7

p In the autumn of 1516 Sir Thomas More published A Fruteful and Pleasaunt Worke of the Best State of a Publyque Weak, and of the Newe Yle Called Utopia-by today’s standards, a longish and somewhat ornate title for a treatise but at that time, quite usual in style. And so the word “Utopia” was born, to enter many languages and to become the subject of heated debates among philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and generally all those who tried either to design the "best state of public weal" themselves or to see what others were doing in this field.

p The very etymology of the word coined by More gave rise to different interpretations. It was clear that “utopia” was a combination of two Greek elements but unclear which components precisely made it up. If these should be “ou” (not) and “topos” (place), then “utopia” meant "land of nowhere"; if the first elements should be “eu” (good) instead of “ou”, it meant a "blessed, good land". Since the book was written in Latin and Greek words were presented in transcription, More’s intent remains unclear. There is a school of thought claiming that More deliberately used a play on words. In any case, the mystery remained a mystery.

p But the real difficulties started when in describing their imaginary “islands”, “lands”, “planets” and so forth, different authors imitated More and called them “utopias”; when people began discussing "Utopian consciousness" or "utopian thinking", "Utopian projects" and "utopian ideals"; when it became clear that experts interpreted the concept of Utopia absolutely differently.

p Let us quote an academic assessing the situation. "The words ‘utopia’ and ‘utopian’," George Kateb writes in The 8 Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "have been put to many uses besides the one suggested by More’s book. Common to all uses is reference to either the imaginary or the ideal or to both. But sometimes the words are used as terms of derision and sometimes with a vagueness that robs them of any genuine usefulness. For example, a proposal that is farfetched or implausible is often condemned as ‘Utopian’, whether or not the proposal has any idealistic content. In another, closely related pejorative use, ‘utopian’ designates that which is unacceptably different from the customary or is radical in its demands.... Almost any kind of thoroughgoing idealism—a view of the good h’fe, a statement of fundamental political principles, a plea for major reformcan earn for itself the title ‘utopian’. Furthermore, all literary depictions of imaginary societies are called ’ utopian’, even if they represent some totalitarian or fiendish horror or are primarily futuristic speculations about technical and scientific possibilities that have no important connection to any idealism.”  [8•1 

p It should be noted that the differences in the interpretation of the term and the very phenomenon of Utopia are largely rooted in the fact that different scholars approach it from different angles. Many—and this can be deduced from the above quotation—see Utopia’s primary meaning in its impracticability, the illusory nature of the ideals it proclaims. This view is reflected in the word’s colloquial usage: “utopian” means fantastic, whether in society, science, technology or everyday life.

p This serves merely to obscure the real meaning of Utopia. History tells us that many Utopian projects proved to be feasible within a broad time framework, and many schemes that remained unrealized had nothing to do with Utopia.

p Karl Mannheim, a German sociologist who undertook, in the 1920s and 1930s, an analysis of the utopian phenomenon (to apply it to sociology of knowledge he was working on) and whose concepts are popular in the West to this day, sees Utopia as a manifestation of a certain type of consciousness. This consciousness, he maintains, is opposite to so-called ideological consciousness (or simply “ideology”); 9 it is "incongruous with the state of reality within which it occurs". "This incongruence is always evident in the fact that such a state of mind in experience, in thought, and in practice, is oriented towards objects which do not exist in the actual situation.”  [9•1  Mannheim goes on to explain that this state of mind is “transcendent” in relation to reality, "alien to reality" and “unreal”. It cannot be realized in the actual conditions and it is impossible to act according to it.  [9•2 

p It turns out, however, that Mannheim extends the same characteristics to ideology—according to him, the opposite of Utopia. Ideology, too, is a “transcendent” and “unreal” state of mind. The only difference is that Utopia and ideology are “blind” to different elements of social reality, that they record different phenomena and, consequently, discharge opposite social functions. The German sociologist emphasizes that the utopian state of mind is critical consciousness. It distinguishes only those elements in the reality which aid in the undermining of the existing order. "It turns its back on everything which would shake its belief or paralyse its desire to change things.”  [9•3  By contrast, the ideological state of mind is apologetic consciousness, aimed at perpetuating the status quo and at unconsciously concealing those elements of the situation which destroy the existing social order.

p Mannheim believes that the utopian state of mind is “blind” (as is the ideological state of mind) and sees only certain elements within a certain framework of social reality, and that this is rooted in the distinctive features of social existence manifested in the social status of the group to which the subject of Utopian consciousness belongs. He insists that group social being is “inadequate”—but this is the natural, inevitable inadequacy of a specific, historically conditioned social status which makes it impossible, given that the subject remain within the framework of the given social being, to grasp social reality in its entirety. In other words, the subject of utopian (and ideological) consciousness sees (and cannot help seeing) reality not quite the way it actually is or the way those immersed in a 10 different reality see it. Therefore, Utopian consciousness can be viewed as the reality code of the subject of consciousness or-and this is essentially the same thing-as a state of mind inadequate to the given reality and aimed at its destruction. Such is the stand taken by the German sociologist Karl Mannheim and his numerous followers in Europe and the United States.

p It is easy to see that Mannheim deduces Utopia’s substantive characteristics from the role which it plays in society and which, in turn, is determined by its social functions. But here a very important question remains unanswered: how does Utopia take shape in creative consciousness and what characteristics should it possess to discharge these functions effectively. It follows that the essence of the Utopian phenomenon remains unclear too.

p It appears that in examining this essence, we should—- according to the principles of Marx’s analysis of consciousness—proceed not from Utopia’s role in society and not from its functions but from the mode in which our consciousness shapes it. One can unravel the essence of Utopia as a phenomenon of consciousness and of culture, a phenomenon possessing certain structural and functional characteristics and playing a certain role in social developments, only through a comparative analysis of the ways used to construct works such as Plato’s Republic and Laws, More’s Utopia, Campanula’s City of the Sun, Harrington’s Oceana, Cabet’s A Voyage to Icaria, Bellamy’s Looking Backward, several treatises on the "best state of public weal" by Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, and a number of other obviously Utopian works.

p It is generally accepted that human activity, object- and purpose-oriented, is shaped in accordance with an ideal postulated in the consciousness of the subject of activity. But the ideal underlying this activity and serving as its goal can be postulated in different ways. This is of primary importance for understanding the nature and essence of Utopia.

p The subject may postulate his ideal in accordance with objective laws and trends, as conceived, at a given time, by science—by philosophy, sociology, history and other disciplines dealing with the laws of social development. Marx, one might recall, said repeatedly that the social ideal people striving to really transform the world looked up to must be earthly in its background. In other words, 11 this ideal should not be simply thought up, even by a good thinker, but deduced from the actual historical development of society. Besides, the ideal should not only express society’s actual needs perceived by certain classes or groups but also conform to the emergent trends of sociohistorical development which have, at a certain stage, become necessary. In other words, Marx sees the social ideal not as the image of the desirable state of society but as the image of its necessary state (which may, of course, coincide with the desirable), arising from the solution of the existing contradictions and from the natural transition of one social stage to the next. This ideal is the fruit of specific sociological analysis dealing with the state of the social organism taken in its historical motion.

p Still, the history of culture knows another way of postulating the ideal, when it is shaped by the free play of the imagination—that is, when the consciousness producing it strives to mentally throw off the tyranny of necessity, to rise above time and history. Dostoyevsky had this to say when he explained his understanding of “dreams” (which figured prominently in his works): "It appears that it is not reason but will, not the mind but the heart which is the motive force of dreams.... You skip over space and time and over laws of reality and reason, stopping only at points of which the heart is dreaming.”  [11•1  But the dreams of Dostoyevsky’s protagonists are nothing less than Utopias, and the quotation describing their characteristics reflects substantive features of Utopia.

p Indeed, free play of the imagination in the construction of an ideal is the basis of a Utopian’s creative effort. He shapes his project by purely speculative methods. He invents and composes his ideals, guided not so much by his mind as by his heart—and does not agonize intellectually over whether the world he is creating in his imagination conforms to the laws of social development.

p True, the Utopian’s free-wheeling has its limits. True, he cannot break completely away from either his time or his society, even though he may strive to do so. But if one wants to grasp the essence of Utopia, one must postulate that the Utopian’s subjective logics is arbitrary, for he-in 12 Thoreau’s wise words—wants us to "so live as to secure all the advantage without suffering any of the disadvantage.”  [12•1 

p The Utopian sees the real world as a diversity of fragments unconnected by any organic links, not as a system. It is a world of sharply contrasting elements, of “plus” and “minus”, without any diffused gradations of color; a world in which objects and even time are truly out of joint. However, while breaking the world as an integral whole into “positive” and “negative” elements, the Utopian also feels the need to do the reverse, to synthesize, from an arbitrary arrangement of these elements, a new world his heart longs to see.

p The result is the image (idea) of a world-construct functioning according to its own laws which may only coincide with the actual laws purely by accident. Such are the worlds constructed in the imagination of Plato, More, Harrington and all other Utopians, great and small: in this respect, they are all equal, they are all social inventors, although some are more gifted than others.

p It is easily demonstrable that any Utopian project has social roots. However, this does not at all mean that Utopia must-according to Mannheim’s logic-be traced directly to a rigidly interpreted social “situation” associated with a critical approach to the existing social relations. Marx’s methodology produces much more fruitful results: the product of consciousness is derived not only, and not so much, from the negation or support of the existing social structures (although the attitude of the subject of consciousness to them must be taken into account) but from the entire system of social relations into which the subject is “entwined”, from those objectively recorded tensions which are inherent in the system and which determine the subject’s functioning within the given system.

p While recognizing that Utopia is socially determined, one should also see it as the product of the subject’s cognitive activity. As man perceives the world, he inevitably subjects it to ideal transformation by taking it apart mentally, deleting some elements and disrupting links among objects. An object’s copy (image, idea) which eventually 13 takes shape in man’s consciousness can, under certain conditions, be an arbitrary form in relation to the actual world—becase in certain situations, the subject of knowledge sees only what he wants to see in the object under examination and does not see that which, for this or that reason (whether known or unknown to him), he does not wish his consciousness to record. This process does not at all have to be linked rigidly to the subject’s social situation, that is, to his social status and conscious attitude to the existing order. Of importance here are factors like the overall level of society, the cultural level of the individual, the psychological characteristics of the subject, and his direct everyday concerns.

p The Marxist interpretation of Utopia does not deny the latter’s transcendental and critical qualities, the ones stressed by Mannheim, but it does not view them as representing the essence of Utopia. Ideology (as viewed by Mannheim) is transcendental too, which he acknowledges, and many types of consciousness far from Utopia have critical traits. One can be radically critical of the institutions in power but plan one’s actions according to the social development laws known in science. One can also—since we are dealing with transcendental matters—act counting on essentially new institutions and values that do not yet exist, but again not be a Utopian, if consciousness constructs these institutions and values proceeding from identified trends of social evolution and not from the free play of the imagination. On the other hand, one can advocate retention of the existing social structures and still be a Utopian. As Georgi Plekhanov, the well-known Russian Marxist, wrote, "one may laugh at any kind of ’music of the future’, one may be firmly convinced that the existing social order we have the good fortune to live under is the best of all possible social orders and, in spite of it all, view the ’structure and life of the social body’ from the very angle the Utopians viewed them.”  [13•1 

p Indeed, there are many Utopias picturing the "ideal society" as a somewhat modified present or an imaginary Golden Age long past, associated with the slaveowning, feudal or early capitalist stage. One should, generally, note that "incongruity with the state of reality" is inherent, to 14 different degrees, in different types of consciousness, since in some respects they are ahead of the given reality and in others, inevitably lag behind it. The heart of the matter is not incongruity as such but its nature.

p To sum up: if one assumes that the essence of any Utopian project is determined by the mode of its construction, then Utopia is an image (ideal) of the desired (and in this sense, perfect) human commonwealth, environment, be it a community, city, country, planet or cosmos; and this image is postulated arbitrarily by consciousness.

p In accordance with this definition, consciousness manifested in the social utopia (i.e., Utopian consciousness) can be described as oriented on a break with the objective laws governing the operation and development of nature and society, and on arbitrary construction of an ideal. And although this type of consciousness finds its fullest and most consistent expression precisely in the social Utopia, it is by no means confined to the latter; it is a universal— that is, existing in different spheres of the creative effort— and relatively stable type of consciousness manifested in literature, art, architecture, science and political theory.

p Naturally, Utopian consciousness per se is merely an analytical construct (it can, for the sake of clarity, be compared to Max Weber’s "ideal types") which exists, in its pure form, only in the mind of the philosopher. As any other type of consciousness, it enters real, actually functioning polyphonic chorus of consciousness as a definite orientation—in this case, orientation on the Utopian mode of perception and construction of an ideal object.

p But, turning back to the specific Utopian projects constructed over the past 25 centuries and representing a huge layer of world culture, it is easy to see that they differ from one another, and sometimes quite substantially, not only in content but also in aspects of form which, together with other parameters, should be taken into account in classifying Utopias.

p To begin with, Utopias emerge at different social levels and serve different social groups. A. L. Morton, A. I. Klibanov and other Marxist scholars have demonstrated that historically, the first form of utopia on which "poets, prophets and philosophers" drew as authors of Utopian works, was the folk utopia. In the words of A. L. Morton, "It is the first in time, the most universally current and the most 15 enduring, and it gives us a standard of values against which all its successors can be judged.”  [15•1 

p The folk utopia expresses the ideas of the lower social strata, peasants and town-dwellers, of a “just” social order, whether God-given, established by a just king (the "king of the people") or created by their own efforts in the struggle against oppressors. This utopia is part of the culture of different social structures. The folk utopia exists wherever there are lower and higher strata, wherever there is social antagonism.

p The folk utopia has many layers. As a rule, it comprises a broad range of social ideals, from the petty-bourgeois to elements of the proletarian ideal. Their common denominator is their opposition to the dominant social relations and to the official establishment. This opposition alternates between covert and openly polemic forms.

p The folk Utopian ideal is expressed in different literary genres—in epic poems, legends, fairy tales, songs and pamphlets, whether secular or religious.

p Aside from the folk utopia, a society divided into opposing classes also has a different utopia, more or less pronounced as an independently functioning type. It is the official utopia, designed as a mass market product and constructed at the top either by professional ideologists working to fulfill a social order of the officialdom or as a result of the creative effort undertaken by statesmen themselves who express their own ideal. The building blocks of an official utopia may include products of work by philosophers, authors or politicians, as well as elements of folk Utopias appropriately arranged in social, political or stylistic terms.

p One cannot rigidly classify any official utopia as deception of the people or a deliberate lie the establishment uses to consolidate its domination of society and to manipulate the masses. No doubt, such manipulation does take place, just as there is a conscious desire to implant in the masses a notion of the interests and objectives of the ruling class favorable to the latter. Aside from this, however, the official utopia usually also expresses the ruling elite’s actual conception of the prospects and main goals of the given society (or of the world as a whole), the vision which 16 reflects the elite’s distinct social status and is therefore one-sided, incomplete and Utopian in its orientation.

p Besides the folk and the official Utopia each society has literary and theoretical Utopias which are produced by cultural figures and which do not directly express either the hopes of the lower classes or the demands of the higher ones—although these Utopias do essentially reflect the interests of this or that social group at any level of the hierarchy. These works, whose authors are, as a rule, easily identifiable, make up the bulk of Utopian literature. And, while most of the many hundreds or even thousands of the literary and theoretical Utopias created over two millenia and a half were products of mediocre writers, great authors—Plato, Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Rabelais—and philosophers—Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Fedorov, Sir Francis Bacon—also produced Utopian works.

p Utopias differ in the form in which the Utopian ideal is articulated—in other words, in the genres of works in which it is expressed. Fiction is the commonest form here: it can be a novel, a story, a poem, travel notes and the like. The Utopian ideal may be incorporated into a nonutopian context. This technique was used by Dostoyevsky and also by Rabelais: the latter included the thoroughly Utopian story of the Theleme L’Abbey in his far from Utopian Gargantua and Pantagruel.

p The social, political or economic treatise (or a series of treatises) is an equally common form in which Utopian ideals have been expressed, notably, by many British, French and American Utopian socialists. Some authors used both these forms and their works were a sort of synthesis of fiction and the sociopolitical treatise. One of them was Edward Bellamy, a well-known American Utopian of the 19th century (more about him later), whose Equality, a sequel to his Utopian novel Looking Backward, was a cross between a novel and a treatise.

p The political or social document-a declaration, manifesto, program and the like—is another familiar form used to express a Utopian ideal. These documents are produced in quantity by mass movements, and are especially numerous during social revolutions. In this case, too, a Utopian ideal may be incorporated into a generally nonUtopian work. Such was the type of the many documents produced by the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th and 19th 17 centuries, including the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the American Declaration of Independence. Obviously, neither of these documents can be classed as Utopian. Nevertheless, their analysis shows that some of the ideas recorded in them (those expressing the social ideal expounded by the progressive wing of the bourgeoisie and by working people whose interests and demands had to be taken into account in a revolutionary era) were essentially Utopian: these were expressions of the principles and purposes sharply at variance with the objective trends of capitalist development and with the actual capabilities of the bourgeois class.

p The folk Utopia has a distinctive form of expressing its ideals through folklore—mostly legends (for example, the famous legend of the Land of Cockaigne), parables, sagas, fairy tales and folk songs.

p Yet another form of expressing socioutopian ideals is the experiment, far from always based on a theoretical program or at least a theoretically substantiated plan of action. This was a sort of ideal-in-action which sometimes affected considerably the shaping of public consciousness. All these forms of expressing a Utopian ideal are connected with appropriate spheres in which Utopian consciousness is formed: literature, art, sociopolitical theory and sociopolitical practice.

p Utopias also differ in the type of their social ideal which can be viewed from different angles. For example, proceeding from the social, class content of the ideal, Utopias can be divided into bourgeois, peasant, petty-bourgeois and the like. Examined from the standpoint of the ideal’s sociopolitical content and thrust, these same Utopias can be described as socialist, liberal bourgeois, anarchist, fascist, etc.—depending on what relations and institutions they are designed to construct.

p The researcher may proceed from the sociocultural content of the ideal, that is, from the nature of the cultural values and the mechanism for regulating social relations in the imaginary society. By applying this criterion, romantic, technocratic and other Utopias can be singled out, although their political orientation may differ.

p Finally, it is important to note the position of a Utopian ideal on the historical time scale. In this case, one would be justified to divide Utopias into reactionary (oriented on 18 reviving historically obsolete social forms), conservative (aimed at preserving historically no longer viable and therefore disappearing social forms) and progressive (designed to elaborate new forms geared to ensure further social progress).

p Naturally, the large body of research into Utopia offers other criteria for distinguishing and, consequently, classifying different types of Utopian works. Utopias can be classified by how plausible they are (“Utopias”, “ semiutopias” and “quasiutopias” of Fred L. Polak); by how they express the critical spirit (Lewis Mumford’s "Utopias of escape" and "utopias of reconstruction"); by the way the ideal is localized (F. E. Manuel’s “utopias” and “uchronias”) and so on.

Apparently, each of the listed aspects of a Utopian ideal can highlight some of its new dimensions, more or less substantive and more or less typical of this or that Utopian tradition. The task of a researcher analyzing a given tradition is to find precisely the angle which would make it possible to produce an adequate understanding of the nature of the utopias shaped within the framework of this tradition, to determine their role in the emergence and evolution of national consciousness and identity, to trace the impact of Utopian precepts on the behaviour of individuals, groups, classes or even the entire nation.