“Between the two poles of the political spectrum, for those in the center who simply hold on to the ideal of democracy, Utopia can also be problematic. Democracy is a system in which ordinary people determine, directly or through representation, the system that governs the society they live within. Utopias, however, are usually the products of singular imaginations or, at best, the plans of a small group: a political vanguard or artistic avant-garde. People are too often considered by Utopians as organic material to be shaped, not as willful agents who insist on doing the shaping; the role of the populace is, at best, to conform to a plan of a world already delivered complete. Considered a different way, Utopia is a closed program in which action is circumscribed by an algorithm coded by the master programmer. In this program there is no space for the citizen hacker. This is one reason why large-scale Utopias, made manifest, are so horrific and short-lived: short-lived because people tend not to be so pliable, and therefore insist on upsetting the perfect plans for living; horrific because people are made pliable and forced to fit the plans made for them.5 In Utopia the demos is designed, not consulted”.
http://theopenutopia.org/full-text/introduction-open-utopia/ Excerpts from Stephen Duncombes Open Utopia.
This ‘Ready Made’ notion re Utopic social design is not news to me. A concept which reccurs throught many writings on the subject.
To date, I am yet to come across an argument coming specifically from the direction from which I am perceiving the theme of Utopia. Stephen Duncombe does appear to be quoting many related sources as to my own research path. I am looking forward to comparing notes.
My notion of Utopia concerns over ‘allowing’ and facilitating a glimpse into infinate possibility. In what ever form one wishes to dream it. Possibilities within choice. That there is a choice, that the nature of existence is subjective and thus the nature of day to day reality can be calculated in as many different ways as there are people in existence.
The consideration that the concept of perfection is also subjective and that one mans treasure is another’s rubbish, hence there must surely exist, arguments as to why the earth is already perfect? That while we have language, an end in itself, we can only ever hope to try, and fail, and try and fail. Period. Is that not the very point? These are the sort of questions I ask in my notion of utopia. I do not force it, merely offer it for consideration. In that sense, my notion of utopia is never fixed or concluded. My notion is always evolving, as organically as we bump into strangers, who become friends who become enemies, who become strangers again only to prove themselves one of the best things that ever happend to us?
That Utopia simply means life, death, rebirth.