices, some well-reasoned, some subjective and some, like utopia itself, inscrutable. Inevitably, works and thinkers that some consider important, even seminal, will be left out of this discussion. Students of utopia should be ready to accept a liberating uncertainty about just what constitutes utopian theory. Approach the subject with a light heart and an open mind and you will find utopia beckoning to you, calling on you to imagine the new and create new realities.

      Defining utopia and utopian political thought presents a fundamental problem. When Thomas More invented the word “utopia” in 1516, he created a frustrating and fruitful sort of ambiguity. “Utopia” has a contested nature, because it means both “good place” (eutopia) and “no place” (outupia). Since More’s original Utopia, all thinkers who follow in his footsteps face a set of serious questions. Is utopia a real place that can be attained by the efforts of human beings? Or is it someplace that will always be out of reach? Compounding this ambiguity, More’s Utopia was not just a savage critique of the injustices of his times. Nor was it simply speculation about a state that, if made real, would create a just community. More’s work was also a lighthearted entertainment for his friends. The book is full of puns, some good, some lame. The name of the castaway sailor who returns to report on the wonderful country of Utopia means “speaker of nonsense.” There is a playfulness that lies at the heart of More’s Utopia. If utopia is a desire or a dream, More reminds us to approach it with a light heart.

      We can begin with two propositions from the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. First, in his classic work The Politics, he declared that humans are “by nature a political animal” (1996: 13). If he is correct and we are political animals, then politics must be the central pivot of our lives. Politics is really the only thing that sets us apart from the animals. The organized struggle for power and authority conditions our lives and our societies. Second, if Aristotle is also correct that the good state is based on friendship (1996: 75), then politics becomes the art of working together and moving toward some realization of the common good. No state can be fully legitimate unless it is based on the actions of those who are equal, since true friendship is based in equality.

      The political animal, then, is an autonomous individual who is able to think and act freely as a person. The political animal is not an individualist, valuing personal goals above all else. But the political animal is able to think and act and, most critically, decide whether or not to accept the values and goals of an existing society. Obviously, the extent of an individual’s autonomy cannot be fixed. It will vary depending on many circumstances. But, to address honestly the central problem in utopian thought, the place of the individual in the perfected community, utopian thinkers must come to grips with the political animal.

      Utopia is a humanistic enterprise. It is based in the belief that society can be understood by human beings and changed for the better. Any utopian theory worth discussing must recognize the value of our fellow beings and our moral relation to them. Recognizing a common good extending beyond the self, the family, or a particular religious or ethnic community remains the greatest and most utopian aspiration of all.

      Utopianism might be described as a continuum. On one side, we see efforts at reform, exemplified by the “realistic utopia” advocated by the great philosopher of liberalism John Rawls (2001). At the other extreme, we find bold visions of the complete overhaul

Скачать книгу