A brief reflection on the theme of Utopia, sparked by a 2013 writing by Pierre Donadieu titled «La campagne urbaine: une utopie réaliste» ["The urban countryside: a realistic utopia"], of which I propose a salient excerpt to you:
«[...] The sociologist Edgar Morin skillfully resolves the issue by distinguishing good realistic utopias from bad chimerical utopias. In favor of realistic utopias: their ability to give birth to societies that are less unjust and ignoble, more free and fraternal. Against bad utopias: the claim of wanting to achieve men's happiness against their will, by suppressing conflicts and ignoring unhappiness and despair. The good utopia, visionary and creative, is neither a prophecy nor a scientific prospect, but a hope: the construction of a desirable but not necessarily predictable future – in short, a project for society.
[...] The loss of reference points, the paralysis of projects, the fear of the unknown and the unexpected, the obsession with the Other and the Stranger lead to withdrawal into oneself and anchoring to one's own place. Seeking what reassures — traditions, the village bell tower, the eternal order of the fields or picturesque folklore — is becoming a widespread social behavior; one that sometimes leads to the exclusion of the Other, if not to his destruction.
[...] The projects for new territories are today elaborated to measure for 21st-century society. Not for a sedentary, rural, warlike and industrial Europe, but for a European, international, pacified, urban, mobile and hyper-informed society. The revolution brought by multimedia technologies and the Internet will — theoretically — give each of us the ability to access all cultural products, to exchange, to sell and to buy. This transformation will nevertheless produce exclusion and affluence, depending on the capacity for access to mobility and multimedia exchange.
[...]
These new ways of life are spreading throughout the world, but they leave entire swathes of continents indifferent—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America—where poverty, injustice, disease, and violence continue to rage. It was precisely the multiple “speeds” of the world’s societies, the desires they awaken, and the migratory flows they trigger that gave birth in Jean Viard to this beautiful idea of living together, of making community: an utopia of urbanity that seeks to oppose the disintegration of social bonds and aspires to found new societies, in the countryside and beyond. A transversal thought, more geographical than historical, as spatial as it is temporal, creative and visionary, because the project of society must take the place of the fatality of history..»
[...]
These new ways of life are spreading throughout the world, but they leave entire swathes of continents indifferent—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America—where poverty, injustice, disease, and violence continue to rage. It was precisely the multiple “speeds” of the world’s societies, the desires they awaken, and the migratory flows they trigger that gave birth in Jean Viard to this beautiful idea of living together, of making community: an utopia of urbanity that seeks to oppose the disintegration of social bonds and aspires to found new societies, in the countryside and beyond. A transversal thought, more geographical than historical, as spatial as it is temporal, creative and visionary, because the project of society must take the place of the fatality of history..»
Do you agree? Do you not? At this point I recommend a moment of reflection on these words, even in good company, before proceeding further. You might discover that you have made a much better reasoning than mine!
Global (-ist) Landscapes
From 2013, the year of publication of the passage in question in the book «Urban Countrisides», eight years have already passed, during which everything has happened: in the light of the well-known operations Greta, Great Reset, and various transhumanisms, we can therefore decipher the meaning of this excerpt much more profoundly.
So. In my opinion, this reasoning is profoundly incorrect from a factual point of view, as well as internally contradictory.
A distinction is made between good utopia and bad (chimerical) utopia, only to then outline an «utopia of urbanity that wants to oppose the disintegration of social bonds, and aspires to found new societies».
Found new societies. A concept that is based on this definition of «good utopia» which, in my opinion, is twisted and dangerous. I explain why.
A distinction is made between good utopia and bad (chimerical) utopia, only to then outline an «utopia of urbanity that wants to oppose the disintegration of social bonds, and aspires to found new societies».
Found new societies. A concept that is based on this definition of «good utopia» which, in my opinion, is twisted and dangerous. I explain why.
I don't know the sociologist Edgar Morin, but I can't help but notice that by necessity an utopia cannot be realistic, since, as an ideal condition, it is a canon impossible to match. If this hypothetical good utopia is contrasted with the bad utopia in which prevails «the claim of wanting to realize men's happiness against their will, by suppressing conflicts and ignoring unhappiness and despair», then one cannot negatively stigmatize the desire for tradition that permeates a large part of society as «a widespread social behavior; one that sometimes leads to the exclusion of the Other, if not to his destruction»: precisely because it is a widespread social behavior, as Donadieu himself says. And denying it — wouldn't that perhaps be a form of «suppressing conflicts», or the «claim of wanting to realize men's happiness against their will», that is, the chimerical utopia? Could it be that this — suppressing other "competing" utopias — is an intrinsic characteristic of this particular utopia? The author has a social order in mind, and imaginative visions in which to embed it. This is his utopia, and whoever has a different one is viewed with concern and negativity. But to tell the truth, «the exclusion of the Other, if not his destruction», are a direct consequence of those «new ways of life that are spreading throughout the world», which go under the name of globalism, and which are praised in positive terms in the text. Donadieu therefore appreciates a process that inevitably produces the consequences he detests: he describes with enthusiasm: «The revolution brought by multimedia technologies and the Internet will — theoretically — give each of us the ability to access all cultural products, to exchange, to sell and to buy.» then he darkens, returns to reality and notes: «This transformation will nevertheless produce exclusion and affluence, depending on the capacity for access to mobility and multimedia exchange.» Key word: exclusion. What should be a peculiarity of those who nurture «the obsession with the Other and the Stranger», is in reality the daughter of his own inclusive utopia!
Today, eight years later, we can easily assert how this vision of an imaginary rosy and prosperous future is revealing itself in all its real misery, with the Great Restructuring of the world economy in a technofeudal sense, the daily collective brainwashing, the destruction of the intimate essence of Human Being which are relationships, fabricated health emergencies from scratch (COVID) that justify the definitive demolition of the Democratic State, rampant censorship by the Mainstream... Yes, this transformation has produced exclusion and affluence, Donadieu was right.
But it is the good utopia, mind you! So there is retribution, which of course is directed not to your own people (because you are not exclusive) but to the last of the world (because you are inclusive): «where poverty, injustice, diseases and violence continue to rage» (and let's gloss over the worsening of these same parameters in Europe). The «multiple "speeds" of the world's societies» that «awaken desires and trigger migratory flows» are nothing other than Ricardian comparative advantages. Thus, to realize the inclusive society where it is not permitted to exclude the Other, we must forcibly welcome and with various justifications so many Others... who by their very nature will once again aggregate into pockets of similars, once more enacting that exclusion so much abhorred. Because human societies work that way, and it is not enough to have an order of things in mind for all processes to conform to it. In that case, it is pure ideology disconnected from reality.
But it is the good utopia, mind you! So there is retribution, which of course is directed not to your own people (because you are not exclusive) but to the last of the world (because you are inclusive): «where poverty, injustice, diseases and violence continue to rage» (and let's gloss over the worsening of these same parameters in Europe). The «multiple "speeds" of the world's societies» that «awaken desires and trigger migratory flows» are nothing other than Ricardian comparative advantages. Thus, to realize the inclusive society where it is not permitted to exclude the Other, we must forcibly welcome and with various justifications so many Others... who by their very nature will once again aggregate into pockets of similars, once more enacting that exclusion so much abhorred. Because human societies work that way, and it is not enough to have an order of things in mind for all processes to conform to it. In that case, it is pure ideology disconnected from reality.
It is therefore in this self-invalidating mechanism that the insidiousness of utopia lurks. The negative consequences of the same "utopian action" are projected onto those external to it – those who do not adhere to it – seen as obstacles, and so, in the attempt to "solve the problem", one crosses without even realizing it into the bad chimerical utopia that was spoken of initially. But one sentence is even more disturbing: «the project of society must take the place of the fatality of history». This is an evocation – I don’t know how conscious – of the so-called "end of History", or "unidirectional and universal history of humanity" by Fukuyama. Essentially I summarize it as "not a leaf moves that the World Government does not want". In this context, «opposing the disintegration of the social bond, and aspiring to found new societies» in the terms defined by Donadieu practically means favoring the disintegration of the social bond in order to aspire to found new societies, thereby replacing History. The crucible of the transhuman "new man", I add, composed of the fusion between miraculous technologies and the rejection of previous identities, forged in the furnace of indiscriminate and global inclusivity.
The social relationships we adopt incorporate at least partially what we are, what we have been, and what we will be. They are not determined autonomously but through multiple factors, such as modes of production and economic and class relations, modes of social aggregation, etc.
There are no good utopias: pursuing a dream at all costs to bring it down to Earth has always caused damage, or chimeras as they are called. We have learned that reality is improved day by day by rolling up our sleeves and regularly reaping small fruits. But many are still seduced by the timeless charm of utopias, of dreams of a Golden Age within reach, never realized because of cursed malevolent opponents.
There are no good utopias: pursuing a dream at all costs to bring it down to Earth has always caused damage, or chimeras as they are called. We have learned that reality is improved day by day by rolling up our sleeves and regularly reaping small fruits. But many are still seduced by the timeless charm of utopias, of dreams of a Golden Age within reach, never realized because of cursed malevolent opponents.
We, who truly want to oppose the disintegration of the social bond, and who are probably the localists described negatively as attached to their own land and culture, know all this. We also know that to realize a project it is necessary to reject every utopia, instead drawing from the immense reservoir of History, Tradition, and Humanity.
And whoever doesn't do it will be lost forever like an electrical signal in RAM memory when it's turned off, tough shit for them.
But on one thing the Polemico agrees: «...it is neither a prophecy nor a scientific perspective, but a hope: the construction of a desirable but not necessarily predictable future».
But on one thing the Polemico agrees: «...it is neither a prophecy nor a scientific perspective, but a hope: the construction of a desirable but not necessarily predictable future».
Posted: 18/01/2021 10:59 — Author(s): Polemicarc
x
Responses
No responses yet ...
Be the first to write a response. ↴
