Purpose and Overview of lectureTo explore in more depth one of the categories diThe Utopian Socialists, as they have come to be cThey have some rich visions of how industrialization and modernization could have occurred other than the way it didTo examine how these critics were ever more inclined to accept industrialism, rather than say that it was simply and wholly evilThis trend culminates in the “scientific” socialiBasic traits of the UtopiansThe Utopian Socialists are a quite diverse group, with important differences, one from the otherYet, some common traits may be distinguishedAll of them lived in approximately the same periodAll are alive between 1770 and 1825 and do most of their writing in the early years of the 19th centuryAll developed fundamental criticisms of the society that was emerging around themAnd they quite specifically attacked the liberal ideologists (Smith, Ricardo, Malthus) who were gaining attention and popularityThey rejected the notions of the homo economicus,They attempt, in various ways, to preserve or retain the premodern sense of community but still combine it with the modern sense of liberationAll believed that their “utopian” ideals were posThis belief forms a clear contrast to Sir Thomas All had a “romantic” and impractical aura to themEspecially FourierHowever, they all thought of themselves as “scienAll tended to be elitist or paternalistic in their approachThey were out to help the poor rather than organized the masses to help themselvesAnd all are failures, even if notable, interesting failures, or failures who nevertheless helped others to learn important lessonsThat they failed is part of the reason that they “Utopian” was not their own word for themselves—IThe subsequent, “realistic” generation would see In particular their reticence to resort to force, to organizing the peopleThey were “utopian,” thus, in their belief that tOr, they believed at least that some wealthy benefactor would be persuaded by reason; he set up the utopian colonies, and then their ideas would catch on everywhereFourierHe is considered first because he seems the most Specifically in the sense that he was least inclined to accept the actual technology of industrialization, the factory systemRather, he believed that a utopia could be achieved with existing technologiesThe basic issue, as he saw it, was one of organizHe held definite beliefs about the human psyche, its needs, the possibility of satisfying themHuman needs, cravings, fantasies can all be satisfied and should be satisfied, he believed, since they are instilled in man by GodThus, the traditional, Christian assumptions about the evil in human instincts are all wrongEven the liberal axioms about what might happen iThe liberal-individualist vision entailed, to his mind, mere egoismHuman beings would not find happiness in that kind of atomistic freedom and ruthless competitionHuman beings were happy when they felt “communityPut in the language of the 1960s Fourier believedAll of the “thou shalt nots” could be abandoned, Rather than being at war with one another, people could live in harmonyHuman interaction, rather than being difficult and fraught with danger and strife, could be made to give pleasureGuilt in things like sexual pleasure would be ended as a lamentable relic of the unenlightened pastBut the key was in organization, in recognizing what human nature really is, and organizing society so that human nature was respected, not repressed or ignoredFourier’s solution: the phalanstèreThe term is one of his many neologisms: ostensiblThe choice of the word is suggestive, in that the phalanx was based on human solidarity, linking of men together in combatFourier’s ideal would have exactly 1620 peopleIt would be a self-contained community, with a myFourier distinguished a number of different kinds of passions, all under the sway of the Law of AttractionSensual (taste, sight, etc.)Those of the soul (sympathy, sociability)The “Distributive” passionObscure but apparently the most important in his eyesLa papillone (need for variety in work as in play)La cabaliste (delight in certain kinds of competition)La composite (dynamic mixing of sensual, social, etc.)Fourier: simply a madman?Much in his writings is extremely odd, seemingly on the edge of sanityHe sometimes writes like someone on an LSD tripOceans of lemonade, six moons circling the earth, planets copulatingYet mixed into such ravings are some genuinely inEven subsequent generations have found some perceptive or otherwise interesting things in his writingsHe was a radical feminist, for exampleHe argued tenaciously for social and economic equality for women, and denounced their present oppressionHe called for an end to the bourgeois family, which he termed a prisonIt not only enslaved women to their children and household chores but also turned all of its members inward rather than outwardIn other words, people should turn to society at large and not primarily to the private family circleHe was sexual liberationistHe asserted that nothing in sexual relations is wrong unless it hurts another person against his or her willThe vision that most captivated his contemporaries was that of a psychically united and self-sufficient communityWhere individual passions found fulfillment in social interactionWhere guilt was banished, real “freedom” unleasheWhere there would be a reconciliation of the principle of freedom and the principle of fraternity or human solidarityFourier and modernismThis is a key point to comprehendAlthough he thought of himself as wholly modern, he did not accept the factory system or industrialization more generallyIt was contrary to human nature, he believed, a realm of repression, exploitation, and monotonyIn fact, the whole idea of increasing production by repetitious tasks did not much appeal to himHe thought it was better to live simply than in material abundanceabove all if material abundance came at the expense of unpleasant, arduous laborHe very much wanted a rationalization of productionbut only if it could be done pleasantly, or if in itself contributed to human pleasureSome of his ideas: common kitchens, cooperative farming, children as garbage collectorsRobert OwenHe provides a revealing contrast to Fourier, both in assumptions and proposalsHe fully accepted the factory system, specialized labor, etc.He was a successful businessman himself, while Fourier was an unsuccessful traveling