Interesting! I aspire to write about a multiversity of challenged utopian projects. My inspiration comes from Judith Butler's undoing gender. Her suggestion is the opposite of simplicity. She says something like the task of all these movements is to cease legislating the lives of others to quit prescribing for all what is livable only for some. And the goal is a livable existence for all. When I include the land and all beings, even more complexity comes in. I think that what makes this kind of sci-fi dystopia simplicity horrible, especially with this contained production of deviance, is partly what we can imagine we would experience with an AI ruler. As you say, it has to do with what we mean by humanity (and nature) which is messy and chaotic and flawed and ingenious. Perfectionism is also hell.
This is like, getting into metaphysical stuff, but I think what you're describing is that simplified societies (dystopias) cancel the dialectics of history. Without contradictions (things social planners see as imperfections, deviancy) there is no chance for process to synthethize and give rise to new things. Society can't unfold into new configurations, in a dystopia there is no future, just the unchanging present. Also the horrific aspect might be evolutionary: the process of civilization and even natural selection is getting away from simple forms into more complex ones. Evolutionarily we might also see simple things as inanimate, pliable, while complex things are living, agentive.
Lovely piece and spot on as always. I've only been to Paris once, but it seemed to me that the Haussman reforms of the 1860s were aimed at eliminating all that complex medieval messiness...with the result that it's now hard to observe Paris's medieval past (we did manage to visit all the few Roman remnants). So I guess Le Corbusier's plan was along similar lines, just a lot more radical.
Reminds me of the Panopticon. A great idea that increases efficiency and is incredibly practicle, but is utterly abhorrent to build and work within. Subtle horror, on a nearly metaphysical level. Horror movies and games are the main examples of the design.
On a smaller and mundane level there are those metro lines that opt to 'induce conversation' by facing seat at each other and far too close. Awkward silence as one person spreads legs and the other person tucks together is the end result.
Simple solutions to complex entities can not exist without eventual subversion or rejection.
Fascinating (to me) that the source of horror caused by dystopias (and utopias) is the underlying premise of the indictment of culturally-imposed monogamy in "Sex at Dawn." 🤫
"I’m reminded of a theory (again, grad student) from evolutionary biology that we each have slightly different DNA to protect us from viruses. It’s like having six billion combination locks instead of one; a virus that cracks one person’s code can’t automatically crack everybody's. Our diversity is, literally, our strength. The same genetic variation that gives us different immune systems also gives us different minds. And that means nothing, literally nothing, is loved or hated by every single human."
Even going beyond human preferences, nature itself seems to want (update: see Étienne's reflection on this phrasing, below) to create endless variety among living organisms. This is speculation, but perhaps that's in part to help ensure that at least some types of life, however few, always will survive the various types of near-extinction events that occasionally strike our planet?
All utopias are dystopias. Any society simple enough to be engineered is too simple to embrace humanity.
Interesting! I aspire to write about a multiversity of challenged utopian projects. My inspiration comes from Judith Butler's undoing gender. Her suggestion is the opposite of simplicity. She says something like the task of all these movements is to cease legislating the lives of others to quit prescribing for all what is livable only for some. And the goal is a livable existence for all. When I include the land and all beings, even more complexity comes in. I think that what makes this kind of sci-fi dystopia simplicity horrible, especially with this contained production of deviance, is partly what we can imagine we would experience with an AI ruler. As you say, it has to do with what we mean by humanity (and nature) which is messy and chaotic and flawed and ingenious. Perfectionism is also hell.
This essay made me smashy fist on the table in a Eureka moment! Great work.
This is like, getting into metaphysical stuff, but I think what you're describing is that simplified societies (dystopias) cancel the dialectics of history. Without contradictions (things social planners see as imperfections, deviancy) there is no chance for process to synthethize and give rise to new things. Society can't unfold into new configurations, in a dystopia there is no future, just the unchanging present. Also the horrific aspect might be evolutionary: the process of civilization and even natural selection is getting away from simple forms into more complex ones. Evolutionarily we might also see simple things as inanimate, pliable, while complex things are living, agentive.
Lovely piece and spot on as always. I've only been to Paris once, but it seemed to me that the Haussman reforms of the 1860s were aimed at eliminating all that complex medieval messiness...with the result that it's now hard to observe Paris's medieval past (we did manage to visit all the few Roman remnants). So I guess Le Corbusier's plan was along similar lines, just a lot more radical.
Reminds me of the Panopticon. A great idea that increases efficiency and is incredibly practicle, but is utterly abhorrent to build and work within. Subtle horror, on a nearly metaphysical level. Horror movies and games are the main examples of the design.
On a smaller and mundane level there are those metro lines that opt to 'induce conversation' by facing seat at each other and far too close. Awkward silence as one person spreads legs and the other person tucks together is the end result.
Simple solutions to complex entities can not exist without eventual subversion or rejection.
Fascinating (to me) that the source of horror caused by dystopias (and utopias) is the underlying premise of the indictment of culturally-imposed monogamy in "Sex at Dawn." 🤫
Have you ever read Foucault on the distinction between the utopia and heterotopia?
That human need for variety may even have deep evolutionary roots?
Per Adam Mastroianni (@experimentalhistory), https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/this-movie-has-a-3-on-rotten-tomatoes:
"I’m reminded of a theory (again, grad student) from evolutionary biology that we each have slightly different DNA to protect us from viruses. It’s like having six billion combination locks instead of one; a virus that cracks one person’s code can’t automatically crack everybody's. Our diversity is, literally, our strength. The same genetic variation that gives us different immune systems also gives us different minds. And that means nothing, literally nothing, is loved or hated by every single human."
Even going beyond human preferences, nature itself seems to want (update: see Étienne's reflection on this phrasing, below) to create endless variety among living organisms. This is speculation, but perhaps that's in part to help ensure that at least some types of life, however few, always will survive the various types of near-extinction events that occasionally strike our planet?