Introduction to Ideologies and Utopias Ideology

According to Paul Ricoeur 1991, in terms of the social imaginary concept idea, that defines our political, cultural, and social communities, “the truth of our condition” is accessible to us only through a certain number of imaginative practices, among them, ideology and utopia” (Ricoeur 1991, 181-185). In everyday speech we tend to think of ideology in terms of ideologues, in the context of the liberal-conservative “debates” of the presidential election cycles or in terms of “judicial activism” and nominees to the Supreme Court. Philosophically, ideology is associated first with Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia and, most conspicuously, with Karl Marx’s critique of ideology in The German Ideology and elsewhere (Ricoeur 1991, 181-185).

However, while ideology does serve to cement certain culturally constructed ideas and perspectives, Ricoeur warns us that it “cannot be reduced to the function of distortion and dissimulation, as Marxism would have it.” Ideology is a necessary part of group identity, and it does not always work as an instrument of domination or oppression. Following Max Weber, Ricoeur (1986, 150) points out that ideology is constituted on the most basic level of social action and meaningful behaviour.

“Ideology… [is] tied to the necessity of any group to give itself an image of itself, to ‘play itself’ in the theatrical sense of the word, to put itself at issue and on stage.” In other words, ideology is constitutive of any social identity. There is no social group that does not relate to its own being, at least in part, through such an imaginary representation of itself. Every group has a “face” that it presents to the world and that face is something members of the group shape and develop through the interpretation of relevant symbols and stories. We narrate and describe who we are, what makes us “us” and not “them”.

However, the omnipresence of ideology does not eliminate the element of distortion that Marx identifies or the possibility that such distortion can overwhelm and obscure the positive aspects of ideology. The pathological aspect of ideology comes from its function of reinforcing and repeating the social tie in situations that are after-the-fact. Simplification, schematization, stereotyping, and ritualization arise out of a distance that never ceases to grow between real practice and the interpretations through which the group becomes conscious of its existence and its practice (Ricoeur 1986, 150). The distance between the events that a group claims as significant and the interpretation after the fact of those events leaves open the possibility not only of distortion via simplification and ritualization, but also the possibilities of active dissimulation. Vicious expressions of patriotism and nationalism - which manifest themselves in parochialism, scapegoating, racism, sectarianism, and, at the extreme, “ethnic cleansing” and genocide - are examples of pathological ideology. The possibility of a pathological expression of ideology is especially acute when ideology is co-opted by systems of power or authority, as in the case of various totalitarian regimes. “The function of dissimulation clearly wins out over the function of integration when ideological representations are captured by the system of authority in any given society. (Because) all authority seeks to legitimate itself.” (Mannheim 1954)

According to Mannheim (Ricoeur 1991, 181-185), an utopia can emerge from a single individual. However, this individual’s ideas must be translated into action by a collectivity to bring about social change. Four historical ideal types of utopia are identified by Mannheim: orgiastic chiliasm (carried by the lower strata), liberal-humanitarian (carried by the bourgeoisie and intellectuals), conservative (carried by the

Mannheim lists four main varieties of utopias. “Orgiastic chiliasm” utopia is ecstatic oriented, and tends to be unreflective and irrational. Persons who embrace such doctrines tend to be of the lowest stratum in society. “Liberal-humanitarian” kind of utopia tends to be adopted by the middle class intellectuals. It is a bourgeoisie vision grounded in rationality that sees society moving slowly but steadily in the desired positive direction. “Conservative” utopia is the reactionary response to the first two types of expressions. Such individuals want the world to continue as it is. Emphasis may be placed on the worthwhile traditions from the past that make it imperative to continue to keep things as they are. “Socialist-communist” utopia is aimed at overthrowing the present system in favour of a new, classless society.

In what form a utopia is presented, it must be without distortions or colorations due to personal and local views and notions. Of course, there are many different kinds of utopias and therefore utopia must be defined in terms of its form rather than its content. Unlike ideology, utopia does not engage in dissimulation; it is what it says it is - the imaginary project of another reality (Ricoeur 1991). The central idea of utopia is expressed in the literal meaning of the word as u-topos, that is, a no-place. Such an a-topographic space the field of the possible extends beyond the real, helping us to imagine other realities, other ways of living and being. According to Ricoeur, the

“extraterritoriality” of utopia allows us to “take a fresh look at our reality.” It allows us to rethink “the nature of family, consumption, government, religion, and so on”. Utopian thinking is prominent in environmental visions of a carbon-neutral society, or in abandoning globalization in favour of local economies.

Utopia and ideology are, like yin and yang, in constant, interdependent movement against each other. Thus, utopias not only critique and subvert power; they offer alternative ways of arranging and deploying power. A social system cannot live on

utopias; such a society will be an “enlightened one”, indeed, in the same way society without utopias will be a “static one” (Ricoeur 1991, 185). So, ideology and utopia resist and oppose each other; and, in addition, each form harbours within itself a pathological excess.

How are we to proceed in the face of these difficulties? “First, we must come together to think of ideology and utopia in terms of their most positive, most constructive and most healthy modalities.” We must try to hold together the integrative function of ideology and the subversive function of utopia. Although these two phenomena may appear mutually exclusive, in fact they dialectically imply each other. The chiasmus of ideology and utopia is the result of two fundamental directions of the social imaginary:

(1) the move toward “integration, repetition and reflection” and (2) the “eccentric tendency toward wandering.” This chiasmus is irreducible (Ricoeur 1991, 185).

Therefore people need to adapt and humanise these fundamental utopian laws to their own cultural, environmental, economic contexts. Disappearance of ideologies will make the world a dull place, without diversity and new vision, but the disappearance of utopian thinking will bury the world in the pit of delusions and self-illusions of “false consciousness” (Mannheim 1954).