{"id":5209,"date":"2022-10-01T15:51:33","date_gmt":"2022-10-01T19:51:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/?p=5209"},"modified":"2022-10-01T17:23:37","modified_gmt":"2022-10-01T21:23:37","slug":"bernard-e-harcourt-epilogue-to-utopia-1-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/bernard-e-harcourt-epilogue-to-utopia-1-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Bernard E. Harcourt | Epilogue to Utopia 1\/13"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Bernard E. Harcourt<\/h2>\n

Our inaugural seminar with \u00c9tienne Balibar at Utopia 1\/13<\/a> provided theoretical markers for an updated concept of \u201cconcrete utopias.\u201d Four in particular:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Partiality<\/em>: Concrete utopias do not need to be as systematic and totalizing as earlier nineteenth- or twentieth-century conceptions of utopia. Rather than fully integrated systems, concrete utopias for the twenty-first century can be more partial, targeted, swift. They need to be put into action, and that means accepting miscalculations. They need not be elaborated at a world historical level. They do not need an eschatological dimension. They need to be punctual engagements in the present\u2014the here and now\u2014and can avoid the totalizing schemes.<\/li>\n
  2. Distributional<\/em>: Concrete utopias need to be visible and operate on what we can see. Balibar wrote about focusing less on deep causes and more on consequences\u2014on distributional<\/em>\u00a0consequences. This resonates with a move away from the intricacies of systems theories toward more detectible analyses of relations of power. We need to focus today, Balibar argued<\/a>, on \u201cquestions of war and peace, armaments, ways of life and use of resources, modes of interaction with the digital equipment\u2026\u201d[1]<\/a> The idea is to highlight a different level of abstraction because, in Balibar\u2019s words<\/a>, \u201cthe chances to create alternatives do not reside at the abstract level of putting an end to the capitalist mode of production.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Heterogeneity<\/em>: We discussed at length Michel Foucault\u2019s essay \u201cOf Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias<\/a>\u201d (1967\/1984) and the concept of heterotopias. The term heterotopia is somewhat fraught because, at least for Foucault, it originally includes clearly dystopic spaces, such as the prison, the asylum, and the boarding school. But it carries with it an essential element of heterogeneity. This is the idea that we need to embrace different, heterodox concrete utopias and not seek just one; and, as Ann Stoler and Kendall Thomas suggested, we need to think about these heterogenous concrete utopias as action, as a verb, rather than as a noun. In order to keep the \u201cu\u201d of utopia but add the \u201chetero\u201d of heterotopia (without keeping the \u201chetero\u201d of heteropatriarchy), I will for the time being propose the term \u201cuterotopia\u201d (which interestingly gestures to the womb and critical genealogy<\/a>, where we left off last year\u2019s seminars at Revolution 13\/13<\/a>).<\/li>\n
  4. Fallibility<\/em>: Concrete utopias today may prove unsatisfactory tomorrow. They may become a burden or constraint on the next generation. But that should not undermine their value today<\/em>. There must be an acceptance of the fact that concrete utopias may be temporary, may even be misleading. So long as we remain critical, they will reveal themselves at some point to be illusions. In this sense, we need to embrace a radical theory of illusions that acknowledges the inevitable: those who come after us will rightly tear us apart for our blind spots and failures. And thank goodness! We should encourage that criticality! We do not have a lock on critique and praxis. It is, after all, an ongoing and evolving practice.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    At the seminar, I spoke of these four dimensions as reflecting a certain \u201ctheoretical lightening\u201d of the concept of utopia. This reminds me of Theodor Adorno\u2019s 1931 essay on \u201cThe Actuality of Philosophy,\u201d where he argued against totalizing systems of philosophical thought and pointed instead to more partial or fragmented philosophical interventions.<\/p>\n

    In \u201cThe Actuality of Philosophy,\u201d which we discussed with Axel Honneth at Critique 2\/13<\/a>, Adorno takes a critical stance toward the possibility of a fully rational society. He argues that we need to give up on the project of \u201cphilosophy\u2019s pretensions to totality.\u201d[3]<\/a> For Adorno, philosophy can no longer render the world fully rational; it needs to develop, instead, mid-level concepts and interpretations that can solve punctual problems. It must avoid the too large, systematic, comprehensive analyses of earlier philosophical approaches, such as German Idealism. Adorno embraces an experimentalism and partiality\u2014and a certain humbleness of interpretation, conceding that we never possess \u201ca sure key to interpretation.\u201d[4]<\/a> (I discuss this in greater length at Critique 2\/13 here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

    Building on these four markers and this Adornian sensibility, I would argue for a critique and praxis of uterotopic embodied action. From this perspective, our task this year is to explore the embodied practices of uterotopic projects in all their partiality and fragmented nature, with a special focus on their distributional consequences and without fear that they will, someday, be the target of our own critique.<\/p>\n

    Welcome to Utopia 13\/13!<\/p>\n

    Notes<\/h1>\n

    [1]<\/a> \u00c9tienne Balibar, \u201cUncovering Lines of Escape: Towards a Concept of Concrete Utopia in the Age of Catastrophes,\u201d Introductory Lecture for Utopia 13\/13, \u201cA History of the Future\u201d, 13 Seminars at Columbia, 2022-2023, directed by Bernard E. Harcourt, September 28th<\/sup>, 2022, at 14-15.<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/a> Balibar, \u201cUncovering lines of escape,\u201d 14.<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/a> Theodor Adorno, \u201cThe Actuality of Philosophy,\u201d Telos <\/em>1997, no. 31 (1997): 120-133 (also reprinted as a chapter), at Telos<\/em> 25\/chapter 120.<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/a>\u00a0 Adorno, \u201cThe Actuality of Philosophy,\u201d Telos<\/em> 31\/chapter 126.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    By Bernard E. Harcourt Our inaugural seminar with \u00c9tienne Balibar at Utopia 1\/13 provided theoretical markers for an updated concept of \u201cconcrete utopias.\u201d Four in particular: Partiality: Concrete utopias do not need to be as systematic and totalizing as earlier… Continue Reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2332,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[51427],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-posts-1-13"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2332"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/utopia1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}