\n
\n\u201cWhat changes later is that it comes out of space into time, with the later utopians of the 18th<\/sup>, especially the 19th<\/sup>century, Fourier and Owen and Saint-Simon and Cabet, who transfer utopia into the future. It is a transformation of the topos<\/em> [of utopia] from space into time.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u2014 Ernst Bloch, in conversation with Theodor Adorno, Radio Debate, S\u00fcdwestrundfunk, 1964.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
At our last seminar Utopia 10\/13 on \u201cThe Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, and Utopia<\/a>\u201d at the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin, we discussed the transformation of the concept of utopia from a geographic\/spatial concept to a temporal\/historical concept during the course of the 18th<\/sup> and 19th<\/sup> centuries, with specific reference to Ernst Bloch\u2019s analysis of the modern temporality of utopian thinking. Grounded as we were in Critical Theory\u2014which itself grew out of and (at least for the first generation of the Frankfurt School) was inextricably linked to a specific philosophy of history\u2014our discussion focused more on the relation between utopian thinking and dialectical theories of history than on the more basic relationship between utopian thinking and the dimension of time\/history tout court<\/em>. Both of these questions have accompanied us throughout this Utopia 13\/13 series. In this seminar, with La\u00ebtitia Riss\u2019s article \u201cUtopier le pr\u00e9sent<\/a>\u201d (in English here, \u201cTo Utopize the Present<\/a>\u201d), we address head on the latter question, namely the more basic question of the very temporal<\/em> nature of modern understandings of utopia.<\/p>\n
In a detailed analysis that spans seven centuries and takes us from Thomas More to contemporary thinkers such as Fredric Jameson, Miguel Abensour, Jean-Paul Eng\u00e9libert and current forms of apocalyptic fiction, La\u00ebtitia Riss recounts the centuries-long history of writing on utopia and the transformation of its relationship to the past, the present, and the future. Through a meticulous analysis, Riss demonstrates how we moderns are still, today, captured by a historicist understanding of utopia. \u201cThis historicist understanding of utopia is still ours today,\u201d Riss declares.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n
This presents a problem, Riss argues, given the tendency for history to overshadow utopian thinking, and to subordinate it, especially during times of apocalyptic thinking such as ours\u2014with the global climate crisis promising the end of history. Riss details the many ways in which history typically eclipses utopia: in some cases (such as Louis-S\u00e9bastien Mercier\u2019s L\u2019An 2440, r\u00eave s\u2019il en fut jamais<\/em> from 1771), history serves as the ineluctable agent that brings about a promised future without the need for any human intervention; in other cases (such as Marx and Engels\u2019 Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism<\/em> from 1880, and at least according to our last seminar with Rahel Jaeggi and Martin Saar, certain strands of Critical Theory), the promise of historical materialism undermines utopian thought, resulting in an even worse outcome. As Riss writes, \u201cThe absence of utopia is even more perilous than its prudent dismissal, because it erases not the future but the places from which it is possible right now<\/em> for a transforming critique to emerge.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n
The modern historicization of utopia represents, for Riss, a pernicious problem. It inverses the proper relation to history by focusing us on the future, rather than on our present. It also masks the contingent nature of our present and thereby erodes our will to transform society.<\/p>\n
By contrast, La\u00ebtitia Riss proposes to anchor utopian thought in the present. That alone, she argues, will allow utopian thought to \u201cparticipate in making the present sensitive to its historicity, revealing it to be the result of a contingent social practice, and in making it, consequently, available as a place for political intervention.\u201d[4]<\/a> This is precisely what Riss calls \u201cto utopize the present\u201d\u2014and is what she calls for in her essay.<\/p>\n
The task, then, is to liberate utopian thought from the grip of the future, in order to focus us back on transforming the present; or, in Riss\u2019s words, to pursue \u201cthe dream of a present awakened to itself so that History finds a human face again, freed from the weight of destiny.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n
Although presented as an alternative, the path forward that Riss proposes feels, at times, adjacent to different earlier interventions. The notion of historicizing the present in order to make it a site of intervention bears a resemblance to the satirical element of Thomas More\u2019s Utopia<\/em>, the aspect of his social critique of the present. The notion of historical contingency is, naturally, at odds with the tradition of Marx and Engels; however, Riss shares with them an aversion to any possible complacency that may result from a future-oriented utopian socialism. Like Rahel Jaeggi at our last seminar, Riss does not believe in the possible end of contradictions; as she writes, \u201cutopia cannot be considered as an end, but only as a moment, which will have to be overcome in its turn.\u201d[6]<\/a> And, similarly to Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse, Riss is oriented, more than anything, toward mobilizing us into action:<\/p>\n
\nThe utopian presents hold the chance to offer a forceful refusal of the idea that we are deprived of resources to build our future and invite us to \u201covercome the depressing idea of the irreparable divorce of the action and the dream.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I had proposed as the formula for this year\u2019s 13\/13 series on utopia the expression \u201cA History of the Future\u201d\u2014which is part of our banner this year. I had intended to suggest by that expression the idea that, in studying the concrete utopias that exist today, we will effectively detail and memorialize the efforts and initiatives that will change the present into its future, thereby document a history of that future. The missing term, of course, is the present. Riss reintroduces that term for us in her work.<\/p>\n
We are delighted to welcome La\u00ebtitia Riss to Utopia 13\/13 to present her work and equally delighted to welcome back our dear friend and colleague \u00c9tienne Balibar to comment on her proposal. \u00c9tienne Balibar opened our seminar this year on the theme of \u201ccritical theoretic foundations for concrete utopias.\u201d It is an honor to have \u00c9tienne Balibar back to continue the conversation.<\/p>\n
Welcome to Utopia 11\/13!<\/p>\n
Notes<\/h1>\n
[1]<\/a> Ernst Bloch in Bloch and Adorno, \u201cPossibilities of Utopia Today<\/a>,\u201d trans. and ed. by Jonathan Roessler, Radio Debate, S\u00fcdwestrundfunk, 1964, p. 4.<\/p>\n
[2]<\/a> La\u00ebtitia Riss, \u201cUtopier le present : le r\u00eave historique des utopies<\/a>,\u201d\u00a0La D\u00e9couverte\u00a0<\/em>4, no. 108 (2021): 29-38, at p. 30. English translation by Fonda Shen at https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/laetitia-riss-to-utopize-the-present-the-historical-dream-of-utopias\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[3]<\/a> Riss, \u201cUtopier le present : le r\u00eave historique des utopies,\u201d at p. 35.<\/p>\n
[4]<\/a> Riss, \u201cUtopier le present : le r\u00eave historique des utopies,\u201d at p. 31.<\/p>\n
[5]<\/a> Riss, \u201cUtopier le present : le r\u00eave historique des utopies,\u201d at p. 32.<\/p>\n
[6]<\/a> Riss, \u201cUtopier le present : le r\u00eave historique des utopies,\u201d at p. 38.<\/p>\n
[7]<\/a> Riss, \u201cUtopier le present : le r\u00eave historique des utopies,\u201d at p. 38.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Bernard E. Harcourt \u201cWhat changes later is that it comes out of space into time, with the later utopians of the 18th, especially the 19thcentury, Fourier and Owen and Saint-Simon and Cabet, who transfer utopia into the future. It… Continue Reading