Dystopias Replacing Utopias in Political Life, Eidman Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, October 12 – For most of modern times, radicals and those who want radical change have used ideal images of a utopian future they would like to create. But now, Igor Eidman says, such people and even more national leaders instead are using dystopias, images of a horrific future they say that only they can prevent.

            There have always been utopias and dystopias, but up to now, the former rather than the latter have become the basis for the formation of mass movements, the Russian sociologist says. In one way, this makes sense: “few will believe in any promised birth future after Auschwitz and the GULAG” (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5DA1F70484C8F&section_id=50A6C962A3D7C).

            One reason for this “alarmist” trend is that there are some very real and large problems out there. But often, such languages is employed because it is the only way to attract attention – or for other reasons. Only by predicting disaster on a grand scale can one hope to be listened to. But those who use dystopian visions alone are changing political life in important and negative ways.

            The most important consequence of dystopian language is that it often represents an implicit defense of the status quo. Utopian writers often call for wholesale transformations, but dystopian ones often focus on a single issue, be it ecology or immigration or sexual mores, and act as if, once that is addressed, everything else will take care of itself.

            That is why some national leaders specialize in the use of dystopias: they get their followers to focus on one issue while the leaders act in ways that are at variance with the interests of those people in a variety of others. In short, dystopian language all too often has become a classic bait-and-switch tactic.

            And as a result, those who employ dystopian language often ensure that existing dystopias continue rather than being addressed.