This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
journal of the theoretical humanities volume 8 number 1 april 2003
That new world, which is distant from ours not so much by geography as by customs and manners … More, Utopia Land ye not, none of you … Bacon, New Atlantis
ver since Thomas More wrote his Utopia, thus giving the genre its main characteristics, utopia has been thought of as an island. Although the exact location of the ideal government is left unsaid, the form and geography of this non-place have been precisely described: utopian islands are far away, closed, apart, and self-sufficient. Utopia is an isolated territory defined primarily by its boundaries, and delimited by them. As these frontiers draw the sharp lineaments of a perfect space of order and harmony, some of More’s commentators have shown that the interest for justice and peace seems to end there, and that it does not apply to what lies outside the island shores. Is it then impossible to go beyond these limits of utopia? The insular model of the classical utopia is indeed challenged when confronted with projects of a society of nations, especially today, in the contemporary context of globalization. The concept of utopia is often held to be irrelevant to such a new and specific situation, as if the utopian spirit were now out of date. At the same time, however, alternative conceptions of the relations which should exist between the different parts of the world are still being elaborated with reference to utopia – but this reference is often either merely implicit or ambiguous. The debates about globalization and the strong criticism of utopia which they imply seem to follow on from the problem of the relations between utopia and its outskirts.
antoine hatzenberger ISLANDS AND EMPIRE beyond the shores of utopia
When reflecting on how relevant the traditional model of utopia can be to contemporary attempts to sketch a transnational or postnational political frame, many questions arise. How can local utopias be developed into a global utopia? Can the utopian territory be extended indefinitely? Do contemporary conceptions of utopia mark a radical change of paradigm? What form might a non-insular utopia take? Is it possible to imagine a utopia without a centre? Does the plea for a global utopia imply that all sovereign nation-states as such be considered obsolescent? Would a worldwide form of government satisfy the criteria of a utopia, or is it bound to remain utopian, in the most common, vague and negative sense of the term (i.e., chimerical)?
ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN 1469-2899 online/03/010119-10 © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd and the Editors of Angelaki DOI: 10.1080/0969725032000093645
The normal life of the innocent Utopians could almost be compared to the punishment of the convicted Polylerites. brought back as a runaway. History says that “after subduing the natives. the inherent limits of an international relationship based on the model of insular states will be underlined. the premonitions of the possibility of a “global citizenship” in the concept of “humanity” outlined in More’s and Bacon’s works will be pointed out. it is important to concentrate on the geopolitical concept of the frontiers of utopia. (46) 1. “in each district of the country … are required to wear a special badge. When considering the question of the frontiers of Utopia. This closure means a rejection of everything that could arrive from outside the frontiers. “large gardens … form the centre of the blocks” (47). broad and deep and filled with thorn hedges. Lastly. Utopia has enclosed itself within a series of concentric circles. Not only do they not “allow anything dirty or filthy to be brought into the city” (57). or to talk with a slave from another district” (24). with many towers and battlements. In this article.1 As described in the second part of Thomas More’s book. and severely punished” (60). the problem of the frontiers of utopia will be set out through a critical rereading of the classical paradigm of the autarkic island. It is a capital crime to discard the badge. and is caught without the prince’s letter. it is possible to establish that a retrospective interpretation of utopian foreign policy can enable us to highlight different ways of understanding the utopian state. Lastly.islands and empire In order to better understand these issues. In the towns. with a deep. Inside the frontiers of the town. and so well fortified that a few defenders could beat off the attack of a strong force” (43). is treated with contempt. “the entrance into the bay is very dangerous” (42). but it is significant that even the wind is excluded at the different Utopian structural levels. the frontiers of the island 1. “the coast is rugged by nature. and how. “the streets are conveniently laid out … for protection from the wind” (46).” Through reconsidering the original paradigm of utopia laid down in More’s Utopia and Bacon’s New Atlantis. [king Utopus] promptly cut a channel fifteen miles wide where their land joined the continent. The closure is also internal. “Anyone who wants to stroll about and explore the extent of his own district is not prevented. the earth being thrown inward to form a wall” (94). broad ditch all around them. provided he first obtains his father’s permission and his wife’s consent”. and “anyone who takes upon himself to leave his district without permission. 1. and thus caused the sea to flow around the country”:1 The town is surrounded by a thick. on its fourth side the river itself serves as a moat. On three Utopians build their towns as they fortify their camps: “thoroughly. utopia remains an efficient tool for political philosophy. To begin with. A critical analysis will show the conceptual links between utopia and the proposals for a new world order as formulated in the recent works of the theorists of the “cosmopolitan democracy” and the “Empire. Utopians need a visa in order to travel either outside the frontiers of the island. the whole island is “sheltered from the wind by the surrounding land” (42). Firstly. and to examine how the territory assigned to utopia by the Pilgrim Fathers of the genre now needs to be extended. high wall. More specifies that in the houses the windows are made such as to keep out the wind (48). the different forms of the utopian influence on recent studies on globalization will be highlighted. and to reassess the meaning of “utopia” when applied on a large scale. and within the walls of the houses. who.2 Despite these measures. as there are obstacles to the outward movements of the local population. at his first landing. Secondly. to go beyond one’s own district. or even between its different districts. one 120 . at the same time. Utopia has not completely renounced all possibilities of communication with the rest of the world. sides it is also surrounded by a dry ditch.
show that the relationship of Utopia with its outside is not symmetrical. despite their strong claim to autarchy. these proletarians are not completely citizens either. from which they may enjoy forever a substantial annual income” (95) as indemnity. What is important to note is that the conditions of this communication are defined unilaterally by the Utopians. “The Utopians call these people who have borrowed governors from them their allies. Not completely slaves. According to them the treaty implies that men divided by some natural obstacle as slight as a hill or a brook are joined by no bond of nature. on the other. except that they are assigned a little extra work. On the one hand. and their rules exceed their boundaries. Frontiers are considered to be a protective device. almost as well as citizens. and do not commit themselves towards their neighbours through contracts. Utopians accumulate silver and gold coming from elsewhere (61). it is said that “few merchants go there to trade. on the score that they’re used to it” (80). These paradoxes. and the ambiguous conception of citizenship that is derived from them. After a war has ended Utopians take “landed estates. and now of their own accord ask the Utopians to supply magistrates for them” (85). Utopians take what they need from outside.2 Utopians differ from Polylerites because while they are also naturally and artificially protected from any foreign influence. Although Utopians want their frontiers to be fully hermetic to any foreign influence. others whom they have benefited they call simply friends. and the Utopians keep entire control on them. there is a special measure that provides for colonization. Utopians wield their jurisdiction over their neighbours in so far as “some free nations bordering on Utopia (the Utopians themselves previously liberated many of them from tyranny) have learned to admire the Utopian virtues. they nonetheless maintain relationships with their neighbours. “If the population throughout the entire island exceeds the quota. it is said. Secondly. instead of letting strangers come to fetch the goods” (79). On the other hand. immigrant workers are allowed to get in. in the name of humanity. However. they enrol citizens out of every city and plant a colony under their own laws on the mainland near them. Firstly. wherever the natives have plenty of unoccupied and uncultivated land”. Firstly. they take care to keep them porous to their own power upon the other nations. it assumes they are born rivals and enemies. “If a foreign prince takes up arms and prepares to invade their land. but governed by mere power relations. and are right in trying to destroy one another except when a treaty restrains them. there is a big difference between Utopian foreign policy and the Polylerite society that Hythloday had presented in the first book of Utopia. or to liberate an oppressed people. they send abroad some of their citizens with the title of Financial Factors” (95). the Utopians prefer to do their own transportation. but. that “no city wants to enlarge its boundaries” (44). mean that in some way their territory is open? Utopian territory is not open as such. Does the fact that Utopians import money. on their own grounds. Secondly. from tyranny and servitude” (85–86). lead wars. “As managers of these estates. or settle colonies. moreover. For they don’t like to wage war on their own soil” (95). Utopians do not accept any rule in this domain. but 121 . “They go to war only for good reasons: to protect their own land. on the one hand. They also accept immigrants to work for them – “hardworking penniless drudges from other nations who voluntarily choose to take service in Utopia” (80). as “such people are treated fairly. full citizenship is not enjoyed by all through all the land. They exercise an authority that is both legal and economic. “those who refuse to live under their laws the Utopians drive out of the land they claim for themselves” (56). employ immigrant workers.” but they make no treaties with anyone (86). to drive invading armies from the territories of their friends.” because “as for the export trade. (87) In the end. Utopians exert economic leadership over the adjacent countries.hatzenberger can but note that there are two obvious paradoxes in the second book of More’s Utopia. they immediately attack him full force outside their own borders. Utopian international relationships are not organized according to principles of justice.
are forced to remain in the Strangers’ House. “Amongst his other fundamental laws of his kingdom.” writes that More relegates sin “abroad. arts. It is not accidental that the most serious problems of Utopia. six members of Salomon’s House are sent abroad for strategic purposes. as thirty-seven years have passed without any stranger entering the land. By extending citizenship to all inhabitants. Utopians do not open their frontiers. The rare foreigners who have accidentally found access to this remote part of the world. a condition of utter despondency and degeneration outside the confines of the ideal commonwealth. and the ones to which More most insistently draws attention. This is always a problematic area in the best-commonwealth exercise. More eliminates this kind of boundary problem. nay. Bacon is more precise than More on the status of those who reach the shores – which is quite rare. The boundaries may be of class as well as of geography. simply because of the systemic nature of its approach to constitutional design. as shown by the first contact between the seamen and the inhabitants of Bensalem: As in Utopian law. and 122 . People from Bensalem “should sit at home” (144). as some people are allowed to travel. necessitates. and of the laws of secrecy which we have for our travellers. But the island does not completely cut itself from the rest of the world. into the confines of other nations” (288). Every twelve years. and very rarely. He imposed the cessation of all “traffic. and to whom its state gives “licence to stay on land for the space of six weeks” (135).” and that. The most disturbing aspects of the best commonwealths of Plato and Aristotle are the discrepancies between the quality of life of the full citizens of the polis and that of its other inhabitants. Since the point of the exercise is to secure the good life for those within the system.” the lawgiver of Bensalem “did ordain the interdicts and prohibitions … touching entrance of strangers” (144). and are ourselves unknown.3 The role of boundaries in the utopian model can be verified in Bacon’s New Atlantis. He asserts that “the dialectics of perfection thus creates.5 We find in New Atlantis the same dissymmetry as in Utopia: We of this island of Bensalem have this. Logan to say that “although [More’s] approach pushes the boundary problems out to a considerable distance it offers no solution to them” (245–46). and offered to land. (130) Bacon’s utopia also takes the shape of an island.” “intercourse” with the other parts of the world (143). They must bring back information about the “sciences. It is shown “how sufficient and substantive this land was to maintain itself without any aid at all of the foreigner. “doubting novelties. that by means of our solitary situation. but only as warning us off by signs that they made. But straightways we saw divers of the people. there must always be differences between the treatment of those inside and those outside its boundaries. they are still expressed in terms of “frontiers. This exception is made for a very small number of people. came close to the shore. we know well most part of the habitable world. manufactures. (136) Shlomo Avineri. yet without any cries or fierceness.islands and empire can be extended. as it were forbidding us to land. set “in the secret conclave of … a vast sea” (140). in his article on “War and Slavery in More’s Utopia.” 1. (244)3 we thinking every minute long till we were on land. and our rare admission of strangers. This situation has led George M. because all the dregs have been taken out of her realm and stored somewhere else. but push their boundaries further in function of their needs and their goodwill. are problems of foreign relations. Utopia can persevere in her purity and perfection.”4 Although the problems of foreign policy are interpreted here in religious terms.” and adds that “by an extraordinary feat of vicarious salvation. and commixture of manners” (144). But the problems of the geographical boundary remain.” “commerce. with bastons in their hands. a contradiction can be underlined in Bensalem’s attitude towards foreign countries. “the king had forbidden to all his people navigation into any part that was not under his crown” (146).
parallels can be made today between the boundaries of utopia and the frontiers of Europe. In “Frontières du monde.” one can trace back to the classical utopia the “permanence of a rule of closure and autarky associated to citizenship” (47. For him.) in the European Union. my trans. for Bacon. are the corresponding reflections about an alternative model not still tinted with utopian colours? 2. my trans.hatzenberger inventions of all the world” (146). the question of the boundaries is central. Indeed. These missions of industrial espionage are consistent with the principle of control over its own boundaries and confirm that any relation with the outside of the island is based on an unbalanced exchange. and mark the point where its existence stops. from local utopias to global utopia 2. They take. the landing rites imposed on the heroes of Bacon’s narrative resemble modern national boundaries and their cordon sanitaire. The demarcation lines are not suppressed but simply pushed back. my trans. the frontiers have moved place. exclusion is the necessary consequence of the existence of frontiers. frontiers should be on the edge of the territory. Etienne Balibar describes the problem in contemporary terms: What Balibar means is that internalized frontiers have a “function of social discrimination. People from Bensalem are willing “to have light of the growth of all parts of the world” (147). On this basis. in sharing the results of their own discoveries. (175. In the new context of what could be called the European utopia. how then could utopia mean a new global and democratic order? Once the dark assessment of the worldwide domination of capitalism and of the weakening of the sovereign nation-states has been made.1 This parallelism between New Atlantis and contemporary societies makes it obvious that some important problems and ambiguities intrinsic to the classical utopias are still relevant today. by the Venetian Lazaretto Nuovo. Frontiers of Politics).). defining a European citizenship necessarily leads to the “formulation of a rule of exclusion” (50). frontières de la politique” (Frontiers of the World. but they are not keen on enlightening the world with their knowledge. the problem of frontiers arises when one attempts to answer the following question in a utopian way: “Is a European citizenship possible?” According to “Une citoyenneté européenne est-elle possible?.” and 123 . In contrast to this state of affairs. but the construction of a supranational political body. Although the closure of the island of Bensalem and the measures taken by its inhabitants to prevent communications were inspired.2 A notable example of the attempts to recognize the political dimension in the process of globalization is provided by those researchers who work to define “cosmopolitan democracy. That is why Balibar affirms that “our problem … consists in taking leave of utopia” (Avant-propos [Preface] 12. and can help us to reflect on the difficulties in defining a postmodern utopia: not only the organization of peaceful relations between different nations. which was conceived in the seventeenth century as a protection against the plague. it appears that frontiers and their corresponding institutional practices have moved to the middle of the political space. This is a criticism of the Schengen agreement that erased the frontiers within the space of the European Union.) 2. While traditionally and in accordance with their legal notion as well as with the “cartographic” representation embodied in the national imaginary. According to Balibar’s analysis. while reinforcing the controls on the new external borders. as Michèle Le Dœuff notes (103). “Bacon’s work astonishes us because it speaks to us in such an odd fashion about things which have since become extremely banal” (30–31. my trans. and avoiding the hurt” (145).).” and that they create a state of “apartheid” on a transnational level (180). but they do not give away: this is the paradox of this selective closure “preserving the good which cometh by communicating with strangers.
in “The United Nations and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bad Dream. defined in racial.. the transformation of the United Nations] appear utopian” (327).” Richard Falk affirms that “at present. is destined to end up as a kind of ghetto. (206) This rejection of the localist solution to globalization targets both the nostalgic return to the past form of the nation-state. on the plane of immanence.” the “localist position” is today both “false and damaging” (44). and power – a materialist teleology. He states that “the framework for utopia is cosmopolitan democratic law” (266). a utopia. but a distinctive logic of political intervention” (249). When. because this project is based on “a dialectic between the ideal and the real” (276). “any postmodern liberation must be achieved within this world. Cosmopolitan democracy is. be linked to an expanding framework of democratic institutions and procedures” (267). For him. If utopia is to be embedded.e.6 According to Held.islands and empire the reforms which its implementation would require. and considers that: today. (286) 2. Contrary to a loose understanding of the term “utopia. but the realm of postnational politics and reunited humanity. we must push through Empire to come out the other side. and plans for future utopian communities. In Democracy and the Global Order. it seems [to him] inappropriate to dismiss as utopian the prospect of cosmopolitan democracy as the basis for a dynamic world order” (328). he is using the term “utopia” in the common and negative sense. on the contrary. (66) Beyond the Morean form of utopia would lie not a global federal state.3 A more radical theory of political globalization was given by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in Empire. local autonomy. “cosmopolitan democracy is … not a utopian project superimposed by way of the political imagination. the desire of the multitude is not the cosmopolitical state but a common 124 . it must be linked into patterns and movements as they are. accordingly. Utopian Fantasy. its creation. “delinked” from Empire. Any proposition of a particular community in isolation. but is rooted in the evolving norms and patterns of practice in the life-world of political behaviour” (316). Political Project. however. religious. David Held notes that “agencies and organizations … often cut across the territorial boundaries of nation-states. “As a result.”7 for Held “to create a framework for utopia demands not an abdication of politics in the name of liberty and experimentation. production. Despite what appears to be a firm refusal of the utopian model. They thus remain within the utopian realm in its larger sense. They insist on not being mistaken for utopians: There is not finally here [in this immanent desire that organizes the multitude] any determinism or utopia: this is rather a radical counterpower. in a specific sense. “It is false to claim that we can (re)establish local identities that are in some sense outside and protected against the global flows of capital and Empire” (45).” and affirms that “the possibility of democracy today must. a millenarian appeal can. any attempt to set out a position of what could be called “embedded utopianism” must begin from where we are (the existing pattern of political relations and processes) and from an analysis of what might be (desirable political forms and principles). For Hardt and Negri. Rather. clouds on the horizon make such expectations [i. for example when they state that: “Outside every Enlightenment cloud or Kantian reverie. nor move forward in isolation. Empire cannot be resisted by a project aimed at a limited. shielded from its powers by fixed boundaries. ontologically grounded not on any “vide pour le futur” but on the actual activity of the multitude. be perceived in certain passages of Empire. We cannot move back to any previous social form. it is not a utopia in the sense that it is not a “pipe dream” (277). The cosmopolitan model of democracy requires “that the territorial boundaries of systems of accountability be recast” (267). According to their strategy of “alternatives within Empire. with no possibility of any even utopian outside” (65). however. or regional terms.
”9 discovered at the same time as America. as the strangers seeking refuge in New Atlantis themselves note. there have been different components in utopian projects. Indeed. it is the singular power of a new city” (395). Wealth inside means poverty outside. as well as Held and Balibar. because the kingdom of France by itself is almost too much for one man to govern. then. Hardt and Negri ask questions that are relevant to the debate on utopia. means that the virtual centre of Empire can be attacked from any point” (59). Let us remember that Utopia was 125 . but a rich reservoir of new ideas – and thus utopia can still be used as a think-tank for the period we live in. They are chased out of the countryside and become vagrants. seaman. In Held’s view.hatzenberger species. Bacon’s message is not entirely uniform.11 This is a strong criticism of any imperialist politics of conquest.1 This intertwinement of the local and the global is probably what gives utopia its contemporary significance. did comfort us not a little” (130). In the end. Secondly. it just needs to be made more apparent. Raphael would tell the king that he “should leave Italy alone and stay at home. Hythloday criticizes European relations of the time in general. insatiable glutton. and that consequently it is a perpetual living mirror of the universe. may enclose many thousands of acres within a single hedge” (19) is that the dispossessed have no choice but to leave. Bacon’s New Atlantis is located between Peru. can we construct a powerful non-place and realize it concretely. utopia inside out 3. and of each with all the rest. a frightful plague to his native country. they give answers that are also of interest to utopians: “The multitude is not formed simply by throwing together and mixing nations and people indifferently. and a significant warning against any attempt to expand the boundaries in a violent way. Firstly.8 Finally. For Balibar. Raphael Hythloday. and particularly the Italian wars of Francis I. is familiar with the most remote places of the earth like Ceylon or Calicut. Utopia is an image of the world. and what Leibniz says about the monad can be said about utopia: “Now this connection or adaptation of all created things with each. “local transformation is as much an element of globalization as the lateral extension of social relations across space” (278). means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others. “Global citizenship is the multitude’s power to reappropriate control over space and thus to design the new cartography” (400). In this perspective. the outer world is in a way present in utopia. heir of Ulysses and Plato. there is no contradiction between the parts and the whole. The solution cannot be clear-cut. Hythloday’s criticism of the system of enclosures being implemented in England at the time can be interpreted as an internal metaphoric objection against utopian closure (understood as an economical barrier between two social groups). China and Japan. attempt to describe is that of a possible opposition between the local and the global level. the bodies are mixed and the nomads speak a common tongue” (362). The problem that Hardt and Negri. and the globalization of economic and cultural relationships. As in a secular Pentecost. for Hardt and Negri “the construction of Empire. To the following question: “if we are consigned to the nonplace of Empire. As he demonstrates. More presents several models of international relations. and one might have expected that this would make Utopia open to other worlds. Utopias are not a series of dogmas. because in the end there is no radical gap between the two. on the other side. From the very birth of the genre. and companion of Amerigo Vespucci.10 If he were able to. and the King should not dream of adding others to it” (30). While “preserving the good which cometh 3. Despite their initial anti-utopian stance. as the terrain of a postmodern republicanism?” (208). In the first book of Utopia. the effect of the fact that “one greedy. Similarly. the necessary process of “democratization of the frontiers” is a “global–local” problem (“Frontières” 181). there are some passages in More’s Utopia that can be read as criticisms guarding against the dangers of utopian closure. “The denial of landing and hasty warning us away troubled us much. to find that the people … were so full of humanity.
in taking order and making provision for the relief of strangers distressed” (144). do utopians not have to take into account the existing links with the other islands. To do so requires a questioning of the opposition between the local and the global. a “morality of the feeling of humanity” animates the inhabitants of Bensalem (126). Giving the right to land and to set foot on the territory is the first step towards solidarity and peaceful relations. contrary to the situation in the sixteenth. the interval of frontiers and limits by way of a horizon that closes a site and opens up a space. in “The Frontiers of Utopia. Bacon’s utopia can be interpreted as an incentive to think about the status of asylum seekers.islands and empire by communicating with strangers. the utopian spirit appears to live on in the most radical projects of our time. “The island outside-of-theworld transcends the divisions in so far as it lays down a universal moral reality more desirable than the particular attachment to the region from where one comes” (Le Dœuff 128). the utopias of a new global order. firstly. and a slight shift in the debate about utopia from the classical questions of its place and time to the questions of its size and its foreseeable developments and adaptations. it seems peculiar to utopia as a genre to contain antidotes against its own possible excesses. and on how to create a global citizenship. After having dialectically considered. one can support Louis Marin’s claim.” the lawgiver of Bensalem “hath preserved all points of humanity. On the other hand. or even the nineteenth centuries. New Atlantis contains reflections that are still relevant to the situation of the refugees of the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries.” (10) 3. the role of Hythloday. utopia as an island and. the ironical tone). There is no longer any refuge elsewhere. seventeenth. could perhaps contribute to a new comprehension of utopia (as cosmopolitan utopia). despite strong contemporary criticism of the concept of utopia. As Le Dœuff says. when sketching the blueprint for a better life. 126 . when keeping in mind the literary specificities of More’s Utopia (the dual structure of the two books. Following the theorists who reflect today on how democracy can be better institutionalized on a global level. however. On a definitional level. the island Utopia merging into the “indefinite. today there is no New World left to be discovered and therefore no escape possible from the old continent. Drawing the boundaries too sharply is indeed a way to avoid addressing some important difficulties intrinsic to the communication between a community and that which lies outside and to the implementation of principles of justice in international relations. utopians should consider this possible opportunity for expanding the framework of utopia. it is necessary to engage with the problem of its limits – in the two senses of the term. A critical point of view is inherent to the classical model of utopia. and contribute to defining what a possible contemporary utopia could be. Thus.2 On the one hand.” that “Utopia is the figure of the horizon” (11): On a geopolitical level. an island in between two kingdoms. the two halves of the world. secondly. then. who are at the same time stateless and virtually citizens of the world.12 This is the merging place of Utopia: a neutral place. and avoiding the hurt. More’s and Bacon’s works contain analyses that can therefore be the theoretical basis of a critique of the changes occurring in world politics. Without the foreigners being directly in contact with the people from Bensalem (as they have not yet landed). Engaging with these questions. two States. they are already in a relationship of humanity with them. and rereading side by side both the first canonical utopias and contemporary proposals of new ways of considering political relations on a worldwide level. a few conclusions can be drawn from these reflections on the problem of the frontiers of utopia. and together build a common strategy of resistance against the mainland of the state? When reflecting on the question of the frontiers of utopia.
1934). the internal closure by which society prevents its own members from seeking elsewhere a means of altering it. Brabant and the whole of Burgundy. I think they are hardly known by name to anyone but their next-door neighbours. but to note that this doubt will be removed by the play of contending aspirations. Indeed. since More is functioning as a city-state theorist. then it contributes to this possibility by an engagement in a struggle to bring it about. (More 23) 3 “More is acting not as a world-state theorist. (Moreau 45. 1974). 8 See also Falk: “The global village dimensions of social. (Falk 328) 7 Held is referring to Robert Nozick. free and subject only to their own laws … Living far from the sea. is to posit a sense of uncertainty about the future. even if this demands however that it remain informed about what can be integrated without damage. they are nearly surrounded by mountains. the globalizing trends could indeed eventuate in a dystopia. and easily protect themselves behind their mountains … Thus they fight no wars. and that to the extent that cosmopolitan democracy is accepted as the most beneficial future for humanity. The voluntary closure. “Utopian ethics is not based on a universal basis” (263). and live in a comfortable rather than a glorious manner. his object is to secure the real interests of the citizens of Utopia. In the case of More’s Utopia. the emphases are mine. Mary Morris (London: Dent. they make no effort to enlarge their boundaries. By ancient tradition. but as a secular city-state theorist”. and trans. my trans. 4 “Utopia appears as a centre of a loose yet wellordered community of nations.) 6 Yet it would be foolhardy to be optimistic about its real transformative impact unless present intimations are bolstered by currently unforeseen developments. next add to his realm Flanders. 10 [C]ouncillors hard at work devising a set of crafty machinations by which the King might keep hold of Milan and recover Naples … then overthrow the Venetians and subdue all Italy. then. not those of humanity in general” (Logan 235). as King Utopus caused an artificial channel to be dug. which the refusal of foreigners deployed in the arsenal of precautions taken and secrets prudently unveiled represents … Lastly. 56 in Philosophical Writings by Leibniz. 9 Leibniz. more contented than ambitious or famous. not badly governed. premeditated plan of securing for Utopia absolute security and eventual hegemony” (262). whether of the classical or the Christian variety. “Moreover. State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell. If in any ordinary society holiness and corruption live side by side. are being judged by the same criteria and are subject to the same regulations.hatzenberger notes 1 In the quotes from More’s Utopia. clearly set apart from the world as it is. In this regard. What is proposed. not sharing the Utopian social system. thus making materially perceptible the difference between this state and the other states and the nearly impossible effort one has to agree to make to reach it. it is causing life to be very much like hell to all other nations” (264). but being utterly dependent upon Utopia in their foreign policy and having Utopians as their rulers” (Avineri 261). and as they are content with the products of their own land … they have little to do with other nations. “If Utopia is a paradise for its own inhabitants. besides some 127 . 2 They are a sizeable nation. the separation is even physical. Anarchy. “This Utopian imperium … is based on a preconceived. (288) 5 Everything follows on in an exemplary manner: the natural and geographical closure – which makes a journey necessary. The Monadology sect. Utopian thinking has to divorce the saints from the villains and keep them apart. ed. economic and cultural reality can only be addressed within bounded space if they are also addressed in relation to unbounded space” (326). a kind of bad dream come true. and are not much visited. thus making Utopia an island.
1998.2 (1962): 260–90. “War and Slavery in More’s Utopia. “Frontières du monde. David. Ed. Avant-propos. 2002.” International Review of Social History 7.” La Nouvelle Atlantide. Pierre-François. Stanford: Stanford UP. Robert L. Etienne. 1997. Thomas. Michèle Le Dœuff and Margaret Llasera. Works. Moreau. Antoine Hatzenberger 20 rue Eugène Varlin 75010 Paris France E-mail: hatz@club-internet.” Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy.fr . Balibar. “Voyage dans la pensée baroque. London: Longman. Ed. improve it as much as possible. Mary Morris.” Utopias and the Millennium. Falk. 12 See Hassner. George M. Heath. Etienne. Logan. cultivate it in every conceivable way” (More 31). The Meaning of More’s Utopia. and trans. Cambridge: Polity. Cambridge. 1989. In Philosophical Writings by Leibniz. Krishnan Kumar and Stephen Bann. Empire.islands and empire other nations he has long had in mind to invade. “The Frontiers of Utopia. Held. Hardt. Ed. London: Reaktion. Gottfried Wilhelm. London: Dent. Balibar. James Spedding. Balibar. Droit de cité. Ellis and Douglas D. Louis. “Refugees: A Special Case for Cosmopolitan Citizenship. Marin. (More 29) 11 Hythloday would advise the king “to look after his ancestral kingdom.” Leibniz. Le Dœuff. the Achorians in the first book of Utopia: “The worthy king was obliged to be content with his own realm” (31). Cf. Political Project. Utopia. 3. Paris: Payot. l’etat. Cambridge: Polity. Ed. Pierre.“Une citoyenneté européenne estelle possible?” 1995. Hassner. frontières de la politique. George M. MA: Harvard UP. Stanford: Stanford UP. Ed. 1993. 2000. David Held and Martin Köhler. 1983. Paris: PUF. Michèle. The Monadology. Adams. “Refugees: A Special Case for Cosmopolitan Citizenship. bibliography Avineri.” 1998. Etienne. 1982. Ed. New Atlantis. Logan and Robert M. Daniele Archibugi. Cambridge: Polity. Shlomo. 1934.” Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. 1857. Michael and Antonio Negri. Droit de cité. “The United Nations and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bad Dream. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Francis. Le récit utopique: Droit naturel et roman de l’etat. citoyens d’Europe? Les frontières. Paris: La Découverte. 2001. 1983. Vol. Paris: PUF. Richard. le peuple. Princeton: Princeton UP. Paris: PUF. More. Utopian Fantasy. Nous. 1998. Daniele Archibugi. Ed. 2002. David Held and Martin Köhler. Bacon. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.