Ecotheology 10.2 (2005) 254-272] Ecotheology (Print) ISSN 1363-7320 Ecotheology (Online) ISSN 1743-1689
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[Ecotheology 10.2 (2005) 254-272] Ecotheology (print) ISSN 1363-7320 Ecotheology (online) ISSN 1743-1689 Book Reviews Marius de Geus, Ecological Utopias: Envisioning the Sustainable Society (Utrecht: Inter- national Books, 1999). Paperback £12.50, ISBN 9-0572-7019-6. The background to de Geus’s book is neatly summarized in his opening quotation from Andrew Dobson: ‘…the utopian vision provides the indispensable funda- mentalist well of inspiration from which green activists, even the most reformist and respectable, need continually to draw’. As a project, Marius de Geus’s attempt to explore the legacy of the utopian vision is to be applauded. In its execution however, it reveals some fundamental shortcomings, which raise further issues about the nature of the relationship between green politics and the utopia tradition. The first issue concerns definition of just what constitutes a utopia. Unfortunately, de Geus simply defines the utopian tradition in such a broad fashion as to be able to include any ‘detailed model of a society without the shortcomings and disadvantages of the current political system’ (p. 19). He qualifies this by suggesting that utopias have ‘a ficticious character’ and ‘at least in words, contain the ‘blueprints’ for a completely new state’ (p. 19). This breadth enables him to include the writings of both Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin, both anarchist theorists, but neither of whom wrote conventional utopias, more conventionally defined (in the British tradition at least) as being narrative fictions depicting the good society (Kumar 1991). He proceeds further to make a characterization of the utopian tradition as separable between ‘ “ecological utopias” or “utopias of sufficiency…and “technological utopias” or “utopias of abundance”… The basic difference between these lies in the notion of whether an ideal society should enjoy material abundance and luxury or be based on satisfaction and sufficiency’ (p. 21). Whilst such a distinction can be clearly made, by rejecting out of hand those that do not fit this somewhat arbitrary severance point, de Geus misses the often complex interplay that is evident within the tradition of utopian writing. Although this may seem a minor point, it is of immense importance in under- standing late nineteenth-century socialist politics, which he dwells on at length. His stated intention is to reveal this neglected stream of political thought in its relevance to contemporary debates on the sustainable society and to green politics more generally. He is particularly anxious to defend the utopia against its rejection ‘by post modern political thinkers…and neo-liberals’ (p. 23). In consequence, one can trace a thoroughly modernist concern and approach throughout the book. Having dropped the distinction between the narrative of the literary utopia and philosophical speculations upon the ideal society, he is unable to see beyond the organizational concerns of this speculation. The literary utopia is merely an utilitarian means to an end, its author writing ‘as if ’ an artist. But can we realistically make such a mechanis- tic separation? Is fiction no more than a mechanistic device to render political planning into a more popular and palatable medium? © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2005, Unit 6, The Village, 101 Amies Street, London SW11 2JW. Book Reviews 255 This reductionist approach to the utopian tradition serves both fiction and politics badly. Indeed, it is at this juncture between text and reality that contemporary political theorists attempting to escape the cage of modernist theory are arguing for the reclaiming of the utopia as a vital part of the re-enchantment of political vision. For example, Boaventura de Sousa Santos calls for a radical change in the manner we interpret social development in ways sympathetic to de Geus and to any radical Green: ‘We must therefore, reinvent the future by opening up a new horizon of possi- bilities mapped out by new radical alternatives. Merely to criticize the dominant system, though crucial, is not enough’ (Santos 1995: 479). But the really crucial differ- ence is how Santos depicts utopia ‘By utopia I mean the exploration of imagination of new mode of human possibility and styles of will, and the confrontation by imagina- tion of the necessity of whatever exists—just because it exists—on behalf of something radically better that is worth fighting for, and to which humanity is fully entitled’ (Santos 1995: 479). We have here a very different image of utopia from the modernist ‘alternative- organisation model’ plan of society that de Geus offers us. His understanding of utopia is that it is ‘a detailed model of a society without the shortcomings and dis- advantages of the present Political System’ (p.19). Yet this is a view that leaves little room for the prophetic voice, not as one who depicts an ideal or even idealized future, but one who reveals the present. In contrast to de Geus’s depiction of utopias as organisational blueprints, utopian writing as engaging narrative fiction at it strongest acts as secular prophesy, ‘an expression of transcendence, in the same way as religion’ (Simecka 1984: 172). Santos again: ‘On the one hand, it [utopia] calls attention to what does not exist as being the integral, if silenced (counter) part of what does exist… On the other hand, utopia is always unequally utopian, in that its way of imagining the new is partly comprised of new combinations and scales of what exists, indeed almost always mere obscure little details of what does exist. …utopia is as much possessed of Zeitgeist as of Weltschmertz’ (Santos 1995: 480). This being so, and de Geus acknowledges that ‘utopian actually always hold up a mirror to their contemporaries’ (p. 31), it is surpris- ing to see how thoroughly decontextualized his accounts of the historical examples are. Turning to the specific content of the book, he proceeds by introducing reasons why utopias have been both applauded and mistrusted throughout western political history, and goes on to sketch overviews of specific examples. Thus we have More and Thoreau providing ‘Classical Utopias of Sufficiency’, Peter Kropotkin and William Morris as ‘Anarchist Ecological Utopias’, and Ebenezer Howard (Garden City movement), B.F. Skinner and Aldous Huxley group under the heading of ‘More Recent Sketches of Ecological Utopias’ and Ernest Callenbach and Murray Bookchin as ‘Modern’ proponents. Even this admittedly select list is problematic. Callenbach and Bookchin are both contemporary writers who would uncontestably be on any list of Green writers. But their pairing elides the very real oppositions between them. Similarly, the presump- tions of the ascription of ecological utopia to Skinner’s Walden Two and Huxley’s Island miss the way in which Skinner was himself replying to Huxley’s earlier novel Brave New World. More seriously, the exclusion of any relations to the wider political (as well as literary utopian) context means that the important links between Thoreau, Morris, Kropotkin and Howard are missed. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2005. 256 Ecotheology These can be better depicted if we consider radical activity in England in the period from c. 1880–c.1900. Peter Gould has previously made a very strong case for this being read as an important precursor of Green politics, sharing many characteristics with contemporary discussions (Gould 1988; see also Wall 1994: 8-10). This being so, we can see Thoreau as an important influence on a wide range of social and political activity that expressed a renewed interest in the spiritual and non-material dimen- sions of life, search for a better less-exploitative relationship with both each other and with the land. Out of the wide variety of approaches, some which have entered into political tradition, others long forgotten, we can see an entire dialogue of community- based solutions, anarchist and non-statist socialism amongst which are found the writings of Morris, Kropotkin and Howard. However, by distinguishing between two forms of utopian writing on the basis of their advocacy of sufficiency or technological advance, de Geus prevents us from seeing the ambiguity of the utopian contribution to Green thought. Whilst offering social critique and unleashing the creative possibilities inherent in the political imagi- nation, utopian thought understood as a blueprint always runs the risk of being re- interpreted as totalitarian. De Geus is scathing of Bellamy’s Looking Backward which he contrasts with News From Nowhere and Howard’s Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Yet at the time, Looking Backward was seen as a liberal text, Howard paying for the first publica- tion in England out of his own pocket, such was his enthusiasm. If we are to look to historical precedent for inspiration, we must see more than selective fragments. In that sense, by treating the selected texts as isolated documents and plans, de Geus seems to miss the key points made by the original authors of some of his exam- ples. Returning to Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow is not a conventional fictional utopia—it exists as an idealization and extrapolation of what was always intended as a practical project, the construction of a new urban-rural interface as ‘a huge experiment where minor experiments could be carried out’ (Armytage 1961: 374). As a reality, it led to the construction of Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City, and more significantly to Town Planning as a recognized and legitimate activity of gov- ernance in the UK. (Previous expressions had always been private sector events.) De Geus further perpetuates the error that Howard had not formerly been involved in political thought and activity and that Garden Cities of Tomorrow was his first foray into activity. In fact, Howard had published Commonsense Socialism in 1892 and had been holding public meetings to promote his vision for new land colony as an expression of this from 1893 (see Beevers 1988; Hall and Ward 1998).