4 ms·

I've heard the assertion that utopianism is bad, but what about it is bad? Certainly, we should be able to strive for improvement, in ourselves and society? Th

I've heard the assertion that utopianism is bad, but what about it is bad? Certainly, we should be able to strive for improvement, in ourselves and society? The problem with utopianism is the desire to create a new society out of whole cloth, with no regard for the lessons of the past, or the structure of existing society. Drastic changes, like those of the communist revolutions, rarely bring about positive change (not never), and frequently bring about huge disaster. Instead, changes on the margins tend to more reliably improve things. There are exceptions of course.

philwelch 8y ago
That's the distinction between utopianism and, I guess, gradualism or conservatism. It's not about whether or not we should improve society, it's about whether we should completely overturn everything in society based on abstract theory. A non-utopian way of improving society is to have robust, good-faith discussion between progressive and conservative factions, where the progressives keep trying to find safe, marginal reforms to make while the conservatives act as a skeptical check on those marginal reforms turning into a utopian project. At least in the United States, where I live, this doesn't happen because the "progressives" are radicalizing towards utopianism while the "conservative" faction is themselves split between utopianism and reaction.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "At least in the United States, where I live, this doesn't happen because the "progressives" are radicalizing towards utopianism while the "conservative" faction is themselves split between utopianism and reaction." Sometimes It feels like the "conservatives" are more utopian than the progressives. They just live in the utopia of a past that never existed.
gowld 8y ago
Utopianism is Perfectionism, as opposed to Progressivism. It's unsound to believe that's possible to elminiate all problems, and someone having a belief that utopis is possible is s strong signal of either deceit or stupidity.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  Surely you meant to say that it's a strong signal of not being completely candid, or of being disingenuous :) I like the perfectionism vs progressivism thing. My analogy would have been that it's like "the truth": if you think you're in full possession of the full truth, or ever could be, that's silly. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to learn more, be more honest, and so on. "truth" with a small t is still a useful concept. But it's always subjective, and requires people figuring that out both alone, with nothing between themselves and their conscience, and together (which will never change it to being objective, or completely agreed upon by all, or mean 100% the same thing even for two identical twins who "totally agree" on it). Just like one could say we are the "result" of what our cells are doing all the time (I know you really couldn't simplify it like that at all, but for the sake of argument), society is the result of the daily decisions of the actual people in it - what they think others expect of them, and whether they listen to that or their inner voice, and so on. It seems to me many want to change society "on" others rather than with them, you might say they would rather attempt to change society on a drawing board to change their neighbours, than get to know their neighbours and themselves in the first place. But societies aren't really that different from personal relations and families. People grow over time, societies grow, decay or heal over time, too -- not as the result of turning a switch or throwing out everything that was before on a dime, just because we really want to. > Until now the totalitarian belief that everything is possible seems to have proved only that everything can be destroyed. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"

philwelch 8y ago

That's the distinction between utopianism and, I guess, gradualism or conservatism. It's not about whether or not we should improve society, it's about whether we should completely overturn everything in society based on abstract theory. A non-utopian way of improving society is to have robust, good-faith discussion between progressive and conservative factions, where the progressives keep trying to find safe, marginal reforms to make while the conservatives act as a skeptical check on those marginal reforms turning into a utopian project. At least in the United States, where I live, this doesn't happen because the "progressives" are radicalizing towards utopianism while the "conservative" faction is themselves split between utopianism and reaction.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"At least in the United States, where I live, this doesn't happen because the "progressives" are radicalizing towards utopianism while the "conservative" faction is themselves split between utopianism and reaction." Sometimes It feels like the "conservatives" are more utopian than the progressives. They just live in the utopia of a past that never existed.

gowld 8y ago

Utopianism is Perfectionism, as opposed to Progressivism. It's unsound to believe that's possible to elminiate all problems, and someone having a belief that utopis is possible is s strong signal of either deceit or stupidity.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
Surely you meant to say that it's a strong signal of not being completely candid, or of being disingenuous :) I like the perfectionism vs progressivism thing. My analogy would have been that it's like "the truth": if you think you're in full possession of the full truth, or ever could be, that's silly. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to learn more, be more honest, and so on. "truth" with a small t is still a useful concept. But it's always subjective, and requires people figuring that out both alone, with nothing between themselves and their conscience, and together (which will never change it to being objective, or completely agreed upon by all, or mean 100% the same thing even for two identical twins who "totally agree" on it). Just like one could say we are the "result" of what our cells are doing all the time (I know you really couldn't simplify it like that at all, but for the sake of argument), society is the result of the daily decisions of the actual people in it - what they think others expect of them, and whether they listen to that or their inner voice, and so on. It seems to me many want to change society "on" others rather than with them, you might say they would rather attempt to change society on a drawing board to change their neighbours, than get to know their neighbours and themselves in the first place. But societies aren't really that different from personal relations and families. People grow over time, societies grow, decay or heal over time, too -- not as the result of turning a switch or throwing out everything that was before on a dime, just because we really want to. > Until now the totalitarian belief that everything is possible seems to have proved only that everything can be destroyed. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"