Abstract
Utopia is a discourse. Better yet, it is a book or volume of signs disposed in a certain order. These signs owe their meaning to a system of which the book is one among an infinite number of possible realizations. In this volume are found sentences, words, and letters that realize, through their differential values, meaning. This definition is true for any book, process, or text. The differential nature of utopia is of a stylistic nature. It is based on a typology of genres that another syntax orders. With Thomas More’s Utopia as an example, I have noticed that utopia, through its multiple and varied literary spatial play (historical narrative, travel narrative, description, illustrating narratives, etc.), is the textual place of production of a representative figure, of a picture within the text whose function consists in dissimulating, within its metaphor, historical contradiction — historical narrative — by projecting it onto a screen. It stages it as a representation by articulating it in the form of a structure of harmonious and immobile equilibrium. By its pure representability it totalizer the differences that the narrative of history develops dynamically. This representation is the project of a utopic practice that keeps inside of itself traces whose critical force remains in a neutralized area of historical contradiction, making possible the constitution of the figure.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See A. Green, Un oeil en trop ( Paris: Minuit, 1969 ).
With reference to this, see the work of W. J. Ong, especially his book on Ramus: Method and the Decay of Dialogue ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958 ).
J-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ( Paris: Maspero, 1972 ).
Vernant, pp. 23–24. See also J. H. Finley, Pindarus and Aeschylus (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955).
David M. Bevington deals with this subject in “Dialogue in Utopia: Two Sides of the Question”, Studies in Philology, 58 (July, 1961 ).
Robert E. Elliott’s work is essential: The Shape of Utopia (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970). See also his previous book The Power of Satire: Magic Ritual, Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960).
Mikhail Bakhtine, Problems of Dostoevski’s Poetics ( Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1973 ).
R. W. Chambers, Thomas More (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935). See also Marie Delcourt’s introduction to her French translation of Utopia (Brussels, 1952).
Cyrano de Bergerac, L’Autre Monde ou les Etats et Empires de la Lune Introduction by M. Langaa (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1970), pp. 94–95.
See Ernst Bloch, Thomas Münzer als Theologe der Revolution (Suhrkamp Verlag, 1964), Gesamtansgabe, Bd. 3.
Copyright information
© 1984 Humanities Press Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marin, L. (1984). The Utopic Stage. In: Utopics: Spatial Play. Contemporary Studies in Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07329-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07329-0_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-07331-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-07329-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)