I think everyone with the capacity to dream, has a unique utopia envisioned in their minds eye. All of these respective utopias are all valid for each individual but I doubt that any of them would be appropriate as an ‘universal’ utopia. In his writings on "Globalization, The polotics of identity and social hope” Richard Rotry mentions that we have lost our hope for utopia. Concepts like the free market and democracy are considered starting points, or rules to follow to obtain the ultimate utopia, a classless society. I think that utopia is not something that has been forgotten by the masses, but set aside because it is deemed fictional within the context of our global consumerist society. Personally I find the idea of utopia hard to take seriously considering the exponential amount of circumstances that would have to coincide so that EVERYONE’S beliefs were respected. I think it was extremely naive of our predecessors to believe that world issues could be solved through solely political or economical means. Because, when you get down to it, politics and economics are part of the problem. Political disagreements and economic inequalities contribute to our current condition between utopia and dystopia because they often ignore or dismiss beliefs, rules or occurrences that do not directly affect them.
I agree with Rotry on his basic methods for creating a classless society. Our situation requires a historical narrative in which to reference past situations and solutions, learn about them and consequently from them in order to construct a method for approaching problems today and in the future. This type of process is common in many contemporary guidelines, like the building code. Although there are still many faults within building code rules and regulations I think that the basis for them is a step closer to Utopia than concepts like the free market. One positive aspect of the building code is that each guideline is based on local situations and local histories. For example fire codes were not rigorously enforced until after until after the great fire in 1904 in Toronto. I do not suggest that our lives be constrained and governed by strict codes and regulations, I am merely pointing out the devices which guide the creation of the building code and how those could have positive influences on our everlasting quest for a classless society.
6 comments:
I tend to agree with Rotry, perhaps I am a too much of a cynic, but I think whatever optimism we once had towards a utopic vision of our society, has been seriously degraded. Clearly I can’t speak for everyone, but it is my contention that people have become more socially and culturally aware. Thanks to mass media, CNN, National Geographic and the all to vivid documentary, we are being exposed to the troubles of our world more accurately and more frequently than ever before. It is getting harder and harder to ignore our imperfect world when it is constantly being presented to us. I think this exposure eats away at our ideologies and we have become more critical of the world around us, and the motives of others. I don’t mean to imply that this exposure is entirely a negative thing, in fact the more we are aware of the more pro-active we can be. Certainly there are pessimists, cynics and those who choose to believe that we will all destroy ourselves, but on the other hand, people are taking more initiative for societal ills and are participating in organizations, campaigns, companies and groups that work towards solutions and further awareness. I don’t think we will ever reach a classless society, and I would even argue that a classless society would have more downfalls than its opposite.
I disagree greatly with the notion of a classless global society. This is an “impossible” dream/believe. I am glade there was a decrease in the ability to believe there would be a classless global society. There is no need to make a uniform mass of people. From my understanding this belief stemmed from the loss in faith in cosmopolitan and universalistic notions, as well as from philosophical matters. I do agree with being well “world” so there is an increase in communication between different masses of people. The embodiment for classless global society has been presented in a couple of scenarios: Marxist scenario and peace and technological process = free market. There is no faith left in these scenarios today. I agree that there is a greater focus on the loss of faith in order to imagine an “egalitarian utopia” than being concerned about globalization than either of the various movements. We have no hope left for this world? Has it been replaced by “resentment and frustration?” We need dreams of utopia because they hold an essence of hope for everyone. They allow one to push forward in this life when things go wrong; they allow the impossible to be dreamt and from that ideas can be transcribed of a better world.
In some ways we are moving towards a new form of classless global society with the allocation and distribution of $$$$ as Rorty mentions. Globalization is causing a economic situation in which the “citizens of a nation-state has passed beyond the control of the laws of the state”. This has caused problems with the ownership and movement of the nation’s money. It is sitting in a global pool waiting for upper classes to snatch up! This is what is going to happen in every aspect of a person’s life if we become a classless global society. There will become pools of people and goods wadding around waiting for the upper class to snatch them up. This is causing two social groups as Rotry mentions, “…the super-rich and the intellectuals…” How do we purify/revitalize what globalization has done and continues to do to the masses?
I think the issue is not that we have lost faith in a greater scenario, but rather, that “a scenario” is not all encompassing. It is my hope that we have finally realized that there is no master plan that will solve everything. Our troubles do not apply to the domino effect, where you apply pressure in one area and it ripples through everything. Our scenario should be a series of micro-scenarios, where we treat all areas of social, cultural, political, and economical issues with respect to their own definitions. I realize that all these facets of our society are interconnected, but just because there are linkages does not mean that solving one will adhere itself to the next.
Larraine - I think that specialization is important, but (probably owing to my own background), there is rooom for interdisciplinarists to make or coordianate the linkages between fields. Or, maybe everyone should take a general arts degree before pursuing a career path! (So that they are at least exposed to the importance of communicating with other disciplines)
... just a thought.
I think it's okay to strive for a utopian way of life, as long as one understands that this is impossible. Through visions of utopia, we can at least make small contributions that result in a societal benefit. Looks like that is what Judith is saying too?
I don't consider a classless society to be utopian in nature. Rather, I think the goal should be to raise the standard of living of the super-poor, in so-called 'developing' countries. This remains an overlooked area, even by the author who claims that globalization has led to 2 classes (academics and the super-rich). That myth is dispelled when one comes across a blind, crippled, elderly lady sitting on a wooden box with a change-cup out (when one is on 'vacation'), and one's new homeless friend one met on the beach gives everything in his pocket to her.
Another note about academics and the super-rich - this reminded me of a conference I went to a few years ago in Rio, on affordable, accessible, sustainable housing. The majority of the attendees were wealthy business people and/or academics (teachers, not students - the cost of the conference was very high). Hundreds of people came to the opening presentation by a renowned architect, but during the lectures held by the attendees, there were maybe 5 or 6 people in the audience. Most people took the sponsored trip to the conference to give their lecture and hang out at the beach for the rest of it. It was pretty sick, actually. Also, it was one of those 'preaching to the congregation' scenarios, whereby everyone attending the lectures already had a good idea of the subjects being presented. Why aren't conferences like this made public, open for anyone to see / listen? Where are the people that might actually do something with the information (students especially)?
Bobbie, I just love your opening comment. It’s priceless, “I think it's okay to strive for a utopian way of life, as long as one understands that this is impossible.” However I agree that instead of striving for the unattainable, we should instead be developing not only awareness; but also a course of action for the standard of living gap. While I was visiting Holland over Christmas I attended a photography exhibit in Rotterdam called “Spectacular City.” The exhibit included a series of photographs from an impoverished community in the 3rd world, (my apologies the name of the place escapes me). The images vividly depicted the condition of the community; it’s child prostitutes, refugees, homeless etc. I constantly ask the question “what is the point of these images?” I really do believe that most people look at images such as those, think about it, possibly feel guilty or sad, then go home finish out there day and forget all about it. There is a difference between exposure to a particular world condition, and a course of action. All too often the depraved images are shown to us, to what, make us do something about it, but I might argue that nothing really comes of it. How can we expose the public to issues like this without just representing an image? Bobbie, did you feel that the conference was a useful tool for developing a course of action? I am wondering what other modes we could invent to better address these global, cultural issues?
Post a Comment