Utopian Politics

Rhiannon Firth

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136580727
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Politik

In the context of global problems such as the economic downturn, escalating inequality, terrorism, resource depletion and climate change, cynicism prevails in contemporary politics, which need not be the case. Utopian Politics confronts a world intensely aware of the problems that we face and sadly lacking in solutions, positing a utopian articulation of citizenship focused on community participation at a grassroots level.

By re-examining central concepts and thinkers in political theory, this book re-casts the concepts of utopia and citizenship both as part of the classical philosophical tradition and simultaneously as part of the cutting edge of radical alternatives. This book includes never-before published ethnographic research, interviews and photographs from a range of autonomous UK communities, to show how the boundaries of politics and citizenship can be questioned and proposes an innovative methodology inspired by classical and post-structural anarchism. By considering ideas and practices that are generally considered to be marginal to mainstream political theory and practice, the book encourages readers to think about longstanding and central political debates in an entirely new, and creative way.

Utopian Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of political theory, ethics and citizenship.

1

Introduction

The work of an intellectual is not to mold the political will of others; it is, through the analyses that he does in his own field, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re-evaluate rules and institutions and starting from this re-problematization (where he occupies his specific profession as an intellectual) to participate in the formation of a political will (where he has his role as a citizen to play).

(Foucault 1989: 462–3)

What does it mean to act as a citizen? What is the relationship between theorizing, hope, desire and political practice? What are the conditions for citizenship? This book is about utopias and utopianism. Its purpose is to bring theories and practices of hope into dialogue, to help us imagine new ways in which we can think, act, and enact change in everyday life. The topic of citizenship is poignant, topical yet intellectually elusive. Citizenship refers to the relationship between the individual and their political community, and is taken in this project to be a multi-dimensional concept, encompassing issues of participation, rights, obligations, identity and the appropriate arena for politics. It is also a concept that operates on multiple levels, ranging from the personal and psychological to the national, global and societal.

The book starts from the premise that there is something wrong with the institution of citizenship in the twenty-first century. In the context of global problems such as economic downturn, escalating material inequality, terrorism, resource depletion and climate change, the world we live in today seems to be intensely aware of the problems that we face and sadly lacking in solutions. There is increasing disenchantment with traditional politics, government and the state, and it is well documented that activities and practices associated with citizenship since antiquity, such as participating in governance, are steadily declining in the West (Kymlicka and Norman 1994; Inglehart and Catterberg 2002; Pattie et al. 2004; Electoral Commission 2005).

All this is reflected in a growing tendency in academia to move away from understandings of citizenship that tie it to the nation-state. Dominant notions of citizenship are often judged unable to deal with global problems. Forces beyond their democratic control often impinge upon the rights and entitlements of citizens promised by the nation-state (Held 1995; Carter 2001). Contemporary citizenship discourses are also problematical on the individual and subjective level. Advances in communication, transport and technology associated with globalization mean that identities, relationships and communities are often formed through connections that are not contained within the territorial boundaries of nation-states (Friedmann and Wolff 1982; Soja 1992; Brenner 1998; Smith 2003). The question of what, exactly, binds citizens together within a political community arises, with theorists positing such concepts as ‘global citizenship’ (Held 1995; Carter 2001), ‘ecological citizenship’ (Dobson 2003), ‘post-state citizenship’ (Faulks 2000; Hoffman 2004), ‘dissident citizenship’ (Sparks 1997), ‘sexual citizenship’ (Plummer 2003; Lister 2007) and ‘neurotic citizenship’ (Isin 2004). What is lacking in this vast literature is an explicitly utopian articulation of citizenship that pays attention to everyday forms of resistance and creation undertaken by individuals and groups trying to reconstruct spaces of community and participation at a grassroots level.

A focus on utopianism reveals that articulations of dreams, desires and the imagination are sadly lacking and cynicism prevails in contemporary politics, and that this does not have to be the case. Academic theory, popular culture and government policy seem increasingly to be paralysed by narratives of panic, fear and blame rather than shared dreams for a better world. In part, this refusal to engage with utopianism can be traced to the failure of the big socialist utopias of the previous century, and fear of religious and fundamentalist utopias in this century (Sargisson 2007). It is certainly true that utopianism can contribute to a politics of domination and terror. However, utopias also have an essential role to play in politics and society. Utopias have an important critical function because they tell us what people feel they lack in the present (Levitas 1990: 8). They also have a creative function – they allow us to experiment with new ideas and ways of living in imaginary and concrete spaces, which can have a wider transformative role (Sargisson 2000: 116). Visions of alternatives can inspire action in the face of oppression (Scott 1990: 81). Utopias can be dangerous, when they are totalizing and lay claim to truth, but they can also lie at the heart of progressive social change.

This book argues that what is needed is a new way of approaching utopianism that allows us to distinguish between oppressive, perfection-seeking or totalizing utopias, and those utopias which are propulsive, immanent or prefigurative (Bonanno 1988; Anon 1999; Robinson and Tormey 2009). The approach is interdisciplinary and draws on a tradition of scholarship on utopias and utopianism particularly emerging from the work of Ernst Bloch (1986 [1959]), and continuing through more recent ‘critical’ and ‘transgressive’ utopianisms of Tom Moylan (1986) and Lucy Sargisson (1996, 2000). The book envisages that the utopian impulse is not something that is confined to social engineers, but rather is endemic to everyday life. What differentiates ‘critical utopias’ from oppressive, totalizing utopias is that they are self-reflexive, and they do not claim to be perfect. They are committed to experimentation in the everyday life of the present as an ethical principle.

Everyday practices have long been a concern for anarchist thought, which has largely been ignored by contemporary citizenship theory. In his plea for an ‘anarchist anthropology’, David Graeber posits that one aim of such a project might be to ‘theorize a citizenship outside the state’ (2004: 68). This book might be seen as a partial response to his entreaty. It is my contention that in failing to conceptualize the possibility of an ‘outside’ to the state, many theorists of citizenship remain trapped in a paradoxical situation where their ends or normative content are contradictory with means of reform; in particular, participation, political action and belonging are frequently seen to be practices that can be imposed by states (Faulks 2000: 130; Hoffman 2004: 93, 105). Aspects of canonical and contemporary political theory rely on an implicit logic of hegemony, unquestioned hierarchy and domination, which can be disrupted through imaging and practising alternative possibilities.

Utopianism can thus be seen as a basis for resistance. If citizenship means belonging to a place, one might suggest resonance with utopianism as a theory of imagined and alternative places. Some utopian beliefs work by turning existing arrangements upside down, leading to a ‘total reversal of the existing distrubution of status and rewards’ (Scott 1990: 80), whereby the slave becomes master and the master becomes slave. Other utopian beliefs operate as a ‘systematic negation of an existing pattern of exploitation’ (ibid.: 81) – that is, they involve imagining the absence of hierarchical distinctions. It is this latter kind of utopianism in which I am most interested. Where James Scott concentrates primarily on the utopian imaginaries and discourses of subordinate groups through history, Richard Day (2005) concentrates on the political practices of contemporary activist groups. He argues that rather than trying to establish a counter-hegemony that shifts the balance of power back in favour of the oppressed, some contemporary radical activist groups ‘are breaking out of this trap by operating non-hegemonically rather than counter-hegemonically. They seek radical change, but not through taking or influencing state power, and in so doing they challenge the logic of hegemony at its very core’ (Day 2005: 8). Graeber argues that anarchist, or anarchist-inspired principles such as ‘autonomy, voluntary association, self-organization, mutual aid and direct democracy’ now form the basic principles of organization for ‘radical movements of all kinds everywhere’ (Graeber 2004: 2). Despite the everyday proliferation of practices of resistance that work to overcome all forms of domination rather than seize power for themselves, these principles have ‘found almost no reflection in the academy’ (ibid.: 2; see also Day 2005: 8; Tormey 2006: 139). It is my contention that some of these principles might offer a basis for an alternative conceptualization and practice of citizenship.

In seeking political community and citizenship beyond the state, this book is composing a space for politics outside the usually conceived terrain. This relies on a nuanced understanding of power. A traditional but comprehensive definition of power is that ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’ (Dahl 1957: 202–3). Aside from the pluralist position, it is now widely accepted within debates on power that a sufficiently broad definition of the political must include non-decisions (Bachrach and Baratz 1970) and the hegemonic shaping of interests (Lukes 1974). Hegemony is best described as a process of domination (which is always partial) manifested when a social group ‘tends to “liquidate” or to subjugate [antagonistic groups] perhaps even by armed force’ whilst it ‘leads kindred and allied groups’ (Gramsci 1971: 57). Domination thus operates through a complementary process of coercion and manufactured consent:

the threat of the man with the stick permeates our world at every moment; most of us have given up even thinking of crossing the innumerable lines and barriers that he creates, just so we don't have to remind ourselves of his existence.

(Graeber 2004: 72)

This definition exists in tension with some definitions of politics, which stipulate that politics always entails the constrained use of power and that use of force is anti-political (Goodin and Klingemann 1996: 7; Hoffman 2004: 25). In the context of domination, associated with the state, consent is always backed up by force.

My contention is that this does not have to be the case. This project therefore proceeds from the assumption that

‘another world is possible.’ That institutions like the state, capitalism, racism and male dominance are not inevitable; that it would be possible to have a world in which these things would not exist, and that we'd all be better off as a result.

(Graeber 2004: 10)

This contention is ‘almost an act of faith’ (ibid.: 10) but is a commitment to optimism that is based upon a moral imperative: ‘since one cannot know a radically better world is not possible, are we not betraying everyone by insisting on continuing to justify, and reproduce, the mess we have today?’ (ibid.: 10). The idea of ‘power to’ as the ability to achieve desires individually or collectively is an important one within political theory (Heywood 1999: 123) as are post-structuralist ideas surrounding the dislocation of power and its diffusion throughout society (Newman 2001: 6) and the idea of harnessing affirmative forces to articulate new forms of life (Deleuze 2006 [1983]: 36–67). The critical utopian approach used in this book considers how groups and communities, at a grassroots level, resist hierarchical forms of ‘power over’ in both state and interpersonal relationships, in favour of ‘power to’ or ‘power together’ by engaging with shared ideals and dreams of a better world. Of course this is not always possible in practice, but this does not mean it is not worth trying. Ideals, ideas, words and concepts and utopias have both impossible and possible aspects (Bloch 1986 [1959]: 1050). By trying to impose or force fixed goals upon others we become authoritarian and totalizing (Sargisson 2007: 269). Yet one must continue to have goals, ideals, values and dreams in order to resist domination. Where critical utopias differ is that they aim to acknowledge imperfection and contingency, and embody processes for resolving these through the negotiation of difference in between theory and practice.

The critical utopian approach is further outlined in Chapter 2, which offers an exegesis of the theoretical functions and limits of utopian thought and studies. This is approached through a review of some of the key texts of utopian studies, beginning with a consideration of the anti-utopian sentiment that has tended to permeate political theory. Utopian studies has traditionally defined utopia in very narrow terms as the ‘ideal society’ (Davis 1981: 4) and has tended to associate the concept with both perfection and impossibility (Kumar 1991: 25). Thus attempts to impose utopias (so defined) upon others are quite rightly seen as oppressive and totalizing. The chapter introduces another tradition within utopian studies, which is gaining increasing influence. This approach demonstrates that the utopian approach is not something that is confined to social engineers but that multiple expressions of different utopias are endemic within everyday life and culture. Small-scale, critical utopias differ from totalizing utopianism since they rely on processes that allow for the articulation of difference, and tend to favour ideals of freedom or autonomy over social order. This approach has implications beyond its origin in utopian studies and can also be read into polemical anarchist, post-structural and post-representational thought. These approaches again valorize difference and alternative forms of life over order and perfection in conceptualizing the function of utopia. This survey of the tradition and recent developments of a particular strand of utopian thought allows one to conceptualize the function of utopias not as perfection-seeking but as the construction of spaces of ‘otherness’ from which we can criticize the present and engage with multiple alternative possibilities, in order to educate desire and inspire action.

From this perspective, the anti-utopian sentiments shared historically by classical Marxists and liberals, are imbued with their own utopian visions. Since these two traditions and their shared anti-utopian sentiment have tended to dominate debates within political theory, it is argued that an important new perspective, based on the idea of an alternative and utopian political life, is necessary for re-thinking debates on politics and citizenship. The chapter ends by arguing that in conceptualizing such an approach one must pay attention to practices, since the approach itself emphasizes immanence, experimentation and prefigurative action. What follows involves a search for utopias that are critical of both the state and of dynamics of domination and hegemony. Such ‘critical utopias’ can be found in a variety of places. In this book, they are found in the ideas and practices of members of a variety of experimental social utopias and emergent free spaces in the United Kingdom.

Chapter 3 introduces the communities taken as case studies for the project, and for each offers a depiction of the history, geographical location, ideological focus, legal status or structure, membership demographics and facilities. Communities were selected whose self-descriptions contained commitments to social and/or environmental change, inclusive decision-making procedures and prefigurative action. Within this framework, drawn from the critical utopian framework outlined in the preceding chapter, their aims and principles varied widely. The eight communities visited during the summer of 2007 variously self-describe as urban and rural intentional communities, housing, land and community co-operatives, an eco-village and a co-housing community. I argue that these practices offer new possibilities for politics and citizenship. The communities are all very different, and whilst it would be inimical to the approach to suggest that any singular vision should be imposed on a larger scale, they all express a similar dissatisfaction with the present, they desire something better, and they share an outlook on the means and processes by which a better world might be achieved – through experimentation in the present rather than deferral to the future. Like radical utopian theory, these practices expose the all too frequently obscured utopian foundations of dominant theory and discourse by positing viable and actually-lived alternatives.

In the remainder of the book I seek to understand and articulate possibilities for citizenship that are disruptive, critical and resistant through the critical utopian approach, and the dialogue that such an approach enables with and between radical theories and practices. In so doing, I hope to develop critical utopianism in ways that might be transferable to further projects, to disrupt, broaden and offer alternative possibilities for citizenship studies, and to offer strategic possibilities for would-be critical utopian citizens, wherever they might be. The primary motivating question is: how might we live as politically active, participatory people, or, what other types of citizen could we be? Using critical utopian methodology, I deconstruct dominant models of citizenship by bringing them into dialogue with estranged, critical utopian perspectives from both academic theory and radical alternative political practices.

As stated, the methodology involves attention to both theoretical and practised alternatives to orthodox modes of political existence. Whilst the epistemological approach is situated within political theory, I felt that to study solely within the realms of formal theory would contradict and remove the vitality of an argument that emphasizes activity and participation. Thus the project seeks to articulate the ideas and practices of the variety of autonomous groups in contemporary society outlined above which are taken as case studies. This aspect of the research involved the carrying out of empirical research employing a variety of research methods, including interviews, participant observation and documentary analysis, designed to lay bare the ‘political thought’ that underpins the practice of members of the communities. Whilst this involved research into ‘real world’ practices, the project does not claim to be an empirically rigorous exercise in political science. Although some rigour, in line with the aims of the project, is necessary, my aim is not to explain, describe or classify political phenomena (although this will play a part), but rather to take the worldviews, experiences, practices, aims and actions of practitioners seriously in formulating normative theory. The aspects of the book concerned with practice also challenge us to re-think our understanding of ‘political theory’, what it is that ‘political theorists’ do, and the types of methodology they might use, by raising the possibility that scholars of theory might have a legitimate interest in carrying out empirical social research relating to understanding the normative ideals and beliefs which are the focus of their attention held by those who are usually considered to be ‘non-theorists’. Practitioners and activists are ‘always already doing theory and theorists are always already political subjects’ (Day 2005: 206). The individuals and groups being researched have their own sets of views, beliefs, ideals and values – their own ‘political theory’, whether or not this is consciously articulated as such: ‘forms of social practice necessarily involve theory – the everyday practice of understanding what one's actions mean and why one does them’ (Heckert 2010: 50). One task of this research is to give expression to such theories in a context that is ‘outside’ the usual domain – to bring the voices and theories of practitioners into academic theory wherein they might otherwise have been ignored.

Problematizing the theory-practice binary works two ways, since theorizing is itself a mode of practice. It involves the creation of concepts, which act upon the real world, lived experience and everyday life: ‘theory has effects – whether that be to challenge or to contribute to relationships of domination (or, as often is the case, both simultaneously)’ (ibid.: 50). Political theory and its conceptualizations of citizenship and the relationship between the individual and community have effects upon people. Theory that aims to be explicit and reflexive in its utopianism must remain open to renegotiation in light of these effects (McManus 2005: 165). Studying practices can alert us to the limitations and effects of different theories, and act as a prompt for further theorizing. Whilst remaining alert to the central role of academics in ‘the production of commonsense and hegemonic ideas’ (The Autonomous Geographies Collective 2...