A recurrent misconception about the concept of utopia fails to realize fully that its essential endeavor constitutes a speculative act involving the distribution of power and resources. Consequently, utopian desire is closely linked to structures of power and can be manipulated by interests in positions of influence within these structures. It is these connections to the machinations of power that bring utopian visions their potential for social/political influence. However, these same types of links also provide avenues for these conceptions to (...) be cynically influenced in ways that can usurp individual autonomy. The role of power and utopia can be analyzed in the formative process of a specific social structure as well as in their contribution to the conception of a common heritage or history. The " historical perspective" often serves as the foundation for the production of propaganda seeking to capture the imagination of a populace either to instigate positive social change or to legitimize an oppressive regime. Through the lens of Collingwood's philosophy of history, this article investigates the connection that the " historical consciousness" has to the attributes of power and utopia as well as the role that this relationship plays in the formation of a collective mentality. In short, it studies the essential characteristics of the bond between individuals that allows a community or collective to perpetuate itself. It also explores how the attributes of power and utopia can use latent historical perceptions to strengthen the process of ideological integration that underlies any social action or formal structure of authority. (shrink)

This article examines the relationship between utopian production and reception via a reading of the work of the great utopian author and theorist William Morris. This relationship has invariably been defined by an inequality: utopian producers have claimed unlimited freedom in their attempts to imagine new worlds, while utopian recipients have been asked to adopt such visions as their own without question. Morris’s work suggests two possible responses to this inequality. One response, associated with theorist Miguel Abensour, is to liberate (...) reception, with Morris’s utopianism containing an invitation to readers to reformulate the vision proffered. However, this response, despite its dominance in contemporary utopian theory, not only misreads Morris but also undermines the political efficacy of utopianism. Consequently, I suggest that Morris responds to the problem of utopian inequality by constraining production, proposing a historical control on utopianising; new utopias are directed by an archive of visions articulated in past struggles. (shrink)