Is this really a contradiction?

When discussing the future, and most importantly debating on how to shape the future and build a better world, there are basically two groups in this conversation: On one side, you have the utopians, who favor great visions and like to construct comprehensive models of society in order to make the world a better place. On the other side are those who call themselves pragmatists and who prefer very modest, often merely cosmetic approaches, as in their opinion, real change is not possible anyway. But maybe the utopian and the pragmatic view are not as opposed to each other as it may seem at first glimpse. Here, I try connecting the two.

It is indisputable that change, on the small as well as the large scale, is and will be necessary. Despite the number of people living in extreme poverty having decreased throughout the last few decades, we are still very far from a decent life for everyone. Many, though not living in extreme poverty anymore, still lack the basics. Even in wealthy countries, many are unable to pay for the basic costs of living. These conditions existing while a small number of people have enough money to singlehandedly end world hunger multiple times, is, simply put, unacceptable.

Another problem than can under no circumstances be ignored is the climate crisis. Without a fundamental change of the way the economy works, the Earth will very likely become unlivable for humans. The tipping point, after which nothing can be done about the climate anymore, is coming closer every day.

Solving these predicaments will require substantial change, exceeding the merely cosmetic. These changes are often characterized as utopian, unrealistic or even outright impossible. But are they really? Or is humanity really more capable than many would think? And how do we actually do all of this?

Are utopias possible?

A utopia lingers at the outmost rim of the horizon of the imaginable at the time when it is conceived. As technology and society continually move forward and have done so at an even higher and higher pace since the dawn of modernity, the horizon of the imaginable expands. Utopias of the past have, in some cases, become reality, though usually not exactly as previously imagined and often only in part (for example: smartphones).

Thus, the present can, in a way, be the utopia of the past. But the utopia of the present, naturally, lies in the future. And the present is probably not perceived as a utopia, even despite some of today’s achievements would certainly have been called utopian in the past. In this light, a utopia can, per definitionem, not be achieved, as it moves on with the horizon of the imaginable and therefore, must remain in the future.

This does not mean though, that today’s utopia can not be tomorrow’s reality. It will just not be a utopia anymore then but will be the present reality.

I must clarify that I do not use the term “utopia” in this context as describing a fully thought out model of society or the world. Such models can, as stated previously, only become reality in some particular aspects, as these comprehensive models can not possibly account for every single factor. I do not though, argue that it is useless to create such models and neither is it futile to try to make them become reality. The implementation of one part of such a model alone may already reap substantial benefits.

The so-called pragmatism

Today, many people think that society remains basically the same and that big changes are impossible. According to this view, utopias are meaningless thought experiments that are mere fantasy and that it is a pure waste of time to even consider them. Even modest but more than cosmetic changes, for example a universal basic income, are dismissed as being a pie in the sky. This unwillingness for change is then titled “pragmatic”.

This way to think is often based on one out of three motives: Either you are already in a privileged and comfortable position and don’t see any need for change (or is afraid to lose certain privileges). Or you are entirely disillusioned; you see change as desirable or even necessary, but you are convinced that it is not wanted or even actively blocked by certain agents and it is therefore futile to even strive  for change or take part in the political process. The third motive is a result of a lack of imagination: you are unable to imagine a different situation, a different society or a different system than the present one.

While the first motive (the unwillingness for change) is based on a certain amount of egoism and a lack of solidarity with the less privileged (or simply ignorance towards different material conditions), the other two motives ignore historical facts. Society and systems have always been changing, and this at an even higher speed throughout the last hundred years. Change being deemed impossible often result out of history not being perceived as such and a general disinterest in history as a whole. But it is, in any case, undeniable that the current material conditions only exist at the present time and, when looked at in their historical context, do not seem so unalterable or “natural” anymore.

It must be emphasized that change, even on the big scale, is possible. The only thing that prevents it is in most cases just the lack of consciousness thereof. The rejection of change is not the pragmatic position, even if many would believe so. No change is not pragmatic, it means being stuck.

Purist utopias

The polar opposite of the so-called “pragmatists” are those who tend to be proponents of a certain often fully thought out utopian model. They want to see it become reality rather today than tomorrow and reject any intermediate steps. It’s all or nothing. With this approach though, utopias are doomed to remain a mere though experiment. It cannot be achieved without concrete steps of implementation. I do not argue that these thought experiments have no merit, it can simply not be claimed that they can become reality.

I do understand very well that it is easy to grow impatient for change. As already stated, still too many people live in unlivable conditions and it is not acceptable to make them continue to do so. There are plenty of resources on this planet for everyone to have a decent life. Thus, utopian ideas may be necessary to improve the material conditions accordingly, or to make them at least somewhat better. The struggle against the climate crisis likewise requires change that may today still seem utopian to many.

But precisely for those reasons, concrete and quickly implementable steps are absolutely necessary. It would take much more time to walt until the proposed utopia can be fully realized, than to start with small but substantial things. In this light, the insistence on a “pure” utopia is a privileged position as well, since it’s proponents obviously do not live under material conditions that make immediate changes necessary and to improve the situation at least somewhat.

Furthermore, many people show a certain sluggishness towards change. Skepticism is particularly intense towards less concrete proposals. In a democratic society, ideas need a certain number of people who support them before they can be implemented. It will definitely be easier to convince people of singular steps on the way towards utopia than to talk them into supporting a comprehensive model that has little to do with the life they are used to. Theoretically, one could argue that change can be brought about by violent means. This will though, if the change sought is not supported by a majority of the population, never lead to a positive outcome but always end up in authoritarianism. This can not be accepted. A utopia purely founded in violence can never be the objective.

Small steps – big achievements

It is clear that big, even systemic change will be necessary to meet and overcome the challenges of the future. It is likewise clear that these changes must be implemented with a clear and structured concept in mind and can not happen all at once. The way out of the dichotomy between the necessity of utopian ideas and their sometimes-unclear implementation lies neither in defeatism nor in mere thought experiments. Rather, real pragmatism is needed.

Change can but does not have to happen in one go. If that is not possible, it is probably more beneficial to implement parts of the whole program first than to wait until everything can be done at once and possibly even lose time thereby. Concrete steps that lead to improvements should always be taken as soon as they are possible. They are not to be viewed as singular acts though, but rather as elements of a path to more comprehensive change. Moreover, one should absolutely argue for desired change, even if it may not yet be possible. The more people support an idea, the easier it will be to implement it in the future and the sooner this can happen. Intermediate steps can create the conditions necessary for further changes.

All this is never to be understood in a way that intermediate steps are the be-all end-all, that you should just be happy about their successful implementation and leave it at that. The objective of making the world a better place for all humans must never be lost sight of or be abandoned. I just mean to argue that objectives are mostly not achieved all at once but step by step. This way, a utopia may indeed be achieved by pragmatic means. Pragmatism and utopianism are no opposites.