The best Utopian fiction hasn't been written yet. My friend Max is attempting to write some. His structure so far is based on Hegel's dialectics: we're living in an imperfect (not ALL bad) dystopia, some hunter gatherers are living in an imperfect (not ALL good) utopia that is being encroached by the dystopia, and some syntopia emerges, also not a final state of perfection, but an evolving process that responds to real conditions, based on a better understanding of what ails us and what heals us.
Many of the anarchist utopian writers believed that what ails us is attempts by some humans (or other creatures) to dominate, oppress, and otherwise curtail individual liberty. But this is only one ailment, and what is becoming clearer to me and others (such as Daniel Schmachtenberger) is that capitalism is destroying or has already destroyed the coherence of integrated individuals, families, tribes and villages, federations of these, and nations. And that without these we have Climate Change, shallow relationships, loneliness, nature degradation, and a proliferation of war.
Intentional communities based solely on anarchist principles or opposition to oppression have mostly disintegrated, and those that still exist are not happy, vibrant or growing places. Even adding an environmental ethic seems to not be sufficient for IC well being.
That sounds like an interesting structure for utopian fiction and I like the idea of utopia as an evolving process.
I can believe that only anarchist principals aren't enough. Many anarchist ideas appeal to me but I don't consider myself an anarchist largely because no anarchist I've known has convinced me of their vision for the future. Plus I'd been part of many groups whose ideas about anti-hierarchy only served to hide any power differences that existed and/or resulted in nothing getting done.
There is a misunderstanding of hierarchy by anarchists. It is ubiquitous in nature, but it doesn't have to be totalitarian. It's a way to manage complexity. That's why we're not a soup of organic molecules. We have organelles, cells and organs as hierarchical levels, where each level transcends and includes the previous levels (Arthur Koestler and Ken Wlber also touched on this). Communication flows both up and down these kinds of hierarchies. There is agency at each level. Our brains seem to have something similar going on. I call these functional hierarchies, PROPERLY NESTED. If we could organize our social systems similarly, it would solve many of our current problems, which are due to capitalism, not totalitarianism.
Even the problem of suffering due to inequality could better be dealt with in a properly nested hierarchy. When everyone knows each other in a family and a village or tribe, it is hard to be indifferent to someone's suffering, and leveling mechanisms naturally arise. When there are too many people to know personally, it is easy to be indifferent to suffering.. It helps if there is also an ethos of equity, instead of a primate status hierarchy, but anarchists and liberally-minded people already have that. But an equity ethos without proper nesting is insufficient to address suffering due to inequality.
Most ICs don't understand these things, skipping levels. Some are trying to form a villlage without families, and/or without an economic network of villages.
I wish I could write fiction, and had the time for it, so I could disseminate these ideas that way.
That's a fascinating idea of organizing human structures similar to organ systems and levels of the body. It could make for really interesting fiction though I'd also read a non-fiction book about the concept especially in regards to ICs.
I read your post on ICs being in a rut and found it really thought provoking. I've long been interested in communal projects (visiting ICs and buying a house with friends) and the sociologist in me keeps trying to figure how a modern society could be organized in a communally-oriented way.
Glad that you are not going into it blindly and naively, and using sociological insights. Communal could mean everyone is doing the same thing, like a barn raising or folk dance, or it could mean everyone has a separate synergistic role, or something in between where a few people have the same role, but there are groups with different roles. I think for economic activity it's important to have the 2nd and 3rd scenarios. People have alot of variation in ability and personality, and it's important to let people specialize into their passions and things they are good at.
Which ICs have you visited and what was your impression?
I visited The Farm for a weekend event and stayed for a month at a community plus visited a nearby one though they are more private now. I could talk more in a direct message or email exchange. If you're open to it, I'd be interested in hearing advice/perspective on starting a community from someone with your background.
Overall I was impressed at seeing what these communities have done especially when there is such a bias against people trying to do any kind of unique living arrangement (one that I've constantly encountered). It was inspiring even if things weren't perfect and I appreciated how honest people were about the difficulties.
Also noticed that all of them had aging populations and were struggling with transition. It seems like a common pattern that communities start by accepting anyone interested then end up with a very long, involved membership process that makes it difficult to grow or sustain their population.
Sure, I'd love to give advice as well as hear your perspective. I have visited many ICs (and even tried to start one) and want that movement to succeed and make a comeback and a real impact beyond just a few people who are still living in ICs. FYI, there are a few people in the IC movement whose job it is to give advice to people seeking to live in an existing IC or start one. I disagree with most of them, but you should probably hear their ideas as well (I can get you in touch with them). I agree that the pattern you observed is real.
Some books here I will have to add to my list! I love that you included Octavia Butler, in my very binary categorisation I would have always called that dystopian but I now see seeds of utopian vision existing in juxtaposition with dystopia is actually a clever way to make a utopian vision gripping! I’ve enjoyed many of Kim Stanley Robinson’s and I think they do a similar thing, struggling to remember a specific example right now! Xo
I feel like reading both Parable books it feels more dystopian than utopian. I really wish Butler could've finished the series. She planned to flesh out the Earthseed society more and to even have them go to space.
Kim Stanley Robinson has been on my list of authors to check out. This is a good reminder to do that.
The best Utopian fiction hasn't been written yet. My friend Max is attempting to write some. His structure so far is based on Hegel's dialectics: we're living in an imperfect (not ALL bad) dystopia, some hunter gatherers are living in an imperfect (not ALL good) utopia that is being encroached by the dystopia, and some syntopia emerges, also not a final state of perfection, but an evolving process that responds to real conditions, based on a better understanding of what ails us and what heals us.
Many of the anarchist utopian writers believed that what ails us is attempts by some humans (or other creatures) to dominate, oppress, and otherwise curtail individual liberty. But this is only one ailment, and what is becoming clearer to me and others (such as Daniel Schmachtenberger) is that capitalism is destroying or has already destroyed the coherence of integrated individuals, families, tribes and villages, federations of these, and nations. And that without these we have Climate Change, shallow relationships, loneliness, nature degradation, and a proliferation of war.
Intentional communities based solely on anarchist principles or opposition to oppression have mostly disintegrated, and those that still exist are not happy, vibrant or growing places. Even adding an environmental ethic seems to not be sufficient for IC well being.
That sounds like an interesting structure for utopian fiction and I like the idea of utopia as an evolving process.
I can believe that only anarchist principals aren't enough. Many anarchist ideas appeal to me but I don't consider myself an anarchist largely because no anarchist I've known has convinced me of their vision for the future. Plus I'd been part of many groups whose ideas about anti-hierarchy only served to hide any power differences that existed and/or resulted in nothing getting done.
There is a misunderstanding of hierarchy by anarchists. It is ubiquitous in nature, but it doesn't have to be totalitarian. It's a way to manage complexity. That's why we're not a soup of organic molecules. We have organelles, cells and organs as hierarchical levels, where each level transcends and includes the previous levels (Arthur Koestler and Ken Wlber also touched on this). Communication flows both up and down these kinds of hierarchies. There is agency at each level. Our brains seem to have something similar going on. I call these functional hierarchies, PROPERLY NESTED. If we could organize our social systems similarly, it would solve many of our current problems, which are due to capitalism, not totalitarianism.
Even the problem of suffering due to inequality could better be dealt with in a properly nested hierarchy. When everyone knows each other in a family and a village or tribe, it is hard to be indifferent to someone's suffering, and leveling mechanisms naturally arise. When there are too many people to know personally, it is easy to be indifferent to suffering.. It helps if there is also an ethos of equity, instead of a primate status hierarchy, but anarchists and liberally-minded people already have that. But an equity ethos without proper nesting is insufficient to address suffering due to inequality.
Most ICs don't understand these things, skipping levels. Some are trying to form a villlage without families, and/or without an economic network of villages.
I wish I could write fiction, and had the time for it, so I could disseminate these ideas that way.
That's a fascinating idea of organizing human structures similar to organ systems and levels of the body. It could make for really interesting fiction though I'd also read a non-fiction book about the concept especially in regards to ICs.
I read your post on ICs being in a rut and found it really thought provoking. I've long been interested in communal projects (visiting ICs and buying a house with friends) and the sociologist in me keeps trying to figure how a modern society could be organized in a communally-oriented way.
Glad that you are not going into it blindly and naively, and using sociological insights. Communal could mean everyone is doing the same thing, like a barn raising or folk dance, or it could mean everyone has a separate synergistic role, or something in between where a few people have the same role, but there are groups with different roles. I think for economic activity it's important to have the 2nd and 3rd scenarios. People have alot of variation in ability and personality, and it's important to let people specialize into their passions and things they are good at.
Which ICs have you visited and what was your impression?
I visited The Farm for a weekend event and stayed for a month at a community plus visited a nearby one though they are more private now. I could talk more in a direct message or email exchange. If you're open to it, I'd be interested in hearing advice/perspective on starting a community from someone with your background.
Overall I was impressed at seeing what these communities have done especially when there is such a bias against people trying to do any kind of unique living arrangement (one that I've constantly encountered). It was inspiring even if things weren't perfect and I appreciated how honest people were about the difficulties.
Also noticed that all of them had aging populations and were struggling with transition. It seems like a common pattern that communities start by accepting anyone interested then end up with a very long, involved membership process that makes it difficult to grow or sustain their population.
Sure, I'd love to give advice as well as hear your perspective. I have visited many ICs (and even tried to start one) and want that movement to succeed and make a comeback and a real impact beyond just a few people who are still living in ICs. FYI, there are a few people in the IC movement whose job it is to give advice to people seeking to live in an existing IC or start one. I disagree with most of them, but you should probably hear their ideas as well (I can get you in touch with them). I agree that the pattern you observed is real.
Some books here I will have to add to my list! I love that you included Octavia Butler, in my very binary categorisation I would have always called that dystopian but I now see seeds of utopian vision existing in juxtaposition with dystopia is actually a clever way to make a utopian vision gripping! I’ve enjoyed many of Kim Stanley Robinson’s and I think they do a similar thing, struggling to remember a specific example right now! Xo
I feel like reading both Parable books it feels more dystopian than utopian. I really wish Butler could've finished the series. She planned to flesh out the Earthseed society more and to even have them go to space.
Kim Stanley Robinson has been on my list of authors to check out. This is a good reminder to do that.