Showing papers in "Utopian Studies in 2003"

Changing the World: American Progressives in War and Revolution

Abstract: In May of 1919, women from around the world gathered in Zurich, Switzerland, and proclaimed, "We dedicate ourselves to peace!" Just months after the end of World War I, the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom - a group led by American progressive Jane Addams and comprising veteran campaigners for social reform - knew that a peaceful world was essential to their ongoing quest for social and economic justice. Alan Dawley tells the story of American progressives during the decade spanning World War I and its aftermath. He shows how they laid the foundation for progressive internationalism in their efforts to improve the world both at home and abroad. Unlike other accounts of the progressive movement - and of American politics in general - this book fuses social and international history. Dawley shows how interventions in Latin America and Europe affected domestic plans for social reform and civic engagement, and he depicts internal battles among progressives between unabashed imperialists like Theodore Roosevelt and their implacable opponents like Robert La Follette. He draws a contrast between Woodrow Wilson's use of force in exporting American ideals and Addams's more cosmopolitan pursuit of economic justice and world peace. In discussing the debate over the League of Nations within the context of turbulent domestic affairs, Dawley brings keen insight into that complicated moment in American history. In striking and original ways, Dawley brings together domestic and world affairs to argue that American progressivism cannot be understood apart from its international context. Focusing on world-historical events of empire, revolution, war, and peace, he shows how American reformers invented a new politics built around progressive internationalism. Changing the World retrieves the progressive tradition in American politics and makes it available to contemporary debates. The book speaks to anyone seeking to be both a good citizen within the nation and a good citizen of today's troubled world.

Fabricating the Future: Becoming Bloch's Utopians

Abstract: Ernst Bloch's depiction of existence as experienced under "the continu ing spell of static living and thinking" (The Principle of Hope, 139 emphasis mine) stands as a diagnosis, a warning, and, vitally, a response; it is an "icono clastic rebellion against [ ] reification" (Bloch and Adorno 11) which is polyvalent and pervasive Opposing the static spell, and thinking the world as possibility lies at the heart of Bloch's utopia(n vision) The aim of this essay is not simply definitional (utopia according to Bloch) although that task will form a crucial part Rather, the aim of this essay is a political inter vention: in short, I will argue that when a Blochian creative epistemology of the possible is posited as the central Utopian dynamic, then the modality of Utopian theorising changes from a potentially legislative, substantive mode, to a * fictive' mode of process So far, not much new I will further argue that the politics this generates resolutely resists any attempt to reduce the possible to the given This means utopia cannot blueprint or legislate a polity Again, not much new: debates in Utopian studies cover this area1 But I will conclude that this is by no means a political concession or a weaken ing of Utopian thought Rather, when the lines of thought which underpin Utopian theorising change direction from future perfect to intransitive verb, this does not mean any loss of political affectivity, but indeed a gain I claim ethical advantages for a mode of theorising which recognises its fictive modality This needs explanation Utopia is invoked by those who are "not content to accept the bad which exists, do [ ] not accept renunciation" (The Principle of Hope, 3)

Janus-Faced Fictions: Socialism as Utopia and Dystopia in William Morris and George Orwell *

Abstract: Consider the following plot scenario for a literary work. A married Englishman of strong left-wing views, who has partly earned his bread as a journalist, arrives by train at a revolutionary city on the Continent, and wit nesses a society transformed. Red flags are flying, the people are happy, a feeling of fellowship inspires him with hope for a better day, although the country is involved in a larger war which it is destined to lose. But in the city, the forces of reaction launch an attack against the revolutionary ele ments. Our hero participates in the street fighting, is later wounded, and having recovered is amazed to learn that his comrades are dead or impris oned, and he must flee for his life. He crosses the border in the guise of a respectable English visitor and escapes to the green fields of his home. But despite the failure of the revolution, his socialist zeal remains undimin ished.... The author of this piece was a man awakened to political con sciousness by his opposition to British imperialism, and was himself, among other things, a journalist and a revolutionary socialist. By the end of his life he had despaired of the imminence of the revolution and moved toward a greater accommodation with existing political institutions, but his belief in the necessity and desirability of the socialist ideal never faltered. Finally, his most famous and arguably greatest work was in the Utopian genre. This description, surprisingly at first sight, fits William Morris and his 1885 poem about the Paris Commune, The Pilgrims of Hope, as well as it does George Orwell and his Spanish Civil War documentary Homage to Catalonia, published in 1938. But short of drawing parallels where none exist, there can be no question of any direct influence by Morris upon Orwell. Morris is rarely mentioned in Orwell's writings, and when he does appear it is either as a "dull, empty windbag" and patron saint of "the outer-suburban creeping Jesus," in The Road to Wigan Pier (162), or, at a later stage of Orwell's political development, as a valuable reminder of socialism's "orig inal, half-forgotten objective of human brotherhood" ("Review: The Soul of Man" 428) and an admirable "Utopian dreamer" (qtd. in Crick, "Orwell" 18, from the 1946 review "What is Socialism?"). Orwell's positive refer ences to the concept of the earthly paradise and specifically to News from Nowhere in these reviews of the late 1940s show not only a surface famil iarity with but a newfound esteem for Morris's work, although general stabs at "wooly-minded Utopianism" (qtd. in Ward 40, from the 1948 Observer

Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture

Abstract: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 12:45:00 GMT millenarianism and messianism in early pdf Millenarianism (also millenarism), from Latin mÄ«llÄ“nÄ•rius \"containing a thousand\", is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming fundamental transformation of society, after which \"all things will be changed\". Millenarianism exists in various cultures and religions worldwide, with various interpretations of ... Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:12:00 GMT Millenarianism Wikipedia Messianism is the belief in the advent of a messiah who acts as the savior or liberator of a group of people. Religions with a messiah concept include Zoroastrianism , Judaism (the Mashiach), Buddhism , Hinduism , Taoism , and Bábism (He whom God shall make manifest). Wed, 30 Jan 2019 05:16:00 GMT Messianism Wikipedia Published Essays and Articles *before a title means that it has been reprinted (sometimes in revised form) in one of my books. **before a title means that it is reprinted in Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World around the New Testament: Collected Essays I (WUNT 233; TÃ1⁄4bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:53:00 GMT Richard Bauckham Published Essays and Articles Being stripped naked could be the economic collapse of the USA prophecied by Locutions.org and being conquered by the communists as prophesied by Sr. Lucia of Fatima , Garabandal , and recently by John Mariani 21. Catholic Prophecy Thereâ€TMs a lot of talk these days about the “Deep State,― especially among supporters of President Trump, some of whom believe that this Deep State is working hard to destroy anyone loyal to Trump, both inside and outside of the government, and ultimately, Trump himself. Trump, JFK, and the Deep State, by Jack Ravenwood The ... -

On Law and Utopia: Rules vs. Principles?-A Comment on Ramiro Aviles's Reply *. (Discussion)

Abstract: engaged in just that: visions of a Utopian society. It is therefore worthwhile to understand the conceptual elements of a Utopian society; practical and theoret ical insights derived from such understandings can prove useful to the study of law, and vice-versa. Among them is the understanding, brought forth by Pro fessor Avil?s, that there is no necessary contradiction between a legalistic society?that is, a society based on the rule of law?and a Utopian society. We subscribe to Ramiro Avil?s's convincing arguments on that point. The purpose of the essay that sparked the debate (Almog) was to illus trate, through literary narratives, the very same notion, namely the possibility, if not the inevitability, of law in human utopia. The two stories demonstrate, in our opinion, that in a Utopian state?as defined by the system itself, in this case Judaism?law exists and people turn to law. Thus the prevalent view that 'the better the society is the fewer laws there will be,' should not necessarily be accepted. In fact, the literary examples point to the contrary.1 As a matter of Utopian theory, our debate with Professor Ramiro Avil?s is not so much about the essence of definition of Utopia?we can accept, for the sake of argument, Ramiro Avil?s's theoretical distinction between the types of ideal societies.2 The debate, it seems, centers on the nature of law. Professor Ramiro Avil?s claims that the literary examples put forward do not support the conclusion that law has a place in Utopia, because these two stories are not examples of rule-based legalistic decisions. We should distin guish, Professor Ramiro Avil?s correctly notes, between a rule-based and a feg /-rules-based society. Professor Ramiro Avil?s then proceeds to explore the judgments in the two examples, and suggests that the decisions of the Messiah and King of Kasiah are exercises of authority in a highly discre tional, ad-hoc fashion, via informal procedures, by rulers who base their legitimacy on tradition or charisma, rather than on Weberian bureaucratic rationality. This model of adjudication, that cannot guarantee predictability and certainty as it is not grounded on any prefixed rules, is a far cry from a legal-rules-based society, according to Professor Avil?s.

On Law and Utopia: Rules vs. Principles? — A Comment on Ramiro Avilés's Reply

Abstract: engaged in just that: visions of a Utopian society. It is therefore worthwhile to understand the conceptual elements of a Utopian society; practical and theoret ical insights derived from such understandings can prove useful to the study of law, and vice-versa. Among them is the understanding, brought forth by Pro fessor Avil?s, that there is no necessary contradiction between a legalistic society?that is, a society based on the rule of law?and a Utopian society. We subscribe to Ramiro Avil?s's convincing arguments on that point. The purpose of the essay that sparked the debate (Almog) was to illus trate, through literary narratives, the very same notion, namely the possibility, if not the inevitability, of law in human utopia. The two stories demonstrate, in our opinion, that in a Utopian state?as defined by the system itself, in this case Judaism?law exists and people turn to law. Thus the prevalent view that 'the better the society is the fewer laws there will be,' should not necessarily be accepted. In fact, the literary examples point to the contrary.1 As a matter of Utopian theory, our debate with Professor Ramiro Avil?s is not so much about the essence of definition of Utopia?we can accept, for the sake of argument, Ramiro Avil?s's theoretical distinction between the types of ideal societies.2 The debate, it seems, centers on the nature of law. Professor Ramiro Avil?s claims that the literary examples put forward do not support the conclusion that law has a place in Utopia, because these two stories are not examples of rule-based legalistic decisions. We should distin guish, Professor Ramiro Avil?s correctly notes, between a rule-based and a feg /-rules-based society. Professor Ramiro Avil?s then proceeds to explore the judgments in the two examples, and suggests that the decisions of the Messiah and King of Kasiah are exercises of authority in a highly discre tional, ad-hoc fashion, via informal procedures, by rulers who base their legitimacy on tradition or charisma, rather than on Weberian bureaucratic rationality. This model of adjudication, that cannot guarantee predictability and certainty as it is not grounded on any prefixed rules, is a far cry from a legal-rules-based society, according to Professor Avil?s.