Political theorists, civil rights activists, and world leaders tell us that the pursuit of a perfect world—a utopia—fuels our progress as a human race. Utopia has come to signify a place of ideal perfection. It retains an irresistible pull on us as we all strive for a state of life that is good and perfect. In his book Utopia, Thomas More highlighted how “utopia”, a Greek word, translates to “no place”.1 Does this imply that as an ideal, utopia is impossible to achieve? Moreover, the vast majority of attempts—real and theoretical—at utopias have categorically failed at all scales: think of the totalitarian regimes of Plato’s Republic and the Soviet Union, or the careful social engineering of kibbutzes and pluralist projects like Wahal al-Salam/Neve Shalom. What if, instead of perfection, imperfection is the way forward? In fact, anti-utopian thought—particularly prominent in the radical democratic tradition of political theory—remains optimistic about our future, and is potentially more useful than utopian perspectives in constructing workable solutions and accommodating the human condition.
Utopia is Imperfect!
While ideals and questions of normativity are necessary parts of the task of constructing institutions and organizing society, it becomes problematic when the political project is confined within the limits of the utopian ideal. This tension is outlined by the philosopher Karl Popper in his essay ‘Utopianism and Violence’, where he states that the pursuit of utopianism tends to lead to violence.2 A plurality of humans have a plurality of visions for utopia, and some of these irreconcilable visions inevitably come into contact with one another. The inability to reconcile these conflicts can result in violence. What does this violence look like then? Instead of all-out war, one could instead envision a restrictive—even totalitarian or authoritarian—regime singularly focused on maintaining whichever utopia ends up winning out. This kind of utopia precludes any possibility of change or adaptability of the society itself or its people to changing external circumstances, a sentiment echoed by Popper. More specifically, it could be argued that the rigidity of utopia stamps out individuality: an unavoidable part of the human condition. As stated by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill, “where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness.” Evidently, individual contemplation and the development of rationality and agency invaluable to human development.3
Not Utopia, but Anti-Utopia
In envisioning a dynamic society with pluralism, tolerance, and autonomy, radical democratic thinkers like Claude Lefort, Chantal Mouffe, and Ernesto Laclau have adopted a position counter to utopia. In anti-utopian thought, one concedes that it is impossible to arrive at a perfect world, so the only thing to do is to continually reconfigure society for the better. While on its face this school of thought seems to agree with the utopian sentiment to reorganize society along some kind of better ideal, anti-utopian thought is inherently continual and transgressive. These theorists emphasize that one singular way in which society should be laid out does not exist. Instead, they stress the need for the perpetuation of democratic conflict. Lefort explains the source of this conflict as an ‘empty place of power’ that competing bodies fight to occupy.4 Mouffe builds on this by outlining the need for agonism instead of antagonism, in which these competing parties view each other as legitimate opponents and work to find constructive solutions.5 Lastly, Laclau fine-tunes the concept of an empty place of power by highlighting how it is never truly empty: it is always partially embodied by whatever party occupies the seat of authority at a given time.6 The real project of democracy is then to ensure that the emptiness of the place of power is continually reproduced so politics can remain transgressive and transformative rather than stagnating in one ideal.
It might be your first instinct to associate these anti-utopian views with pessimism. After all, it feels as though the perpetual conflict these radical democratic thinkers envision is destabilizing. However, upon further examination, Lefort, Mouffe, and Laclau align with a more optimistic view of humanity outside the bounds of utopian thinking. Their work exists in the non-ideal branch of political theory, where practice informs theory rather than vice versa. Nevertheless, the work of many radical democratic thinkers still depends on a set of assumptions about human nature. They believe that despite our fundamental inclination to disagree, we can bring our particularities into alignment with each other through reasonable discussion. This is distinct from the idealism of utopianism. Anti-utopian thinking stresses the need for us to need for us to perpetually construct the circumstances that allow for change and transgression—a dynamic society—rather than constantly ensure that societal practices are held to one rigid theoretical standard. While anti-utopianism precludes the notion that our world can ever be perfect and that we should strive for perfection, this school of thought does not count out the hope that we can make meaningful societal progress by fighting injustice and dogma.
The optimism of anti-utopia
When we think of improving our world, it might be more constructive to turn to anti-utopian thinking rather than pure utopian idealism. This view is still optimistic in assuming that we all want to strive for a better world, but prevents us from being trapped in the totalitarianism and authoritarianism that a rigid utopia tends to prescribe. The fact remains that a utopia is fundamentally unattainable. No matter how much we better society, it will always fall short of being perfect. It could be that this is what Thomas More meant in the first place when he conceived of the word ‘utopia’. The entire book is based on a series of Greek puns and wordplays, with ‘utopia’ being chief among them. While utopia means ‘no place’, eutopia (pronounced identically in English) signifies ‘good place’. Perhaps while the good place is never to be found for it is no place at all, a good place is certainly attainable within given circumstances and in a given period of time. What is ultimately most important in anti-utopian thinking is that we remember this, and ensure that we are continuously working toward the infinite limit of the better.
- Thomas More, The Essential Works of Thomas More, ed. Gerard B. Wegemer and Stephen W. Smith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020) ↩︎
- Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (1989), 483 ↩︎
- John S. Mill, On Liberty (Cambridge University Press, 2011) ↩︎
- Claude Lefort, “The Question of Democracy” (1993) ↩︎
- Chantal Mouffe, For A Left Populism (Verso, 2019), 101 ↩︎
- Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason (Verso, 2018) ↩︎
Edited by Eva Leblanc
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Daskunstmuseum
