Harris explains to his readers how to effectively use the method of “arguing the other side”, to counter their works of writing. He insightfully describes this method as “attaching a positive value to something another writer denigrates or a negative value to what another writer applauds.”(Harris, 60)
In our last reading of The Consequences of Modernity, Giddens wraps up his views and thoughts on globalization, rehashing on the pros and cons that he talked of in such depth throughout the book. He mentions his previous topic of the prevalence of risk and hazard in this day and age. He reminds us that modernization has connected the individual to large-scale systems. One topic that Giddens goes into depth with in this section is his views on “utopian realism”. Giddens realizes the diverse effects that such a way of thinking can have on society. “The heavily counterfactual nature of future- oriented thought, an essential element of the reflexivity of modernity, has positive as well as negative implications” (Giddens, 154) Giddens mentions how Marx made a point to put such a rigid division between realistic and utopian thought. Although Giddens recognized that utopian thinking is useless in certain situations, namely politics, he still claims that “We must balance utopian ideals with realism in a much more stringent fashion than was needed in Marx’s day” (Giddens, 155). I must say, that I believe that rather than trying to balance these two ideals , we should instead abolish the idea of connecting these two ideals at all. Giddens himself talks of “operator failure” for instance. He reminds his readers that no matter how well-designed a system is, its operators are imperfect, therefore the system can fail. Giddens also mentions the globalization and modernization of religions throughout his book. We as his readers can use previous knowledge on the topic of religions along with Giddens’ clarification on religious beliefs to recognize that a common theme in religions throughout history is that human beings are imperfect, and incapable of being perfect, thus we look to a greater being. Many religions recognize that utopian ideals and realism cannot be balanced, rather, they should be set completely apart. In many religions, realism on earth is seen as a life of sin, and the constant fight of sin, with the hopes of one day experiencing a utopian society in some form of afterlife. Although I will say that despite Giddens’ idea of balancing the ideals of realism and utopian thought, I still do appreciate his sensibility and logic in noting that ” ‘History’ is not on our side, has no teleology, and supplies us with no guarantees.”(Giddens 154) This statement further strengthens my belief that no connection should be made between realism and utopianism.
-Mariah
Globalization & Modernity (77) 
Mariah,
I think your post was an excellent example of the tool, “arguing the other side.” As Harris says, the key factor of this tool is “showing the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized or noting problems with one that she or he has argued for” (57). As you argued the “other side” of Utopian Realism and modern systems, I began to think more about utopias.
As individuals living wither a modernist mindset, it seems pretty silly to think that anything utopian-like would survive in today’s world. The fact of the matter is, as you brought up, that many religions strive to create a utopian-like community and adopt utopian-like values. One that particularly comes to mind was one in Texas that was exposed just a few years ago. While this community was more corrupted than anything, their practices were founded on the basis of the “ideal” way of life. Though it was broken up in the modern era, the lifestyle of the community’s members appeared to be from the era prior in everything from the way they dressed to the roles of those living in the community.
While it seems far-fetched for people like us, do you think that utopias do serve some type of purpose in today’s world? Do you think, looking to the future, that we will continue to hear about communities like this? How do you think someone living in a community like this would view modernity and globalization?
EEM
LikeLike
You’ve focused in on a very intriguing paradigm, worthy of much discussion. Your countering move “no connection should be made between realism and utopianism” is a strong one. Certainly, there is no denying the imperfections of man against a back drop of a utopian afterlife , and your point is well made. My view, however, is that a utopian ideology provides a course in which to aim our realism compass towards, hopefully arriving at a destination as close as we can get to understanding perfection. Giddens alludes to this when he writes “Yet none of this means that we should, or that we can, give up our attempts to steer the juggernaut.” (p154) What would you suggest aiming our realism compass towards?
-Chris
LikeLike
Mariah,
I like the way that you used Harris’ method of “arguing the side” in your post, you had a very interesting take on Giddens’ ideas in this chapter. First, you introduce Giddens thoughts on Utopian realism by bringing up the quote, “The heavily counterfactual nature of future- oriented thought, an essential element of the reflexivity of modernity, has positive as well as negative implications”. (154) You then proceed to bring up another quote from page 155, “We must balance utopian ideals with realism in a much more stringent fashion than was needed in Marx’s day”. After, you state that you think we should simply abolish the thought of connecting these two ideals in the first place, which is what I thought was interesting. You then go on to explain how it would not be possible to connect both the ideals of realism and Utopian thought, thereby “arguing the other side”. You finish up your post with the quote from page 154, ” ‘History’ is not on our side, has no teleology, and supplies us with no guarantees.”, and agreeing with it because it helps further your thought that realism and Utopian-ism cannot be connected. Overall your post was very helpful and informative.
LikeLike
I love the the sentiment of “I must say, that I believe that rather than trying to balance these two ideals , we should instead abolish the idea of connecting these two ideals at all..” I really do, Utopian thought only leads to Dystopian outcomes. Modernity has seen man think he is capable of paradise, a perfect vision where their ideals can triumph. But the reality is that these individuals who promise lie. These individuals have their own worlds built for them at the helm. These individuals’ utopias are always a dystopia for someone else. Fascists and Communist believed in such notions. Hitler’s dream is something that everyone probably does not want to even think about, but for some minor comic relief, it included, the planned genocide of large amounts of people, destroying and rebuilding historic cities (including Berlin) in their own epic style, the abolishment of all religion, and to the moon by 1970! Communists have similar ideas, a world state of one government, the abolishment of all religion also, and the creation of nonsensical economy. As you mentioned earlier there is a a reason that there is divorce between heaven and earth in religion, (for more than obviously practical reasons) is the fact man is flawed. Why is it that people cling to Utopian ideals that must be implemented when clearly the past shows results?
LikeLike
Mariah,
You’ve seized on one of the more perplexing aspects of the book, the parting hope in a utopian realism. As you point out, Giddens “reminds his readers that no matter how well-designed a system is, its operators are imperfect, therefore the system can fail.” How do we deal with such failures without abandoning all hope of improving society? How would you respond to Giddens’s hope that people in social movements and those in power can cooperate?
~DM
LikeLike