There was an interesting piece by Joshua Glenn in last Sunday's Boston Globe, dealing with the urgent need (as suggested by Frederic Jameson and others) to rethink 'Utopian' impulses at "this moment of neoliberal triumphalism".
The focus is mainly on Jameson's recent book Archaeologies of the Future, and the perception of (selected) Science Fiction narratives as both 'utopian' and 'anti-anti-utopian'. Of course 'utopianism' and 'anti-anti-utopianism' aren't necessarily the same thing. The latter (as I understand it) is essentially a reaction to the severe beating that utopian thought has taken in the last 30 years or so, offering alternatives to the (decidedly anti-utopian) rhetoric of the likes of Margaret Thatcher (who proselytised on the subject of the 'inevitability' of free market capitalism).
Anyone who's had their 'cultural feelers' out in recent times, has probably noticed the frequent articulation (in the 'progressive' media and elsewhere) of a kind of philosophical crisis being experienced by those on the 'left'. This 'crisis' is pretty broad in scope but a key question seems to be, "How can, long-cherished, progressive dreams be revived (and promoted) in a moment where utopian projects are commonly viewed as naive (at best) or coercive (at worst)?" Glenn, by way of Jameson, takes up the point:
The question, for thinkers like these, is how to revive the spirit of utopia - the current enfeeblement of which, Jameson claims, "saps our political options and tends to leave us all in the helpless position of passive accomplices and impotent handwringers" - without repeating the errors of what Jacoby has dubbed "blueprint utopianism," that is, a tendency to map out utopian society in minute detail. How to avoid, as Jameson puts it, effectively "colonizing the future"?
1
The significance of Science Fiction (in terms of imagining "another world") is that it can "break the paralyzing spell of the quotidian", and, "imagine a daily life that is politically, economically, socially, and psychologically truly different from our own". The best 'utopian' Sci-fi (according to Jameson) doesn't just deal with the "extrapolation and mere anticipation of all kinds of technological marvels", but instead "make[s] us aware of…the need for complete systemic change, change in the totality of social relations, and not just an improvement in bourgeois culture".2
In relation to the above, an interesting point was made regarding the popularity of "disaster novels - about atomic warfare, meteors hitting the Earth, environmental collapse, and so forth". Though such novels (and films) appear, on one level, to be about human heroism and the dogged desire to survive, or simply concerned with warning humankind of its various scientific/environmental/military follies, there's also a real sense in which the reader wants to see the disaster (apocalypse) occur. The revival in popularity of such narratives in recent years, could be read as indicative of a resigned despair about a world that is already ruined. Thus the 'disaster' is actually a utopian moment (of sorts), liberating us from a present in which no other realistic alternative (bar complete destruction) seems possible! As Glenn (citing Jameson) puts it, such narratives "ought to be interpreted as evidence of a collective desire to start over from scratch".3
The following, from today’s Guardian, might be of interest.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1650085,00.html
November 25th, 2005 at 2:49 pmIt’s probably better to read utopian fictions as speculative philosophy than as masochistic fantasy, in keeping with authorial intent rather than audience needs.
I think it’s possible to contend that narratives of comprehensive disaster are a kind of secular expression of religious themes of sin and final judgment. One might read much of the rhetoric of the Green movement in this light where “pollution” is the sin and “environmental catastrophe” is the final judgement of nature on her errant children.
I say “one might” as it unfortunately appears that we’ve fucked up the planet and are all going to die horribly.
November 25th, 2005 at 7:52 pmfoolhardy,
The book by David Skal alluded to in the Guardian piece is called The Monster Show, and it’s well worth reading in terms of putting horror in its proper context. The section about how images of (or encounters with) the mutilated soldiers of WW1 impacted upon the horror fiction/film of the time, is particularly interesting.
copernicus,
There’s undoubtedly something ‘Old Testament’ about disaster flicks (and fiction) alright. While the notion of disaster being a judgement implies that we ‘deserve it’, I think the question of whether or not we would actually ‘welcome it’ (on some level) is an interesting one.
Personally, I feel somewhat cheated when catastrophe is averted in such films! But that probably speaks more to a desire for an eye-popping visual spectacle than anything else…
November 26th, 2005 at 1:49 pm