“There is a decree that no case concerning the republic should be carried out unless it was discussed in the Senate three days before the decision was made. It is a criminal offense to decide on public affairs apart from the senate or popular assembly,” wrote Thomas More in his 16th-century monarchy.
Utopia. A place that doesn't exist. More precisely, it is not on the world map, but it is in people’s minds. First, the virus of utopia infects some talented madman. Then the epidemic begins. And often naive dreams turn into reality.
In 1897, at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Theodor Herzl called on Jews to create their own country with its own laws, language and customs. It seemed then as naive as the dreams of More or Campanella. Herzl himself understood this. ““I created the Jewish state” - if I said this out loud, I would be ridiculed. But, perhaps, in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will see it for themselves,” he wrote in his diary. And exactly half a century later, it was not the imaginary state of Israel that appeared on the world map. Utopia is overgrown with tank troops and satellite-guided missiles.
But for more than half a century the world has been strenuously trying to abandon the dream. Horror stories like the novel “Brave New World!” Huxley, Zamyatin's We or Orwell's 1984 still smell pleasantly of fresh printing ink. After the experience of building totalitarian societies, dreaming about an ideal future has become indecent and very dangerous.
It is now believed that social dreams are a thing of bygone centuries. It was our naive ancestors who were all running around with all sorts of “isms”. Only acute paranoia could push people into prisons or barricades for the sake of some constructions of an ideal future. You can just live normally, receive a salary, take out consumer loans, and if you really want to improve the world, donate a couple of hundred to some children's fund or Greenpeace... Surely you can? Or is it not possible?
“A man without a utopia is worse than a man without a nose,” said Chesterton. The development of society is impossible without some kind of landmark, a bright spot looming ahead. We get into a car with an automatic transmission, fill it with excellent gasoline and suddenly realize that we have nowhere to go. Without an idea of the final destination of the route, a car is not needed. And utopia is not so much a goal as a movement towards this goal.
We want to look at utopias not as a genre of science fiction, but as a completely realizable version of the future. It's not that simple. You can criticize the existing order of things for a long time, but as soon as you offer an alternative, it seems naive and absurd. It seems that our world is arranged in the most reasonable way.
But try to look at our civilization from the point of view of some advanced alien. He is unlikely to be able to understand why enlisted sergeants, financial brokers, mid-level officials or marketing managers are needed. Our wars, our politics, our cities, our television - is this less absurd than any of the utopias? “You do not live on the inner surface of the ball. You live on the outer surface of the ball. And there are many more such balls in the world, some live much worse than you, and some live much better than you. But nowhere do people live more stupidly... Don’t believe me? Well, to hell with you,” diagnosed Maxim from “Inhabited Island.”
What seemed absurd in the past becomes normal in the future. And vice versa. Imagine that you are a peasant living in the time of Thomas More. And they tell you: “Every day you will go down underground and go into a shaking iron box. In addition to you, there are a hundred more people in it, standing tightly pressed against each other...” Most likely, the peasant will fall to his knees in horror and beg for mercy: “Why do you want to subject me to such terrible torture?!!” But we are talking about a banal metro.
When you start telling someone another version of utopia, skepticism immediately arises: they say, people are accustomed to a certain way of life and it is possible to force them to change only with the help of totalitarian violence. But let's take a simple example - slavery. A few centuries ago it seemed the norm. In the same “Utopia” by Thomas More, it was easily reported: “Slaves are not only constantly busy with work, but also chained...” The comfortable life of a noble person was not possible without slaves, serfs, or at least servants. And we manage quite well for ourselves. And we even manage to fry eggs in the morning without the help of a cook.
The question of utopia is a question of social norm and social values. In every society there is a majority - “normal people” - and there are different groups of people who “want the strange”, or, more roughly, the marginalized. Utopia turns some version of the “strange” into normal, and yesterday’s “normal,” on the contrary, becomes exotic. Utopias are not needed in order to immediately begin to implement them, destroying those who disagree and spending all the resources of humanity on this. Utopias give value, meaning and direction to our world, which will never be perfect.
But where will utopias come from if they are all thrown off the ship of modernity and exposed as gloomy dystopias? Maybe ideas will arise that we are not even aware of right now. But it is possible that attention will be drawn to those utopias that are still alive and even being realized as the local experience of individuals and communities. We offer 10 utopian ideas, each based on values that may one day be shared by millions.
Psychological utopia
In response to which she was born. Mass neuroses, numerous tragedies, wars, crimes that arise from the mental illness of individuals and masses.
Great goal. Psychological health of individuals and society.
Forerunners. Classic behaviorist Burres Skinner. The author of the sociometry method and psychodrama technique is Jacob Moreno. The founder of humanistic psychology is Abraham Maslow.
Economy. The implication is that “psychological capital” is no less important than financial capital. The main incentive is not money, but psychological health, comfort, wisdom.
Control. Psychologists take part in almost all significant decisions related to politics, finance, and the army. Social conflicts are overcome as psychological ones. Politics is the art of curing mass neuroses.
Technologies. Intensive development and technologization of psychological practices. The natural sciences also benefit from the revelation of the personal qualities and abilities of scientists, and the elimination of unnecessary conflicts in the academic environment.
Lifestyle. Relationships between people imply openness, frankness, mutual support, and direct expression of any emotions. It’s normal to radically change your lifestyle, work, or place of residence. What we today consider downshifting (for example, changing the position of director to working as a gardener) has become commonplace. Education has ceased to be the privilege of children and continues throughout life.
“In general, we don’t have any dissidents. There are people who are very strongly attached to their neuroses and manias and even call psychologists “Führers” and “evil manipulators”, and everyone else - “happy idiots”. We are not offended."
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“The Ministry of Personal Development vetoed the draft state budget. According to representatives of the ministry, this document is certainly well-developed from the point of view of the needs of industry and defense, but the psychological component leaves much to be desired.”
Where it exists now. Psychotherapeutic groups of various types and schools, communes with a psychological bias (following the example of Western communities for the treatment of drug addicts).
Situations of free choice are not favorable for all adults, but only for healthy people. A neurotic is not capable of making the right choice, he most often does not know what he wants, and if he does know, he does not have the courage sufficient to make the right choice... I often plunge into dreams of a psychological utopia - about a state, all citizens who have excellent psychological health. I even came up with a name for it - Eupsyche... I am convinced that it will be an anarchic society (anarchic in the philosophical sense of the word), it will be committed to a Taoist culture, a culture based on love, providing people with much greater freedom of choice than is provided to us by our culture. Abraham Maslow. From the book “Motivation and Personality”
Neoliberalism
In response to which he was born. Low efficiency of the state bureaucracy and excessive influence of state institutions on literally all spheres of society.
Great goal. True freedom, natural self-organization and prosperity based on free enterprise and individualism.
Forerunners. Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, Chicago School of Economics.
Economy. The market economy becomes total, all barriers to trade are removed.
Control. The world government only monitors compliance with the rules of the game and has minor social obligations to the poor and disabled.
Technologies. The question of which technologies to develop is decided only by the market, regulated by commercial interests and strict copyright laws.
Lifestyle.“There is no such thing as society” - this is how Margaret Thatcher formulated the credo of neoliberalism. Competition for the best place in the sun takes place between people organized into enterprises in free market competition. Multiculturalism has become the norm: everyone knows several languages and freely plays with quotes, musical phrases and philosophical maxims of different cultures, without falling into dependence on the dogmas of any of them. People are free from any and all gender, ethnic, and religious differences. There are no more nation states. Thanks to the fact that market expediency is a common language for all spheres of life, relations between people have finally become clear and transparent, and most importantly, less hostile. Nothing causes hatred - not different identities, not sexual infidelity.
“In some places, dense fundamentalism still remains - nationalism, religious intolerance. But all this is gradually fading away. So, personally, I am concerned about groups that believe that taxes on non-profit expenses should be sharply increased - from 1 to 1.2% - to help the weak, the disabled, and animals. I myself make contributions to a charitable foundation and believe that such a decision would be an infringement of my rights.”
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“The claim that emotional support expressed out loud should be valued at a higher rate than that expressed tactilely is simply ridiculous. We adhere to the point of view that such actions should be assessed by results, and the volume of payments should be specified in contracts, as is done today in all developed regions of the world.”
Where it exists now. In its most striking manifestations, the neoliberal utopia was partially realized in Great Britain and some Western European countries.
The ultimate (and unattainable) goal of neoliberalism is a universe where every action of any being is a market transaction, carried out in competition with another being, affecting all other transactions, carried out in an infinitely short period of time and repeated at an infinitely fast speed. Paul Trenor, Dutch political scientist. From the article “Neoliberalism: origins, theory, definition”
Pedagogical utopia
In response to which she was born. The imperfection of education, and most importantly, the upbringing of children.
Great goal. Education of a humane, creative, comprehensively developed person, harmonious development of humanity.
Forerunners. The Strugatsky brothers with their “Theory of Education”, JK Rowling and her professor Dumbledore, Makarenko, Janusz Korczak, modern innovative teachers.
Economy. Education and upbringing are a key area for investment.
Control. The educator has a status close to the level of a top manager. The Council of Teachers has the right of veto on any political decision.
Technologies. Advanced learning tools, such as “social simulators” based on virtual reality technologies.
Lifestyle. Children are placed in special boarding schools from a very early age. At the same time, parents and children can see each other whenever they want. Parents have a lot of free time, which they can devote to sports, art, charity or education.
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".““I have already passed all the tests, trials and interviews, the commission found me fit to work as a teacher. I admit: it was not easy, I’m proud that everything worked out. It seems to me that I was a successful leader and earned the right to work in a boarding school,” the director of a furniture production company, who plans to change his specialty in the coming months, told our correspondent. Let us remind you that the competition for teacher positions that appear due to population growth reaches ten thousand people per position.”
“When I was young, there were still backward parents who refused to send their children to boarding schools. Now there are practically no such people, since growth opportunities for those who have fallen out of the System are extremely limited. But, of course, I categorically disagree with the group of Makarenkovites who demand a ban on communication between parents and children under 18 years of age.”
Where can you see it now?“Advanced” Russian schools (including boarding schools, for example Moscow “Intellectual”), summer educational camps.
Our entire “Theory of Education” was based on two basic principles. Firstly, children should be raised by professionals, not amateurs (as parents usually are). Secondly, the main task of the teacher is to discover and develop in the child his Main Talent, what he can do better than many. It is understood that the child spends most of his education at a boarding school. At the same time, he is by no means cut off from the world and from his family - his parents can come to his boarding school whenever they want, and he himself regularly goes home. No secrecy, no closeness, but maximum privacy. Arkady Strugatsky, writer. From answers to readers' questions
Information utopia
In response to which she was born. The inability of the human brain to evaluate the correctness of a decision, including one on which the fate of humanity depends.
Great goal. Freeing people from routine, all non-creative work should be done by machines.
Forerunners. Ideas about the reconstruction of society based on information technology are put forward by a variety of people - from rebel programmers in rumpled T-shirts to respectable analysts from consulting agencies.
Economy. Fully open and largely virtual. Thanks to this, all economic actions have a cumulative effect, increasing the well-being of the entire population.
Control. Transfer of legislative power into the hands of the entire population. Any important decision is made on the basis of almost instantaneous universal voting on the Internet. Administration functions are kept to a minimum. The development of technology for the expression of the people's will is carried out by artificial intelligence.
Technologies. First of all, informational. One hundred percent computerization of the world. The Global Network is being brought to every inhabitant of the planet. Creation of artificial intelligence.
Lifestyle. Almost all the information that exists in the world is accessible, and at the same time there are powerful algorithms for searching and processing it. This applies to everything from business to sex. Marriages are not made in heaven, but thanks to an accurate calculation of the compatibility of the future couple. Computer diagnostics have made it possible to identify diseases at a very early stage, which has dramatically increased the life expectancy of the population.
Residents of Utopia - about dissident marginalized people.“They say that in Africa and South America there are still entire tribes that refuse to use the capabilities of artificial intelligence and connect to the Internet. Recently, ultras have been causing great concern - they believe that all decisions, including those related to their lives, should be made by artificial intelligence, since its decisions are more accurate.”
From the newspaper “Truth of Utopia”:“Yesterday, 85 referendums were held on the planet. Of these, voting on the Earth's development budget was of a planetary nature. Let us recall that the main subject of discussion was the financing of the “Artificial Intelligence in Every Home” project. The program was again rejected by a vote of 49% to 38%. Thirteen percent of citizens abstained. Let us remember that a year ago more than half of the voters voted against this project.”
In the next ten to twenty years, today's Homo sapiens will turn into eHOMO - a new species that will not have time to noticeably change biologically, but will be qualitatively more and more different from us due to symbiosis with the new IT environment... Virtuality is invading the world of touch and smell, the sphere of emotions. In the future, at any distance, the most direct contact with a loved one will be possible. Or its imitation... The entire market economy will become transparent, it will turn into a tournament of computer programs, in which the leaders will find themselves in a stalemate balance of power. Alexander Narignani, General Director of the Research Institute of Artificial Intelligence. From the article “New man of the near future “eHOMO””
National-religious utopia
In response to which she was born. The dead end and moral decline that many countries have reached, abandoning their own traditions for the sake of wealth.
Great goal. If not heaven on earth, then Holy Rus', righteous Iran or modernized but enlightened India.
Forerunners. Leaders of the Islamic revolution in Iran, supporters of religious justifications for building the state of Israel, leaders of the Vatican, Mahatma Gandhi, numerous leaders of Protestant sects in the USA, Russian religious philosophers of the early twentieth century and many others.
Economy. Development through conservative modernization, that is, the use of tradition - living or revived - in building market and social institutions. Example: Islamic banking (lending money at interest is prohibited by the Koran).
Control. Institutions and all major decisions are consistent with the national cultural tradition; in complex issues, decisions are made not by a secular leader or a referendum, but by righteous charismatics.
Technologies. Humanitarian and pedagogical technologies are enriched with mystical tradition, techniques of prayer, yoga, and rituals.
Lifestyle. Every minute of life is filled with meaning and prayer. Whatever you do, programming or banking, it is not just work, but obedience that elevates the soul. A strong work ethic leads to prosperity; Of course, each country has its own customs and traditions, but all people are believers, and in all countries they understand each other well, and therefore are tolerant.
Residents of Utopia - about dissident marginalized people.“There are still atheists, but for them we organized an atheist church so that their rights would not be infringed. Much more dangerous are those groups that believe that their religion should become the only one, even through military means. They don’t understand that they contradict the will of God: if He wanted, there would be only one religion left in the world.”
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“Another dispute between Shiites and Sunnis took place in Medina. According to sociologists, the discussion was watched on television by more than half a billion viewers, and more than ten thousand people gathered in Medina itself, coming from all over the world. Of no less interest is the discussion between Judaists and representatives of the Vatican, which will take place next Wednesday in Jerusalem. Already today there are no vacancies not only in hotels in the Holy City, but in almost all of Israel and Palestine.”
Where it exists now. In religious communities, in some families that combine patriarchal values with inclusion in modern society.
Our first steps: Establish faith as a source of moral standards. And on this basis to bind each and every one with close social ties. Collect and systematize Russian social samples. And on this basis to create a powerful Russian public language. Borrow world state culture. And on this basis to create a high Russian state culture. Restore the broken connection of times from the democrats to the Kyiv princes. And on this basis, end the centuries-long hot and cold civil war. Each of these steps requires the utmost effort of all the forces of our country. Vitaly Naishul. From the “Program of the Institute of National Economic Model”
"New Age"
In response to which he was born. Churchmen and politicians hide from the people not only the truth, but also the path to spiritual perfection and enlightenment, turning people into stupid slaves, puppets, incapable of cognizing the mystical reality.
Great goal. Every person should have access to mystical experiences, sexual pleasures, and new emotions.
Forerunners. American beatniks, Russian theosophists (Gurdjieff, Blavatsky), Carlos Castaneda, founders of syncretic churches such as Baha'iism, mystics and gurus of all stripes, hippies.
Economy. Free and fair exchange without money. Take what you want and do as you please, as long as it does not harm another; no copyright or property accumulation.
Control. Spiritual teachers occupy key positions in society. Each school builds its own hierarchy. At the top are the gurus, then the advanced followers, at the very bottom are beginners, etc. But in fact, all these various teachings form a worldwide, albeit heterogeneous, mystical church.
Technologies. Scientists and engineers are also sectarians, and their work is a recognized form of spiritual practice.
Lifestyle. People are united in groups, communities, etc., each of which chooses its own set of spiritual practices, compiled from scraps of ancient mystical teachings, religions and philosophies. Academic medicine is being replaced by all sorts of healing options, but if anyone wants it, there are also pills. Sexual relations depend entirely on the teachings of which the group members are adherents, from free love and sexual perversion to total abstinence. The fundamental principles of life are non-violence and love for all living things. Vegetarianism, various gymnastics, and the absence of bad habits are in fashion (soft drugs and psychedelics do not count).
Resident of Utopia about dissident marginalized people.“Pacific, you know? Some people don’t realize that everyone around them is little sisters and brothers. They don’t understand that I’ve given up and have enlightenment. And they: come on, meditate! They would still offer to dig... And they would never treat us to grass.”
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“...Teacher John Jin Kuznetsov opened a new way for his brothers and sisters to obtain complete and final enlightenment in just five years. In the near future, the average age of a full Tzu Elder may be 33 years old.”
Where it exists now. Hippo communes, mystical communities from Baikal to Mexico.
Although I have been seriously practicing hatha yoga for almost two decades, it so happens that over the years I have not paid any attention to yoga at all and have not read yoga magazines. But about nine months ago I opened a new “Yoga Journal” that had been left on my desk. I was stunned, as if I had fallen asleep and woken up to find myself on another planet, in another dimension. It was a world where everyone was beautiful and everyone was rich. There was a popular trend in this world called “spirituality,” in which everyone had a personal relationship with their creator, and the most important thing seemed to be to have a beautiful body and be happy. Andrew Cohen, founder and editor-in-chief of What Is Enlightenment? From the introductory article
Transhumanism
In response to which he was born. The limitations of the human body, in particular disease, aging and death.
Great goal. The transition from Homo sapiens to “posthuman” - a creature with more advanced physical and mental abilities.
Forerunners. Philosophers Nick Bostrom, David Pearce and FM-2030 (real name Fereydoun Esfendiari), as well as science fiction writers.
Economy. Utopia can be realized both under a market system and under a socialist one. But in any case, the main investments go into science, technology and medicine.
Control. One of the main tasks of the government is to control the fair distribution of new technological capabilities.
Technologies. Rapid growth in developments related to medicine and pharmaceuticals. Technologies for improving the human body. All organs are subject to replacement (except perhaps the anterior lobes of the cerebral cortex, and even that is not a fact).
Lifestyle. A new body implies a new way of life and morals. Diseases do not exist, people (more precisely, their personality) become practically immortal. Emotions and mood can be regulated by direct stimulation of the brain - almost everyone has a mood switching remote control in their pocket. Drugs and electronic chips help you think faster and remember more.
Residents of Utopia - about dissident marginalized people.“There are still rare settlements in which people refuse to change their bodies, or generally use the achievements of the latest technologies. But they get sick a lot, are aggressive and quickly disappear from the face of the earth. Recently, an ultras movement has emerged that calls for a complete replacement of the human body. They say radical and indecent things out loud, such as that Homo sapiens are an inferior race.”
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“On the agenda of the World Summit is the issue of eliminating internal armies. The initiators of this project believe that ethical standards have changed greatly over the past decades: the absence of natural death makes the concepts of murder and war completely immoral..."
Where it exists now. Cutting-edge scientific experiments.
We can use technological means to improve ourselves, the human body and eventually even go beyond what most consider human... Molecular nanotechnology has the potential to create an abundance of resources for every human being and give us complete control over the biochemical processes in our bodies , allowing us to get rid of diseases. By rewiring or pharmacologically stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain, we can experience a greater range of emotions, endless happiness, and unlimited intensity joyful experiences every day. From documents of the Russian transhumanist movement
Ecological utopia
In response to which she was born. The danger of environmental disaster, depletion of resources, separation of humans from their natural habitat.
Great goal. Live in harmony with nature, preserve humanity, wildlife, the entire planet in its diversity and beauty.
Forerunners. Various green movements, philosophers like Andre Gortz, Murray Bookchin or Nikita Moiseev, partly the Club of Rome.
Economy. Industrial growth is severely limited. The tax system is designed in such a way that it is unprofitable to produce products that pollute the environment in any way. Liberal incentives for production and consumption are severely limited.
Control. At the top is a democratic world government. Below is the self-government of communities, towns and other small communities.
Technologies. Development of alternative energy - from solar panels to thermonuclear reactors. A sharp increase in the recycling rate of recycled materials. Completely new means of communication. Creation of new environmentally friendly means of transport that do not require roads.
Lifestyle. It is fashionable to combine agricultural work with intellectual work. It is customary not to throw away broken things, but to repair them. Many items are used collectively, for example, instead of hundreds of televisions in each family, several community cinemas. Using domestic animal labor is considered immoral.
Residents of Utopia - about dissident marginalized people.“Sometimes eco-villages degenerate into corporations with a strict hierarchy and inequality in consumption; sometimes petty leaders go so far as to start eating animal food and reviving half-forgotten harmful technologies. On the other hand, there are some settlements in which they are confident that any impact is harmful to nature - they even refuse artificial cultivation of plants and eat only what grows on its own.”
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“It may seem strange to many, but thirty years ago, eating the flesh of living creatures was considered completely normal.”
Where it exists now. At the most local level - all kinds of eco-villages. At the most global level - the fight against climate warming and the destruction of the ozone layer.
A rich life is not only entirely compatible with the production of fewer consumer goods, but, on the contrary, requires it. There is no argument, other than, of course, the logic of capitalism, that prevents us from producing and making available to everyone the same adequate housing, clothing, home furnishings and vehicles that are energy efficient, durable and easy to maintain and maintain, while increasing the amount of free time. From the book “Ecology and Freedom” by the French philosopher Andre Gortz
Space utopia
In response to which she was born. The impossibility of human development as a species without space exploration.
Great goal. Humanity going beyond the Earth, unlimited possibilities for understanding the world.
Forerunners. Historically: from Copernicus to Tsiolkovsky. Today there are thousands of scientists from different countries. Well, specific projects can be found on the desks of NASA and Roscosmos engineers.
Economy. Mobilization type. Lack of competition. The main investments are in science and space technology.
Control. Mobilization. Any political action is assessed based on its usefulness and necessity for the exploration of outer space. In fact, the world is controlled by a group of scientists - leaders of the space project.
Technologies. Breakthroughs in a number of natural sciences: astronomy, physics, materials science, chemistry, etc.
Lifestyle. Most citizens feel involved in a global colonization project - the exploration of other planets or even other star systems. In a sense, the god from the hearts returns back to heaven. There are many people who do not have a specific citizenship and consider themselves “citizens of space.” The concept of “nationality” is blurring.
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“There is a lot of work going on out there in the big space. Installers of the space center have already begun joining the elements of the first space city, capable of accommodating more than 50 thousand residents. Its first inhabitants will be scientists from the research center named after. Tsiolkovsky - this is where the cutting edge of the fight against gravity is now taking place.”
Resident of Utopia about dissident marginalized people.“There are still ordinary people among us who believe that their petty interests are above the interests of humanity. They complain about shortcomings in the domestic sphere. However, for the most part these are people of the past, and you even feel sorry for them. It is good that the Council did not follow the lead of the extremists who demanded that those who do not work for the project be transferred to limited consumption. Let them live as they want."
Where can you see it now? International Space Station. Projects for the development of Mars.
I don't think humanity can survive the next millennium unless we get into space. Too many misfortunes threaten life concentrated on one planet. When we go into space and establish independent colonies, our future will be secure. There are no conditions similar to those on Earth within the solar system, so you will have to get to another star. Stephen Hawking, British astrophysicist. From an interview with the Western press
Alter-globalist utopia
In response to which she was born. The injustice of neoliberal globalization. Inequality between the countries of the rich North and the poor South. Imperial ambitions of rich countries in foreign policy and racism in domestic policy.
Great goal. Global cooperation, economic justice, harmony with the environment, the triumph of human rights and cultural diversity.
Forerunners. Leaders of socialism like Marx or Bakunin. Former Red Brigade mastermind Tony Negri, linguist Noam Chomsky, economist and publicist Susan George.
Economy. Serial mass production is being replaced by craftsmanship with an emphasis on the uniqueness of the product. Financial transactions are subject to a “Tobin tax” (0.1–0.25%). Land speculation is prohibited. There is no private ownership of resources and copyrights.
Control. Power is delegated from the bottom up: from “strong” cooperatives, self-governing communities and villages to a “weak” democratic world government.
Technologies. A harmonious combination of high technology and craft art, manual and automated labor. No two cars are alike.
Lifestyle. The world is divided into many relatively small communities and communes. Each of them has its own way of life. Somewhere vegetarianism and free love are the norm, and somewhere patriarchal traditions are the norm. The world is united, but diverse. Communities cooperate on a horizontal level. Today, a commune of Norwegian fishermen enters into an alliance with Sami reindeer herders and Japanese musicians, and then this commune changes its mood and enters into an alliance with some African cooperative. It's the same with an individual. Each community is free to enter and leave.
Resident of Utopia - about dissident marginalized people.“In my opinion, the main threat is the world government, last year they already tried to reassign the Joint Law Enforcement Forces, but the cooperative council, fortunately, was on the alert.”
From the newspaper "Truth of Utopia".“Can a seventy-three-year-old person learn to play the kobyz? Maybe - and this was proven by a famous theoretical physicist, a former member of the Union of Scientists commune. On his seventieth birthday, he joined the “Group of Kazakh Musicians,” and this year he already performed as a soloist at a concert organized by the “Asian Folk Center” in Edinburgh.”
Where it exists now. Cooperatives of Brazilian peasants after they seized land from rich latifundists. Communes in Western Europe.
Rule #1: Everything belongs to everyone. All results and resources of creative activity in this network are free and open for use by everyone (including non-citizens of Nueva Castalia)... Patents in Nueva Castalia have been abolished... Rule No. 2. Everyone is open to dialogue with everyone. All networks are open, and their participants independently choose the circle of those with whom they are interested<…>conduct a dialogue... Rule No. 3. Education and upbringing, health care and culture are publicly available... Rule No. 4. A citizen of New Castalia does not voluntarily use his potential for commercial and/or government purposes... Alexander Buzgalin, professor at Moscow State University. From the article “New Castalia”
UTOPIA - a special way of social foresight, the result of which is the idea or image of a perfect state, designed to serve as a model of social order. As a special genre, Wu exists on the border between literature itself, social philosophy and politics. The term “U” comes from the name of the fictional island in the novel of the same name by T. More (1516) and translated from Greek. means: 1) a place that does not exist, 2) a blessed place. In More's plans, the name "U" was preceded by the more categorical "Nigdeya" - from lat. “Nusquamam” (“nusquam” - “nowhere”, “nowhere”, “from nowhere”, “for nothing”, “for nothing”, “in no way”, “in no way”). The name of the island and the novel has become a household name and denotes, first of all, a fictitious ideal state or country where people’s dreams of a blissful, happy life are fully realized; in an expanded sense, U includes works of various genres that propose unrealistic plans for social transformation; in a pejorative sense, it is used to designate something impractical, illusory, fruitless, which is based on the fusion of “good” and “non-existent” inherent in the word “U”. The model for most of the authors was Plato's Republic, which laid the foundations for this literary genre and type of consciousness. Plato gave two fundamental ideas for U: the division of the world into true and untrue and the idea of the perfect organization of human society. Ideal, according to Plato, are states based on a “preconditionless beginning”; this beginning is an absolute good that justifies itself; the question of the correct structure of the state was a continuation of reflections on the essence of the concept of “state” and the resulting ideas about its meaning, purpose, purpose and functions. Plato is not looking for the happiness of people, as it will be in the later works, but for truth, understood as the correspondence of an object to its idea. Plato's ideal world contrasts with the everyday world not only logically and ontologically, but also axiologically, as good versus evil. This distinction between two worlds - true and untrue - contains the metaphysical basis of the doctrine of a true or perfect state. Plato created U both as a special way of describing ideal reality or as a method of demonstrating the reality of the ideal. The metaphysical dualism of Plato's two worlds was realized in More's "U" as an alternative to the existing imperfect and ideal, built in accordance with the principles of reason, the perfect state of the Utopians, while metaphysical dualism is replaced by value dualism. T. Campanella combines a utopian philosopher with a revolutionary - he writes his philosophy as a political program for social transformation. Thus, following the metaphysical, the space-time barrier between the real and ideal worlds is overcome and the task of implementing this value alternative is set. In the era of Enlightenment and the French Revolution, theory began to turn into a “practical theory”, acquiring the functions of ideology and politics. Inspired and captivated by the idea of progress, Enlightenment philosophy took the utopian dream of a better, perfect world as a dream of a future world. The “topos” visible on the horizon is replaced by a “chronos” glowing somewhere in the historical perspective, and the search for another place has been replaced by a desire for the future. From this moment on, Wu leaves the sphere of a purely spiritual search, which develops beautiful ideals addressed to the imagination and feelings of a person, and becomes an active element of socio-practical consciousness, the foundation of political programs. The belief in the magical power of an ideal, inherited from Plato, capable of conquering the world due to its persuasiveness and attractiveness, was supplemented by the belief in the possibility of violent embodiment of the principles of a reasonable and perfect social order. According to various criteria, teachings are divided into practical, speculative, satirical, technocratic, and theocratic; to places and time, retrospective and prospective, mythological, ethnographic, geographical, escapism and reconstruction, egalitarian and hierarchical, etc. U’s research is developing in different directions: sociological, political science, psychological, psychoanalytic, philological, etc. Genre diversity determined the dual development of Y: as a plot, plot, image and as a social project. Many definitions of virtual reality are suitable for U, such as illusory-sensual reality, or as a phantom object, devoid of ontological foundations, not reflecting reality, but replacing it. Meaning center U is not so much the future as an ideal, perfect society; the future is considered exclusively from the position of should. The purpose of Y is to affirm what should be as an existing thing, to construct something that does not yet exist, to affirm the possibility of what should be. Unlike a forecast, which starts from what is, i.e. from the present, and on this basis tries to build a picture of a possible or inevitable future, utopian consciousness, on the contrary, proceeds from what does not exist, but what should be, i.e. from the desired future, and from this comprehends and evaluates the present. In Y, a general philosophical problem is expressed in a special way: does the conceivability of something entail its possibility or feasibility? The content of Y is not only the ideal it affirms, but also the positive attitude towards it itself. Changing the author's attitude towards the ideal to a negative one turns Y into a dystopia - a caricature of a positive Y. From the moment of its formation, utopian thought produced both positive Y and dystopias, the authors of which set out to ridicule and discredit the very idea of perfection, the utopian attitude in general. Long before E. Zamyatin or O. Huxley, in parallel with Plato, Aristophanes wrote his comedies, Mora’s “U” also gave rise to many dystopian parodies. Human ideals are different, and what the author U sees as saving for humanity, a reader of another time, another culture or beliefs may be perceived as a disaster. A modern reader may perceive Plato’s “State” and “Laws” or Campanella’s “City of the Sun” as dystopias, but the author’s attitude towards the ideal state he describes excludes such a qualification. It is also difficult to qualify “Chevengur” by A. Platonov as a dystopia or dystopia due to his sympathetic attitude to the events described. In a broad sense, dystopia is understood as a school of thought that denies the possibility of achieving a perfect society, establishing a just social system, the depiction of fictional societies that cannot in any way be considered ideal, and, above all, are not such in the eyes of their authors. Negative U includes both dystopia itself and dystopia (inverted U) or “cacotopia” (literally, a bad, evil place). However, there are some differences between them. Dystopia is distinguished from dystopia as a critique of dreams from a critique of reality, for dystopia is directed against U, and dystopia is directed against a really existing society. The dystopia is dominated by criticism of U, and above all of its rationalistic illusions, the inconsistency and incompatibility of the ideals it affirms is shown, the conflicts that arise during the implementation of utopian projects are revealed, and the question of the price of achieving “universal happiness” is raised. Unlike dystopia as a critique of the ideal of a perfect society, the negative pathos of dystopia is directed against the existing society and the evil reigning in it, which only continues and intensifies in the depicted future society. While U offers a different, alternative world built on harmony and reason, dystopia disproportionately strengthens existing irrational and destructive tendencies, pushing them to the limit; the first expresses the hopes, the second - the fears of society. U is a dream of a perfect society, dystopia is a criticism of the image of an ideal society, dystopia is a diagnosis of the evil that exists in the world. EL. Chertkova Lit.: Arab-Ogly E.A. In the labyrinth of prophecies. M., 1973; Berger P., Luckman T. Social construction of reality. M., 1995; Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of the story. M., 1990; Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M., 1990; Bestuzhev-Lada I.V. Window to the future. M. 1970; Ideal, utopia and critical reflection. M., 1996; Mannheim K. Ideology and utopia // Mannheim K. Diagnosis of our time. M., 1994. S. 7-276; Popper K. The open society and its enemies. M., 1992; Utopia and utopian thinking: An anthology of foreign literature. M., 1991; Chertkova E.L. Metamorphoses of utopian consciousness // Questions of philosophy. 2001. / No. 7; Goodvin V. Social Science and Utopia: Nineteen Century Models of Social Harmony. Hassocks, 1978; Hansot E. Perfection and Progress: Two Models of Utopian Thoughts. Cambridge, L. 1974; Nell E. Science in Utopia. A Mighty Design. Cambridge, Mass., 1967; RicoeurP. Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. N.Y., 1986.
U. as one of the unique forms of societies. consciousness has traditionally embodied such features as comprehension of the social ideal, criticism of the existing system, as well as attempts to anticipate the future of society. Initially, U. is closely intertwined with legends about the “golden age” and the “isles of the blessed.” In antiquity and especially during the Renaissance, under the influence of the great geographical U.'s discoveries gained preeminence. a form of description of perfect states that supposedly exist somewhere on earth, or existed in the past (“City of the Sun” by Campanella, “New Atlantis” by F. Bacon, “History of the Sevarambs” by D. Veras, etc.), in 17-18 centuries Various utopian texts have also become widespread. treatises and projects of social and political. reforms. From ser. 19th century U. is becoming more and more specific. genre polemical literature devoted to the problem of social ideal and moral values.
U. are diverse in social content and literature. form - these are various currents of utopian socialism, as well as the slaveholding ones of W. Plato and Xenophon; feudal theocratic works by W. Joachim of Flora, V. Andreae “Christianopolis” (Andreae J.V., Republicae Christianopolitanal descriptio, 1619), etc.; bourgeois and small-town W. J. Harrington “The Republic of Oceania” (Harrington J., The Common Wealth of Oceana, 1656), E. Bellamy “Looking Back” (Bellamy E., Looking backward, 1888), T. Hertzky “Freyland” (Hertzka Th ., Freiland, 1890), as well as numerous. technocratic, anarchic and others. U. Many utopian. the essays proposed a solution to the dep. problems: treatises on “eternal peace” (Erasmus of Rotterdam, E. Kruse, C. Saint-Pierre, I. Kant, I. Bentham, etc.), pedagogy. U. (Ya. A. Komensky, J. J. Rousseau, etc.), scientific and technical (F. Bacon).
Ukraine is also clearly represented in the history of societies. thoughts of the ancient and middle ages. China (utopian works of Mo Tzu, Lao Tzu, Shang Yang, etc.), the peoples of Bl. and Wed. East (al-Farabi, Ibn Badja, Ibn Tufail, Nizami, Ibn Rushd, etc.), in the literature of Russia 18-20 centuries - “Journey to the Land of Ophir” (1786) M. M. Shcherbatova, “Discourse on Peace and War "(parts 1-2, 1803) by V. F. Malinovsky, op. Decembrists and revolutionaries. democrats, novels?. ?. Bogdanova and others.
As societies develop. sciences, especially after the emergence of Marxism, U. means. least loses its cognizance. and prognostic role. With its revival in the 20th century. W. owes a lot to Wells, who not only wrote many utopian works. works, but also considered the creation and criticism of social teachings one of the main. tasks of sociology. Sorel contrasted wisdom as rationalized false consciousness with social myth as the spontaneous expression of societies. needs. U.'s research occupies a large place in the sociology of knowledge of Mannheim, who sought to substantiate the difference between U., which performs the functions of social criticism, and ideology, which, in his opinion, performs apologeticism. functions. According to Mumford, main. U.'s purpose is to guide societies. development in the direction of the “prepared future”, forcing the masses to come to terms with it as supposedly inevitable, dictated by “technological imperative." For a long time, bourgeois sociologists disparaged education as “chimerical” projects for the transformation of society, to which they included scientific communism without evidence.
However, the victory of the socialist. revolution in Russia and the rise will liberate. movements all over the world were perceived by them as a real threat to the embodiment of Ukraine in reality. The dominant trend in the 20-50s. In the West, Ukraine began to be discredited through the writing of various kinds of dystopias that predicted a gloomy future for humanity.
In the 60-70s. 20th century, due to the deep ideological crisis of the bourgeoisie. consciousness, U. attracts increasing attention from societies. figures, ideologists and sociologists of capitalist. West. There is a duality among them. attitude towards the U. On the one hand, persistent attempts continue to discredit the U., to identify Marxism with utopianism. consciousness, and communism - with millenarian movements in the past, in order to emphasize the unattainability of communistism. ideals. This tendency clearly prevails among conservatives, as well as revisionists, Marxologists and Sovietologists (Z. Bauman, L. Kolakovsky, O. Lemberg, etc.). On the other hand, there are calls to create a liberal-democratic system that is attractive to the broad masses. U. as an alternative to Marxism and scientific. communism, with the aim of idealizing state-monopoly. capitalism or justify a program for its renewal through “reformation from above”, opposed to socialism. revolution (F. Hayek, F. L. Polak, W. Moore, B. P. Beckwith). Some futurologists and ecologists in the West are trying to use science to make their concepts of the future attractive: the most typical in this regard are the works of B. P. Beckwith “The Next 500 Years” and E. Kallenbach “Ecotopia”. Many small-town radicals, ideologists of the “new left” movement, without seeing the practical. ways to achieve social justice, deliberately take the position of militant utopianism (R. Mills, G. Marcuse, P. Goodman, etc.). For modern bourgeois U. is characterized by an interweaving of utopian. and dystopian. tendencies, which is expressed in the fact that the social ideal proclaimed in it is, as a rule, accompanied by a rejection of traditions. humanistic and democratic values (eg, The Second Walden by B.F. Skinner). The greater the gap between social reality is antagonistic. society and the proclaimed ideals, the more utopian the ideas of the bourgeoisie become. and small-town ideologists about the future. This is manifested in their transition from “hidden” to “open” philosophy, that is, to deliberate utopianism, which is characterized by extreme voluntarism. Paraphrasing Hegel, they argue that “everything that is real is utopian, and everything that is utopian is real,” that humanity supposedly has no other alternative but the choice between “utopia or destruction” (R. Dumont, P. S. Henshaw, V. Ferkis, etc. .).
Marxist sociology views wisdom as one of the forms of inadequate reflection of social reality; however, in the past, U. performed important ideological and educational tasks. and knowledgeable. functions. The meaning of culture is determined by its class content and social purpose. U. is an expression of certain interests. classes and social strata, as a rule, not in power. To evaluate modern bourgeois and small-town Of fundamental importance is the distinction made by V.I. Lenin between liberal and populist. W. The first “is harmful not only because it is utopian. but also because it corrupts the democratic consciousness of the masses”; As for the second, “Marxists must carefully isolate from the husk of populist utopias the healthy and valuable core of sincere, decisive, militant democracy of the peasant masses.” It should be taken into account that in the conditions of the general crisis of capitalism, the reactionary nature of the liberal philosophy increases, while the progressiveness and social criticism of the radical (populist) culture becomes historically even more limited (see V.I. Lenin, Two Utopias, in the book: PSS, vol. 22, pp. 117-21). U. also has much in common with social myth in ideological content, with social satire in lit. form, with scientific fantasy - by cognizance. functions. At the same time, U. has a number of features: first of all, the belief in the possibility of resolving all the contradictions of society with a single use of k.-l. a universal scheme considered as a panacea for any social evil. Therefore, U. is characterized by anti-historicism, a deliberate separation from reality, and nihilism. attitude towards reality, the desire to construct things and relationships according to the principle “everything should be the other way around”, a tendency towards formalism, idealistic. an understanding of history that reveals itself in exaggerating the role of education and legislation, as well as reliance on support from prominent personalities, holders of power, philanthropists, etc.
In the history of society and societies. U.'s thoughts often served as a form of expression for revolutionaries. ideology. Many basic principles will liberate. workers' movements, morals. and legislator. norms, systems of pedagogy and education were first formulated in the U. The great utopians, as Engels noted, “... brilliantly anticipated countless such truths, the correctness of which we are now proving scientifically...” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. , vol. 18, p. 499).
Although the emergence of scientific socialism undermined the social significance of Ukraine and deprived it of many of its former functions, Ukraine did not lose its role as a specific one. literary genre. Positive meaning of U. “in modern The era manifests itself in two directions: it allows one to anticipate the probable distant future, which at a given level of knowledge cannot be scientifically predicted in specific details, and can also warn against certain negatives. social consequences human. activities. These forms of control stimulated the development in sociology of methods of normative forecasting and scenarios for the purpose of analyzing and assessing the desirability and likelihood of the expected development of events.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Utopia is a social project of an ideal future, sharply different from the present reality and opposed to it. Perhaps due to the etymology of the term (from the Greek “place that does not exist”). Utopia is often associated with armchair thinking, concocting unrealistic plans and chimeras. But this is a simplified understanding. Social utopianism is by no means groundless; it arises as a response to certain social demands and influences minds and the course of events. Regardless of how great this influence is and how much the results correspond to the original plans, utopia acts as a unique form of social action, social criticism.
The function of social criticism was specially highlighted in utopia by K. Mannheim and contrasted it with ideology as an instrument of affirmation, an apology for the Existing. However, historical practice shows that this line is very relative. In the process of implementation, a utopia may well turn into an ideology, and an extremely rigid one. It, like ideology, is characterized by the features of “false consciousness” - not only in the Marxian sense (group or class interests are presented as the interests of the entire society), but also in the sense of a deformed, one-dimensional view of the world, an attempt to resolve social contradictions through leveling and regulation human needs, the initiative of the masses and even the everyday behavior of people.
These features were especially clearly manifested in various trends of utopian socialism. Many of them, starting with the utopias of the late 18th century, were characterized by the features of “barracks”, a one-dimensional vision of social processes. What was the one-dimensionality? First of all, in hypertrophied futurism, when the past and present were completely denied in the name of a radiant future. “There, beyond the seas of grief, there is a sunny land without end.” What exists in the eyes of revolutionary utopianism must be destroyed “to the ground,” which, directly or indirectly, led to emphasizing the role of violence in the revolution and even violent methods of creating a new social system.
In his thinking and activity, the utopian relies mainly on subjective factors, on “critically thinking individuals” who should bring creativity into the course of history, as well as on the cult of the organization, which, with its cohesion and mobility, is designed to compensate for the narrowness of the revolutionary ranks. At the same time, this romantic activism is combined in utopias with an essentially mechanistic view of the world. The latter stems from the extreme maximalism of the utopian project (building a “harmonious”, “perfect” society), and hence the desire to control every step of its implementation, to manipulate people as mechanical elements in the name of achieving a great goal.
Accordingly, the humanism of utopias is more declarative than real, built on “love of the distant.” As for our “neighbors,” our contemporaries, most of them are just material to be processed, refined, and prepared for a new society.
Utopianism of “barracks socialism” in the 18th-19th centuries. existed only theoretically. However, the 20th century led to its implementation in practice (the era of Stalin in the USSR, Maoism in China, Pol Potism, etc.). These examples showed that the best way to refute a utopia is to implement it in practice. Practice has also revealed the combination of pre-bourgeois egalitarian tendencies with a huge concentration of political power and means of technocratic manipulation of society, characteristic of modern utopia. The deadlock of utopia as a variant of social development was also revealed by the authors of so-called dystopias (E. Zamyatin, O. Huxley, J. Orwell).
The utopian type of consciousness is opposed by realism, based on a scientific approach to reality, the correlation of the revolutionary-critical position with the objective laws of social development, humanism, which is based on universal human values. In socialism this is the tradition of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin.
Under the sign of realism, perestroika began in the USSR. True, various manifestations of social utopianism are still making themselves felt. They appear either in search of some kind of panacea (“the market must save us”, “the central figure must be the cooperator”, etc.), sometimes in bureaucratic projectism, sometimes in outright nostalgia for the times of barracks “order”. But the realistic trend is making itself known more and more decisively. She is no longer looking for “a link that can pull the whole chain”; she is not satisfied with large-scale verbal constructions and “promises that are consistent only on paper. Publicity, sincerity, truthfulness, impartiality, competence, economic practicality, democracy, humanism +- here are its components. And behind revolutionary realism, without a doubt, lies the historical future of socialism.
In modern scientific literature, the concept of “utopia” is used in a variety of senses, in different semantic contexts. Even in special works devoted to the definition of utopia, we will not find any definite and unambiguous interpretation of this concept. On the contrary, the most motley mosaic of concepts and ideas often dominates here. Some see in utopia the eternal, never-attainable dream of mankind about a “golden age”; others, on the contrary, interpret it as a real principle that is realized with each new step in the spiritual and practical development of mankind. Some see in it a pre-scientific form of thinking, something between religion and science, others, on the contrary, associate it with the development of modern scientific knowledge. Some argue that utopia is “dead”, that it has been completely obliterated by the development of history, while others talk about the widespread and even revival of utopian consciousness.
These kinds of contradictions and antinomies are widespread in modern works on utopias. Therefore, in order to at least generally define the content of this concept, it is useful to recall the terminological meaning of the word “utopia”.
It is known that the term “utopia” originates from the Greek “u” - no and “topos” - place. In other words, the literal meaning of the term “utopia” is a place that does not exist. This is what Thomas More called his fictional country.
Another interpretation of this term derives it from the Greek “ev” - perfect, best and “topos” - place, i.e. perfect place, country of perfection. Both interpretations are widely represented in utopian literature: for example, “News from Nowhere” by William Morris, “City of the Sun” by Campanella, etc.
In modern literature, there are other modifications of the term “utopia”, derived from its original root. This is “dystopia” from the Greek “dis” - bad and “topos” - place, i.e. bad place, something opposed to utopia as a perfect, better world. The term “dystopia” is also used in the same sense, denoting a special literary genre that opposes the traditional positive utopia.
Along with this, the term “entopia” (from the Greek “en” - here, “topos” - place) is also used as a concept opposite to the literal meaning of the term “utopia” - a place that does not exist.
Thus, the terminological meaning of the word “utopia” is complex and polysemantic. With all the variety of shades of meaning, its main function is to designate the desired future) to serve as a description of a fictional country designed to serve as a model of social order.
It is usually customary to divide utopias into ancient and modern. Ancient utopias include dreams of a “golden age”, which are found already in Homer, descriptions of the “island of bliss”, various religious and ethical concepts and ideals. The utopian element is strong in Christianity, it manifests itself in ideas about paradise, the apocalypse, and the ideal of monastic life. This type of utopia is represented by Augustine’s essay “On the City of God.” A special growth of utopianism within Christianity arises with the emergence of various kinds of heresies that demanded reform of the church and achieve the idea of social equality. This idea was developed by T. Molnar, calling utopia an “eternal heresy.” A fruitful source of utopianism in the Middle Ages were popular ideas about fantastic countries, where, as, for example, in the country of Cocaine, work is easy and life is joyful for everyone.
Ancient utopianism ends in the Renaissance. At this time, modern classical utopias emerged, such as More's Utopia, Campanella's City of the Sun, Andrea's Christianopolis, and Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. Two main facts contributed to the emergence of modern utopia. Firstly, the great world discoveries, which led to the discovery of new, previously unknown lands. And, secondly, the decomposition of Christianity, which opened up the emergence of new forms of secular, secularized thinking. Unlike ancient ones, modern utopias embodied the idea of equality, the concept of scientific and technological progress, and the belief that science and technological discoveries can improve human life.
Among utopias that differ in social content and literary form, utopian socialism occupies a significant place. Classical utopian socialism of the 19th century (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Owen) was one of the theoretical sources of Marxism.
With the advent of the scientific theory of social development, utopianism as a way of thinking does not die. The fact is that no development of theory can in itself eliminate the social needs for utopia, and this need in the form of such social mechanisms as hope, dream, prediction of the future, still remains relevant for modern social thought.
Of course, in our time, utopias are changing significantly, giving rise to new genres and types of utopian literature. Since the 19th century, negative utopias, or dystopias, which describe not so much the desired as the undesirable future, warning about the possible undesirable consequences of scientific and technological progress, have acquired particular importance. But dystopias themselves, no matter how critical they may be of positive utopias, do not mean the end or degeneration of utopian consciousness. Modern dystopias widely use the methods and techniques of utopian thinking and represent not a denial, but an affirmation, only in new forms, of the need for utopian literature.
In Russia, utopian literature was widespread. It is known that most Russian thinkers of the 19th century were utopian socialists. The ideas of utopian socialism were developed by Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Tkachev, Lavrov, and Kropotkin. However, for a long time it was believed that there was no independent and original literary utopia in Russia. Meanwhile, in Russian literature there is a rather rich tradition associated with various genres of utopia. This is the utopian novel by M. M. Shcherbatov “Journey to the Land of Ophir”, and the Decembrist utopia by A. D. Ulybyshev “The Dream”, and the wonderful utopian novel by V. F. Odoevsky “4338”, and the satirical utopia by G. P. Danilevsky’s “Life in a Hundred Years”, and the socialist utopia of N. G. Chernyshevsky in the novel “What is to be done?”, and the dystopia of V. Ya. Bryusov “Republic of the Southern Cross” and N. D. Fedorov “Evening in 2117”, and socialist utopias of A. A Bogdanov “Red Star” and “Engineer Manny”. In recent years, the long-banned anti-utopia “We” by E. Zamyatin and the socialist utopia by A. V. Chayanov “The Journey of My Brother Alexei to the Land of Peasant Utopia” have become available to the Soviet reader. All this indicates that the Russian utopian novel was at the level of world utopian literature, and in the genre of negative utopia, Russian writers were much ahead.
The term “utopia” is widely used not only in literature, but also in political vocabulary. Most often it denotes unrealistic social projects and dreams that diverge from reality. But the dynamics of social life and political development often refutes the negative use of this term. It is known that the English writer Herbert Wells, having visited Russia in 1920, met with V.I. Lenin and was so struck by the contrast between dreams of the future industrial development of Russia and the terrible poverty of the country that he called Lenin a utopian and a “Kremlin dreamer.” T. Dreiser, who visited the USSR a few years later, came to the same conclusions.
Similar ideas are expressed today. In one of his speeches, M. S. Gorbachev said that we are often called utopians, but there is nothing wrong with utopias if they pursue progressive goals and make everyday life better.
All this means that quite often the line between utopias and reality in the conditions of developing social structures and rapid scientific and technological progress turns out to be unsteady and the use of the term “utopian” as a synonym for the unrealistic and unrealistic is not always justified.
Of course, this does not mean that, as Ortega y Gasset said, “everything that a person undertakes is utopian.” But Oscar Wilde's idea that “progress is the realization of utopias” is confirmed by many events in modern social history.
We were thoroughly taken through. In fact, there were many scattered around the world who believed and even hoped that thanks to the crisis of Marxism, which back in 1908 Georges Sorel called the “decomposition of Marxism,” the ban on utopia would be lifted and, perhaps, justice would be given to the hidden and, according to to tell the truth, a little-known tradition, which conservative thought rejected in the name of the existing order, and revolutionary thought that reached “maturity” labeled with the ridiculous label of infantilism. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to take a fresh look at the “terra incognita” of utopia, which strangely haunts modern politics and history? And then, finally, the phenomenon of utopia will become a space for study, attention, anticipation and even passion.
Some figures, recognizing the flesh of a totalitarian state under the appearance of socialism, reopened this space. In 1947, Andre Breton, in his book Arcana 17, called for turning to the great utopians from whom Marxism had distracted us. In 1950, in his book Ten Theses on Modern Marxism, Korsch exposed the reactionary utopianism of the revival of original Marxism and contrasted it with a return to the integrity of the modern social movement. Gradually, the idea was formed that utopia is a form of social thought and, moreover, an original approach to social problems, an idea that should be understood in itself, beyond any comparison (this is not the embryo of a revolutionary science and not an addition to spiritual quests) . In short, utopia needs to be rethought as a practice of specific intervention in the social sphere, as, perhaps, a completely new practice of transforming the world. There is no doubt that the appeal to the great utopians - their writings or practical activities - was stimulated by the search, perhaps not entirely consciously, for ways out of modern aporia.
In comparison with the revival of the revolutionary political tradition, which occurred almost at the same time, the renewal of utopia was characterized by an amazing and peculiar freedom in considering the object. Having gone through a period of doubt or criticism (it does not matter where they came from - from Marxism or anarchism, from Proudhon or Sorel or from surrealism), this return to utopia successfully avoided the pitfalls of naivety and dogmatism.
In essence, the movement towards utopia is, perhaps, one of those paths that allows us to avoid the “all or nothing” alternative, to prevent the endless alternation of revolutionism and disappointment.
1968's The Breach suggests that utopia meets modernity; These events reveal a clash between the anonymous revival of a utopia, multiple, diverse, “reckless,” seeking itself, and, on the other hand, the imperialism of the revolutionary tradition, which tirelessly sought to give a classical political interpretation of the new, to introduce the unknown of the exceptional into the framework of the known. But the outcome of this clash remained uncertain.
Yes, we were thoroughly fooled. All these are just illusions. As soon as the anniversary lights went out, a new trial began, the trial of the great dreamer teachers. The verdict has already been passed. In mild form it sounds like this: “We do not have a specific ideal. They don’t like utopia.” "Utopia is something unattractive." ("Eco de Savant", February 1978). In a harsh form it is stated: “Utopia is the Gulag” (“Magazine Litterer”, July - August 1978). Some ask: “Where has utopia gone?” Others answer: “Utopia is finished, utopia is dead.” What disastrous delusions we have* We associated with utopia thoughts about happiness, desires, imagination, emancipation, change, overcoming limitations, about the miraculous, we turned to the shadows of Thomas More, Campanella, Saint-Simon, Enfantin, Dejac, Pierre Leroux, William Morris. Pernicious illusions, terrible names! By acting in this way we were the harbingers of totalitarianism.
It is useless to demand arguments, analysis based on history, to distinguish between the old and modern utopia, it is ridiculous (if not outrageous?) to strive to draw a distinction between utopias based on scarcity and abundance, between state and anti-state utopias. All these nuances are of interest only to short-sighted and abstrusely reasoning scholars. For those who are insightful and know how to take in the entire space of utopia, the essence of the issue can be summarized by three postulates:
Throughout history - from Plato to the present day - through many civilizations there passes, in essence, only one idea of utopia - an eternal utopia.
Indeed, in all their various works, the Utopians write and rewrite the same text. Hence the principle of reading: having become familiar with one utopia, you have become familiar with all of them. Therefore, it is not surprising that connoisseurs of utopia appear like mushrooms after rain, and one should not be surprised at the quality of the result.
Utopia, eternal utopia, is invariably totalitarian. This is proven by the fact that utopia is the creation of mathematicians, geometers of social order, and not poets. Didn't Plato banish the poets from the ideal city? In a utopia, everyone is extremely serious; From here fantasy, disorder, everything original is expelled; Freedom is being stifled here. Being a closed system based on autarky, utopia is likened to a maddened machine that fabricates symmetry, serves to produce and reproduce the same thing.
The utopian state functions like a huge barracks. This is the triumph of system, organization, artificiality and artifact as opposed to everything organic and vital. The foundations of this state despotism are obvious: the subordination of the individual, the priority of equality over freedom, and finally, the destruction of the family, which, as everyone knows since the times of O. Comte and Le Play, is the center of freedom.
Whether we are talking about the classical forms of utopia or its current manifestations, all evil stems from the fact that it represents an escape from the human condition, an escape from history, a negation of time. To generalize, to put everyone in one cart is the natural desire of all prosecutors - from Fouquier-Tinville to Vyshinsky. Those who do not have a penchant for accusatory speeches should rather distinguish between utopias which turn utopian energy into politics, into the harmonious organization of the city, which, persistently seeking a perfect constitution, endow the state with this power, and those utopias which, on the contrary, by rejecting the state, they liberate metapolitics; those utopias that go further, to a “completely different” social idea, as Levinas says, to a completely different state, being involved in an endless movement towards the new. Nevertheless, even in the case where utopia offers a theoretical model and seeks to function as a sign system that aims to determine the place and role of each individual and each group, one must take into account the utopian play of the imagination, which is used not only as decoration; otherwise the utopian text will be reduced to a charter.
This way of reading and comprehending is especially necessary in relation to most of the great utopias of the 19th century. If Fourier still has one foot in utopian socialism and can be accused of dogmatism, of ideological monologism, according to Bakhtin, it is no less obvious that he lays the foundation for a new kind of communication, directs utopia onto the path of seduction. Outside of the reason that destroyed us and in spite of it, he sees a new beacon - love, as “the most powerful factor of rapprochement, under the influence of passion, even between antipathetic characters” (“New World in Love”). Far from a new project for educating humanity, Fourier calls for a revolt of passions, for undermining the politics of civilization, which does not value pleasure at all and ignores the fact that it (pleasure) should make up a good half of discussions about social happiness. Under the influence of “absolute detachment,” utopia breaks away from the state, from revolution through the state, and thereby goes beyond rational knowledge and turns to affectivity. Using the attraction of passion, utopia becomes a theater, a stage where mirages are transmitted and exchanged; utopia produces, or tends to produce, a shocking impression; it becomes the first experiment with effective social forms. With the help of living paintings, she tries to save us from weakness of desire and create whirlwinds of passions. From the encounter with Eros, a new strategy of utopia emerges, which brings into action the effectiveness of symbols, following the example of revolutionary religions. utopia-seduction establishes a different connection with the sphere of aesthetics: it appeals to artists with a call to implement and spread “foresight based on sympathy”; connecting with opera, theater, and novel, utopia embraces the realm of aesthetics. Utopia is the “promise of happiness.” Stendhal considered Fourier an inspired dreamer.
Hence the scarcity and inconsistency of a realistic reading of ponderous ideological schemes. The accusation of totalitarianism, based on a reading that is completely inappropriate to the subject, disappears by itself. And besides, the gravediggers of utopia understand totalitarianism no more than they understand utopia itself. Is it necessary to warn these newly minted adherents of freedom that totalitarianism is no easier to judge than utopia; a joint analysis of these two concepts is even more complex, even problematic.
The utopian tradition is by no means united; it is heterogeneous and multiple. First of all, it is necessary to distinguish utopias that have a goal of positive organization and, being in the grip of illusions about a good system, are aimed at its establishment, at the immediate implementation of connections with political practice, to distinguish them from those “negative” utopias that belong to the sphere of “nowhere” (“nowhere”), avoid turning into something positive and do not separate the vision of a different society from the utopian space, the space of “nowhere.” The issue of genealogy includes the study of utopias that are associated with Jacobinism and are part of the global strategy for creating a political party. If there is no party in the modern sense (this is an essential point), an image of power appears, a good power that understands social problems and is able, with the help of the people, to achieve a good organizational structure capable of creating a unified and indivisible society at the end of the transition period. We see this in Cabet (“Journey to Icaria”) and in Bellamy (“After a Hundred Years”). There is no need to wait for our anarchists to reject the despotism of this form of neo-Jacobin utopia or this fusion of socialism with the state. Such denial was born within the utopian tradition itself. In that century, utopian energy was powerful and complex enough to criticize revolutionary theory and at the same time create a new utopia. Dejak vs. Cabet, Blanqui vs. Louis Blanc. William Morris v Bellamy.
Anyone who accepts the utopian tradition as a whole, follows the development of its contradictions, cannot help but note, like M. Buber (“Utopia and Socialism”), the emergence in the 19th century of an original utopian method, which contrasts itself with the revolutionary model that emerged from 1793 years, revolutions through the state. Despite all the differences, the same idea inspires the great utopians of the 19th century: drawing conclusions from the defeat of the French Revolution, they strive to transform their contemporary society in a completely different way. By refusing to transfer the revolutionary function to the state and allow it to fill the entire public sphere with the aim of disseminating and imposing the same normative model on different layers of civil society, the utopian strategy changes the direction of movement. Or moreover: she moves away from resolving issues. And not so much in order to replace the revolution from above with a revolution from below, but in order to open a new horizontal space for social experiments under the sign of utopia. The utopian strategy comes from civil society and from the numerous centers of social life that are contained in it, proposing to create, taking into account differences in practical actions, a new society, to give the opportunity to form a new social being. Decentralization, growth in the number of centers of social life (meaning domestic and agricultural associations, cuisine, sexuality, work, dancing, education, games), invitation to pluralism, dispersal, call for the establishment of connections between groups, associations, again and again formed and dissolved , the creation on the same territory of many experimental micro-societies “behind the back” of state unification - these are the paths of utopia to the establishment of a new, “common life” of people. At the same time, the “society of societies” would gradually and spontaneously replace external power and state violence. In the end, it would be proven to the state itself that it had become superfluous. It is necessary to create new social connections, to release vibrant social energy, which can lead to unexpected results. “Socialism will consist in a similar revival of the “cells” of the social fabric distorted by politics,” wrote Levinas. In this sense, nothing is less oppressive than the emergence of these new worlds, which will create conditions for the human race to “love ourselves.” “As little government as possible!” - such is the slogan generated by the as yet insufficiently comprehended explosion of utopian ideas.
If the newspapers are to be believed, we should be grateful to our accusers for finally being able to expose the “disgusting utopia.” We should welcome this magnificent anarchist sermon, which supposedly will save us from a totalitarianism marked by deceptive attractiveness. But is this position really new? Is this discovery so amazing? Didn’t Hayek, Karl Popper, Molnar, Cioran, Talmon (in the lecture “Utopia and Politics”, given in 1957 at the Conservative Political Center) endlessly (some talentedly, others ponderously) incline towards utopia and totalitarianism in a more recent time? Isn’t this position, whose supporters even accuse utopia of monotony, nothing more than the sad lamentations of modern society in the face of social problems, as eternal lamentations expressing the fear of the bourgeoisie? The place and time of his birth are precisely known: Paris, from 1830 to 1848. The main themes were expressed by Sudre (it seems a not-so-forgotten author) in the book “The History of Communism, or the Refutation of Utopias in the Light of History.” It does not matter to us whether the critics of utopia borrowed their ideas from Sudre and his epigones. Chewing ideas full of hatred, lies in politics, obscurantism are combined with the desire to pass off dilapidated ideas as something new. What is rather surprising is the mediocrity of these writings. Obscurantism is winning.
You can accuse me of unfair play: they say, this is a special kind of position; it is anarchist in nature. But is it necessary to remind us that, unlike our critics with their straightforwardness, anarchists have an ambivalent attitude towards utopia? They expose, reject it, attack its authoritarianism, dogmatism, compromises with pro-state ideology), but not in order to discard it as carrion, but in order to immediately proclaim the need to save utopia as an integral part of any radical social movement. Instead of referring to tradition, let us turn to the criticism of totalitarianism, namely, to criticism emanating from the desire for freedom. Although her efforts are aimed at tearing the desire for freedom away from illusory ideas about the “good order,” she, however, does not draw from this conclusion either the inviolability of a society of exploitation and oppression, or its legitimacy. The debunking of the myth of the “good system” does not logically entail the need to abandon the construction of a society that will constantly fight against inequality and the domination of some people over others. There is no need to close history on irreconcilable contradictions; on the contrary, it should be returned to complete freedom of uncertainty, openness to an “absolutely Other” state. What boundaries can a thought that chooses freedom set for history? Such a thought not only does not reject utopia, it again and again describes a “place that does not exist” where the idea and cause of utopia can freely develop.
The reference to anarchism is just a ruse. And who these days is not a supporter of anarchism? Anarchism is a kind of festive attire temporarily thrown over that which does not yet dare to speak its name. Anarchist neoliberalism is an unstable, temporary combination, ready to disintegrate, to dissolve at the right moment. But what is it ready to give way to? A new elegant liberalism with a philosophical overtones and, of course, a planetary scale. Today this has already happened, the connection has broken up, the deception has been discovered. B. A. Levi, ahead of his brothers, wrote: “Anarchism is despotism, it is the Gulag.” So much the worse for those who lagged behind: due to insufficient agility, they became totalitarians.
What is the meaning of these speeches? They are primarily dictated by hatred, unchanging hatred, loquacious, malicious hatred of oneself, of history, of life. This is the onslaught that brings death: Marx is dead, utopia is dead, anarchism has become a corpse. Who will survive? No, this is not a powerful, life-giving cleansing of the past, opening up new horizons. It’s more like cleaning an apartment, when you throw your illusions out the window in front of everyone. This is a bitter time of taking stock before settling here seriously and for a long time, a time overshadowed by the wing of stupidity. This position is imbued with rancor; its pathos is only the flip side of revolutionary seriousness and a reaction to it. This is the position of intellectuals who have reached a dead end, tired of being ideologists of the party and turned into prophets in order to more reliably protect the privileges of a thinking corporation.
But during the process of utopia, it is not so much that the preconditions for neoliberalism are created, but that hatred of the new is expressed. By attacking utopia, they want to prevent the unknown, what was revealed in the “unforeseen” events of 1968. Something that exposes the lies of institutionalized communism and at the same time rejects the existing order. This is a new movement, which has neither a name nor a specific center, which unfolds “here and now” in various forms, barely discernible, barely outlined, but constantly reborn. This movement has the appeal of a “place that does not exist.”
Story
The genre began with the works of ancient philosophers dedicated to the creation of an ideal state. The most famous of them is Plato's "State", in which he describes an ideal (from the point of view of slave owners) state, built in the image and likeness of Sparta, with the absence of such disadvantages inherent in Sparta as endemic corruption (even kings and ephors took bribes in Sparta ), the constant threat of a slave uprising, the constant shortage of citizens, etc.
The genre reappears in the Renaissance, which is associated with the name of Thomas More, who wrote “Utopia.” After this, the utopian genre began to flourish with the active participation of social utopians. Later, with the beginning of the industrial revolution, individual works in the dystopian genre began to appear, initially devoted to criticism of the existing order. Even later, works appeared in the dystopian genre, dedicated to the criticism of utopias.
Classification and signs of utopia
Many literary scholars and philosophers identify utopias:
- technocratic, that is, those where social problems are solved by accelerating scientific and technological progress.
- social, which involve the possibility of people changing their own society.
Among the latest utopias, they sometimes highlight egalitarian, idealizing and absolutizing the principles of universal equality and harmonious development of individuals (I. A. Efremov, “Andromeda Nebula”) and elitist, defending the construction of a society stratified according to the principle of justice and expediency (A. Lukyanov, “Black Pawn”).
There is a widespread belief that utopias should not contain anti-humanistic elements, and represent an obviously unrealizable beautiful dream about the future. Some utopias, on the contrary, are structured in the style of instructions for their practical implementation.
The main distinguishing feature of utopia, its specificity, is that during its creation the limitations of the real world were not taken into account. In particular, historical background. Therefore, utopia is often perceived in ordinary consciousness as something unrealizable, an unrealizable social ideal. This is also a design feature of utopia. From a general theoretical point of view, under certain conditions, utopia can be realized.
According to the definition of D.V. Panchenko, “a literary utopia is, first of all, a picture of the best life.” Panchenko considers the fundamental genre features of utopia to be the happiness of the inhabitants of the society described in it and the fact that it describes a fictional life, even if it does not localize it in a “place that does not exist.” At the same time, not all details of the life described in the utopia can contribute to happiness, and some even directly contradict it. From the point of view of the researcher, this paradox, at least in most cases, is explained by the fact that the author of a utopia constructs it from the position of a creator, and often a ruler (a striking example is Campanella, who seriously counted on the implementation of his constructions). Hence the love for geometrically correct forms, maximum standardization, centralization of control, indications of the smallest details while hushing up some of the most important issues such as the mechanism for changing the ruler, etc. Panchenko also mentions such classifications of utopias as: utopias of the Golden Age and social; descriptive and creative; utopias of “escape” and “perestroika”.
According to the opinion of Soviet ideologists about utopia, expressed by Konstantin Mzareulov in the book “Fiction. General Course" described as “utopia and dystopia: ideal communism and dying capitalism in the first case are replaced by communist hell and bourgeois prosperity in the second”. What is noteworthy, according to this ideologically savvy classification, almost all works of cyberpunk turn out to be... utopias.
| Utopias play a huge role in history. They should not be identified with utopian novels. Utopias can be a driving force and may be more realistic than more reasonable and moderate directions. Bolshevism was considered a utopia, but it turned out to be more real than capitalist and liberal democracy. Usually the impracticable is called utopia. This is wrong. Utopias can be realized and even in most cases have been realized. Utopias were judged by the depiction of the perfect order by Thomas More, Campanella, Cabet and others, and by the fantasies of Fourier. But utopias are deeply inherent in human nature; it cannot even do without them. A person, wounded by the evil of the surrounding world, has a need to imagine, to evoke an image of a perfect, harmonious order of social life. Proudhon, on the one hand, Marx, on the other, must be recognized as utopians as Saint-Simon and Fourier. J.-J. Rousseau was also a utopian. Utopias have always been realized in a perverted form. The Bolsheviks are utopians, they are obsessed with the idea of a perfect harmonious system. But they are also realists, and as realists they realize their utopia in a perverted form. Utopias are feasible, but under the obligatory condition of their distortion. But something positive always remains from a distorted utopia. |
Genre criticism
The creator of one of the most famous dystopias, George Orwell, believed that all written utopias, without exception, are unattractive and very lifeless. According to Orwell, all utopias are similar in that “they postulate perfection but fail to achieve happiness.” In your essay "Why Socialists Don't Believe in Happiness" Orwell agrees with the thought of the Orthodox philosopher N. Berdyaev, who stated that “since the creation of a utopia has become within the power of people, society is faced with a serious problem: how to avoid utopia.” This quote from Berdyaev’s work “Democracy, Socialism and Theocracy”, in a more expanded version, became the epigraph to Huxley’s novel "Oh Brave New World" : “But utopias turned out to be much more feasible than previously thought. And now there is another painful question: how to avoid their final implementation [...] Utopias are feasible. [...] Life is moving towards utopias. And, perhaps, a new century of dreams of the intelligentsia and the cultural layer is opening on how to avoid utopias, how to return to a non-utopian society, to a less “perfect” and freer society.”
Classic utopias
Please add other utopias to the lists:- Thomas More, "Utopia" ("The Golden Book, as useful as it is amusing, on the best constitution of the state and on the new island of Utopia") ()
- Tommaso Campanella, “City of the Sun” (“City of the Sun, or the Ideal Republic. Political dialogue”) ()
- Johann Valentin Andreae, “Christianopolis” (“Fortress of Christ, or Description of the Republic of Christianopolis”) ()
- Gabriel de Foigny "The Adventures of Jacques Sader, His Voyage and Discovery of the Astral (Southern) Earth" (1676)
- Etin-Gabriel Morelli "Basiliad, or Shipwreck of the Floating Islands" (1753)
- Nikolai Chernyshevsky, “The Fourth Dream of Vera Pavlovna” ()
- Samuel Butler, "Edgin" (), "Return to Edgin" ()
- Alexander Bogdanov, “Red Star” ()
- V. V. Mayakovsky, “Mystery-bouffe” ()
- Ivan Efremov, “Andromeda Nebula” ()
see also
Notes
Literature
- Svyatlovsky V.V. Catalog of utopias. M.-Pg., 1923. P. 5.
- Freidenberg O. M. Utopia // Questions of Philosophy, 1990, No. 5, p. 141-167
- Mannheim K. Ideology and utopia // Mannheim K. Diagnosis of our time. - M., 1994. - P. 7-276.
- Utopia and utopian thinking: Anthology of foreign literature / Comp. V. Chalikova. - M.: Progress, 1991. - 405 p.
- Chernyshov Yu. G. Social-utopian ideas and the myth of the “golden age” in ancient Rome: In 2 parts. Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional - Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk University Publishing House, 1994. 176 p.
- Russian utopias / Comp. V. E. Bagno. St. Petersburg: Terra Fantastica, 1995. - 351 p.
- Ainsa F. Reconstruction of Utopia: Essay / Prev. Federico Mayora; Per. from French E. Grechanoi, I. Staff; Institute of World Lit. them. A. M. Gorky RAS. - M.: Heritage - Editions UNESCO, 1999. - 206 pp. - ISBN 5-9208-0001-1
- Russian utopia: From an ideal state to a perfect society. Philosophical century. Almanac. Vol. 12
- Philosophical Age. Almanac. Vol. 13. Russian utopia of the Enlightenment and the traditions of world utopianism. Philosophical age. Almanac. Vol. 13 / Rep. editors T. V. Artemyeva, M. I. Mikeshin. - St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Center for the History of Ideas, 2000.
- Batalov, Eduard Yakovlevich American Utopia (in English). - M., 1985.
- Batalov, Eduard Yakovlevich In the World of Utopia: Five Dialogues on Utopia, Utopian Consciousness and Utopian Experiments. - M., 1989.
- “Utopia and the Utopian” - materials of the round table // Slavonic Studies. - 1999. - No. 1. - P. 22-47.
- Utopia and the utopian in the Slavic world. - M., 2002.
- Geller L., Nike M. Utopia in Russia / Trans. from fr. - St. Petersburg: Hyperion, 2003. - 312 p.
- Gutorov V. A. Ancient social utopia. L., 1989.- 288 p. ISBN 5-288-00135-9
- Artemyeva T.V. From a glorious past to a bright future: Philosophy of history and utopia in Russia during the Enlightenment. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2005. - 496 p.
- Panchenko D.V. Yambul and Campanella (On some mechanisms of utopian creativity) // Ancient heritage in the culture of the Renaissance. - M., 1984. - P. 98-110.
- Martynov D. E. To consider the semantic evolution of the concept of “utopia” // Questions of Philosophy. 2009. No.5. pp. 162-171
- Marcuse G. The end of utopia // “Logos”. 2004, no. 6. - pp. 18-23.
- Morton A. L. English utopia. Per. O. V. Volkova. - M., 1956.
- Mildon V. Sanskrit in the ice, or return from Ophir: Essay in Russian. lit. utopia and utopian consciousness. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2006. - 288 p. - (Russian Propylaea). - ISBN 5-8243-0743-1
- Egorov B.F. Russian utopias: Historical guide. - St. Petersburg: Art-SPB, 2007. - 416 pp. - ISBN 5-210-01467-3
- Chinese social utopias. M., 1987.-312 p. ill.
- Chernyshov Yu. G. Did the Romans have a utopia? // Bulletin of Ancient History. 1992. No. 1. P. 53-72.
- Shadursky M. I. Literary utopia from More to Huxley: Problems of genre poetics and semiosphere. Finding the island. - M.: Publishing house LKI, 2007. - 160 p. - ISBN 978-5-382-00362-7
- Steckli A.E. Utopias and socialism. M., 1993.- 272 p. ISBN 5-02-009727-6
- Steckli A.E.“Utopia” and ancient ideas about equality // Ancient heritage in the culture of the Renaissance. - M., 1984. - P. 89-98.
- "The World of Science Fiction and Fantasy" Boris Nevsky“Dreams and nightmares of humanity. Utopia and dystopia"
- David Pearce, "Hedonic Imperative" ()
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Synonyms:Utopia is the unattainable idea of building an ideal society where all the principles of social justice and equality are fully achieved.
What is UTOPIA - meaning, definition in simple words.
In simple words, Utopia is a dream of a perfect world, a place where all people live happily and comfortably. So to speak, a branch of heaven on earth.
Utopia. Origin of the term.
This concept first appeared in the work of Thomas More - “ A golden book, as useful as it is funny, about the best structure of the state and about the new island of Utopia" or abbreviated: " Utopia" This work directly contrasted the vicious society of that time with the new ideal world. This topic interested many writers, which subsequently gave rise to a whole genre of fiction.
The concept and problems of the utopian world.
The concept of a utopian world envisions an ideal society that undergoes continuous improvement to achieve the highest aggregate level of satisfaction for the most people. It also assumes universal freedom and a certain level of equality, which should become part of the common good.
This is where the problems begin with the concept itself. As we know, all people are different, and everyone has their own understanding of the good. From which it follows that it is almost impossible to create a society in which everyone will be equally happy, taking into account the characteristics of each person.
The idea of creating a utopian society is, by and large, a good and noble thing. But the arrangement of this happy world gives rise to a whole host of questions for which there are no clear answers.
- For which class should a utopian society be ideal? Poor, rich, middle class?
- Is it possible to make it perfect for all classes?
- What should a perfect government look like?
- How can people themselves be made perfect?
- What should perfect education look like?
- What is the ideal standard of living? How to determine a sufficient level of wealth?
- What kind of control should there be over society?
- What is freedom in a utopian understanding? What should be the level of this freedom?
As you understand, you can ask a huge number of similar questions, but you won’t be able to get a concrete answer to them.
There are many different ideas about what a utopian society could be. Some believe that in an ecological utopia, people should live in harmony with nature. Others rely on scientific and technological progress to ensure a happy and, economically, even existence for humanity.
