Related Links in the Library:
Source: This essay first appeared in the journal Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought ,
vol. IV, no. 4, Winter 1981 published by the Cato Institute (1978-1979)
and the Institute for Humane Studies (1980-1982) under the editorial
direction of Leonard P. Liggio. It is republished with thanks to the
original copyright holders.
Kingsley Widmer taught at San Diego State University and wrote on
D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Nathaniel West, Paul Goodman, Herman
Melville, as well as on the issues of censorship, freedom, and culture.
Kingsley Widmer, "Utopia and Liberty"
Table of Contents
Some Utopian Dialectics: The Necessity
of Understanding Utopia from Multiple Perspectives
"Somewhere there's gotta be a better world" (Refrain from a classic
"Utopia" and "liberty" may well be seen as perplexed terms
open to no single and simple definitions; they really are loose binders for
bundles of diverse notions and desires. Their problematic inclusiveness perhaps
makes them useful for social and political moral thinking. Still, some unbundling
of these ambiguous terms may be in order and, in a dialectical way, some tentative
rebundling. In a ranging survey of much contemporary utopianism, I want to emphasize
the counter-argument roles of the "ideal societies." Countering some
common libertarian prejudices, I also want to argue that the utopias should
not be taken literally; they require some multiple perspectives; and they must
partly be understood in terms of their historical continuities. Since the utopianisms
often display many of the crucial ideological issues of our time, they merit
not only libertarian awareness but require some libertarian discriminations.
After all, much of human liberty, in its variousness as well as its aspirations,
Let us assume here the considerable value of the fullest possibilities of individual
freedom, even though such notions also require considerable qualifications,
as not a few utopian efforts will remind us.1
Whether utopia is taken as a narrative fiction of an ideal society, as a plan
for a radically different from current reality institution or community, or
as a futuristic social and political vision, it may well appear to the skeptical
individualist as considerably bothersome.2
If the utopian is viewed (somewhat incorrectly, as I will point out) as a totalism
of rationalistic planning, the individualist may well find it threatening. But
many utopias are the ordered responses of such threatened individualists seeking
to posit individual-protecting counter-possibilities.
Ambiguities in Contemporary Rejections
On the basis of surveying some hundreds of views of classical liberals, left-liberals
with a strong commitment to freedom, and avowed libertarians, I conclude that
their most common responses to the utopian range from great suspicion to high
condemnation. For examples: the traditional left-libertarian M. L. Berneri in
Journey Through Utopia (1950) concluded that most of the ideal no-places
in history deserved, because of overt or implicit authoritarianism, to be nowhere.3
Yet she held to a degree of anarchist individual freedom that is generally considered
quite utopian. She therefore felt impelled to distinguish a libertarian side
to the utopian. Rightlibertarian Murray N. Rothbard, in For a New Liberty
(1973), took an even more wholesale negative view of the utopian as a dangerous
collectivist tendency: "The true utopian is one who advocates a system
that is contrary to the natural law of human beings," as well as a foolish
demand for something "that could not work,"4
Yet a scholarly survey of recent American utopianism reasonably insists that
Rothbard (on the basis of that very book) is a typical "perfectibility"
case of modern utopianism.5
Hardly less negative, though with a considerably different politics, is the
liberal-humanist William Barrett who in The Illusion of Technique (1979)
dismissed most modern utopianism as "technological fantasy" and "an
empty and insipid ideal."6
Yet most contemporary technologues would undoubtedly consider Barrett's views
anti-technological utopianism with a fantastic insistence on Heideggerean "being"
which demands a radical transformation of sensibility in the modern world (though
one Barrett hardly faces up to). The ambiguities of utopian-anti-utopianism
in these thinkers is central to much of characteristic contemporary utopianism.
The Necessity and Benefits of Utopian Thinking
These ostensible rejections of the utopian go with important charges—authoritarianism,
rationalistic collectivism, scientific religiosity—which deserve further
consideration. But first I might suggest several contexts. In spite of the common
connotations of "utopian" as impractical or exaggerated—or,
as Karl Mannheim more shrewdly suggested, "utopia" both identifies
the ideology one rejects and stands for something larger than mere contemporaneous
informed views hold utopianism to simply be essential, for some millennia, to
any ranging social and political thought. Thus, for example, the conclusion
to the Manuels' recent massive intellectual history, Utopian Thought in
the Modern World (1979): "Western civilization may not be able to
long survive without utopian fantasies any more than individuals can exist without
very health of the polity requires some such envisioning, reordering, and revisioning,
as part of its dynamic dualism. Otherwise put, our very senses of social-political
freedom depend on entertaining the possibilities and alternatives projected
by the utopian, even when not directly employed. Perhaps also I know more clearly
what I am against when I see someone else's utopia.
The positing of "ideal societies" seems especially strong in Western
traditions, though there may be partial parallels in the especially strong Eastern
traditions—as in Taoism—of positing ideal escapes from societies.9
Much modern Western utopianism obviously displays an activist concern for a
more just and beautiful community, beyond mere contemplation.10
More crucially, perhaps, many utopias came from the heretical and other dissidents
who often, and no doubt necessarily, projected alternative social orderings.11
Rather paradoxically, even the classic fixed and static utopias may be seen
as radical and dynamic in their functions of providing patterns for judgment,
for criticizing the traditional and often absolutistic societies from which
they arose. And not surprisingly, any radical enlargement of freedom has also
often been viewed, on the face of it, as utopian, whether in praise or condemnation.
A large liberty of the person, so obviously limited by social bonds and established
order as well as by ever-present mortality, may seem to many in any period to
be ultimate utopian dreaming. Yet the utopian projection of unexpected possibilities
may also be, as "conservative anarchist" Paul Goodman argued in Utopian
Essays and Practical Proposals (1962), psychologically liberating, and
therefore downright "practical" in bringing into consciousness alternative
senses of an issue.12
The true opposite of the utopian dream, I suggest, is less something "pragmatic"
or "realistic" than cynicism or apocalypse, the ultimate human nightmare.
The Liberal, Heuristic Service of Authoritarian
Yet, of course, much utopianism can also result in bad dreams.13
While a history of liberty may often be brigaded with utopian imaginings or
plans—after all, most history is within the short statist period of human
society and its coercive conditions, thus often literally requiring an "ideal"
or "elsewhere" conception of liberty—much utopianism is, as
it had long been, authoritarian. Even for Plato's fortunate few guardians in
The Republic there was less liberty—be it in class confines and
duties, or censored poetry and music, or the totally static order—than
at least some number of Socratic Athenians might well have enjoyed.14
But, if my sense of the historical record is approximately correct, the dominant
effect of the Platonic authoritarian utopia has been heuristic service for more
liberal views, at least from Sir Thomas More to Sir Karl Popper. It is as if
many have said, how can we properly counter Plato? Here, surely, is a large
More's partly counter-Platonic Utopia (1516), the first of that explicit
name (a punning play on good-place and no-place), provided a thoughtful, and
sometimes wryly mocking criticism of More's actual society, representation of
a more tolerant and charitable ordering—the degree of its Christianity
still in dispute.15
But more ancient forms of the "guardians" are also still with us,
at least as much as More's mild patriarchal ones, currently in the camouflage
of science fiction heroes and in other envisionings of futurological technocrats
for what may be the worst of all possible worlds.
Critics and Skeptics of Utopia: the Anti-Utopians
However, positing either better or worse societies hardly provides an adequate
description, or use, of the utopian impetus. And we should promptly note that
what bothers many skeptics of the utopian is less the better or worse particulars
of a social ordering than the very premise of such social shaping or reshaping.16
For instance, in rather prematurely predicting the demise of the utopian a generation
ago, political scientist Judith N. Shklar, in After Utopia (1957),
catalogd dozens of important anti-utopian views.17
Her conclusion was that they marked the end of the Enlightenment faith in "rational
political optimism" as the shaper of society. While that has some applicable
truth, especially to usual left-liberal ideology, there remains much other utopianism,
which was downplayed in Shklar's account.
Hayek's Critique of Constructivist Rationalism
One of the anti-utopians only briefly noted by Shklar was F. A. Hayek who in
The Road to Serfdom (1944) excoriated "utopia" as the collectivist
delusion of "democratic socialism" leading to a totalitarian society;
indeed, he argued, perhaps excessively, that anti-democratic socialist ideologies
such as fascism and Nazism also derived from it.18
Hayek has variously continued the argument, through a recent (1978) attack on
"constructivism," the utopianism which he links to the rationalist
tradition from Descartes and Rousseau.19
Such presumptuous rationalism, argues Hayek, displays the hubris, the arrogance,
of a social-political thought that would claim to consciously construct institutions
instead of allowing them evolutionary development. In contrast, liberal critical
reason would more modestly create a framework of rules under which the growth
of institutions beyond direct rational comprehension (the market, common law
legal traditions, etc.) would be possible. Apparently for Hayek, the liberal
application of reason to society falls between constructivism and the conservative
distrust of reason which emphasizes organic accretion of changes (as in Burke),
if any at all, in institutions. Obviously, this liberal view of the social function
of reason remains historically shifting and therefore rather uncertain.
Hayek's Own Utopianism
Several kinds of skeptic properly suspect those who would plan or otherwise
dictate all too much of life under the guise of reason. This, most libertarians
would agree, provides a profoundly appropriate criticism of a presumptuous,
and quite possibly ruthless, utopian rationalism. Yet what might be called a
hyper-rationalism characterizes much indeed of social-political thinking, not
just the utopian. For obvious example: the development of Talmudic and Christian
canon law, and tortuous casuistries, and then their secularization in legalism
and administrative regulation, certainly displays moral rationalism functioning
in insistently encompassing and controlling ways which a devotee of liberty
might well find threatening. Yet, such are the paradoxes of reason operating
in history, the very defense of the individual against these restrictive rationalisms
became ornate counter-rationalisms, such as those we connect with the Enlightenment.
One tradition of the countering liberal rationalism was constitution-making,
be it Locke's for Carolina, Rousseau's for Corsica, the established U. S. and
French revolutionary constitutions, the pathetic plethora of nineteenth-century
liberal European charters, and the fakery of rationalization of the 1935 Soviet
constitution and those of a good many "emerging" nations in the present.
The proposing and applying of constitutions may rightly be seen as a schematic
utopianism, and one properly suspect for its abstraction of tangible realities
and its rationalistic formalism and controls. Yet the vehement critic of rationalistic
constructivism, Hayek, recently proposed a constitutional construction (a new
form of legislature) for a defense of classical liberal values, and himself
characterized it as a "Utopia."20
In defense of his utopianism, Hayek related it to an earlier moderate utopian
argument, David Hume's "Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth" (1742), and
his claim that "it must be advantageous to know what is most perfect in
the kind" as a model for ameliorative "innovations."21
While in such matters Hayek (perhaps even more than Hume) depends on a temperamental
conservativism, such utopianism seems essentially a moderated constructivism.
Even in the earlier period when Hayek was polemicizing against collectivist
utopianism, he was also arguing for a liberal utopianism as a counter to it.22
When we further consider that the Hayek view rests on large constructions of
universal "free markets" (and the institutions that necessarily go
with them), which in fact have only fragmentarily existed, classical liberalism
may be viewed as itself deeply engaged in a grandiose utopianism.
Surely we can recognize important differences of emphasis in a rule-structured
utopianism and direct statist planning—differences of utopias. Based on
other conditions, both may restrict various human freedoms. So our preferences
may require fuller utopian definition, rather than a rejection of the utopian
in general. Put another way, the combination of the utopian and the anti-utopian
in such views as the Hayekian remains ambiguous.
The Critique of Utopia as Revolutionary
Certainly there are views which are less ambiguously anti-utopian, from the
commonplace anti-speculative cast of mind—fearful of acknowledging change—to
the traditional conservative committed to a fixed order of ostensibly divine
sanction. Another anti-utopian tradition, and influential one of partly liberal
principles, focuses on the means of change. Karl Popper, a generation ago, and
Melvin Lasky, more recently, have polemically insisted on a pervasive brigading
of utopianism and revolutionary violence.23
While their arguments undoubtedly apply to some millennial and terrorist movements
as well as Jacobin and Marxian revolutionism (though, as will be noted below,
Marxism claims to be anti-utopian), revolutionary violence has small relevance
to a large part of utopianism, past and present. The anti-revolutionary ideologues
also employ a most peculiar calculus of coercion, suffering and violence: some
established orders have produced more tyranny, misery, and death than revolutionary
regimes; and usually only the greatest ordered states can produce massive control,
deprivation and death. But were not some of them utopian? Some tyrants may be
partially analyzed in terms of some utopian rhetoric—Cromwell, Robespierre,
Mao, et al. —though most dictators better qualify as anti-utopian.
While seeking no narrow definition of the utopian, I suggest rather generally
excluding the mad tyrants (redundant phrase), and the apologists of great states
and empires, as well as those primarily committed to revolutionism, as views
inherently contradicting coherent claims to relatively ideal societies, on the
face of things.24
The Critique of Utopia as Economically
Less emphatically, we might also set aside much of another often presumed charge
against the utopian impetus—that it generally tends to the collectivist,
the coercive statist centralized economy. It is true that property in Plato's
Republic and More's Utopia, both small city-states, was communally
held, and that a considerable number of nineteenth-century utopian fictions
and plans may be characterized as state-socialistic, more or less.25
But on close examination it was often less. For instance, Charles Fourier's
early nineteenth-century utopian Phalanstery had world-wide influence—his
direct effects run from Hawthorne's Brook Farm in Massachusetts to Dostoyevsky's
St. Petersburg in Russia, and more indirectly, into modern surrealism and communalism—and
Fourier drew some admiration of socialists, from Engels through Marcuse.26
But Fourier's schemes were essentially decentralist, entrepreneurial, anti-statist,
and generally antithetical to much of Marxist and similar views in his great
insistence on human variousness. Distinctions need to be made not only between
communal and collectivist economics but, perhaps more crucially, between the
degrees of individual variousness and other freedoms.
Anomalies in the Economics of Utopia
Or, to glance at a later example: in a bundle of utopian notions which provided
both a popular European novel, Freeland (1890), and several utopian
colonies, Hertzka's economics had communally owned land, but this was part of
a systematic emphasis on pluralistic arrangements for competitive enterprise.27
The economic ideologies of much utopianism are more than a little mixed. Indeed,
some seem outrageously contradictory or historically muddled. Statist socialism,
for example, has been considerably influenced by Saint-Simon who, indeed, may
be credited (as by Hayek) with inventing part of it.28
But to pursue Henri de Saint-Simon in his life and works is to recognize a speculative
capitalist of early nineteenth-century France who, not surprisingly, produced
an elaborately hierarchical managerial-capitalist utopianism. His multiple historical
legacy included an elitist religious cult of some direct influence for a few
years, considerable effect on "progressive" speculative financiers
in the Second Empire, and probably significant contributions to the continuing
technocratic-elitist statism which plays an important part in the French economy,
whether called (state) capitalist or (state) socialist. Like its capitalist
originator, this legacy is certainly anti-libertarian.
Or note the rather anomalous roles of Saint-Simon's contemporary, Robert Owen,
the rich early nineteenth-century English mill entrepreneur and reformer, who
lost much of his capital (though not his philanthropic obsessions) in establishing
the paternalistic utopia of New Harmony, Indiana, which soon collapsed.29
Depaternalized versions of his utopianism may have had considerable influence
on later British socialism, as his managerial methods in his New Lanark mills
may have had on later labor unions.30
Yet Owen also strongly influenced in the 1840s a quite exceptional American
free-market individualist anarchist, Josiah Warren, who resided for a time at
New Harmony. Warren not only tried modified Owenism in several individualist
community experiments (Utopia, Ohio and Modern Times, Long Island) but developed
a curious laborbarter system (an exchange of self-created money based on worktime
units) which was commercially successful as well as a more equitable way of
merchandizing in his several stores.31
With millowner-manager Owen and inventor-businessman Warren, among many others,
the entrepreneurial and utopian impetus seem to have been significantly the
same. More contemporaneous utopianism, as I shall have occasion to note several
times below, is frequently emphatic in its entrepreneurial motives and forms,
as with insisting on state-autonomous small businesses as central to freedom.
Still, no single, or even several, economies can be said to generally characterize
historical utopianism. But, it may be countered, since much (though certainly
not all) utopianism takes the form of projecting ideal communities, surely it
is communal rather than individualist economics? In that loose a usage, all
economics is communal, though not necessarily collectivist.
Stirner and the Issue of Community vs.
Even in the most extreme of nineteenth-century individualist philosophies,
some sense of community remains a positive value. Thus Max Stirner, often viewed
as carrying individualism to a nihilistic solipsism in The Ego and Its Own
(1844), none the less suggested what he called the "Union of Egoists."
For Stirner gave a central place to human desires, gratifications, and thus
relatedness; the social issue, he insisted, is "not how one is to produce
the true self . . . but how one is to . . . live himself out."32
Granted, it may not be altogether clear in Stirner how much the Union of Egoists
should take the form of a voluntary intentional community as against what he
called an "instinctual" association of the like-minded with the courage
to violate legal restrictions and reject moral "ghosts." For example,
"freedom of trade" to Stirner was less likely the result of establishing
any certain market system (which to him was always partly anti-individual) than
of violating whatever system was established by "smuggling."33
Personal freedom was less to be achieved by establishing protective rules, which
always became controlling rules and tend to defeat the authentic individual,
than by practicing moral "refractoriness" and even, prudently, legal
But, as with the bandit gang, that may make voluntary community all the more
Ayn Rand's Ambiguous Utopia of 'Individualism'
Such extremists as Stirner—and a number of other utopians—are valuable,
I believe, in sharpening our critical perspective. For example, more recent
utopias with unions of egoists seem more defeating of gratification than Stirner's.
So, I suggest, with Ayn Rand's capitalist-individualist "nowhere"
in Atlas Shrugged (1957).35
This "Utopia of Greed," also called (with perhaps more negative irony
than intended) "Galt's Gulch," is a Colorado valley protected by magical
rays where a secret conspiratorial cult of embittered entrepreneurial "egoists"
has established a community dedicated to selfishness under the charismatic semi-autocracy
of a soap opera hero, John Galt. As Rand explained elsewhere, part of her fictional
credo was to present an image of "the kind of social system that makes
it possible for ideal men to function . . . laissez-faire capitalism."36
But, from a Stirnerian individualist perspective, this is mostly an elaborate
substitution of a "social system," and its moral "ghosts"
and narrowly fixed conceptions of role, in place of protean individual living
out of full life. Rand's utopianism displays an individualism patently narrow
in its puritanical and rationalistic constructivism, stronger on abstract polemics
than on the rich qualities of individuality.37
While Atlas Shrugged may be doubtful as an expression of individualism
(and the melodrama crassly weak in social delineation), it may raise several
other points of utopian interest. Note that it had considerable popularity at
the very time when much of the intellectual establishment (see Shklar, above)
quite decried utopianism, denying that it could really exist in a twentieth-century
world made dourly pessimistic by over-population, endless irrational war, uncontrollable
technology, and the rest of the age of anxiety. Cultural history is not nearly
so unilateral as often pretended. Nor are utopian motives nearly so bland and
optimistic as often assumed. The Randian ethos curiously provides a reverse
adumbration of what Nietzsche analyzed as ressentiment. An analysis
of the redundant rhetoric justifying her utopia (as with Galt's four or five
hour radio address) would show it dominated by contempt and hatred.38
Utopian motives, we are well reminded, may be in considerable part unidealistic,
The Critique of Utopia as Static and Monolithic
In a not unique twentieth-century way, Rand's utopia is only a stage, part
of a process, dissolved as the leading characters move toward renewed establishmentarian
power (that, not individuality, dominates their motives). Note here another
dubious charge often made against the utopian: the mode is said to be static,
fixed, monolithic, rigid.39
Yet the probably most influential twentieth-century utopian theorist and novelist,
H. G. Wells, insisted about the incomplete pattern of his A Modern Utopia
(1905) that our appropriate utopias must be construed as "stages"
in a "kinetic" process, changing and time-limited and evolving.40
That, of course, was more generally true of Wells' utopianism, which took some
variety of forms and values. So did Aldous Huxley's (see below). Herbert Read
in The Green Child (1935) presented as simultaneous in time in the
same work two contrasting utopias (one progressive materialist, one mystical
influential American Communitas (1947) by Paul Goodman provided three
but not necessarily exclusive "Community Paradigms" (they might be
characterized as super-centralized capitalist, decentralized communal, and a
dual ordering of Blanquist work-welfarism and aggrandizing consumerism).42
Wisely, none of them were held to be the best for all nor the only possibilities.
Many other examples of various and pluralistic and evolving utopianisms in
modern times could be cited (some will be noted later). That many utopians show
an insufficient theory of change may well be true, but that is also sadly true
of almost all modern social-political thinkers. The inadequately informed too
often take the Platonic paradigm as defining not only the literary genre but
the general utopian cast of mind. Debatably, there is evidence for doubting
that the fixed Platonic was ever all that defining, as one recalls the endlessly
open Rabelais, the ironist More, the dualistic Voltaire, the conflictful Fourier,
and many other utopians. Of course there are, as there always have been, dogmatic
fundamentalists, literalists, in utopianism, as in most ideologies. The logic
of Popper's "open society" or of Hayek's "evolving institutions"
or of truly various libertarian social-political views cannot reasonably reject
the utopian as simply static, rigid, monistic, exclusionary. Unless, that is,
they are committed to the very fallacy they denounce.
Positive and Negative Dialectics of Utopian
Let me briefly adumbrate another aspect of utopia-as-planning by taking a mode
more extreme than constitution-making: utopian city planning. When it comes
to individual living, the envisioning of a city may show us some of the consequences
of an ideology, not just the abstract rules, in a tangible way.
Utopian Cities and Human Liberty
From ancient ideal cities, for man but more often for man-god rulers, through
the part-ideal planning of Athens, Rome, Venice, and many other actual places—structuring
a better city has been a rich utopian concern.43
Given the twentieth century's megalopolitan ugliness, destructiveness, and other
social pathologies, it is hardly surprising that diverse exceptional talents
devoted themselves to embracing urban utopianism. English Ebenezer Howard's
influential plans for the moral Garden City, Swiss-French Le Corbusier's giganticist
visualizations of the super-industrial Radiant City, and American Frank Lloyd
Wright's piquant plans for re-countrifying the urban in Broadacre City, carry
on a long tradition of imaginative social criticism and conceptualization.44
Aside from their existence as fascinating and suggestive objects for contemplation—no
mean thing in itself—what do these utopian cities suggest about human
Fortunately or not, none of these cities have been fully built. Are they, then,
just more utopian fantasizing, further variations on the Tower of Babel? Something
rather more, for the plans of Howard, Corbusier, and Wright have also had demonstrable
influence on actual places.45
And these ambitious cityscapes may also encourage a certain discipline in our
thinking about ideologies as well as cities. For once understood, these great
plans expose not only the conceptual limitations of lesser "planners"
but also point to the hidden agendas, the covert utopias, which lie behind any
plans. By "planners" I don't only mean the professional technicians
who practice that dubious trade but the rulers and administrators, the businessmen
and "developers," who, consciously or not, carry out what is usually
a debased utopianism.46
In significant part, all cities are planned, however confused or hypocritical
their ideals may be. Cities are not objects of nature but constructions which
will be variously chosen, willed.
Put another way, some of our suburban towns can be related (though often not
decently enough) to the cooperative community ideal enshrined in Howard's Garden
City—and to its rather blandly narrow lower-middle class sense of culture
and human behavior. Our grandiloquent urban highrise centers can be related
(though usually without the rigorous coherence) to the hyper-functional industrial
ideals of Corbusier's Radiant City—and to its hierarchical centralism
and other anti-democracy and anti-individualism. And our contradictory American
responses to the urban and communal can be related (though generally without
the imaginative verve) to Wright's Jeffersonian individualist anti-city Broadacre—and
to its rather forced familial economics and social atomization. These utopian
city plans, then, make tangible not only certain styles of living and sensibility
but major social-political dispositions.
My terse noting of the great modernist city plans does not intend to suggest
that their specifications allow us to choose for once and all between and among
the genteel co-operative, the authoritarian centralist, and the atomized individualist
possibilities. The issues, of course, become more perplexed than that, including
that all three of these utopian planners saw themselves (at least in major periods)
as advancing entrepreneurial economics and individual autonomy under the peculiar
conditions of the twentieth century.47
We may thus be driven to an awareness—simplistically ignored by all too
many libertarians—of which kind of free market, and which
kind of individualism, and which kind of liberties, are to be encouraged
Libertarian Perplexities in Choosing among
Thus when we turn to a current planner of a utopian city, and one actually
building an example, Paolo Soleri's Arcosanti, in the Arizona desert, we may
be brought up short. Though using some of the individualist rhetoric and ideas
of Wright, Soleri makes clear in his theory of Arcology (1969), as
well as in his rather unlivable beehive city, that the role of the non-elitist
individual is rather slight.48
Like a fictional Ayn Rand architect (though more tastefully so) Soleri seems
quite prepared to impose his shapes and his mystagogueries on others. When heroic
liberty is only for the few one reasonably doubts the liberty. Granted, the
conditions of an overpopulated technocracy encourage this. Thus, to my eye,
the noted futuristic super-planner of a world-wide city, "Ecumenopolis,"
C. A. Doxiadis, shows in Building Entopia (1975) a considerable dehumanization
in the styles as well as proportions of his plans.49
The cake of over-mechanization becomes a controlling diet, however frosted with
Understandably, then, the libertarian temptation may be to reject all utopian
city plans, even as thought experiments, as has been done from a more or less
conservative social-political perspective by Jane Jacobs and from a left-liberal
perspective by Richard Sennett.50
But the opposite of a utopian plan may be less "no plan" than a bad
plan, further corrupted by being unadmitted and unexamined, whether as the megalomanias
of rulers or, as currently in America, of combined developers and administrators,
baronially corporate as well as royally statist.51
The conditions for the growth of a city under the invisible hand of a free market
or the indefinable spirit of organic community—both, I would argue, insufficient
conceptions—only fragmentarily exist in the modern megalopolis.
The Dangers of Unacknowledged Utopianism:
Bentham, Comte, and Marx as Pseudo-anti-utopians
Thus one modest claim for the utopian might be as a way of projecting issues,
making alternatives tangible, and being more concretely aware of consequences.
But, as my dialectical insistence would have it, that positive side of the utopian
impetus should not be used to deny the negative sides. Candidly, as a reader
of hundreds of utopian fictions and schemes, I suspect a high proportion of
compulsive-obsessive views and that even some of the more heroically suggestive
(Bruno, Rousseau, Fourier, etc.) display paranoid megalomanias. Still, a disinterested
skepticism also suggests that rather more dangerously authoritarian institutions
grew out of more unadmitted utopianism. Thus, supposedly hardheaded Benthamite
utilitarianism projected some of the most nastily controlling institutional
patterns, such as the Panopticon ot total corrective surveillance.52
Auguste Comte's (1798–1857) anti-idealistic scientism reinstituted elitist
guardians in the narrow guise of social scientists. And Marx and Marxism mostly
substituted a vague and manipulative revolutionism for a more specific, and
possibly more accountable, utopianism.53
When Marx and Engels vehemently disavowed the "utopian" (after some
early flirtation with it) for "scientific socialism" —their
version of the fantastic Hegelian rationality of history—they righteously
chose obfuscating means, in such guises as "dialectical materialism"
and "proletarian revolution," over more clear and specific humane
without revelations of absolutistic historical "science" might utopianly
prefer an ideologue's revealing how some of the proposed social reality is supposed
to look and feel. Psychologically, however, the appeal of Marxism for social
transformation may carry strong utopian elements, regardless of what the doctrine
claims. And such may be found, for example, in the Marxist mythology of A. L.
Morton, The English Utopia (1952), who crudely and erroneously holds
that well-done utopias are compatible with vulgar Marxism.55
In a more sophisticated version, as in the neo-Marxist reifications of Ernst
Bloch, A Philosophy of the Future (1963), utopia becomes "anticipatory
design" implicit in certain meta-social meta-aesthetic forms as "the
eschaton . . . of progress" in the dialectical unfolding of history.56
Sentimental or sophisticated, such views stand in sharp variance with much of
Marx (including the splitting, as Bloch admits, of the cultural "superstructure"
from the material "base") and are contrary to the bankrupt historical
realities of Marxian-colored ideologies.
Unacknowledged Utopian Claims: Knowledge-as-Control
Granted, the supposedly anti-utopian methodologies of Bentham, Comte, and Marx,
may partly be viewed as weird episodes in nineteenth-century scientism, though
they also remain with us as ideological dispositions. Such imposing programmatic
claims of "new knowledge" repeat in our time the dangerous pretensions
of knowledge-as-control which can be seen as continuous with some Enlightenment
philosophes, the Baconians, the Renaissance Pansophists, and earlier
forms of the Faustian and Promethean magus.57
These intellectual fantasies of power have not been confined to the utopian—indeed,
the magicians of power often claim to be anything but utopian—yet some
utopianism certainly carries such claims. But avowed utopias, at least, also
carry the warning of being acknowledged counter-reality dreams. Unadmitted fantasies
(including the utilitarian, Comtean, Marxian) may be more dangerous impositions.
How To Look at Utopias with a Double-View:
A Critical, Dialectical Approach with Some Examples
Properly warned by the muddle of those who have attempted to distinguish between
the "utopian" and the "realistic" (or, for example, Hayek's
untenable distinction between "critical rationality" and "constructivist
rationality"), I cannot suggest any simple safeguards. Some utopianism
is self-serving apologetics, dangerously resentful fantasy, symptomatic pathology.
But some is compassionate moral idealism, reasonable projection, imaginative
prophecy. Inconveniently, they often come all mixed together. The utopian must
remain problematic. All that I can propose as a methodology is that we attempt
to double-view any utopia—be it fiction, project or vision—as both
broad ideology and personal peculiarity, as both moral doctrine and symptom
of a time and place.
A Double-View of More, Bellamy, and Skinner
Three brief examples. More's Utopia (1516) five centuries ago included
acute though heavily moralistic social criticism, given an ironic perspective,
and a still pertinently utopian situational ethics (euthanasia, divorce, family
limitation, etc.), a paternalistic familial and political ordering in spite
of communal property, rather limited notions of pleasure and freedom, and even
a six-hour work day in spite of its premise of a static-scarcity economy. That
can be viewed as showing both the strengths and limitations of high Christian
humanism. Arguably, it can also be seen as contradicting much in the man who
became a political power and a martyred saint.58
The most popular and influential of all American utopian novels is Edward Bellamy's
Looking Backward (1888). Although held to envision a kindly and reasonable
equality, Bellamy's utopia included harshly enforced work and other conformity,
which it rewarded with a culture that was Boston-genteel, gadgety, and trivial,
in a technological society controlled by a supposedly meritocratic bureaucracy.59
In essentials, it is the continuing vision of a blandly optimistic engineering
socialism. We might also view the Bellamy utopianism as symptomatic of the rising
American "technocracy" (the combination of sophisticated technology
and elaborate bureaucracy) which continues to supercede, and fuse, both socialist
and capitalist ideologies. Technocracy tends to its own socio-economic system,
and such worshipful attitudes as Bellamy's may have furthered it.
Probably the most influential contemporary American scientistic utopia is B.
F. Skinner's Walden Two (1948).60
Its behaviorist guardians use lab-rat "positive re-enforcement" and
other reductive and programmed "positive" conditioning in a Grand
Inquisitor denial of ordinary individual freedom (except as a sometimes exploitable
illusion). We may grant that its motives and aims, as Skinner has had to repeatedly
insist in defending himself, are highly benevolent. Some of the worst dominations
and other mass-crimes in history have been so. In the history of utopias, I
see Skinner's ideal as a secularized adaption of religious dogmatism and indoctrination.
It may also tell us something not only about the dominant American academic
psychology (of which the author remains a noted representative) but perhaps
more generally about the nasty pretensions of a good bit of social scientism.61
A Skeptically Dialectical View vs. Anti-utopianism
While these three well-known examples—More, Bellamy, Skinner—are
narrative fiction utopias, we might also apply a similar critical awareness
to large conceptual structures for a better society as well as to moral templates
for an institution, a commune, or a community. At this late stage in utopianism,
simple-mindedness in approach would not be just intellectually intolerable but
perhaps socially dangerous. However, to take a skeptically dialectical view
of utopianism should not be confused with common anti-utopianism. Our skeptical,
critical view of utopianism does not embrace anti-utopianism, at least when
that can be defined as the denial of envisioning a better institution, community,
or society, or as the refusal of any enlargement of freedom beyond the mere
margins of invisible orderings and what all too badly exists.
Mythic Contexts for Viewing Utopias
But the issues of utopianism should be put in several other contexts. Historical
perspective suggests that it is conceptually quite inadequate to confuse utopianism
with merely rationalistic planning, and the writings with the several literary
genres which from at least Hellenistic times use lost-and-found societies for
edifying fable, satiric argument, or titillating fantasy. Otherwise put, those
who wish to attack utopianism (including the half-dozen cited earlier) need
to overhaul their arguments and expand their focus if they wish to be pertinent
to what utopianism really represents. Ideal societies, for instance, must be
understood as not just rationalistic constructions but as partly mythic—as,
indeed, with much of impassioned human thought. An essential part of the appeal
of utopianism goes beyond political and social logic to realms of dream, fantasy,
and prophecy—in sum, to transformations of human sensibility.62
The issues can in no adequate way be confronted, qualified, or countered by
mere economic and ethical paradigms—or the other professional bigotries
of economists and philosophers.
Mythic Thinking, Utopianism, and Social
In several thousand years of utopias, some obviously (and others indirectly)
display the secularization of other-worldly paradises. But that may also be
understood the other way around, with paradises as the etherealization of secular
utopias. For, as the great utopian social-psychologist William Blake noted,
many "abstract the mental deities" in order to create an enslaving
"system"; "Thus men forgot that all deities reside in the human
breast." Precedence may not always be clear, whether it be with the happy
Isle of Para in a Greek Cynic tale or with the revolutionary Third Kingdom (under
the aegis of the Holy Ghost) in the long millennarian prophetic tradition linked
to Joachim of Fiore.63
Separation of transcendental and earthly felicities is not at all as clear as
the apologists of orthodoxies of control have tried to claim.
The Myth of the Golden Age
A major recurrent theme of utopianism adapts the Greek legends of the Golden
Age declining into the Iron Age, as in Hesiod's Works and Days (8th
Century B.C.), which was twisted in Plato's Republic (4th Century B.C.)
into classes of men and duties for ordering the just state—metaphors confirming
the absolute and static nature of his ordering. Until the geographic-demographic
discoveries and closures of the present, which has made many fantasies as well
as alternatives seem more improbable, there was always some place where the
Blessed or Happy Isles just might be found, or re-found. And even now there
are those, ranging from noted physicists to hallucinating addicts, who fancy
close encounters with messengers from superior islands displaced into outer
Primitivism and the Arcadian Mythos
Historically, the Golden Age imagery often linked with the sophisticated "primitivism"
of what is frequently called the "arcadian mythos," the idealized
pastoral world which takes its early characteristics from Theocritus, Vergil,
and other poets of rural ritualism in the Mediterranean world.64
This continued, as I understand it, as a covert paganism as well as a cultivated
literary tradition through the high Christian period, partly culminating in
the Renaissance refulgence of pastoralism as well as other utopianism.65
This concerns rather more than poetic genres. The pastoral exalts a civilized
nature combined with amorous social relations, de-classed, in an odd fusion
of the "natural" and the ritualistic for a small-scale vision of a
harmonious social order.66
The conventional charges against pastoral social ideologies are that they turn
nostalgically backward and remain highly simplified. But that is hardly persuasive
in itself since most social ideologies are considerable simplifications and
the determination of what is backward-looking is often hard to tell; psychological
regression seems fundamental to human images of happiness, and the most future-oriented
social images (as often in revolutionary rhetoric) turn out to be revived models
from the very distant past. Perhaps necessarily, the Golden Age remains with
us as a layer of cultural evolution, if not of human consciousness.
English Variations on Arcadia: Morris and
Such arcadian emphasis appears to have been a significant source of the English
idealization of the good life and place as anti-urban, countrified. This loving
rusticity even dominates some of the later utopias of the industrial society.67
For a major example, we can see some of the pastoral imagery and ethos in William
Morris' charming anti-industrial utopia of medievalized socialism and craft
arts, News from Nowhere (1890).68
Morris was intentionally countering Bellamy's Looking Backward—crafts
vs. industrialism, dispersed communities vs. urban bureaucratization, aesthetic
values vs. engineering values, etc. Morris, it might be said, and his arcadian
vision, represent an important minority utopian tradition increasingly marginal
to mainstream socialism with its technocratic-power orderings. This arcadianism
variously reappears, as in the Sherwood Forest pastoral eroticism and utopian
hopes of D. H. Lawrence in Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928).69
This counter to conventional middle-class love stories, and its exacerbated
modernist-individual social criticism, polemicizes against ugly industrialism
and crippling social class and debased sexuality, and also jettisons most of
socialism. Whatever its limitations as a large social ideal, arcadianism has
often presented an acute social critique in terms of richer aesthetics and fuller
American Variations on Arcadia: Thoreau
and 'Soft Primitivism'
A variant arcadian tradition of the good place and life, less nostalgically
countrified and cultivated than the English, and usually taken to be quintessentially
American, gets identified either with the frontier or with Henry David Thoreau's
(1817–1862) influential Walden (1855).70
Original Thoreauvianism, of course, was less the creation of an ideal community
than a considerable withdrawal from most of society for an exaltation of solitary
individualism, transcendental experience in a semi-cultivated nature, a simplified
barter-and-craft economy, and a refined anarchistic ethic. Fusing often with
the Waldenism are somewhat genteel versions of pioneer styles of life, the widespread
tradition forming, and partly repeating, what Lovejoy analyzed in classical
thought as "soft primitivism."
American Arcadianism and Utopian Homesteading
The American arcadianism usually carries a self-conscious reversal of the industrial-urban
mode and, in and out of literature, contributes to a recurrent and significant
back-to-the-land utopian movement. It often oddly fuses a politics of disillusionment
about mainstream society with a frontiersman's or homesteader's insistence on
individual social autonomy and puritan self-reliance. As one can find in Helen
and Scott Nearing's Living the Good Life (1954) and Continuing
the Good Life (1979), their half-century of homesteading had exemplary
There is no other way to describe the ex-Marxist professor of economics, at
ninety-five, and his musician-author wife teaching what has become thousands
of young people how to build stone farmhouses and organically grow almost everything
for a vegetarian diet and how to develop a spirit of utter independence—an
heroic American puritan individualism.
There is a long tradition of self-conscious theorizing behind this utopian
homesteading, perhaps most notably (in the 1920s and 1930s) that of Ralph Borsodi,
and his followers.72
It takes variant contemporary form with poet Wendell Berry's combination of
individualistic family farming and hardnosed environmentalism, which The
Unsettling of America (1977) also makes into a programmatic politics.73
Where Nearing recreated Vermont and Maine farms (and even a partial rural community),
and Berry restored a Kentucky farmstead, California's somewhat different arcadianism
may be represented by Gary Snyder as poet spokesman, in such works as Earth
Household (1969) and The Real Work (1980), for a larger rural
propounds a combination of western localism with limited technology guided by
a "Bioregional Ethic" and ecological-organic "Right Livelihood"
with Orientalized mysticism, American Indian ritualism, and radical independence
for what he announces as the early stages of a hundred-year evolving back-to-the-land
utopian movement to transform America. No doubt it will take a hundred years,
and a hundred million and more reduction in population, for the earth household
to become the dominant American pattern of living again. But that is hardly
a sufficient argument against it.
The Anti-technocratic Meaning of Utopian
Though not necessarily anti-technological—more often than not this utopian
ruralism employs a Whole Earth Catalog sophistication about practical
tools—such arcadianism is certainly anti-statist, anti-corporatist, anti-technocratic.75
While it would be false simplification to reduce what is perhaps the most popular
continuing American utopianism to a single overt ideology, it may plausibly
be linked with the Buddhistically decentralist and limited technology economics
of British E. F. Schumacher—Small Is Beautiful (1969), A
Guide for the Perplexed (1975), and Good Work (1979)—which
represents a significant theorizing for some of it.76
Contrary to common denunciations of the utopian, this has a modesty, partly
based in compassionate religious morality, which is hardly "constructivist,"
collectivist, scientistic, or violently revolutionary. Indeed, much of it must
be characterized by its commensense practicality even though its somewhat sacral
economics conjoins with the tradition of utopian saintliness of such as Tolstoy
and Ghandi as well as Thoreau. We somewhat skeptical may, of course, detect
a rather "saving remnant" messianic psychology to this utopianist
radical conservativism around an antiquely holistic rural and domestic life.
Critical Awareness of the Roots of American
Utopian Communalism: Communes as Entrepreneurial Social Experiments
Historian Arthur Bestor suggested that earlier forms of American utopian communalism
were a social correlative of the Yankee inventor-entrepreneur, producing "patent-office
models" of social experiment.77
That would be a fairly central part of the historic American ethos, which has
been marked by an intriguing plethora of such contraptions. The homesteaders
and arcadian prophets previously cited may be the more enduring part of the
often naive and messy communalism of the late-1960s-early-1970s which curiously
turned political radicalism into privateering small-group utopianism, frequently
with a mystical or hallucinatory or other cultist overlay.78
Some of it, as with the earlier in origin but continuing Catholic Worker communalism
for society's victims—see the autobiography of the saintly founder, Dorothy
Day, A Long Loneliness (1951)—reaches back several generations,
and indirectly into millennia of holy refuges.79
But this admirable side of communalism should not mislead us into a positive
view of all communalism. Some of it—the murderous "Manson Family"
is only the most notorious example—can be characterized as nothing less
than evil. Between Day and Manson, there is a considerable variety. I am appalled
at both general condemnations and affirmations (see Nozick, below) of utopian
communalism; critical discrimination, especially from a libertarian perspective,
is essential here, too. Characteristic, I think, of a considerable part of the
recent wave of communalism, a good bit of which still continues, was not social
autonomy and institutional experiment and economic self-sufficiency and positive
individualism, but the protective marginality of the weak, the sick, the outcast,
and others of the immense number of "losers" in our often ruthless
and anomic orderings. Representative of some of this may be the over-praised
writings of the mawkish juvenile prophet of such utopian pathos, Raymond Mungo,
such as his Total Loss Farm (1970).80
As the more thoughtful Judson Jerome pointed out in his Families of Eden
(1974), though himself an advocate of such protective "Edenism," many
of the communes were simply temporary sanctuaries for weakness.81
Utopian Communes and Cultural Radicalism:
Communalism as a Refuge for Individualist Freedom
The utopian communes which endure, as argued by Roberts in The New Communes
(1971), either have a cohesive religious emphasis (though not necessarily as
rigid as those of the Hutterite, Amish, Bruderhof, etc.) or a considerable entrepreneurial
discipline (though not necessarily as conventional-legal as that of Oneida,
Amana, etc.).82 Even
more than in the past, much of contemporary "intentional community"
is intentionally a phase, transitional, and with little larger claim to perfectionist
and other ideal and lasting conditions—temporary withdrawal or moratoria,
argues Melville in Communes in the Counter Culture (1972).83
Indeed, one of the more learned accounts, a comparison of some nineteenth-century
and late twentieth-century intentional communities, Kanter's Commitment
and Community (1972), emphasizes the temporary "retreat" ideology
dominant in much contemporary communalism.84
Perhaps more importantly, I think, following historian Laurence Vesey, The
Communal Experience: Anarchist and Mystical Counter-Cultures in America
(1973), the continuities of the communal are less to be found in political and
economic programs than in the expression of a long continuing underground of
Many of the communes, I suggest, might best be understood as something like
Hegel understood a work of art in relation to the geist—as a
"concrete universal" of a larger culture of discontent and dissidence.
From my perspective here (which ignores many of the other issues, and cases,
of communalism) there is a pertinent insight in one of the conclusions of a
recent (1976) British study: "secular communes . . . are above all attempts
to create pockets of freedom. . . sufficiently insulated from society for the
ideal of possessive individualism to be realized . . ."86
Communalism, then, paradoxically asserts and protects individualism. But any
broad account needs to emphasize other values as well. Contemporary intentional
communities provide not only cultural dissidence, individualist experiments,
and therapeutic refuges, but education in the literal sense. Thus A. S. Neill's
Summerhill, as a schooling community, and Black Mountain College, as an art-academic
community, can easily be demonstrated to have had pervasive effects exponentially
beyond their small scales and muddled realities.87
As Paul Avrich makes clear in his history of some earlier examples, The
Modern School Movement (1980), these school-community-movements were the
products of and producers of exceptional individuals.88
Inescapable ironies include that these utopians, defying bourgeois society in
their communal experiments, carried out some of its deepest imperatives of autonomy,
enterprise, variety, self-assertion, and change—the very spirit of individualism.
The Significance of Marginal "Little
Indeed, I find some communalism rather ugly in its emphasis on individual redemption,
though also recognizing that if it does not suggest a larger social redemption
it at least suggests significant changes in American society. And after all,
our conservative and liberal ideologies and institutions patently do
not provide adequate sources and expressions of much of our style and sensibility,
of our oppositions and freedoms and possibilities. Without both utopian courage
and confusion, we would have a duller culture and a deader society and perhaps
a more hopeless future. Little utopias may at least be a test of the more general
utopian possibility of American society; without an effulgence of them, it stands
self-condemned on its own principles of liberty. However, it does not follow
that little utopias, essentially marginal to a different large system, add up
to an adequate utopia.
Small Business Urban Counter-utopianism:
The Revolt against Bureaucracy
Part of the marginality is that when utopias were conceived as rural (the predominant
past form of American communalism) they can have only very limited relevance
to a society now dominantly urbanized. A perhaps important new development of
American self-reliant homesteader utopianism is its contemporary application
to the city. A few of its points might be represented by a recent little utopian
exercise, Community Technology (1979) by Karl Hess, a charmingly notorious
ideologue who seems to have been a liberal, a conservative, a right-libertarian,
and now a decentralist utopian.89
On what I take to be the undeniable principle that "local liberty"
is crucial to all other liberties, he sketches a rather practical "argument
for community participation with all of the diversity and resultant flexibility
that implies" in the development of production and distribution. This aims
at the local creation of food, energy, and services on a participatory neighborhood
level, including participatory capitalism. "Small business is suddenly
a counter-cultural phenomena." In contrast to "liberal consumerism"
(perhaps represented by Naderism), we have a restatement of the utopian principle
that goes back through the rural homesteaders, Morris, and the arcadian tradition:
"the work people do is far more significant than the things they buy."
This leads to small business, communal technology, apprenticeships
over schooling, localist politics, and neighborhood rescaled values as well
as organizations. While all this surely reflects the current dispersal of sophisticated
technology and skills, the deeper imperative is a desperate counter-utopianism
to inhumane scale in a corporate-statist bureaucratic society and culture.
The Urbanization of Arcadian Utopianism:
Callenbach and Others
Some of the programmatic extensions, including parturbanization, of arcadian
utopianism might reasonably be represented by Ernest Callenbach's popular Ecotopia
(1975).90 This radical
environmentalist romance has northern California (and the Pacific Northwest)
secede from the rest of a degenerating America in the 1980s in order to create
a society which attempts to "decentralize and personalize wherever possible."
The revolutionism involved in this appears relatively low-keyed, consistent
with the uncoercive cast of most ecological and decentralist utopianism. But
perhaps the point should not be over-generalized. An exactly contemporaneous
work, Edward Abbey's The Monkey-Wrench Gang (1975) expresses a lively
Luddite environmentalist-individualist radicalism; it makes macho guerrilla
application of what the title suggests to as much as possible of the technological
infrastructure of the Western states, though still with considerable scrupulousness
about destroying property (machines, roads, dams) rather than people.91
Such works may also remind us that coercion is no simple issue: Is it better
to be controlled by machines or to break machines? Is it better to be a satisfyingly
aggressive individual or pervasively hostile in subordination to a hierarchy?
Is it more coercive to be indoctrinatingly conformist or angrily disruptive?
To return to Ecotopia. It argues for an urban "steady-state"
total-recycling economy. However, it is fundamentally different from the classic
utopias' hierarchical static economies since it depends on continuing ecological
innovation and competitive small enterprise in a somewhat conflictful participatory
democracy. Callenbach also mixes in pagan tree worship (part of the very ancient
pastoral mythos), debureaucratized science, American Indian cultism (as also
with Snyder and other West Coast coteries), current pluralistic sexual communalism
rather than traditional families, and exalted artisan crafts (shades of Morris),
and, for dispersing aggression, rather fancifully non-lethal war games. A powerful
commitment to personal liberties is central. But those viewing it from alien
perspectives may be shocked by the degree to which aesthetics determines economics,
politics, and morality. That which is beautiful is what finally works the best.
There are more complicated variations on this. For example, Robert Nichols
has presented in four volumes Daily Lives in Nghsi-Altai (1977-79)
which combines in rather synthetic poetic forms shamanistic primitivism, hyper-sophisticated
technology, and alternating economic cycles of competitive market order and
decentralist co-operative order, under the intellectual guidance in this mythical
asia of reincarnated Western visionaries (Blake, Whitman, Morris, etc.).92
Primitivism/technologism, capitalism/cooperativism, communalism/individualism,
thus become part of a self-correcting social dynamics. We are far, indeed, from
the static economies and absolutistic moralities thought of as characterising
Radical Arcadian Utopias for Personal Freedom:
Humanizing, Debureaucratizing, and Depowering Society
Arcadian utopias usually focus on states of feeling, relationships, and the
aesthetic, thus relating to the Golden Age images of primordial human harmonies.
In the sophisticated versions, industry, commerce, and science are not eliminated
but debureaucratized and drastically subject to aesthetic and other humane considerations.
While recent American arcadianism attempts to meet city realities, it remains
a devolutionary urbanism (à la Wright, really), pastoral in its ideals.
Given the undeniable long history of the social rigidity and "the imbecility
of rural life" (in Marx's contemptuous phrase), the pastoral radicalism
stands mostly alien to traditional socialism and social-democracy. However,
there is a minority socialist tradition—decentralist, anti-coercive, personalistic,
utopian—as represented, say, by Martin Buber's Paths in Utopia
(1951), which would be less antithetical.93
Decentralist utopianism carries such a revulsion to centralized authority and
domination as to make it hostile to the larger part of both traditional leftism
and rightism in politics.
Some recent political philosophy, such as James Ogilvy's Many Dimensional
Man (1977) attempts some conceptual structures for such views (though not
admitting the utopianism, and not very adequately), as, more richly, does such
institutional social theory as Kirkpatrick Sale's Human Scale (1980).94
But as usual in social politics, demarcation of views is hardly very pure and
some of the arcadian-utopian values appear in supposedly reformist consumer-environmentalist
views, as may be seen in the syncretistic compendium of Hazel Henderson, Creating
Alternative Futures (1978).95
Common to all of these is a degree of depowering (probably including a lowering
of population, of affluence, of technological expansion, of nation-state roles,
etc.), which must make such views, however increasingly widespread, antithetical
to mainstream right-left politics. Not surprisingly, more than any other contemporary
ideology this utopianism emphasizes the concrete values of personal freedom.
Utopian Personal and Sensual Freedom
Much of that freedom is "personal" indeed, with a strong emphasis
on the sexual and other sensuality. This stands in sharp contrast to the often
ascetic, if not puritanical, cast of much classic utopianism, and almost all
revolutionism. But, again, the issue does not properly break down to a classic-ascetic
and modern-sensual dichotomizing. An intellectually minor but nonetheless significant
and persisting tradition of an ideal society has been that which emphasized
what repressed moral philosophers used to call "license."
Some of it appears in popular ancient practices temporarily reversing the established
order and its prohibitions: as in the Saturnalia (Rome), the ribald mockeries
and freedoms of the Feast of Fools and periods of "misrule" (high
Medieval Europe), and the elements of these still retained (especially at folkish
levels) in more modern carnivals and fairs, and in similar permissive periods
which anthropologists describe in a variety of cultures. Perhaps certain contemporary
American customs could be historically viewed as Suburban Saturnalias, if not
The saturnalian enters literature and myth in lavish food-wine-sex-leisure
fantasies which appear in various tales and poems of a legendary Land of Cockaigne
(England), Venusberg and Lubberland (on the Continent), and The Big Rock Candy
Mountain (as in the American hobo ballad of that name, bowdlerized of its booze
and homosexuality into a children's folk song).96
These gluttonous places of immediate gratification exalt the pleasures of the
bottle and the body. Recall the sprawling bodies and hanging pies in Brueghel's
famous painting of Schlaraffenland. Concern with such immediate ecstasies
often gets denigratingly tied to students and poets, as with the late Medieval
Goliards who clearly made the wine bottle their summum bonum, or to
other "irresponsible" marginal groups in the populace.97
Where some classic utopias encouraged indulgence in the philosopher's vices
of symmetrical forms and contemplations, or the politician's obsessions with
hierarchical orderings, later utopias absorb more vulgar dreams and even make
rituals around marijuana (Ecotopia) or hallucinogenics (Aldous Huxley's
Island). Exclusionary lines around allowable pleasures here would smack
not only of the anti-libertarian but of utopianist snobbery. Tangible pleasures,
rather than the more dangerously abstract presumption of general happiness,
after all, is much of what the direct sensing of a better time and place must
be about. The legitimation of the denied, be it political or social or personal,
may always be a major impetus to the utopian.
Sexual Utopianism and Family Relations
Thus also with the peculiar liberties of what some contemporary wit has labeled
"pornotopia"—the fusion of the pornographic and the utopian.98
But sexual utopianism may take other forms. A large number of utopian stories
and schemes work hard at reconceiving family relations, be it in Plato's male-statist
autocracy of communally sharing the women and children, or More's ameliorist
liberalization of the patriarchal family, or Judson Jerome's contemporary arguments
for (in Families of Eden), and apparently practice of, a more liberated
"extended family" with extended sexuality. Until recently, arcadian
utopianism, whether in literary pastoral or back-to-the-land movements, tended
to the romantic, that is, monogamous, relationships, while utopias of a more
liberal or socialistic cast have been historically identified with the equality
of women, and therefore less intense and looser familial patterns. That later
is true of the important Enlightenment sexual utopia, Diderot's Supplement
to Bougainville's Voyage (1772).99
This dialogue around a utopianized Tahiti presents radical Enlightenment erotic
views, including urbane but emphatic justifications of open and various sexuality,
with incest and free exchange of partners and children, in a harsh critique
of pseudo-civilized European mores.
A more elaborate libertarian sexual ethos came out of the weird genius of the
endlessly utopian Fourier. His ideal Phalanstery had 1620 psychological types,
and therefore defended drastic sexual variety, including lesbianism, multiple
relationships, what were conventionally considered "perversions" (as
long as consensual and unhypocritical), very contemporary sounding sexual therapies,
and rather post-contemporary elaborate means for providing sensual gratification
for the old and the peculiar.100
Even more significantly, Fourier fused his sexual theories with ideas for more
gratifying ways of work, of complex community, and of elaborate rituals and
games, in a concern that goes beyond the usual utopian focus on virtue and justice
and harmony to a joyous society.
The Roots of Recent Hedonic Utopianism
That may point to present hedonic utopias. The sources of the eroticized utopianism
of the past several generations are no doubt various: skepticism and other liberal
reasoning about religious-moral asceticism; the decline of patriarchalism, slavery,
caste, other-forms of sexual inequality and therefore exploitation; the brilliant
post-romantic libidinal psychologies—Stendahl, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche,
Lawrence, et al., unto Freud and the post-Freudians; hygienic-medical
changes which provided increased freedom from the great sexual maladies, including
venereal diseases and excessive pregnancies; the history of utopian sexual experiments;
and, even though hard to quite tie down, covert mysticalerotic traditions of
some enduring power.101
Whatever the complex inducements, our erotic prophets have attempted a large
reach, beyond mere pornotopias and amorous freedoms, to visions of a passionally
liberated and transformed post-civilization.
Erotic Utopianism: Wilhelm Reich, Norman
O. Brown, and Herbert Marcuse
Some of these have been scientistic and left-psychoanalytic, as with Wilhelm
Reich's The Sexual Revolution (1934).102
His radical demand for a new sexual ethos, including one for adolescents, combined
with a deviant Marxist revolutionism and, finally, with a messianic cosmology
in his theory of "orgone energy" which could cure cancer and change
character. Reichianism may not have had substantial influence until translated
into libertarian educational practice, as with A. S. Neill's extremely influential
Summerhill and into socially radical therapy, as with Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman's
Gestalt Therapy (1950), and similar psychologies.103
But the original Reichian sexual revolution was utopian in the grandiose sense
of claiming a transformation of the whole society.
A more ornately cultivated, inward-turning, and finally mystical erotic utopianism
may be represented by Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death (1959) and
Love's Body (1965).104
Mentally, at least, his is a "eutopia" located in a land where a "polymorphous
perverse" sexuality leads to a transcendence of ordinary dualisms. Partly
by historical propinquity, Brown's erotic other-worldliness often gets linked
to its rather different predecessor, Eros and Civilization (1955),
where Herbert Marcuse's neoMarxist arguments attempted to revise Freud's requirements
of instinctual repression for civilized order, including economic productivity.
In "Phantasy and Utopia," for example, Marcuse argued that the fundamental
enlargement of the "aesthetic-erotic dimension" would remain in limited
subservience to the "realm of necessity" of economics, which itself
would be reduced by automated affluence.105
But in later writings Marcuse moved further from both Marxism and from a utopianism
based, as the classical usually was, on a considerable degree of scarcity. In
"The End of Utopia" (1970), by which is meant the realization of the
utopian ideal of the fullest aesthetic-erotic possibilities in society, it is
suggested that the Hegelian-Marxist distinction between the realms of "freedom"
and "necessity" can finally be superceded.106
Economic productivity can be transformed into non-repressive passional play,
work into pleasure for all, and thus there can be a near total release of the
lifeenhancing fullness of human being. In thus going beyond the ancient curses
of work and other repression society would achieve the highest utopian ideal,
though it is one hardly presented, or its consequences reckoned with, in such
neoHegelian abstract poetry.
The Search for a Free Libidinal Economy
Curiously, this reification carries on the Golden Age vision of a primordial
human fullness of life. Erotic utopianism shifts from the mythic past to the
arcadian present to the mystically transcendent future; archetypal private amorousness
becomes onanistic dream hypostatized into a passionally liberated civilization.
It has spawned some more literal utopianism along its historical way: sexual
communalism, from the Ranters in seventeenth-century England through John Humphrey
Noyes' Oneida community in nineteenth-century America—the latter a patriarchal
authoritarian "regulated promiscuity," yet perhaps anti-repressive
in its larger effects.107
Apparently, Medieval European Christianity produced literal love sects just
as the contemporary erotic philosophizing helped produce communal sexual experiments,
such as novelistically represented in Robert Rimmer's The Harrad Experiment
(1966), and many others.108
The search for a more open, good, true, and beautiful libidinal economy is at
least as central to the utopian impetus as other kinds of economics—and
as important to libertarian values.
Technological Utopianism: Escapes from
Technocratic vs. Arcadian Utopianism
If in this direction utopianism is the erotic poetry of politics, in another
it is the fantasies of technology. While I tend to see the arcadian and the
technocratic as antithetical, there are odd overlaps and mixes sometimes. Yet
certainly an adequate response to technological issues must be central to any
serious modern Western utopianism. Key economic issues are involved. Classical
utopias tended to limited and fixed technologies, and therefore what moderns
consider a society of scarcity.109
When there are hardly enough goods to go around, the problems of distributive
justice may loom larger than when there is, or fairly readily could be, a surplus
of goods. Much of modern arcadian utopianism retains considerable continuity
with the past, but even in its "stable-state" economies and anti-industrial
and anti-technocratic views often assumes a sophistication of technology which
allows for some relative degree of surplus. Perhaps it should be argued that
some degree of surplus, though certainly not what constitutes wasteful and luxurious
modern affluence, is necessary for wide individual liberty. Does practical freedom
presuppose a not too drastic economic price for some mobility, for some mistakes,
for some alternatives?
Technocratic Elitism and Scientistic Religion
But the existence of some technological sophistication and the consequent surplus
is not the usual area of dispute between the antithetical utopianisms. The central,
the defining and dominant (elitist) role of what used to be called the "new
knowledge" often is. Since the exaltation of the House of Solomon, an ambitious
science institute, in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis (ca. 1614), the
roles of both elitist technicians and scientistic faith can be seen as utopian
issues.110 For example,
scientistic religion (for it can hardly be considered anything less) becomes
one of the watershed lines in nineteenth-century utopianism, with Saint-Simon
and Comte and Bellamy as pietists, Fourier and Thoreau and Morris as heretics.
H. G. Wells, one of the most influential twentieth-century utopian propounders
as well as fictionists specifically acknowledges Bacon's emphasis on science-as-power
as the earlier line of his dynamic A Modern Utopia.111
This garrulous essay-fiction around a "World State" with a non-egalitarian
competitive and bureaucratic hypermechanized welfarist order (public work projects,
rehabilitation of the deviant, endless education—97% go to college) has
elitist rule by a scientific-minded "voluntary nobility" which is
a "caste." Similar orderings are common to technocratic utopias.
H.G. Wells' Technocratic Religion of Man:
From Demi-god to Fallen Angel
Wells did a variety of utopian proposals and fictions. The most libertarian
appearing was Men Like Gods (1923), which supposedly had no central
state, though the domination of science and other uniform indoctrination—"education
is our government" and "runs everything"—perhaps makes
Furthermore, Wells has here violated the basic utopian premises with his society
more than a hundred generations in the future, after elaborate "eugenic"
development (we now call it "genetic engineering"); thus, in contrast
to the earlier men-pretty-much-as-they-are in A Modern Utopia, we have
"a cleansed and perfected humanity," a world of "demi-gods."113
I would argue that this is not utopian in a serious sense but scientistic fantasy,
not just because Wells was an earlier adapter of the Theory of Relativity into
space-time shifts and psychic transmission but because this by definition cannot
be a human society.114
While no simple formula will adequately define homo sapiens for cultural
and social purposes, I think, there are limits of existing human possibilities
which allow the significant grounds of agreement for our disagreements on politics,
psychology, economics, art, language, love, and much else. Fundamentally change
the premises by substantially changing the beings and the arguments become meaningless.
As with other-worldly religions, this scientistic other-world depends on acts
of faith and magic, not acts of human intelligence and will and sensibility.
Even should the demi-god future come to be, it would not be of interest to
us—an improbable possibility, Aristotle pointed out, is not suitable to
human poetry—because the very modes of thought and feeling would be essentially
different. Part of Wells' premise is what used to be thought of as a "faith
in progress," though perhaps better characterized as "perfectionism."
For instance, "thanks to a certain obscure and indomitable righteousness
in the blood of the human type," he must advance into utopia.115
Thus no issue remains except faith. But in his last discussion of the subject,
Mind at the End of Its Tether (1946), Wells announced that "Homo
sapiens . . . is in his present form played out," and our "universe
is not merely bankrupt . . . it is going out of existence . . . The attempt
to trace a pattern of any sort is absolutely futile."116
With the loss of faith, the despair over the lack of a guaranteed "pattern,"
Wells had no social view left. That but confirms the scientistic religiosity
of his earlier one.
Fuller's Mechanical Utopianism and Other
Technological Escapes from the Human
Many still belong to one or another church of Wells-like religion, and make
utopian protestations of faith. One of the best-known American examples, R.
Buckminster Fuller, proclaims that the choice is either his engineering paradise
or our current slide into the damnation of inefficiency in Utopia or Oblivion
(1969).117 In his
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1963) he insisted that the issue
was the re-creation of the "total world society" (perhaps from Wells'
insistent popularization of that totalism, rare in other utopian traditions
except for the millennial) by a "world-round industrial retooling revolution."118
What in fact Fuller does is grossly deploy design analogies to correct everything.
Whatever the merits of his geodesic and dymaxion devices, and similar engineering
designs, the faith that they will redeem all societies can only be megalomania.
When he announces that properly programmed computers will take care of our political
problems and that there are no real difficulties of over-population or technocratic
elitism or resource limitation, we are in the fantasy land of the simpleminded.119
Fuller's thinking, a sympathetic anthropologist points out, doesn't even try
to "learn how many behave," but simply would impose a technology and
"expect man to adapt . . ."120
The vacuous optimism of such mechanical utopianism depends on a lack of human
Other learned cultists may not appear quite so simple. Respected Princeton
scientist Gerard K. O'Neill, in The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space
(1977), thinks that his utopia on gigantic artificial islands in the asteroid
belt would be better than "classical utopian concepts."121
And he concludes, with the usual technological religiosity, that the colonies
would have better governments and better social systems. With charming incoherence,
he is pessimistic about the same beings on earth. Thus, desperate with over-population
and other problems, we need here the antithetical utopia of an "industry-free,
pastoral Earth," apparently as a backwoods colony for the space beings
whose technological purity will make them superior.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt noted a generation ago that the language and
imagery of popular technologues often reveals a peculiar longing to escape earthly
the optimism seems to be a repulsion to the variousness that those without technological
fixation find central to human existence. Don't these technologues negate the
very fabric which allows and gives meaning to our freedom? But perhaps escaping
freedom is the real desire.
Other Sons of Wells: Escapes from Human
Others further the escape from the human by fancies of genetic transformation,
total psychic reconditioning, even literal immortality. I am not sure when that
last became a utopian theme; one scholar links it with the rise of new biological
theories in the nineteenth century. Perhaps it can be traced back to alchemical
and Faustian promises of "new knowledge" as well as a displacement
from religious traditions.123
Certainly in the past generation it has taken on literalist and even programmatic
claims not much evident in earlier times, as with Alan Harrington, The Immortalist
(1977).124 His optimistic
medical projections conclude with "Notes on a Utopia Beyond Time"
which blandly announces that living forever would answer social, moral, and
psychological problems. F. M. Esfandiary's crude jottings entitled Up-Wingers
(1973) hold that "Everything is now possible," including cosmic consciousness,
superutopias, and literal immortality.125
Such symptoms of ideological manic-depression can hardly be argued with, though
the literate might recall the anecdote from Petronius' first-century Satyricon
which T. S. Eliot used as an epigraph to The Waste Land(1922).126
Its import is the despairing condition of the Sibyl at Cumae to whom Apollo
had granted eternal life but not eternal youth (some things are beyond plausible
gods, and plausible doctors). The forever aging Sibyl cries for death. These
immortalist fantasts might take heed, for, if any characteristic at all is not
regenerated, deathlessness may become exponentially horrendous. Even a few centuries
of arthritis, or a "drinking problem," or just bad memories, might
be hard to take.
Hip-technotopians and Perfectibilism
Such writings of what we might call the hip-technotopians may give even utopia
a bad name, unless we view them as comic routines. A recent routine of Timothy
Leary, libertarian guru of the swiss-cheese-brain-generation, includes the scientistic
super-utopian pronouncement that new technologism "will eliminate the prescientific
problems of poverty, territorial conflict, disease, aging, death, pollution,
over-population," and yet apparently create no new problems.127
The "New Scientists" will save us from everything, except perhaps
the ugly literalness of their devotees who forget that even in fairy tales wishes
are limited. More deadpan comical at times is Leary's devotee, the avowed extreme-right
libertarian science fictionist and burlesque prophet, Robert Anton Wilson. In
The Illuminati Papers (1981) he scores some odd political points, such
as demonstrating that science fiction is a world-wide paranoid conspiracy and
demanding that O'Neill's space colonies be "free libertarian communes."128
Wilson also embraces endless technological fantasies, new drug-induced forms
of "consciousness," and instant "immortality" ("some
people alive today will never die").129
However, he may self-destruct in what he defines as his own great "Utopian"
effort: "a worldwide War Against Stupidity" (perhaps an unconscious
parody of Wells' "campaign against the dull"), since the unilateral
blandness doesn't make very intelligent burlesque of technocratic utopianism.
Let us hope these self-parodying Sons-of-Wells reach a nicer final tether than
their master, who perhaps paid the price of never quite losing his critical
sense. It must be peaceful to have a one-way logic which only produces the good,
and quite eliminates any problem of human freedom. But living forever with cosmic
consciousness in a perfect world must be a trifle dull. "Perfectibilism,"
rightly notes philosopher John Passmore, "is dehumanizing" in its
denial of a reasonably full range of human limitations and possibilities. Yet
to jump from that to total rejection of the utopian may be to commit a parallel
dehumanization, to refuse to recognize, Passmore concludes, "that man is
capable of becoming something much superior to what he now is."130
Necessarily, he may also become much inferior.
Futurology, Predictions, and Dystopia
The quaint extremes of hip-technotopianism remind us that utopia is only interesting
when it maintains a tension with present realities. No wonder that many a modern
utopian has felt impelled to turn (as I will below) to the ambiguous, the negative,
the satiric, the black utopia—the dystopia—as essential to a fuller
awareness. One may also be driven to the dystopia by the more pontifically earnest
form of technocratic utopianism pretending to be the science of "futurology."
While there has been some overlap of futuristic predictions with pious technological
utopias in the century since Bellamy, especially in the Wellsian line, images
and arguments for ideal and alternative societies and institutions no more predict
the future than Golden Age mythologies "explain" the past. Herman
Kahn, perhaps the most famous contemporary American futurologist, is no more
a utopian than was Nostradamus—and apparently no more accurate in seeing
towards The Year 2000 (1967), having so far been wrong on inflation
and energy problems, as well as earlier slight miscalculations on when the nuclear
bombs would be going off.131
But perhaps futurology, one of the less pretty forms of astrology, can no more
be argued with than other addictions.
The Black Futurists
Predictions beyond the trivial and truistic require that the unknown and non-understood
be presented in yet recognizable and acceptable terms—analogies, metaphors,
dramaturgical forms, and the rest of aesthetic coherence—which means that
they cannot be literally true. Aesthetically, one may prefer the black futurists,
as one prefers the Inferno to the Paradiso. For instance,
systemsanalyst Vacca's The Coming Dark Age (1973) projects exponential
consequences of coinciding malfunctions of "systems" (energy, health,
communications, etc.), which by even the best probability definitions could
not be specific and timed, but only the fantasy formulation of some of the anxieties
especially engendered by our elaborate organizational dependence—no doubt
a proper focus of fears.132
To answer those might include a utopian proposal of different institutions,
but that would in no way be a prediction. The negative prophecies, of course,
may also be informed by a punitive motivation; just as the arcadian fictions
and programs almost invariably include the magic of affirmative ritual prayer,
so the black prophecies carry the protective magic of the curse, and its exhilaration
Elitist Dark Futures: Heilbroner and Bell
Such strange logics, and psycho-logics, appear at work in much futuristic writing.
Thus, to take a well-known example, left political economist Robert Heilbroner
in An Inquiry into the Human Prospect(1974) appears so committed to
what he considers an antiutopian realism that he concludes by projecting an
authoritarian dystopia—a theocratic-militaristic collectivism—in
drastic antithesis to his announced democratic values.133
I suggest that this is not just a fancy crying of "Wolf!" but a self-cursing
release of the ideological despair, the inverted utopianism, which marks so
much of responsive contemporary socialism.
In another well-known example of the more tendentious mainstream social science,
Daniel Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society(1974), the predictive
and utopian are subsumed into a supposedly structural analysis.134
But patently, Bell's sophisticated defense of "rational functionalism"
serves as apologia for his utopian concept of elitist guardian rule by intellectual
technocrats. He positively projects the dominance of technological bureaucracies
in what libertarians must view as one of the more nasty, and probable, dystopias
around, since it seems to be the implicit program of a good many. When Bell
went on to further justify this technocracy in his more polemical The Cultural
Contradictions of Capitalism (1976, 1978), the issue becomes, as in so
much ideological dispute these days, one of culture rather more than of economics
Rightly pointing to major disparities in the prevalent educated attitudes about
business, government, and ways of living, he went on to condemn critical modernist
culture and allied sensibility as undermining the "functional rationalism"
which must rule. The utopianism is unadmitted but clear in the self-aggrandizing
effort to give supremacy to the conservative, but endlessly manipulative, consciousness
needed for the rising technocracy and its true order.
New Age Counterings to Technocracy and
Satin's New Age Utopianism
Now there is currently a utopianism explicitly dedicated to countering just
such values, a self-consciously counter ideology. Variously called "the
later counterculture," "the new consciousness," "the new
civilization," "the New Age," etc., it is highly and confusingly
syncretistic, as can be seen in examining a primer dedicated to it, Mark Satin's
New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society (1979).136
This manual for the "the new culture" claims that it "provides
full alternatives" to present society, and also makes "extrapolations"
into the far future. Though some of its concern is with intentional communities
(communes), which are the most vivid proof "that there are other ways of
doing things," it is more generally a literal noplace utopianism, more
cultural than political, a loose movement of allied sensibilities. While emphatic
about specific projects, neighborhoods, communities, its basic order is really
the sympathetic-consciousness "network" of similar styles. Much of
it, not very knowingly, is a programmatic form of arcadian utopianism.
I find much of Satin's "New Age" approach a poignant muddle, as in
the combination of hardnosed "intermediate technology" (Kohr, Schumacher,
Illich, Hess, et al.) and mushheaded occultism (astrology, ESP, Orientalism,
Castaneda, and dozens of the shoddiest forms of psychotherapy). It also links
very specific protest politics (such as the anti-military or anti-nuclear power)
with the vaguest "planetary consciousness." It claims the latest technologies
(solar, pharmaceutical, etc.) and the oldest holistic medicine and organic fertilizing.
It displays considerable intellectual openness, and considerable bad cultural
taste, yet the responsiveness is as insistent as the muddleness.
Historically, part of this marginal or alternative culture (as I prefer to
call it) carries on the "Youth Culture" of the 1960s grown into middle-aged
earnestness (Satin was a "hippy" Vietnam War resister), with some
of the people as well as ideology continuous. It also carries on the Beat-bohemian-transcendentalist
minority and experimental and utopian culture in America, and its even older
"underground" European traditions.137
What unity it has may be largely stylistic and temperamental, but some concerns
are common: "ecology" (radical environmentalism, often carried to
arcadian sanctification); decentralizing in most spheres (not only anti-statist
and anti-corporate but anti-monolithic educational, cultural, etc.); and the
attempted rejection of traditional antagonistic ideological positionings—capitalism/socialism,
science/religion, personal/public—for a hopeful syncretistic embrace.
In economics, for example, it tends to be very anti-leftist in the collectivist
senses. "New Age Capitalism" is defended and defined as an alternative
to both the "state capitalist" and "corporate capitalist"
modes, though with an obvious left-derived communalist context and co-operative
Other New Age Utopians: Thompson and Roszak
Among scores of writers who might be identified with this utopianist "movement,"
I have already touched on a few in the arcadian context. But several more with
intellectual and prophetic ambitions might also be briefly noted. Ex-academic
historian William Irwin Thompson, in At the Edge of History (1971),
renounced mere history for participation in a "new consciousness' and "cultural
In Passages About Earth (1974) he propounded not just a new community
or new society but a "new civilization."140
Some of this comes out as a continuation of traditional American utopianism
of a Jeffersonian cast, more or less anti-statist and decentralist, but fused
with a strange mixture of the mystical and positive-technological. He claims
to explore new realms of being towards the creation of a new religion for a
Wellsian one-world society. So much of this megalomania operates at a mythological
level that realities remain obscure, though Thompson apparently projects a high-technology
infrastructure and a monastic-communal social ordering. But most of his concern
does not move at such a paltry level. In The Time Falling Bodies Take to
Light (1981), he explores, with a considerable show of scholarship, some
episodes of undervalued matriarchal mythology in order to return our consciousness
to the centrality of the Eternal Feminine.141
Such values of new consciousness have been obscured by the false culture of
a male-power civilization. "Perhaps if we are blessed by the old gods in
the next civilization that will follow after this one has played itself out,
we will come to appreciate the ancient and forgotten wisdom." As so often
with utopian sensibility, the latest discovery puts us back in the old Golden
Age, or anyway in an androgynous myth thought to go with it. But, apparently,
the new-old "sacrament of Eros" will require a new man-woman for the
new "world-epoch." That regenerative totalism also puts us, as my
earlier arguments noted, beyond the level of the human required for most pertinent
social-political thought, especially in terms of the liberties of mere unredeemed
humans, such as you and me.
Roszak's Personalist Countering of Bell's
One of the best-known contemporary utopians of a sweeping cast is the nearly
as syncretistic Theodore Roszak. In The Making of a Counter-Culture
(1969) he rather skittishly tried to combine dissident "youth culture,"
Paul Goodman's anarchism, the erotic utopianism of Marcuse and Norman O. Brown,
bits of Oriental religiosity, and anti-militarism and anti-industrialism, into
a rather romantic-utopian transformation of stolid American social character.142
When the youth culture and some of his heroes declined, he enlarged the argument
into a broader but not very insightful neoromantic attack on modernist culture—ironically,
the same focus but far different purposes and allegiances than the antithetical
utopian Bell—in Where the Wasteland Ends (1973).143
Religion rather more fully takes over from culture in his Unfinished Animal,
"The Aquarian Frontier and the Evolution of Consciousness" (1975).144
This surveys current cultish religions and psychotherapies as forms of "The
Hidden Wisdom" being revealed to us through "occult evolution."
(As with much modern utopianism—contra-Nozick, again, below—evolutionary
metaphors are central.) Roszak can conceit together any old social radicalism
and new mysticism, the latest in ecology and the laxest in metaphysics, admirable
feminism and contemptible psychobabble, and all to utopian ends. But I am unable
to find much logic as to why the new true believers will reject the technocratic
and join in "participatory community as the essential reality of social
social perceptions, and dialectical sense, suggest both that Roszak may be describing
instead a new NeoHellenistic "failure of nerve" (Gilbert Murray) of
a declining technocracy, and that his mystagogues are some of its more fanciful
parasites. But his arguments always do struggle for what used to be called "social
consciousness" (his pre-Ivy League origins were moderately deprived), and
he longs to propose "visionary communities" to lead the utopian way
to the radicalization of society.
Roszak's continuation of the quasi-dissident mapping in Person/Planet:
The Creative Disintegration of Industrial Society (1978) makes a renewed
affirmation of the freedom and development of the person as primary over any
A decentralist, of course, Roszak does a bit of what most of them fail to do,
such as strongly acknowledging that small organizations, face-to-face groupings,
dispersed structures, can also be tyrannical. Quite rightly he sees that a decentralist
social ethic and anti-statist political ethic, while desirable and justifiable,
are not sufficient. Yet his discriminations always seem skittish, falling back
into "personalist" pieties and anxiously eclectic yokings of social
radicalisms and religiosities. He makes earnest but not seriously examined suggestions,
such as a renewed "monastic paradigm" for future utopias. But it is
not incidental that in Person/Planet Roszak criticizes (though quite
thinly, and without his opponent's rigor) Daniel Bell's vision of post-industrial
society noted above.147
For in considerable part Roszak may be understood as counterutopianizing in
his personalistic communalism to the "functional-rationalist" apologetics
for a totalist technocracy, our almost achieved utopia. And it seems clear to
me, in spite of much criticism and disagreement, that the personalist utopianism
rather than the technocratic utopianism is more on the side of individual liberty.
Dialectical Counterings to Utopian and
When confronted with presumptuous claims of that sort of contemporary utopianism
which pronounces for a "new consciousness," or a "new civilization,"
or a "new planetary culture," or just a "new age," the more
modestly reasonable might understandably long for a corrective. An essential
part of the intellectual history, and the fuller sensibility, of utopianism
repeatedly displays just such a countering. The philosophical cuckooland of
Aristophanes' The Clouds attempts a therapeutic comedy against Platonic
pretensions. The third book of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels,
with inanities of the scientists of an imaginary Laputa, savagely mocks the
utopian pretensions of early eighteenth-century rationalism and proponents of
the "new knowledge." Voltaire more playfully combined positive utopianism
(El Dorado, with its deistic tolerance, great scientific center, and genially
spread wealth) and negative utopianism (it is silly to pursue the utopian Leibniz's
Best of All Possible Worlds and far wiser to cultivate your own garden) in Candide
(1759). By then he, and the better philosophes, had reached a smart
disenchantment with philosopher-kings, though not with rationalistic passions
for a better society.148
Anti-Utopian Counterings: Dostoyevsky and
But perhaps a crucial mid-nineteenth-century example of such a corrective would
be more pertinent to us. The first half of Dostoyevsky's novella Notes from
Underground (1864) is a philosophical monologue which specifically attacks
a shoddy utopian-socialist novel (N. G. Chernyshevsky's What Is To Be Done?).149
But, with a brilliance that reaches perversity, it also more generally attacks
the large utopian conceptions which would put man into a collectivist "ant
hill," or make of him a mere "piano key" for the chorus of utilitarian
mad dreams of human harmony, or subordinate all human aspirations to such engineering
models as "the Crystal Palace." The power, and continuing value, of
Dostoyevsky's anti-utopian polemic includes not only its incisive undercutting
of claims to historical and collective rationality but its acute psychological
cutting-up of "self-interest" and related reductive psychologies which
would deny a larger sense of human complexity and individual freedom.150
While Dostoyevsky may be read as one of the key figures of modernist culture,
the anti-utopian literary imagination which this ex-Fourierist displayed did
not become widespread until well into the twentieth century and its bitter disenchantments.
Not the least of the utilities of H. G. Wells' A Modern Utopia was
its eventually inspiring the more humanely sensitive E. M. Forster in his novella
The Machine Stops (1912) to an apocalyptic portrayal of the dehumanizing
possibilities in a totally mechanized system.151
In this projected future of Wellsian one-world state-society, with not only
its advanced and encompassing technology but its bureaucratic structure, the
synthetic environment created for utility and comfort has monstrously taken
over the human. Most people have become insulated from "direct experience"
with nature, with each other, even with their own bodies, so much so they have
also become totally submissive, even devoutly religious, towards the nurturing
technological structure that encapsulates them. With individuality nearly gone,
not only does the system paranoically prey upon people but, with parts of it
inevitably failing, there remains insufficient initiative to correct it in its
"decadence," and so the break-downs become exponential, and therefore
total and final in disposing of the human.
Other Negative Utopians: Capek and Vonnegut
The break-down of the "machine" is, contrary to some thoughtless
readings, less an attack on machines in themselves than on their elaborate interlocking
into a controlling system—there is no other tyrant or exploiting class
in the Forster novel—which usurps and conditions away the essential human
values of sensuality, aesthetics, initiative, autonomy, relatedness, individuality,
freedom. The machine has not become a monstrous human robot which must finally
be destroyed, as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), for the humans
have become the robots.152
The provocative ironic extension of the romantic Frankenstein into the twentieth
century might be that of Karl Capek's R. U. R. (1920) which dramatizes
man-created robots eliminating man, yet at the end evolving towards the human
by developing passions.153
True, arcadian utopias, from at least Butler's Erewhon (1872), have
tended to banish complex technology because it might develop a mind and will
of its own, as well as developing for the human destructive rhythms and senses,
as Morris held in News from Nowhere.154
But when it comes to drawing out futuristic consequences of complex technology
there are some varieties of negative utopian responses. Kurt Vonnegut, in Player
Piano (1952) emphasized the less fanciful vision of most human beings simply
becoming pathetically irrelevant, useless, in the technocratic society (simply
an extension of our permanent unemployment).155
Where once man was victim of the fates and the gods, of nature and his own limitations,
he now, with more bitter irony, becomes a continuing victim of the utopian order
of utility and comfort and power he created. There isn't even a place for heroic
defiance—thumbing one's nose at an invisible missile?
Zamiatin's We: Utopian Vision & Anti-utopian
This reverses the scientistic religiosity, Bacon to Wells. With yet more lavish
historical irony, Wells' early utopian efforts also helped engender one of the
most brilliant black-utopian novels, E. Zamiatin's We (ca. 1920).156
A Russian marine engineer turned vanguardist writer, who had worked in England
and written on Wells, Zamiatin had the political good taste to be persecuted
by both the Czarists and the Bolsheviks, and the artistic good taste to present
a utopian vision of society by way of an anti-utopian fiction. In line with
his faith that "the world is kept alive only by heretics," he combined
the Wellsian totalistic benevolent future state and its hi-tech powers with
a Dostoyevskian psychological acuteness about the misuse of reason to deny freedom,
culminating in "fantisectomy" to destroy the highest qualities of
the human mind, such as imagining a better society.157
For Zamiatin, false rationalism destroys the core humanizing impetuses of sensuality
and imagination, especially as it advances the "twofold danger which threatens
humanity: the hypertrophic power of machines and the hypertrophic power of the
seems to have long ago understood what our technological optimists still can't
grasp: vast technological organizations and cultures are inherently coercive
of the individual.
Other Utopian Anti-utopians: Huxley, Orwell,
Some of Zamiatin's methods, though hardly the brilliance of his radical individualism
and stylistic brio, reappear in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932)
and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).159
Where Huxley (also reactively taking off from Wells, from the eugenics of Men
Like Gods) emphasizes the "positive" conditioning that Zamiatin
used, Orwell emphasized the terroristic conditioning, which Zamiatin also used.
It requires a nice discrimination which makes for the worse kind of control.
Zamiatin might also be viewed as contributing the paradigmatic insight that
the political-economic control is less crucial than the aesthetic-erotic dimension,
the destruction of sensibility. An even more devastatingly negative utopianism
is that of D. H. Lawrence, a writer who for years proposed utopian colonies
to his friends, who developed in "The Man Who Loved Islands" (1926)
a three-step unfolding (utopia to hermitage to final isolated death) the anti-life
imperatives lurking in idealism which overrides the irrational immediacies and
fullness of the human.160
A crucial point sometimes overlooked is that Huxley and Orwell (whose works
hardly require summary here) were, like Zamiatin and Lawrence, utopian anti-utopians.
While most famous for his satiric utopias (which include the slighter and cruder
Ape and Essence, the satire on "immortalism" in After
Many A Summer Dies the Swan, etc.), Huxley's last novel, Island
(1962), was a socially and mystically positive utopia.161
Except it was a terminal case: a militaristic megalomaniac, out for oil exploitation,
nationalistic development, and other "progress," takes over. In this
positive utopia, Huxley simply inverted some of the earlier negative motifs—the
use of drugs, positive conditioning, synthetic religion, etc.—into affirmative
values. Hedonic order still remains controlling, though in Island it
is centered on heightened individual experience and cooperative social arrangements
instead of on pacification of feelings for subservience to an authoritarian
hierarchy. For more than a generation Huxley remained a radical utopian ideologue,
in and out of his fictions, a proponent of socio-economic decentralism, pacifism,
more simple and holistic styles of living, and his Vedantic version of the "perennial
philosophy." His dystopianism does not come from the refusal of the utopian
but from its critical reversal, and remains integral to a utopian view. Probably
Huxley's complex of dissident views approximates the main line of utopian dissidence
in this century.
The Utopia-Dystopia Tradition and Our Age
A similar point might be made about George Orwell. The dystopian anti-authoritarian
of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Animal Farm, was based (as we
see in his political essays, and his account of the Spanish Civil War, Homage
to Catalonia) in democratic-socialist utopianism (the very one Hayek excoriated).162
The false utopia is thus measured by utopian standards. This, however, does
not appear to me to be true of a good many minor contemporary dystopias. For
example, in the cleverly nasty black utopias of Anthony Burgess: in The
Wanting Seed (1962) one of our most negative futuristic issues, over-population,
is neatly resolved by the permanent institutionalization of men and women systematically
killing each other. Burgess's other utopias, such as the behavioristic thugdom
of A Clockwork Orange (1963), or his counter-utopia to Orwell, 1985
(1978), sadistically propound a very anti-utopian vision of sheer evil as central
to human society.163
Hence most senses of human freedom have a paltry irrelevance.
But that is simply one extreme of the dystopia which dominates contemporary
fiction to a perhaps even greater degree than the blandly positive utopia tended
to dominate the latter part of the last century.164
A rather more intriguing relationship of the utopiananti-utopian is their combination
within the same work. As I have already suggested with the tradition out of
Zamiatin, the utopiadystopia may be one of the most appropriate forms of the
social imagination for these times.
Science Fiction and the Utopia-Dystopia
At their best, some forms of Science Fiction may also achieve this utopia-dystopia
critical-ideal response. I note this with some reluctance since the genre ideologically
arises from the utopian tradition of scientistic religiosity, from Bacon through
Wells into contemporary technologues, and much of its sensibility from Gothicism
and sentimental fantasy: a considerable number of such fictions are aesthetically
and morally ugly.165
Still, some SF dystopias display intelligence and wit, at least since Pohl's
and Kornbluth's The Space Merchants (1951).166
Perhaps the best known American in the manner is Ray Bradbury, Farhenheit
451 (1953), and other works; the best-known satiric-SF European of some
seriousness would seem to be the Polish Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological
Congress (1973), and other fictions.167
There are more, including the intriguing Doris Lessing, whose qualities should
be sharply distinguished from the more common SF shoot-em-up space wars and
other regressive fantasies.168
With commercially exploitative genres one has to make at least as emphatic discriminations
as with the ideological and other aggrandizements of scholarly works.
Le Guin's Ambiguous Utopia: Permanent Libertarian
One of the better, and knowledgeable, utopian fictions using science fiction
conventions is the American Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed (1974).169
In its two contrasting but historically related worlds, with comparable ideological
conflicts within each, there are double utopian-dystopian dramatizations; no
wonder The Dispossessed is subtitled "An Ambiguous Utopia."
This pro-and-con, dialectical approach gives a persuasively complex view, though
with clear libertarian direction and criticism of contemporary America. Her
anarchist society has gone conformistly repressive, her statecapitalist society
decadently vicious. Le Guin's modestly Promethean scientist-hero explores both
societies, and finally defies both in giving his technological advances to the
universe. He learns, through significant confusions, that utopia always threatens
to turn into dystopia, and that dystopia demands utopian over-coming. Libertarian
rebellion must be permanent since "freedom is never very safe."170
To keep it alive requires not only the initiative of the dissident individual
but the enterprise of the small group; the calcifying utopia still has an open-ended
order which provides for "syndicates" of dissidence and thus for the
dialectics of change and renewal which liberation requires.
While Le Guin's main positive pattern of values (leaving aside some sentimentalism)
comes out of the anarchist tradition (Enlightenment anti-statism, Kropotkin's
mutual aid ethic, Emma Goldman's feminism, Paul Goodman's decentralist communalism,
Taoist stylistics, etc.), that may be less crucial than the utopian-dystopian
dialectics. For utopian constructions not to fribble into lesser fantasy (which
some other Le Guin fictions do, and which is congenital to Science Fiction in
its technomysticism), they must, as The Dispossessed does, maintain
that contrariety which confirms our modern sense of an "outside" world
never fully reducible to the rationalistic, and other doctrinaire, objectifications.
In an authentic modern utopia, the critical sense remains an essential part
of the imperative dreams of a better human community.
Nozick's Right-Libertarian Utopia: Pseudo-pluralism
From a right-libertarian view, Le Guin's utopia might better have had a structure
which allowed a more diverse and open economics (partly denied by her antique
premise of scarcity), though she did give a suggestive framework which allowed
individuals and groups to opt out.171
That may be one of the places where right and left libertarianisms find an essential
common ground. To critically turn to a right libertarianism which argues for
this might also restate several of the comtemporary utopian issues.
Nozick's Unhistorical Notion of the Utopian
and the Meta-utopian
Robert Nozick's "A Framework for Utopia," the partly detachable conclusion
(he tells us) to his minimal-statist philosophy in Anarchy, State, and Utopia
(1974), ostensibly defends utopianism.172
But he starts his case, which is more concerned with intellectual ingenuity
than historical and other human realities, with the considerably erroneous,
and certainly Panglossian, assumption that we can only think about utopia as
"the best world imaginable" and the "best of all possible worlds."
Later this is invidiously restated as "the perfect society" based
on notions "static and rigid."173
Whatever the merits of that as part of a polemic for, say, the sixteenth century,
it is silly in the late-twentieth century, either as a statement of fact or
a premise of a pertinent issue, as my many examples have illustrated. Any assumption
that all utopians suffer from a mad constructivist dogmatism may be itself a
mad constructivist dogmatism.
Granted, there would seem to be something slightly unfair about confronting
a contemporary professional philosopher with history and actual sensibility
in their rather considerable variety. But let us grant that Nozick's misleading
characterization of the utopian serves a purpose; by such narrow and denigrating
definition he can put the utopian in a confined place and yet maintain the guise
of openness and tolerance. Thus, he can metaphysically rise above parochial
views by proposing a "meta-utopia: the environment in which utopian experiments
may be tried out. . . ."174
Note here that without further justification, and contrary to historical usage
(including that of philosophy on the subject), utopianism has been reduced to
a small part of it; hereafter, he really refers only to intentional communities,
at best, a meta-communalism. And even within that restrictive topos it means
nothing substantive, only procedural rules. By such charming sleight of hand,
the issues have been trivialized. And by such only ostensible openness, pseudopluralism,
we may well arrive at (to not coin a phrase) a "repressive tolerance."
Nozick's Meta-utopianism: the Denial of
Nozick's justification for his "meta-utopianism" appears grossly
truistic: "if there is a diverse range of communities, then (putting it
roughly) more persons will be able to come closer to how they wish to live,
than if there is only one kind of community."175
Within his frame, conceivable opponents of such a view—monotopian fanatics?
solipsistic individualists?—hardly seem to suggest an interesting issue.
The limitation to Nozick's "diverse range of communities" also seems
to avoid issue by vagueness. At times he is so skittish (e.g., his three dozen
examples of diverse character types) that four billion "utopias" would
seem insufficient. The assumption of endless semidiversity, if not trivial,
would seem to function as a denial of real alternatives by refusing any even
approximate and temporary definition of the community, the society, the species—even
under specific historical conditions—and therefore, hardly allows any
actual choices or specific freedoms. To tell me that I can do what I want, without
provision for any specific want (for that would unfairly select against other
wants), hardly allows me to realize any want. In that sense, negative freedoms
are empty, and therefore, may result in displacement of freedoms by impositions
structured in elsewhere.
Besides, parsimony is required for an interesting social theory. Nozick's most
impassioned passages (and we literary critics know that that, not the logic,
often tells us what is really at issue) insist that he is trying to protect
But that is a refusal of discrimination pretending to be a discrimination. And
I doubt that complexity (which I rather have a perverse taste for myself) can
be the principle or rule for a group, an institution, a community, or a society.
If there is some specific variety or ambiguity (as with a complex person), we
might just get complexity as a result. Complexity may not be a principle but
a combined effect. And would a libertarian really wish to encourage and maximize
a "complexity" of authoritarian, exploitative, pathological, little
utopias? It is one thing to tolerate nastiness, or at least refrain from the
excesses of coercing it, but it is quite another to advance it by structuring
the anti-libertarian in, even encouraging it. But Nozick's supposed institutional
neutrality—his undiscriminating freeway café "smorgasboard
of utopian communities"—does not recognize what one of his critics
has called "hidden-hand indoctrinating totalitarianism."177
True Libertarian Meta-utopianism and Advancing
What if we were to take Nozick's libertarian "meta-utopianism" rather
more seriously than its gaming author does? What might be several of its representative
issues in something like a real world? One set of conditions might be not to
meet "complexity" as such, that is presumptious, but to make conscious
allowances for uncoercively meeting the needs of certain recognizable varieties
(and including new varieties when they become recognizable): say, different
sexual proclivities, varying degrees of communal bonding, alternative ways of
work and production and distribution, etc. Historically as well as logically,
this might be the hermits, the sodomites, and the gamblers, among others—and
I would certainly want to include the delightfully irresponsible type Fourier
said was motivated by the "Butterfly instinct." They may need a mediating
order which provides them some protection from the already dominant ordering,
since there always is one and it tends to be coercive. In other words, we may
need to advance specific support for some alternatives, specific depowering
for others. Even "meta-utopia" has to be discriminating, purposive,
substantive, under a particular set of historical conditions. In sum: there
is not really any such monster as a "neutral framework," for utopias
or anything else.
Economic Specifics for a Meta-utopia
To further counter such reification, consider an economic issue. For centuries,
utopians of various ideologies have reasonably held that certain minimum economic
as well as social conditions must exist for even attempting variant institutions
and communities (Le Guin tried to meet it with her "syndicates").
Such are traditionally land and credit (skills and protections and other services
might be equally relevant), which we usually call "capital." Without
providing capital access, any claim to allowing alternatives is a cheap piety,
just as not meeting the basic conditions for specific varieties is a fake complexity.
Approximately speaking, people with capital are successful capitalists (or,
in our semi-market established order, their progeny, servants, etc.), which
of course suggests that they will either have other commitments than to ideal
communities or that only capitalist utopias can get supported. But that would
hardly meet any minimal historical or theoretical standards of individual and
social differences and variety, including Nozick's. Hence, to abbreviate the
argument, capitalism cannot itself be the framework for both capitalist and
non-capitalist alternatives. This, of course, is merely a variant of the obvious
argument (as Hayek and others repeatedly note) that the basis of a free market
economy cannot itself be the market but a prior set of "traditions,"
rules, institutions, ideologies.
Non-capitalists can pool their resources to found alternatives, if they have
any. But that excludes some people and some important alternatives. While North
America, for historical reasons which may be considerably fortuitous, has at
times provided somewhat favorable circumstances for utopian communities, those
conditions have markedly decreased in an over-populated technocracy (and there
probably was proportionally less communalism in the 1960s than in the 1840s).
To, in effect, require a millennial fervor or proselytizing exploitation, as
with the "Moonies" and the like or the mass-suicidal Jonestown, Guyana,
suggests something wrong with the conditions. A welfare state can allow and
subsidize some degree of communal economics, as with the rather restrictive
as well as particularistic history of the Israeli kibbutzim (one of
Nozick's few examples). Or utopian capital can be expropriated, which either
takes a coercive state or its paralleling terrorist organization. But confining
social alternatives to occassional paternalistic capitalists (such as Robert
Owen), welfare bureaucracies, fanatical cultists, and big and little terrorists,
may not constitute a sufficient range of diversities and freedoms.
Pursued with any seriousness, Nozick's meta-utopian framework would have to
allow for capital access to rather more varied possibilities, though certainly
not all, and certainly not with arrogant claims to meeting all human "complexity."
But included would have to be some utopian options which lacked preferential
value, if not viability, in any marketplace. The hidden framework of "meta-utopia"
includes either a denial of all non-capitalist alternatives (contrary to Nozick's
avowals) or a covert pluralistic economy, which Nozick fails to acknowledge.
If he did, he would no doubt find old vexed utopian issues as to how there can
be "mixed" economies without one part bleeding, or bleeding into,
the others. But that his theory demands. To propose nearly bloodless liberties
is of little use.
Concluding Meta-utopian Specifics: Overcoming
To admit the problem does not mean that one necessarily makes a Manichean reversion
to a dominant statist answer, or to hold, as utopian Fourier said, "the
most ridiculous prejudice, the conviction that the good can be established by
However, the conditions that encourage utopian diversity may not correspond
with the formalist state of the rest of Nozick's arguent (I leave to others
to decide if my criticisms of his utopianism apply more broadly). Certainly
depowering of semi-private as well as statist coercive powers would be central.
That might include undercutting any unitary and total market system, any unified
one-world order (Wells, and followers), and not a little of the "affluence"
of contemporary America. Still, my theme is libertarian utopianism, which might
require an economy in which a large part of productive activity would be controlled
neither by the state nor the market but by the more varied autonomous activity
of individuals and non-coercive associations.179
Much of the modern state, and any claim to benevolent world order, we can better
But that is my utopianism, or rather, but one of my many. Countering Nozick's
utopianism—and his arguments may be less wrong than something rather worse:
narrow, thin and not very honest—we might nonetheless grant him the good
service of raising the quest for a more fundamental meta-utopianism than his
consumer-communalism with its insufficient concern for furthering freedoms.
Concern with the utopian, as Nozick at least partly recognized, may be essential
to a libertarian view.
If I were to further propose my own utopia, it might start with something old
(I have suggested they all really do), such as the motto that greatly learned
and humorous Renaissance individualist Rabelais put on the arch of the Abbey
Thèléme, his inverted monastic utopia: "Do What Thou Will."
But instead of concluding the problem that only begins it, for remember that
was but the entrance to the simulacrum of a better and livelier and freer world.
And should I self-educatingly continue my utopian speculations, I would hope
not to confuse that transitory process entirely with the deeper utopian impetus.
And not forget that while the utopian impetus may be a good one, many types
of utopias, as I have argued, are bad. Perhaps I should mark some more arches
within with proper utopian-anti-utopian warnings, such as: "Freedoms made
into objects become human enslavements" (Berdayev); "What is important
is the idea of utopia that overcomes utopia in its untruth and sustains it in
its truth" (Tillich); and "Anything that triumphs, perishes"
1. I suggest that any serious (as
against any merely earnest) argument for individual liberty would have to confront
some contemporary oppositional views; I would feel an obligation to meet some
such criticism of individualism as raised by Philip Slater, Earthwalk
(Garden City, N. Y.:1974). See also his The Pursuit of Loneliness (Boston:1969).
2. Here I follow the broad approach
of major recent studies, such as Frank E. and Fritzie P. Manuel, Utopian
Thought in the Western World (Cambridge, Mass.:1979), which I draw on at
several points. The Manuels nicely make a methodological point which goes along
with my emphasis: "If in the background of every utopia there is an anti-utopia,
the existing world seen through the critical eyes of the utopia-composer, one
might say conversely that in the background of many a dystopia there is a secret
utopia," p. 6. I also emphasize various ambivalences towards utopia, as
especially does Frederick L. Polak in his broad defense of utopianism, which
he sees as an essential part of the fundamental dualism and impetus to change
in Western culture, in "Utopia and Cultural Renewal," Utopias
and Utopian Thought, ed. Frank E. Manuel (Boston:1966), p. 281. See also
his The Image of the Future, trans. Elise Boulding (Dobbs Ferry, N.
Y.:1961). To simplify the selection from an over-large field, I have confined
myself here to studies in English or in English translation. A fulsome recent
bibliography of the literary side is Glen Negley, Utopian Literature: A
Bibliography. "With a Supplementry Listing of Works Influential in
Utopian Thought" (Lawrence, Kansas:1978). See also Lyman Tower Sargent,
British and American Utopian Literature, 1516–1975 (Boston:1979).
3. Marie Louise Berneri, Journey
Through Utopia (London:1950). This several times republished anthology
with commentary grants a positive minority utopian tradition which includes
Rabelais, Diderot, Morris, etc., discussed below.
4. Murray N. Rothbard, For
a New Liberty (New York:1973), p. 307. He is partly arguing with the Hayek
view of utopianism discussed below.
5. Ronald A. Krieger, "The
Economics of Utopia," Utopias: The American Experience, ed. G.
B. Moment and Otto F. Kranshair (Metuchen, N.J.:1980), pp. 199–204.
6. William Barrett, The Illusion
of Technique (New York:1979), p. 231. Part of his argument is the erroneous
(out of ignorance?) point that utopias lack humanistic density.
7. Karl Mannheim, Ideology
and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (London:1934,
8. Manuel, Utopian Thought,
9. For possible analogies to utopianism
in Taoism, see Holmes Welch, The Making of the Way (Boston:1963).
10. The degree to which classical
utopias such as Plato's are not programmatic but intellectual models for contemplation
is disputed. See, for example, Elizabeth Hansot, "The Republic of Plato,"
Perfection and Progress: Two Modes of Utopian Thought (Cambridge, Mass.:1974),
pp. 22–44, who takes it as primarily contemplative. I would incline to
the argument that something partly new enters utopianism with the Renaissance,
as with the positive skepticism of Michel de Montaigne's "Of Cannibals,"
Selected Essays of Montaigne, trans. D. A. Frame (New York:1963). But
since some commentators hold to a dividing line in the Enlightenment, and others
not until the nineteenth century, the rise of the programmatic remains uncertain.
11. Note, for example, in such
history as the Manuels' Utopian Thought, throughout, how many of the
utopians were persecuted as heretics or condemned as dissidents.
12. Paul Goodman, Utopian
Essays and Practical Proposals (New York:1962), especially the first chapter,
"Utopian Thinking." For discussion of this (and other writings of
Goodman cited below), see my Paul Goodman (Boston:1980).
13. That utopias in recent decades
are especially and necessarily bad dreams, because of the loss of optimistic
faith in benevolent nature, political rationalism, and the like, see Chad Walsh,
From Utopia to Nightmare (New York:1962).
14. The static and absolutistic
nature of The Republic is not simply historical or political but aesthetic.
"So," says Socrates, "this immunity to change from outside is
characteristic of anything which, thanks to art or nature or both, is in a satisfactory
state . . . ." The Republic of Plato, trans. F. M. Cornford (New
York:1945), p. 72. For a sophisticated contemporary discussion of Plato on art,
and part apologia for Platonic censorship, see Iris Murdoch, The Cave and
the Sun (Oxford:1977).
15. Utopia in The Complete
Works of Sir Thomas More, IV, ed. Edward Surtz and J. H. Hexter (New Haven,
Conn.:1965). A reasonable sampling of the much interpreted and disputed relation
of More to his utopia, which I only touch on in a couple of phrases, is contained
in Twentieth Century Interpretations of Utopia, ed. William Nelson
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:1968).
16. For an extreme case, see
Thomas Molnar, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy (New York:1967), who pronounces
all utopianism to be "moral evil" against divine ordinances. The drastically
bigoted account may be symptomatic of the rage against radical change which
informs much of the response to the utopian.
17. Judith N. Shklar, After
Utopia, The Decline of Political Faith (Princeton, N.J.:1957, 1969). Her
main theme seems to be "the gradual decline of rational political optimism,"
p. ix, but the claimed defeat of liberalism, socialism, etc., by romantic and
Christian attacks seems untenable since ideologically their own decline is even
greater. Perhaps that is because the kind of utopia I call "technocracy,"
below, has been overcoming them all. Shklar uses utopianism in a very broad
way: see p. 219.
18. F. A. Hayek, The Road
to Serfdom (London:1944), Ch. II, "The Great Utopia," pp. 18–23.
There is a confusion in this tradition of thought as to whether socialist utopianism
is bad because it cannot work (contrary to nature, to social complexity, to
rational powers, etc.) or bad because it can work all too well, producing a
utopian-totalitarian uniformity. I detect both in Hayek. Perhaps they can be
reconciled by arguing that the possible success of socialist utopianism has,
historically, produced an antagonism which becomes authoritarian or totalitarian.
But Hayek doesn't do this.
19. "The Errors of Constructivism,"
New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas
(Chicago:1978). "Society appeared to them as a deliberate construction
for an intended purpose . . .," pp. 5–6. But this runs into all sorts
of problems in intellectual history (Locke is a constructivist, and so is John
Stuart Mill), and also contradicts Hayek's own ethical justification for a market
economy. Some recent arguments on this are summarized by Arthur M. Diamond,
Jr., "F. A. Hayek on Constructivism and Ethics," Journal of Libertarian
Studies, IV (Fall 1980), pp. 353–365. Hayek has various other versions
of the issue, as in The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago:1972), whose
very title points up some confusion. I also have difficulty with Hayek's selective
application of anti-constructivism, which apparently he does not apply to the
hyper-rationalistic planning of large corporations and other controlling institutions,
though he should.
20. Hayek, "Economic Freedom
and Representative Government," New Studies, pp. 105–118.
21. Hayek, New Studies,
22. Hayek, "The intellectuals
and Socialism," Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics
(Chicago:1967), originally in Chicago Law Review, XVI (1949), pp. 417–433.
23. Karl Popper, "Utopia
and Violence," Conjectures and Refutations (London:1962). This
was also a major theme of both volumes of his The Open Society, 4th
ed. (London:1950, 1962). For a long and flashily pedantic argument submerging
most utopianism in revolutionism (contrast Mannheim, above), see Melvin Lasky,
Utopia and Revolution (Chicago:1976). There are many other extremely
hostile views of the utopian, with conserative fears of optimism, threat of
perfectionist tyrrany, etc. See J. L. Talmon, "Utopianism and Politics,"
in the generally trite and negative collection, Utopia, ed. George
Kateb (New York:1971), pp. 91–101. For the emphasis on insufficient conflict
in utopia, see Rolf Dahrendorf, "Out of Utopia: Toward Reorientation of
Sociological Analysis," Utopia, ed. Kateb, pp. 102–126.
For my point below about violence, see for example, some of the historical cases
in Barrington Moore, Jr., The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy
24. A much more drastic narrowing
of the subject was recently done by J. C. Davis, who views utopia as only institutional
programs for an ideal society, as against four other kinds of ideal patterns:
millennarian, arcadian, Cockaygne, and moral-commonwealth. Below, I fuse the
last three with the utopian, but distinguish several other kinds, such as the
"technocratic." See J. C. Davis, Utopia and the Ideal Society,
"A Study of English Utopian Writing, 1516–1700" (Cambridge,
Eng.:1981), p. 6. Davis also critiques the millennarian as of an essentially
different order because attributed to the deity rather than man, p. 36, which
gives me an excuse for not much considering it here.
25. Often confusingly, variously,
and boringly so. See Lewis Mumford, The Story of Utopias, Ideal Commonwealths
and Social Myths (New York:1922), a seminal anti-utopian study.
26. Harmonian Man, Selected
Writings of Charles Fourier, ed. Mark Poster (Garden City, N. Y.:1971);
and The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier, ed. Jonathan Beecher and
Richard Bienvenu (Boston:1971). A balanced scholarly discussion in English is
Nicholas Riasonovsky, The Teachings of Charles Fourier (Berkeley, Ca.:1969).
Engels discussed Fourier in his Socialism, Utopian and Scientific and
Marcuse in Five Lectures (see below).
27. Theodore Hertzka, Freeland:
A Social Anticipation (London:1891). For discussion, see Manuel, Utopian
Thought, pp. 765 ff.
28. Selected Writings of
Saint-Simon, trans. F. M. H. Markham (Oxford:1952). See Frank Manuel, The
New World of Henri Saint-Simon (Cambridge, Mass.:1956).
29. Robert Owen, A New View
of Society, and Other Writings, ed. G. D. H. Cole (London:1927). See also
John F. C. Harrison, Quest for the New Moral World: Robert Owen and the
Owenites in Britain and America (New York:1969).
30. See James H. Treble, "The
Social and Economic Thought of Robert Owen," Robert Owen, ed.
John Butt (New York:1971), pp. 20–51.
31. Josiah Warren, Equitable
Commerce (New York:1846, 1852; rpt., 1967). See James J. Martin, Men
Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827–1908
(Colorado Springs, Co.:1953, 1970), pp. 1–102.
32. Max Stirner, The Ego
and His Own, rev. S. T. Byington trans., ed. John Carroll (London:1971),
p. 225. Carroll's discussion of Stirner occurs in The Break–Out from
the Crystal Palace (London:1974).
33. Stirner, p. 230.
34. Stirner, p. 134.
35. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
(New York:1957): the utopia section is pp. 701–815, though the justifying
diatribe appears later, pp. 1019–1069.
36. The later "Introduction"
(1968), The Fountainhead (Indianapolis, Ind.:1943, 1968), p. x. Her
earlier negative utopian novel, Anthem (Caldwell, Id.:1946), makes
her arguments less redundant.
37. For a collectivist dystopia
transformed into a capitalist utopia by historical processes, see Henry Hazlitt,
The Great Idea (New York:1951).
38. Curious because though Rand
emphatically rejects Christian charity, compassion, and identification with
weakness, which Nietzsche analyzed as sources of ressentiment, Rand
emphatically displays it. See Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Geneology of Morals,
trans. R. J. Hollingdale and W. Kaufmann (New York:1968), throughout. A summary
of some of the issues is provided by Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche, 4th
ed. (Princeton, N.J.:1974), pp. 371 ff. A recent analogous use to mine of ressentiment
may be found in Edgar Z. Friedonberg, The Disposal of Liberty, and Other
Industrial Wastes (Garden City, N. Y.:1975), "Introduction: Ressentiment."
39. Hansot holds that incorporating
change characterizes utopianism since the 18th Century, Perfection and Progress,
Ch 1. J. C. Davis finds change to be characteristic of 16th- and 17th-Century
utopians, who also "visualized not one form of society but many,"
and offered "critiques of each other," Utopia and the Ideal Society,
pp. 7–8. Other commentators don't emphasize change until the effects of
Darwin, or the 20th Century, began. One might speculate that it may have appeared
in the nonextant Hellenistic utopian tales, at least in ones by such unconventional
wise men as the Cynics.
40. H. G. Wells, A Modern
Utopia (Lincoln, Neb.:1905, 1967), pp. 3–4, and throughout.
41. Herbert Read, The Green
Child (London:1935). Read was also more generally a utopian in some of
his anarchist theories of art; see Art and Anarchy (London:1950).
42. Paul and Percival Goodman,
Communitas, "Means of Livelihood and Ways of Life" (Chicago:1947;
rev. ed. N. Y.:1960). And see my Paul Goodman, Ch. Two. City planners
discussed below, Howard, Le Corbusier, Wright, both changed their plans many
times in major ways and claimed to incorporate change within them.
43. For earlier utopian cities,
see Manuel, "A Cittá Felice for Architects and Philosophers,"
Utopian Thought, pp. 150–180.
44. Ebenezer Howard, Garden
Cities of Tomorrow, (orig. 1902), ed. F. J. Osborn (Cambridge, Mass.:1965).
Le Corbusier, La villa radieuse (Boulogne-Seine, France:1935), and
Towards a New Architecture, trans. F. Etchells (New York:1960). Frank
Lloyd Wright, The Living City (New York:1958), which also appeared
in varied earlier versions, such as The Disappearing City (New York:1932).
45. A very useful discussion
is Robert Fishman, Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century (New York:1977).
46. For the important New York
example of Robert Moses, see Robert Caro, Power Broker (New York:1974).
47. For quotes on how Wright
felt he was saving "true capitalism," see Fishman, p. 157.
48. Paolo Soleri, Arcology:
The City in the Image of Man (Cambridge, Mass.:1969). Soleri's views reveal
a strong collectivist mystagoguery, partly derived from the mystical-evolutionary
utopianism of Teilhard de Chardin, evident in The Bridge Between Matter
and Spirit is Matter Becoming Spirit (New York:1976).
49. C. A. Doxiadis, Building
Entopia (New York:1975). See also his Anthropolis: City for Human Development
(New York:1975) and Between Dystopia and Utopia (Hartford, Conn.:1966).
Many commentators take a more positive view of him. For a sometimes suggestive
study of communal buildings, see Dolores Haylor, Seven American Utopias:
The Architecture of Communitarian Socialism (Cambridge, Mass.:1976), which
mostly discussed earlier movements (Shakers, Mormons, Fourierists, Perfectionists,
Inspirationists, Union Colonists, Llano Colonists), though she provides a brief
discussion of contemporary communes, Ch. 11, pp. 320 ff. For other recent examples,
see George R. Collins, Visionary Drawings of Architecture and Planning,
20th Century Through the 1960s (Cambridge, Mass.:1979).
50. Jane Jacobs, The Death
and Life of Great American Cities (New York:1962); Richard Sennett, The
Uses of Disorder (New York:1970).
51. A free-market apologist,
Spencer Heath, argued in "Towards the Utopian Future" that after producing
abundance the corporate-executive caste would create an architectual environment
of great beauty. Citadel, Market and Altar (Baltimore, My.:1957), pp.
175 ff. The logic of how managerial-marketing skills and character will suddenly
turn into the aesthetic-ethical is quite missing. More probably, our constructed
environment is the historical synthesis of commercial-cultural conflicts.
52. See the acute analysis by
Michel Foucault, To Discipline and Punish, trans. Richard Howard (New
York:1977), pp. 195 ff. Elsewhere, he makes suggestive and properly caustic
comments on Comte.
53. For one of many discussions,
with elaborate citations, see Lasky, Utopia and Revolution, pp. 592
54. The main texts here should
not be the few, but too often cited, utopian passages of Marx in the Communist
Manifesto and The German Ideology, but Friedrich Engels, Socialism,
Utopian and Scientific, trans. A. Aveling (London:1891), where the often
burbly argument is at the level that the utopian is a "mish-mash"
while Marx has the rigor of "science," p. 27. That such stuff has
long been taken seriously is just more evidence of the pathological religiosity
of many supposedly secular intellectuals.
55. A. L. Morton, The English
Utopia (London:1952), who is better on the "Cockaygne" tradition,
where the Marxist can patronize the lower orders, than on Huxley, Orwell, etc.,
where he is stupidly biased.
56. Ernst Bloch, A Philosophy
of the Future, trans. John Cumming (orig. 1963; New York:1970), p. 144.
57. Except for the last point,
prolific material is provided in Manuel, Utopian Thought, passim. A
more pedantic analysis is provided in the historical survey of Nell Eurich,
Science in Utopia (Cambridge, Mass.:1967).
58. There is a rather considerable
literature of diverse views on More's relation to his utopia; recent examples
include Hansot, Perfection and Progress, pp. 59 ff.; Robert Elliott,
The Shape of Utopia, Studies in a Literary Genre (Chicago:1970), Ch.
2; Manuel, Utopian Thought, pp. 117–49; and the earlier selections
in Utopia, ed. Nelson.
59. For the very great influence
of Bellamy, see Sylvia Bowman, The Year 2000: A Critical Biography of Edward
Bellamy (New York:1958), and Edward Bellamy Abroad, ed. Sylvia
Bowman (New York:1962).
60. B. F. Skinner, Walden
Two (New York:1948). Amusingly, the point about religious dogmatism was
expounded to me by philosopher Aubrey Castell, the prototype of the rather foolish
humanist, Professor Castle, in Walden Two.
61. There is a probably disproportionate
literature of refutation of Skinner. A measured humanist criticism is that of
Joseph Wood Krutch, The Measure of Man (New York:1953), pp. 56 ff.
George Kateb, in his skittish partial refutation of Shklar's anti-utopianism
(above), endlessly discusses issues around Skinner, Utopia and Its Enemies
(New York:1963), pp. 141–217. Skinner's amazing influence is further testified
to by his serving as a source for a number of communes; see Kathleen Kinkade,
A Walden Two Experiment (Twin Oaks in Virginia) (New York:1973). There
was even one in England, according to Philip Abrams and Andrew McCulloch, Communes,
Sociology and Society (Cambridge, Engl.:1976), p. 219, which they characterize
as bureaucratic and rigidly controlled. That is a suitable counter-indication
for those (including the "new consciousness" prophets discussed below)
who would too generally identify utopian communalism with liberty.
62. See Elliott, The Shape
of Utopia, Ch. One; Manuel, Utopian Thought, Ch. 1.
63. "The Marriage of Heaven
and Hell," Plate II, The Poetry and Prose of William Blake, ed.
David V. Erdman (Garden City, N. Y.:1965), p. 37. For the example below, and
some discussion of the Cynics, see my The Literary Rebel (Carbondale,
Ill.:1965), Ch. 1. To my knowledge, the best history remains Donald R. Dudley,
A History of Cynicism (London:1937). For the fascinating millennarian
traditions, which I only touch on here, see Marjorie Reeves, The Influence
of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study of Joachimism (London:1969).
A balanced account of the next period of millennial utopianism is G. H. Williams,
The Radical Reformation (Boston:1952). A sympathetic account of radical
English utopians in the seventeenth century is Christopher Hill, The World
Turned Upside Down, A Study of Radical Ideas in the English Renaissance
(New York:1972). The much cited broader account of Norman Cohn, The Pursuit
of the Millennium (New York:1957, and later editions) seems to me terribly
biased by the sexual and political fears the subject so often raises.
64. This is what has also been
called "soft primitivism." See A Documentry History of Primitivism,
ed. A. O. Lovejoy, et al. (Baltimore, My.:1935).
65. See Harry Levin, The
Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance (Bloomington, Ind.:1969); and
Renato Poggioli, The Oaten Flute (Cambridge, Mass.:1975).
66. For a discussion of the social
values linked with pastoralism, and Lawrence, see my "The Pertinence of
Modern Pastoral", Studies in the Novel, 5(Fall 1973), especially
the five pages of annotation.
67. For some of the complications
around pastoral ideas in British culture, see Raymond Williams, The Country
and the City (New York:1973).
68. William Morris, News
from Nowhere; or, An Epoch at Rest, Being Some Chapters from a Utopian Romance
(London:1891). A standard work on him is Philip Henderson, William Morris:
His Life, Work and Friends (London:1967).
69. D. H. Lawrence, Lady
Chatterley's Lover (orig. Florence, 1928; New York:1962). For further discussion,
see my Edges of Extremity (Tulsa, Ok.:1980), Ch. Three.
70. Henry David Thoreau, Walden
(New York:1972), most pertinently here, Ch. Two. It is, of course, appropriate
that Skinner's contra-utopia is called Walden Two, that several communes (and
a utopian experimental school in Berkeley, Ca.) have been named Walden, and
that intentional community advocates often cite Walden.
71. Helen and Scott Nearing,
Living the Good Life, "How to Live Sanely and Simply in a Troubled
World" (New York:1954, 1970); and the inferior Continuing the Good
Life, "Half a Century of Homesteading" (New York:1979).
72. A crucially influential figure
of an earlier generation on homesteading: Ralph Borsodi, This Ugly Civilization
(New York:1929); and Flight from the City (New York:1933, 1972).
73. Wendell Berry, The Unsettling
of America: Culture and Agriculture (New York:1977); on his restoration
work, see "The Making of a Marginal Farm," Recollected Essays,
1965–1980 (Berkeley, Ca.:1981).
74. Gary Snyder, Earth Household
(New York:1969); and The Real Work (New York:1980), quoted pp. 138
and 88; the point about the hundred years, p. 145; in contrast to some utopian
prophets discussed later, Snyder clearly rejects space colonization, and the
like, p. 149.
75. See the various versions
of, and supplements to, Steward Brand's Whole Earth Catalog (Menlo
Park, Ca.:1968); and most recently, The Next Whole Earth Catalog, ed.
Stewart Brand (New York:1980). Extrapolation from this would provide much about
present homesteading, communalism, and alternate culture.
76. E. F. Schumacher, Small
Is Beautiful (New York:1969, 1973); A Guide for the Perplexed
(New York:1975); the posthumous Good Work (New York:1979), chatty sermons
on a positive utopian view of work, has an appended essay by Peter N. Gillingham,
"The Making of Good Work," pp. 147 ff., which is rather better than
the master, as perhaps is Schumacher's important decentralist teacher, Leopold
Kohr: The Breakdown of Nations (London:1957); and The Overdeveloped
Nations: The Diseconomies of Scale (New York:1977).
77. Arthur Bestor, "Patent-Office
Models of the Good Society: Some Relationships Between Social Reform and Westward
Expansion," American Historical Review, 58(1953), 505–26.
See also his Backwoods Utopias: "The Sectarian Origins and Owenite
Phase of Communitarian Socialism in America, 1663–1827," 2nd ed.
78. Additional useful surveys
include Mark Holloway, Heavens on Earth (New York:1966); and Robert
Hine, California's Utopian Colonies (New Haven, Conn.:1966). Others
are cited below.
79. Dorothy Day, A Long Loneliness
(New York:1952); see also her earlier House of Hospitality (New York:1939).
And see William D. Miller, A Harsh and Dreadful Love: Dorothy Day and the
Catholic Worker Movement (New York:1973).
80. Raymond Mungo, Total
Loss Farm, A Year in the Life (New York:1970). For more on such cute communalist
confusion, see his archly literary Between Two Moons (Boston:1972),
and my discussion of it, "Hipped-Up Babes in the Woods," Village
Voice (July 6, 1972).
81. Judson Jerome, Families
of Eden, "Communes and the New Anarchism" (New York:1974). Besides
being the part-autobiography of an ex-academic, this surveys other utopian communalism
on the line that "rationalistic utopianism" has been replaced with
a new "Edenism." For further discussion of this, and related material,
see my "Professors and Communalism," AAUP Bulletin, 60(December
82. Ron E. Roberts, The New
Communes; "Coming Together in America" (New York:1971).
83. Keith Melville, Communes
in the Counter-Culture, "Origins, Themes, and Styles of Life"
(New York:1972). Lewis Mumford suggested long before, in The Story of Utopias,
that many were escapes, and only some acts of social reconstruction.
84. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Commitment
and Community, Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective (Cambridge,
Mass.:1972). For a partly contrasting view, which I have not had the opportunity
to see the final version of, see Bennett M. Berger, The Survival of a Conterculture,
"Ideological Work and Everyday Life Among Rural Communards" (Berkeley,
Ca.:1981). For an extremely skeptical anecdotal survey, see Kenneth Rexroth's
Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (New York:1974).
85. Laurence R. Veysey, The
Communal Experience, "Anarchist and Mystical Communities in Twentieth
Century America" (orig. 1973; Chicago:1978).
86. Abrams, Communes,
pp. 189–90. This is striking because their bias is not individualist but
partly sophisticated Marxist, so much so that I cannot be sure if their British
contrast with American communes is the method or the reality. But I think the
paradox of communalism emphasizing individualism is more generally true. "Possessive
individulaism" is used in C. B. MacPherson's sense.
87. See Martin Duberman, Black
Mountain (New York:1972); and A. S. Neill, Summerhill, A Radical Approach
to Child Rearing (New York:1960). My treatment of utopian education is
far too cursory here; I have touched on some of it elsewhere: "Subterranean
Universities? Reflections on Utopian Institutions," AAUP Bulletin,
57(Winter 1971); several of the essays in my The End of Culture (San
Diego:1975); and "Anarchism vs. Schoolism," Social Anarchism,
88. Paul Avrich, The Modern
School Movement, "Anarchism and Education in the United States"
(Princeton, N.J.:1980). And see my discussion around the book, "The Modern
School Movement," in Social Anarchism 2(1981).
89. Karl Hess, Community
Technology (New York:1979), pp. 28, 7, 4, and 23 for the following quotes.
For Hess' ideological shifts, see Dear America (New York:1975). See
also, Karl Hess and David Morris, Neighborhood Power: The New Localism
90. Ernest Callenbach, Ecotopia
(Berkeley, Ca.:1975; rpt. New York:1977), p. 143 for the following quotation.
91. Edward Abbey, The Monkey
Wrench Gang (New York:1975).
92. Robert Nichols, Arrival
(New York:1977); Garah City (New York:1978); The Harditts in Sawna
(New York:1978); Exile (New York:1979).
93. Martin Buber, Paths in
94. James Ogilvy, Many Dimensional
Man: Decentralizing Self, Society, and the Sacred (New York:1977)—for
the decentralizing issues in an often obscure argument, see Ch. VIII. An important
and full discussion of many issues of size is Kirkpatrick Sale, Human Scale
95. Hazel Henderson, Creating
Alternative Futures, "The End of Economics" (New York:1978).
96. For a modern English adaption
of the 14th-Century "The Land of Cockaygne," see Morton, The English
Utopia, pp. 221–22.
97. See, for example, The
Goliard Poets, trans. G. F. Wicher (New York:1949).
98. I have not found the source
for the widely used, and abused, term.
99. Denis Diderot, Supplement
to Bougainville's Voyage, Rameau's Nephew, and Other Writings, trans. Jacques
Barzun and R. H. Bowen (New York:1956), pp. 187–237.
100. Admittedly, the full sexual
emphasis of Fourier was not evident until the publication of Le Nouveau
Monde Amoureux (Paris:1967) of which parts appear throughout The Utopian
Vision of Charles Fourier, ed. Beecher and Bienvenu.
101. Some of this last appears
in the studies of millennial traditions, cited in note 63, above. A more modern
instance, around the psychoanalyst Otto Gross, appears in Martin Green, The
Von Richthofen Sisters (New York:1974), who rightly, I think, emphasizes
covert traditions of cultural sensibility long operating.
102. Wilhelm Reich, The
Sexual Revolution, "Toward a Self-Regulating Character Structure,"
trans. Therese Pol (New York:1974–first published in English in 1945).
See also Wilhelm Reich, Selected Writings, "An Introduction to
Orgonomy" (New York:1961); and Michel Cather, The Life and Work of
Wilhelm Reich, trans. G. Banlanger (New York:1971).
103. A balanced account of
some of the erotic ideologies is Richard King, The Party of Eros (Chapel
104. Norman O. Brown, Life
Against Death, "The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History" (New York:1959);
Love's Body (New York:1965).
105. Herbert Marcuse, Eros
and Civilization (orig. Boston:1955; New York:1962), p. 140.
106. "The End of Utopia,"
Five Lectures, trans. J. J. Shapiro and S. M. Weber (Boston:1970),
pp. 62–82. I have discussed Marcuse's reversal of his own earlier Marxist
views in "Culture and Alienated Work" in a symposium, Marx and
Critical Thought, to be found in Paunch, 44–45(1976), pp.
113–26. The editor of that has given a detailed argument elsewhere why
sexual libertarianism will make one anti-Marxist: Arthur Efron, "Why Radicals
Should Not Be Marxists," Sphinx (Univ. of Regina, Canada), III(1981),
107. That last point is taken
from Robert David Thomas, The Man Who Would Be Perfect, John Humphrey Noyes
and the Utopian Impulse (Philadelphia, Pa.:1977), p. 175.
108. Robert Rimmer, The
Harrad Experiment (New York:1966), which is, in the author's words, an
"exploration of new possibilities in interpersonal relations." Other
sexual tract futuristic fictions revolve around bigamy, The Rebellion of
Yale Marratt (New York:1967), and new familial forms, Proposition Thirty-One
(New York:1968). The novels contain useful bibliographies of related views.
109. For some of the relations
of utopias to historical conditions, see Arthur E. Morgan, Nowhere Was Somewhere:
How History Made Utopias and Utopias Made History (Chapel Hill, N.C.:1946).
110. Francis Bacon, The
Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis (London:1951). See Manuel, Utopian
Thought, pp. 243–60, and Eurich, Science in Utopia, passim.
111. H. G. Wells, A Modern
Utopia, p. 60 for the specified link to Bacon.
112. H. G. Wells, Men Like
Gods (London:1923), p. 59 for the statement on education. With more irony
than intended, the rulers are called "samurai" because of their disciplinary
113. H. G. Wells, Men Like
Gods, pp. 243 and 264.
114. A similar point has been
made by Hansot: "Utopias are . . . distinguished from fantasy because they
presuppose no miracles of nature or improbable physiological developments."
Perfection and Progress, p. 3.
115. H. G. Wells, Men Like
Gods, pp. 212–213.
116. H. G. Wells, Mind
at the End of Its Tether (New York:1946), pp. 17–18. Many even moderate
utopias tended to resist the radicalism of technology, as with the popular Austin
Tappan Wright, Islandia (New York:1942).
117. R. Buckminster Fuller,
Utopia or Oblivion: "The Prospects for Humanity" (New York:1967).
Typically, with proper engineering all humanity can be made prosperous in twenty
years, p. 346.
118. R. Buckminster Fuller,
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (Carbondale, Ill.:1969), p. 128.
119. Operating Manual,
pp. 36 and 132.
120. Edward T. Hall, as quoted
by Hugh Kenner (a humanist making a forced draft effort to admire Fuller), Bucky:
A Guided Tour of Buckminster Fuller (New York:1973), p. 257.
121. Gerard K. O'Neill, The
High Frontier, Human Colonies in Space (New York:1977), pp. 198 ff, 225
and 232, for the ff. points. I have not had the opportunity to examine his newest
utopian projections, 2081: A Hopeful View of the Future (New York:1981).
122. Hannah Arendt, The
Human Condition (Garden City, N. Y.:1959), Ch. One. But it should be added
that her kind of conventional political philosophy obviously does not deal with
the technological issues. Nor does Mulford Q. Sibley who can only urge short
moratoria in innovation and more applied democracy to technological change.
Technology and Utopian Thought (Minneapolis, Minn.:1971).
123. John Gerber, Utopian
Fantasy (London:1955), p. 27.
124. Alan Harrington, The
Immortalist (Millbrae, Ca.:1977), pp. 275–84.
125. F. M. Esfandiary, Up-Wingers:
A Futurist Manifesto (New York:1973), p. 32.
126. T. S. Eliot, Collected
Poems (New York:1958), p. 67.
127. Timothy Leary, "Science,"
Millennium: Glimpses into the 21st Century, ed. Alberto Villoldo and
Ken Dychtwald(Boston:1981), pp. 277–98. Vast evolutionary changes, of
course, are not new to utopian related fantasy, though some of the time-scale
short-circuiting by genetic and psychological engineering may be. In Olaf Stapleton's
Last and First Men (New York:1930; rpt. 1968), the utopian transformations
take hundreds of millions of years, futilely ending with the burn-out of the
128. Robert Anton Wilson, The
Illuminati Papers (Berkeley, Ca.:1981), p. 40.
129. Robert Anton Wilson, The
Illuminati Papers, p. 55; the ff. quote, p. 4. For Wilson's supposedly
more fictional fantasies, see his The Cosmic Trigger: The Final Secret of
the Illuminati (New York:1978), which ornately combines paranoia and put-on.
130. Passmore, The Perfectibility
of Man, p. 326.
131. Herman Kahn and Anthony
Weiner, The Year 2000 (New York:1967). For the last point: in the early
1960s I listened to Kahn lecture on "extreme probability" of nuclear
weapons being employed within the decade.
132. Robert Vacca, The
Coming Dark Age (Garden City, N. Y.:1973). There are, of course, many similar
works in recent years. For an attempt to balance technological and more human
concerns in projecting "the transindustrial society of the future,"
see Willis W. Harman, An Incomplete Guide to the Future (Stanford,
133. Robert Heilbroner, An
Inquiry into the Human Prospects (New York:1973, 1974). Note that "cosmic"
and "systems" futurists, such as specifically O'Neill and Harman (above),
key-off from statements of Heilbroner's, which they feel that their utopianism
has to counter.
134. Daniel Bell, The Coming
of Post-Industrial Society (New York:1974). For a discussion of this, and
the attempt to make a dystopian projection of such technocracy, see my "The
Processed Culture: Wasting Sensibility in Post-Industrial Society," Arts
in Society, 11(Fall-Winter 1974), 418–26.
135. Daniel Bell, The Cultural
Contradictions of Capitalism (New York:1976; with new preface:1978). For
a criticism of several of its points, see my Edges of Extremity, Ch.
One, and, more generally, my "In Praise of Waste: Some Reflections On Contemporary
Culture," Partisan Review, LXVI(1979).
136. Mark Satin, New Age
Politics: Healing Self and Society (New York:1979), pp. 109 and 222 for
quotes in ff. two sentences. It includes a large and broad bibliography, and
other data. See also Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal
and Social Transformatin in the 1980s (Los Angeles 1980).
137. For filling out my brief
notation, see some of my studies of earlier phases of the same traditions: historical-literary
in The Literary Rebel; Beat Generation in "The Beat in the Rise
of the Populist Culture," The Fifties, ed. Warren French (Deland,
Fla.:1970); part of the counter-culture in "The Electric Aesthetic and
The Short-Circuit Ethic: The Populist Generator in Our Mass Culture Machine,"
Mass Culture Revisited, ed. B. Rosenberg and D. M. White (New York:1971);
and, more broadly, "The Rebellious Culture: Reflections On Its Functions
in American Society," Sociological Essays and Research, rev. ed.,
ed. Charles H. Anderson (Homewood, Ill.:1974).
138. Satin, New Age Politics,
pp. 165 ff. There are various attempts to redefine over-rationalized capitalism
and statism in ways to enlarge freedom, as in dissolving the economic "totalism"
so "every worker would become an owner" in a genuinely diverse capitalism.
Robert Ghelardi, Economics, Society and Culture, "God, Money and
the New Capitalism" (New York:1976), p. 249.
139. William Irwin Thompson,
At the Edge of History (New York:1971). See also Darkness and Scattered
Light: Four Talks on the Future (Garden City, N. Y.:1978).
140. William Irwin Thompson,
Passages About Earth, "An Exploration of the New Planetary Culture"
(New York:1974). For the Jeffersonian politics, see pp. 178 ff.; for the explicit
indebtedness to H. G. Wells, pp. 56 ff.
141. William Irwin Thompson,
The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light, "Mythology, Sexuality,
and the Origins of Culture" (New York:1981), pp. 250 and 254 for the following
142. Theodore Roszak, The
Making of a Counter-Culture (New York:1969). For more detail of my skeptical-sympathetic
treatment, see my review-essay, Village Voice (Oct. 30, 1969).
143. Theodore Roszak, Where
the Wasteland Ends, "Politics and Transcendence in Postindustrial
Society" (New York:1973).
144. Theodore Roszak, Unfinished
Animal, "The Aquarian Frontier and the Evolution of Consciousness"
(New York:1975), pp. 106 and for the following quotes. As with much of modern
utopianism (contra Nozick, below) evolutionary notions and metaphors are central.
145. For the phrase below from
Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion (London:1912), Ch. 5.
Unfinished Animal, p. 264.
146. Theodore Roszak, Person/Planet:
"The Creative Disintegration of Industrial Society" (Garden City,
N. Y.:1978) —the last ch. for the qualification on small scale, and pp.
285 ff. for the "monastic paradigm."
147. Theodore Roszak, Person/Planet,
pp. 75 ff.
148. Among many discussions
of the Swift, see Elliott, The Shape of Utopia, Ch. 3. For the other
titles, Aristophanes, The Clouds, ed. K. J. Dover (Oxford:1968); Candide,
trans. Richard Wilbur (New York:1968).
149. Perhaps the most useful
edition in English, because it includes part of the Chernyshevsky, and other
material, is Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground and The Grand Inquisitor,
trans. and ed. Ralph E. Matlaw (New York:1960).
150. For further detailing
on Notes from Underground, and citation, see my Edges of Extremity,
151. E. M. Forster, The
Machine Stops, The Eternal Moment and Other Stories (London:1928). For
some of Wells' influence on the negative utopias, see Mark R. Hillegas, The
Future as Nightmare: H. G. Wells and the Anti-Utopians (New York:1967).
152. Mary Wolstonecraft Shelley,
Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (1831), ed. M. K. Joesph (New
153. Karl Capek, R. U.
R. (New York:1968).
154. Samuel Butler, Erewhom
and Erewhon Revisited (1890) (New York:1934).
155. Kurt Vonnegut, Player
Piano (New York:1953). There are mixed utopian-dystopian motifs in the
later science fiction forms of Vonnegut novels, such as the Sirens of Titan
(New York:1968). H. G. Wells' early science fiction fantasies had, curiously,
strong dystopian qualities. See Seven Science Fiction Novels of H. G. Wells
156. The most useful of the
three translations in English: Yevgeny Zamiatin, We, trans. Mirra Ginsberg
(New York:1972). For background, see D. J. Richards, Zamiatin (London:1963),
and Alex M. Shane, Life and Works of E. Zamiatin (Berkeley, Ca.:1968).
157. A Soviet Heretic,
Essays by Zamiatin, trans. M. Ginsberg (Chicago:1970), p. 51.
158. Zamiatin, as quoted in
Shane, p. 145.
159. Brave New World
(New York:1946—this edition has a later essay on the novel by Huxley.
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (New York:1949).
160. D. H. Lawrence, "The
Man Who Loved Islands"—playing on the oldest locus of the utopian—in
Complete Short Stories, III (London:1955), pp. 722–746. For analysis,
see my "Parables of Nihilism" (1957), reprinted in The Art of
Perversity: D.H. Lawrence (Seattle, Wash.:1962). Lawrence also wrote what
I consider one of the nastier modern utopias, The Plumed Serpent (New
York:orig. 1926, 1951), with its synthetic religious cult taking over Mexico.
161. Aldous Huxley, Ape
and Essence (New York:1948); Island (New York:1962).
162. See George Woodcock, The
Crystal Spirit, A Study of George Orwell (Boston:1966); and the materials
in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, 2nd ed., ed. Irving Howe (New York:1981).
163. Anthony Burgess, The
Wanting Seed (London:1962); A Clockwork Orange (New York:1963);
and 1985 (London:1978), which also carries an essay attacking Orwell.
164. I am, of course, only
citing representatives of a large literature. Post-Orwell was marked by a large
number of Orwellian political dystopias, such as Virgil Gheorghiu, The Twenty-Fifth
Hour (New York:1950); David Karp, One (New York:1953). Some recent
examples might be viewed as more utopia-dystopias, as with political militant
Marge Piercy's Dance the Eagle to Sleep (New York:1972). Since Hiroshima,
there has also been a black-utopianism, in and out of fiction, in response to
atomic-nuclear bombs. For some of the early examples, see my "Notes on
the Bomb and the Failure of Imagination," The Forties, ed. Warren
French (Deland, Fla.:1969).
165. For an early influential
view of these dystopias, see Kingsley Amis, New Maps of Hell: A Survey of
Science Fiction (London:1960). For a recent survey, see Darko Suvin, Metamorphoses
of Science Fiction: "On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre"
(New Haven, Conn.:1979). One of the best known examples of the mawkish-mystical
SF utopia is Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (New York:1967).
166. Fredrick Pohl and E. M.
Kornbluth, The Space Merchants (New York:1952).
167. Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit
451 (New York:1953); and Martian Chronicles (New York:1950), among
others. Stanislaw Lem, The Star Diaries, trans. M. Kandel (New York:1976);
The Futurological Congress, trans. M. Kandel (New York:1974); The
Cyberid: Fables for the Cybernetic Age, trans. M. Kandel (New York:1974).
168. Doris Lessing, Shikasta
(New York:1979); and The Sirian Experiment (London:1980).
169. Ursula K. Le Guin, The
Dispossessed (New York:1974, 1975).
170. The Dispossessed,
p. 310. For a fuller discussion of the novel and issues, see my "Utopian,
Dystopian, Diatopian Libertarianism: Le Guin's The Dispossessed," The
Sphinx, IV(1981). For other views, see Ursula K. Le Guin: Voyager to
Inner Lands and Outer Space, ed. Joe D. Bolt (Port Washington, N. Y.:1978).
171. A self-conscious SF-utopian
countering of Le Guin is Samuel R. Delaney's ornate Triton (New York:1976),
followed by Triton Ultimatum (New York:1977), which I find much inferior
to Le Guin in perception and writing. They have been discussed together by Tom
Moylan, "Beyond Negation: The Critical Utopias of Ursula K. Le Guin and
Samuel R. Delaney," Extrapolation, 2(Fall 1980), pp. 236–53.
172. Robert Nozick, Anarchy,
State, and Utopia (New York:1974), pp. 299–334.
173. Nozick, pp. 298 and 320.
174. Nozick, p. 312.
175. Nozick, p. 309.
176. Nozick, pp. 310 ff. Probably
he is adapting F. A. Hayek's "The Theory of Complex Phenomena," Studies
in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (Chicago:1967). It is one thing to
argue the quite plausible view that massive economies are complex beyond rational
calculation, and quite another to claim complexity as an organizing social-moral
principle. To recognize complexity as a limitation (as I tried to argue with
mortality, above) is a prudential value in conflict with complexity misconstrued
as endless variety. Extreme variety is also beyond rational calculation, and
may further be unsatisfactory to most people who want specific alternatives.
If J. C. Davis is right, historically one of the main impetuses for utopianism
is less happiness than order. Utopia and the Ideal Society, p. 375.
177. Charles J. Erasmus, In
Search of the Common Good, "Utopian Experiments Past and Future"
(New York:1977), p. 286. I have also drawn, below, on Erasmus' view of the kibbutz
as peculiar and problematic, pp. 167–99.
178. The Utopian Vision,
179. See Sale, Human Scale,
throughout. For part of a more emphatic argument that meaningful work must be
considerably autonomous from market as well as state, see Ivan Illich, Shadow
Work (Salem, New Hampshire:1981), especially Ch. II "Vernacular Values"
and III "The War Against Subsistence."
180. Nicholas Berdayev, Slavery
and Freedom (New York:1948), who variously restates the view throughout;
Paul Tillich, "Critique and Justification of Utopia," Utopias,
ed. Manuel, p. 309; D. H. Lawrence, Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine
(London:1934), p. 17.
To avoid redundancy,
this is a selection of works cited in the Endnotes.
Abbey, Edward. The Monkey Wrench Gang. New York:1975.
Abrams, Philip and Andrew McCulloch. Communes, Sociology and Society.
Aristophanes. The Clouds. Edited J. K. Dover. Oxford:1968.
Avrich, Paul. The Modern School Movement. Princeton, New Jersey:1980.
Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis. London:1951.
Barrett, William. The Illusion of Technique. New York:1979.
Bell, Daniel. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York:1974.
Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward. Boston: 1926.
Berneri, Marie Louise. Journey Through Utopia. London:1950.
Berry, Wendell. "The Making of a Marginal Farm." Recollected
Essays. Berkeley, California: 1981.
_______. The Unsettling of America. New York:1977.
Bestor, Arthur. Backwoods Utopias. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:1970.
Blake, William. "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." The Poetry
and Prose of William Blake. Edited David Erdman. Garden City, New York:1965.
Bloch, Ernst. A Philosophy of the Future. Translated John Cumming.
Borsodi, Ralph. Flight from the City. New York:1972.
Bowman, Sylvia. The Year 2000: A Critical Biography of Edward Bellamy.
Bradbury, Ray. The Martian Chronicles. New York:1950.
Brand, Stewart. The Whole Earth Catalog. Menlo Park, California:1968;
The Next Whole Earth Catalog. Sausalito, California:1980.
Brown, E. J. Brave New World, 1984, & We: An Essay on Anti-Utopia.
Ann Arbor, 1976.
Buber, Martin. Paths in Utopia. Boston:1958.
Burgess, Anthony. 1985. London:1978.
_______. The Wanting Seed. London:1962.
Butler, Samuel. Erewhom and Erewhon Revisited. New York:1934.
Callenbach, Ernest. Ecotopia. New York:1977.
Capek, Karl. R. U. R. New York:1968.
Caro, Robert. Power Broker. New York:1974.
Carroll, John. The Break-Out from the Crystal Palace. London:1974.
Collins, George R. Visionary Drawings of Architecture and Planning.
Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. Translated F. Etchells. New
Davis, J. C. Utopia and the Ideal Society. Cambridge. England:1981.
Day, Dorothy. A Long Loneliness. New York:1952.
Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. "F. A. Hayek on Constructivism and Ethics,"
Journal of Libertarian Studies, IV (Fall 1980), 356–65.
Diderot, Denis. Supplement of Bougainville's Voyage. Rameau's Nephew and
Other Writings. Translated Jacques Barzun and R. H. Brown, New York:1956.
Dostoyevsky, Feodor. Notes from Underground and the Grand Inquisitor.
Translated and edited Ralph E. Matlaw, New York:1960.
Doxiadis, C. A. Building Entopia. New York:1975.
Duberman, Martin. Black Mountain. New York:1972.
Efron, Arthur. "Why Radicals Should Not Be Marxists." Sphinx,
Elliott, Robert. The Shape of Utopia. Chicago:1970.
Engels, Friedrich. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. Translated A.
Erasmus, Charles J. In Search of the Common Good. New York:1977.
Eurich, Nell. Science in Utopia. Cambridge, Massachusetts:1967.
Fishman, Robert. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century. New York:1977.
Forster, E. M. The Machine Stops. The Eternal Moment and Other Stories.
Foucault, Michel. To Discipline and Punish. Translated Richard Howard.
Fourier, Charles. Harmonian Man, Selected Writings. Edited Mark Poster.
Garden City, New York:1971.
_______. The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier. Edited Jonathan Beecher
and Richard Bienvenu. Boston:1971.
Fuller, R. Buckminster. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Carbondale,
_______. Utopia or Oblivion. New York:1967.
Ghelardi, Robert. Economics, Society and Culture. New York:1976.
Goodman, Paul and Percival. Communitas. New York:1960.
Goodman, Paul. Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals. New York:1962.
Gorer, Geoffrey. The Life and Ideas of the Marquis de Sade. New York:1963.
Graves, Robert. Seven Days in Crete. New York:1949.
Hansot, Elizabeth. Perfection and Progress: Two Modes of Utopian Thought.
Harrington, Alan. The Immortalist. Millbrae, California:1977.
Harrison, F. C. Quest for the New Moral World. New York:1969.
Hayek, F. A. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago:1972.
_______. "Economic Freedom and Representative Government," New
Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Chicago:1978.
_______. "The Intellectuals and Socialism," Studies in Philosophy,
Politics and Economics. Chicago:1967.
_______. The Road to Serfdom. London:1944.
_______. "The Theory of Complex Phenomena." Studies in Philosophy,
Politics and Economics. Chicago:1967.
Haylor, Dolores. Seven American Utopias. Cambridge, Massachusetts:1976.
Hayman, Ronald. De Sade: A Critical Biography. London:1978.
Hazlitt, Henry. The Great Idea. New York:1951.
Heath, Spencer. Citadel, Market and Altar. Baltimore, Maryland: 1957.
Henderson, Hazel. Creating Alternative Futures. New York:1978.
Hertzska, Theodore. Freeland. London:1891.
Hess, Karl. Community Technology. New York:1979.
Hess, Karl and David Morris. Neighborhood Power. Boston:1975.
Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down. New York:1972.
Hillegras, Mark R. The Future as Nightmare: H. G. Wells and the Anti-Utopians.
Hine, Robert. California's Utopian Colonies. New Haven, Connecticut:1966.
Holloway, Mark. Heavens On Earth. New York:1966.
Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tommorow. Edited F. J. Osborn.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York:1946.
_______. Island. New York:1962.
Illich, Ivan. Shadow Work. Salem, New Hampshire:1981.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York:1962.
Jerome, Judson. Families of Eden. New York:1974.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Commitment and Community. Cambridge, Massachusetts:1972.
Karp, David. One. New York:1953.
Kateb, George. Utopia and Its Enemies. New York:1963.
King, Richard. The Party of Eros. Chapel Hill, North Carolina:1972.
Kinkade, Kathleen. A Walden Two Experiment. New York:1973.
Kohr, Leopold. The Overdeveloped Nations. New York:1977.
Krieger, Ronald A. "The Economics of Utopia," Utopias: The American
Experience. Edited G. B. Moment and Otto F. Kranshair. Metuchen, New Jersey:1980.
Lawrence, D. H. Lady Chatterley's Lover. New York:1962.
_______. "The Man Who Loved Islands." Complete Short Stories,
Lasky, Melvin. Utopia and Revolution. Chicago:1976.
Leary, Timothy. "Science." In Millennium: Glimpses into the 21st
Century. Edited Albert Villoldo and Ken Dycht wald. Boston:1981.
Le Guin, Ursula K. The Dispossessed. New York:1975.
Lem, Stanislaw. The Star Diaries. Translated M. Kandel. New York:1976.
Levin, Harry. The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance. Bloomington,
Lewis, C. S. Out of the Silent Planet. London:1938.
Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia. London:1952.
Manuel, Frank E. The New World of Henri Saint-Simon. Cambridge, Massachusetts:1956.
Manuel, Frank E. and Fritzie P. Manuel. Utopian Thought in the Western
World. Cambridge, Massachusetts:1979.
Martin, James J. Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist
Anarchism in America, 1827–1908. Colorado Springs, Colorado:1970.
Marcuse, Herbert. "The End of Utopia." Five Lectures. Translated
J. J. Shapiro and S. M. Weber. Boston:1970.
_______. Eros and Civilization. New York:1962.
Melville, Keith. Communes in the Counter-Culture. New York:1972.
Miller, Henry. Sexus. New York:1961.
Montaigne, Michel de. "Of Cannibals." Selected Essays. Translated
D. A. Frame. New York:1963.
Morgan, Arthur E. Nowhere Was Somewhere. Chapel Hill, North Carolina:1946.
More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. The Complete Works of Sir Thomas More, IV.
Edited Edward Surtz and J. H. Hexter. New Haven, Connecticut:1965.
Morris, William. News from Nowhere. London:1891.
Morton, A. L. The English Utopia. London:1952.
Mumford, Lewis. The Story of Utopias. New York:1922.
Mungo, Raymond. Total Loss Farm. New York:1970.
Nearing, Helen and Scott. Living the Good Life. New York:1970.
Negley, Glen. Utopian Literature: A Bibliography. Lawrence, Kansas:1978.
Neill, A. S. Summerhill, A Radical Approach to Child Rearing.
Nichols, Robert. Exile. New York:1979.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York:1974.
Ogilvy, James. Many Dimensional Man. New York:1977.
O'Neill, Gerard K. The High Frontier, Human Colonies in Space. New
Orwell, George. Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Second edition. Edited
Irving Howe. New York:1981.
Owen, Robert. A New View of Society, and Other Writings. Edited G.
D. H. Cole. London:1927.
Passmore, John. The Perfectibility of Man. New York:1970.
Piercy, Marge. Dance the Eagle to Sleep. New York:1972.
Plato. The Republic. Translated F. M. Cornford. New York:1945.
Pohl, Fredrick and E. M. Kornbluth. The Space Merchants. New York:1952.
Polak, Frank L. The Image of the Future. Translated Elise Boulding.
Dobbs Ferry, N. Y.:1961.
_______. "Utopia and Cultural Renewal," Utopias and Utopian Thought.
Edited Frank E, Manuel. Boston:1966.
Popper, Karl. The Open Society. 4th edition. London:1962.
_______. "Utopia and Violence," Conjectures and Refutations.
Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York:1957.
_______. Anthem. Caldwell, Idaho:1946.
Read, Herbert. The Green Child. London:1935.
Réage, Pauline. The Story of O. Translated Sabine d'Estree.
Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages.
Reich, Wilhelm. Selected Writings. New York:1961.
_______. The Sexual Revolution. Translated Therese Pol. New York:1974.
Riasonovsky, Nicholas. The Teachings of Charles Fourier. Berkeley,
Rimmer, Robert. The Harrad Experiment. New York:1966.
Roberts, Ron E. The New Communes. New York:1971.
Roszak, Theodore. The Making of a Counter-Culture. New York:1969.
_______. Person/Planet. Garden City, New York:1978.
_______. Unfinished Animal. New York:1975.
_______. Where the Wasteland Ends. New York:1973.
Rothbard, Murray N. For A New Liberty. New York:1973.
Sade, Donatien Alphonse Francois. Juliette. Translated Alwyn Warnhouse.
Saint-Simon, Henri. Selected Writings. Translated F. M. H. Markham.
Sale, Kirkpatrick. Human Scale. New York:1980.
Sargent, Lyman Tower. British and American Utopian Literature, 1516–1975.
Satin, Mark. New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society. New York:1979.
Schumacher, E. F. Good Work. New York:1979.
_______. Small Is Beautiful. New York:1973.
Sennet, Richard. The Uses of Disorder. New York:1970.
Shane, Alex M. Life and Works of E. Zamiatin. Berkeley, California:1968.
Shelley, Mary W. Frankenstein. Edited M. K. Joseph. New York:1969.
Shklar, Judith. After Utopia. Princeton, New Jersey:1969.
Sibley, Mulford. Technology and Utopia. Minneapolis, Minnesota: 1971.
Skinner, B. F. Walden Two. New York:1948.
Soleri, Paulo, Arcology. Cambridge, Massachusetts:1969.
Snyder, Gary. The Real Work. New York:1980.
Stapleton, Olaf. Last and First Men. New York:1968.
Stirner, Max. The Ego and His Own. S. T. Byington translation, revised
John Carroll. London:1971.
Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels. New York:1955.
Talmon, J. L. "Utopianism and Politics." Utopia. Edited
George Kateb. New York:1971.
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. The Phenomenon of Man. Translated Bernard
Wall. New York:1959.
Thomas, Robert David. The Man Who Would Be Perfect, John Humphrey Noyes
and the Utopian Impulse. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:1977.
Thompson, William Irwin. At the Edge of History. New York:1971.
_______. Passages About Earth. New York:1971.
_______. The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light. New York:1981.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York:1972.
Tillich, Paul. "Critique and Justification of Utopia." Utopias
and Utopian Thought. Edited Frank E. Manuel. Boston:1966.
Treble, James H. "The Social and Economic Thought of Robert Owen."
Robert Owen. Edited John Butt. New York:1971.
Twentieth Century Interpretations of Utopia. Englewood Cliffs, New
Veysey, Laurence R. The Communal Experience. Chicago:1978.
Voltaire, Francois Marie Arouet. Candide. Translated Richard Wilbur.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Player Piano. New York:1953.
Walsh, Chad. From Utopia to Nightmare. New York:1962.
Warren, Josiah. Equitable Commerce. New York:1967.
Wells, H. G. Men Like Gods. London:1923.
_______. Mind at the End of Its Tether. New York:1946.
_______. A Modern Utopia. Lincoln, Nebraska:1967.
Widmer, Kingsley. "Culture and Alienated Work," Paunch,
_______. Edges of Extremity: Some Problems of Literary Modernism.
_______. The End of Culture. San Diego, California: 1975.
_______. Paul Goodman. Boston:1980.
_______. "Toward a Politics for Homo Negans: Libertarian Reflections
on Human Aggression." The Personalist 53 (Summer 1972).
_______. "Utopian, Dystopian, Diatopian: Le Guin's The Dispossessed."
Sphinx. IV (1981).
Williams, G. H. The Radical Reformation. Boston:1952.
Williams, Raymond. The Country and the City. New York:1973.
Wilson, Robert Anton. Illuminati Papers. Berkeley, California:1981.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Living City. New York:1958.
Zamiatin, Yevgeny. A Soviet Heretic, Essays. Translated Mirra Ginsberg.
_______. We. Translated Mirra Ginsberg. New York:1972.