Analyzing “utopia” and “dystopia” using the “history of concepts” method
Subject Areas : Research in Theoritical Politicsmohadeseh teymori 1 , Abbas manoochehri 2
1 - M.A Student in Political Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
2 - Professor, Department of Political Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
Keywords: utopia, dystopia, conceptual history, political thought, Koselleck.,
Abstract :
Analyzing “utopia” and “dystopia”
using the “history of concepts” method
Mohaddeseh Teymouri*
Abbas Manouchehri**
The concepts of “utopia” and “dystopia” hold particular significance in civil (political) philosophy and political literature. To date, numerous works have addressed these concepts in both primary and secondary texts, offering criticism and analysis. Despite this extensive scholarship, no study has applied a “conceptual-historical” approach based on Reinhart Koselleck’s method to investigate these ideas. This article aims to demonstrate, using Koselleck’s framework, that the meanings of utopia and dystopia cannot be reduced to fixed definitions. Such an approach provides a novel perspective for understanding the evolution of concepts throughout the history of human thought. The study emphasizes the role of historical context and temporality, uncovering hidden or often overlooked dimensions of these concepts.
Keywords: utopia, dystopia, conceptual history, political thought, Koselleck.
Introduction and Problem Statement
The concepts of “utopia” and “dystopia” have consistently occupied an important position in civil (political) philosophy and political literature. Throughout the history of thought, whenever humans have sought solutions to crises or aimed to achieve better conditions of life, traces of utopian thinking are observable. Civil-political thinkers, operating in fields such as political philosophy, political ideology, political theology, and political literature, often respond to contemporary crises by envisioning alternative arrangements and proposing solutions, thereby bridging the gap between existing realities and desirable futures. Political thought can thus be considered a prime example of normative reasoning, in which the political thinker, observing the current state of crisis, seeks to imagine what ought to be—an ideal arrangement. These concepts, particularly in periods of crisis, have served as theoretical tools for analyzing social and political conditions. However, previous research has primarily focused on ideological or literary analyses, rarely adopting a conceptual-historical perspective. This article seeks to provide a new reading of these two concepts through Reinhart Koselleck’s method of conceptual history.
The study aims to examine how the meanings of utopia and dystopia have shifted across different historical contexts and how these concepts, in each period, revealed their unique potentials and limitations.
Theoretical Foundations and Literature Review
The first section of this article reviews the contributions of scholars such as Ruth Levitas, Karl Mannheim, Karl Popper, Paul Ricoeur, and Ernst Bloch. Levitas, a British sociologist, in works such as The Concept of Utopia (1930) and Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society (2013), presents utopias as a desire for better ways of being and living, highlighting the necessity of imagining and reconstructing society both in thought and reality. She emphasizes that utopias should not be considered merely as goals but as methodological frameworks. Mannheim (1936), in Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, explores the relationship between ideology and utopia, arguing that both emerge from political struggles. While he stresses the importance of ideologies, he ultimately considers utopia more significant and warns that its absence would result in human stagnation, rendering individuals lifeless.
Paul Ricoeur, aware of the dangers of imaginative creation, argues that utopias reveal possibilities for alternative arrangements of power. He identifies three primary functions of utopias: a social dimension, wherein utopias explore the realm of possibility; a political dimension, in which utopias provide the necessary distance to critique society, ideology, or the status quo and may even legitimize power; and a cautionary dimension, in which utopia may devolve into mere fantasy. Each of these scholars examines utopia from a different perspective, ranging from its cognitive function to its role in critiquing existing conditions. Critical perspectives, particularly from Popper and other liberal thinkers, have also been analyzed. For instance, in The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper critiques the Platonic idea of the ideal state, portraying it as dystopian. He characterizes utopias as containing fixed designs and immutable laws, which can ultimately foster authoritarianism and suppress individual freedom.
Methodology
Reinhart Koselleck’s conceptual-historical method serves as the theoretical framework of this study. Koselleck’s Begriffsgeschichte (conceptual history) offers a distinctive approach to studying the history of ideas, emphasizing that concepts such as utopia and dystopia evolve in response to historical experiences and societal expectations. Their meanings vary according to the social, political, and cultural conditions of each era. Consequently, this method employs a linguistic-historical analysis to study past social relations and conditions, revealing new layers of meaning embedded in historical transformations. Koselleck argues that without concepts, neither society nor political action can exist. He critiques purely linguistic analyses, insisting on integrating historical, social, and political data. The meaning of classical concepts is thus embedded in their historical usage, linking the intentions of thinkers to the interpretive frameworks of their contemporaries. In other words, Koselleck’s conceptual-historical approach treats the study of language as inseparable from the social conditions in which concepts were deployed.
Findings and Conceptual Analysis
The core of the article is devoted to the historical analysis of utopia and dystopia. First, the concept of utopia is examined, tracing its evolution from Plato’s Republic to Thomas More’s Utopia and the socialist utopias of the nineteenth century. The analysis demonstrates that classical utopias often focused on presenting an ideal society, whereas twentieth-century thinkers, such as Ernst Bloch, introduced the concept of “not-yet,” providing a more dynamic approach to utopia as a motivating force for social and political change. Bloch identifies the “most tragic form of loss” as the loss of the capacity to envision alternative conditions. According to him, humans are not yet fully human; human existence is filled with unfulfilled desires and dreams, and reality contains potential futures that are not yet realized. Bloch’s philosophy can be interpreted as a quest for a renewed life, oriented toward what is not yet actualized and the transformation of the world in relation to what could be. He posits that one of the most remarkable aspects of human life is the pursuit of these ideals through utopian projection, embodying dreams and circulating visions.
The concept of dystopia is then analyzed. Particularly in the twentieth century, dystopia gained prominence in both political philosophy and literature. Writers such as Yevgeny Zamyatin (We), Aldous Huxley (Brave New World), George Orwell (1984), and Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451) depicted societies where individual freedoms are severely restricted and humans are subjected to totalitarian control, offering a grim vision of the future. This section examines the influence of historical events, including world wars, the rise of totalitarian regimes, and the development of surveillance technologies, on the proliferation of dystopian literature. The article also demonstrates that dystopias are present not only in literature but also in political philosophy. In this sense, the crisis-ridden present of any given society can itself be understood as dystopian. For example, Hannah Arendt, as a political thinker, analyzed twentieth-century crises from a distinctive perspective. In works such as The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition, she examines societies in which freedom, plurality, and human action have been supplanted by domination and alienation. Arendt argues that “the world of alienation” characterizes the modern era, wherein individuals become detached from their environment and fellow humans, ultimately losing spontaneity under terror, the essence of totalitarianism. She emphasizes concepts such as citizenship, action, and the strengthening of the public sphere as pathways to overcome contemporary crises, envisioning alternative arrangements grounded in solidarity, plurality, and civic friendship.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that utopia and dystopia are not static concepts but fluid, multilayered, and context-dependent. In different historical contexts, they reflect the specific crises, hopes, and fears of their time. Conceptual history reminds us that meaning is not absolute or predetermined but is formed through interaction with social and cognitive contexts. Utopias, contrary to some critiques, are not mere fantasies but provide possibilities for imagining alternative futures and critiquing the present. Similarly, dystopias are not simply pessimistic predictions; they serve as warnings, illuminating mechanisms of domination and the risks of modern civilization. Ultimately, utopia and dystopia act as mirrors reflecting the conditions of their times while offering opportunities to think about the future. In today’s world, confronted with environmental crises, economic inequalities, and political threats, revisiting these concepts can aid in understanding and creating alternative pathways for the future.
References
Arendt, B. R. (2022) Utopianism: Belief in the Ideal City (M. Nasravi, Trans.). Tehran: Afkar-e Jadid. [In Persian/Farsi]
Arendt, H. (2022) The Human Condition (M. Aliya, Trans.). Tehran: Ghoghnoos. [In Persian/Farsi]
Biesterfeld, W. (1982) Die literarische Utopie (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Bloch, E. (2022) The Principle of Hope (S. Taheri, Trans.). Tehran: Afkar-e Jadid. [In Persian/Farsi]
Bradbury, R. (2023) Fahrenheit 451 (M. Daqiqi, Trans.). Tehran: Mahi. [In Persian/Farsi]
Bradshaw, L. (2022) Hannah Arendt’s Political Philosophy (K. Diehimi, Trans.). Tehran: Farhang Nashr No. [In Persian/Farsi]
Chignola, S. (2002) History of political thought and the history of political concepts: Koselleck's proposal and Italian research.
Engels, F. (2017) Utopian and Scientific Socialism (Trans.). Tehran: Roshangaran. [In Persian/Farsi]
Hassing, A. (2015) What is Conceptual History?
Held, D. (2022) Models of Democracy (A. Mokhber, Trans.). Tehran: Roshangaran va Motaleat-e Zanan. [In Persian/Farsi]
Hesiod. (2018) Work and Days. Penguin Classics.
Huxley, A. L. (2023) Brave New World (S. Hamidian, Trans.). Tehran: Niloufar. [In Persian/Farsi]
Jacques, P. W. (2020) Politics and Utopia (J. Mohammadi, Trans.). Tehran: Farhang-e Javid. [In Persian/Farsi]
Jazayi, M., et al. (2020) “Conceptual History: Revealing Ideological Conflicts and Understanding the New Meaning of Text.” Naqd va Nazariye Adabi, 5(2), 75–96. [In Persian/Farsi]
Koselleck, R. (1982) Begriffsgeschichte and social history. Economy and Society, 11(4), 409–427.
Koselleck, R. (2002) The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford University Press.
Kozlek, R. (2022) Introduction to Basic Historical Concepts: History of the Concept of Crisis (B. Joudi, Trans.). Tehran: Gam No. [In Persian/Farsi]
Levitas, R. (2013) Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. New York: Palgrave.
Mahmoudi, R., et al. (2022) “Phenomenology of Ideology and Its Relationship with Utopia Based on Paul Ricoeur’s Views.” Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Falsafi, 16(40), 336–359. [In Persian/Farsi]
Menochehri, A. (2004) Hermeneutics of Liberation and Civic Mysticism (H. Khandaq Abadi, Trans.). Tehran: Moasas-e Tahghighat va Tose’e-ye Olum-e Ensani. [In Persian/Farsi]
Menochehri, A. (2023) Beyond Suffering and Dream. Tehran: Rozaneh. [In Persian/Farsi]
More, T. (1516/2016). Utopia (H. V. S. Ogden, Ed. & Trans.). Crofts Classics.
Ricœur, P. (2020) Lectures on Ideology and Utopia (M. Faezi, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian/Farsi]
Sartajant, L. T. (2022) Utopianism: Belief in Ideal Society (M. Nasravi, Trans.). Tehran: Afkar-e Jadid. [In Persian/Farsi]
Shariati, A. (2013) Collected Works, Vol. 25: The Selfless Human. Tehran: Institute for the Works of Dr. Shariati. [In Persian/Farsi]
Vieira, F. (2010) “The Concept of Utopia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature, 3–27.
Weller, S. (2018) Red Bry: Last Interview and Other Conversations (M. Mardani, Trans.). Tehran: Salis. [In Persian/Farsi]
Zamyatin, Y. I. (2020) We (B. Shahab, Trans.). Tehran: Bidgol. [In Persian/Farsi]
* Corresponding Author: M.A Student in Political Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
mohadesehteymori13@gmail.com
** Professor, Department of Political Science, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran. amanoochehri@yahoo.com
آرنت، هانا (1401) وضع بشر، ترجمه مسعود علیا، تهران، ققنوس.
اسپریگنز، توماس (۱۴۰۱) فهم نظریههای سیاسی، ترجمه فرهنگ رجایی، تهران، آگه.
افلاطون (1353) جمهوری افلاطون، ترجمه محمدحسن لطفی و رضا کاویانی، تهران، ابن سینا.
انگلس، فردریش (۱۳۹۶) سوسیالیسم تخیلی و سوسیالیسم علمی، تهران، روشنگران.
برخمان، روتخر (۱۴۰۱) آرمانشهر واقعبینها و راه رسیدن به آن، ترجمه مزدا موحد، تهران، فرهنگ نشر نو.
بردبری، ری (۱۴۰۲) فارنهایت۴۵۱، ترجمه مژده دقیقی، تهران، ماهی.
بردشا، لی (۱۴۰۱) فلسفه سیاسی هانا آرنت، ترجمه خشایار دیهیمی، تهران، فرهنگ نشر نو.
بلوخ، ارنست (۱۴۰۱) دیالکتیک امید، ترجمه شروین طاهری، تهران، افکار جدید.
پی.
وینر، فیلیپ (۱۳۹۹) سیاست و یوتوپیا، ترجمه جمال محمدی، تهران، فرهنگ جاوید.
جزائی، محدثه و سیدمحمدعلی تقوی و سیدحسین اطهری و مهدی نجفزاده (۱۳۹۹) «تاریخ مفهومی؛ آشکارسازی نزاعهای ایدئولوژیک و فهم معنای نوین از متن»، نقد و نظریه ادبی، سال پنجم، دوره دوم، پاییز و زمستان، شماره پیاپی ۱۰، صص 75-96.
ریکور، پل (۱۳۹۹) درس¬گفتارهای ایدئولوژی و اتوپیا، ترجمه مهدی فیضی، تهران، مرکز.
زامیاتین، یوگنی ایوانویچ (۱۳۹۹) ما، ترجمه بابک شهاب، تهران، بیدگل.
سارجنت، لایمن تاور (۱۴۰۱) اتوپیانیسم: آرمانشهر باوری، ترجمه محمد نصراوی، تهران، افکار جدید.
شریعتی، علی (1392) مجموعه آثار، جلد بیست و پنج، انسان بیخود، چاپ چهارم، تهران، مؤسسه نشر آثار دکتر شریعتی.
کوزلک، راینهارت (۱۴۰۱) مقدمهای بر مفاهیم بنیادین تاریخی: تاریخ تحول مفهوم بحران، ترجمه بهنام جودی، تهران، گام نو.
محمودی، رحمتالله و دیگران (۱۴۰۱) «پدیدارشناسی ایدئولوژی و نسبت آن با اتوپیا بر پایه آرای پل ریکور»، پژوهشهای فلسفی، دوره شانزدهم، شماره ۴۰، صص 336-359.
منوچهری، عباس (۱۳۸۳) هرمنوتیک رهائی و عرفان مدنی، ترجمه حسین خندق آبادی، تهران، مؤسسة تحقیقات و توسعه علوم انسانی.
------------- (1402) فراسوی رنج و رؤیا، تهران، روزنه.
ولر، سام (۱۳۹۷) رد بری آخرین مصاحبه و گفتوگوهای دیگر، ترجمه مرجان مردانی، تهران، ثالث.
هاکسلی، آلدوس لئونارد (۱۴۰۲) دنیای قشنگ نو، ترجمه سعید حمیدیان، تهران، نیلوفر.
هلد، دیوید (۱۴۰۱) مدلهای دموکراسی، ترجمه عباس مخبر، تهران، روشنگران و مطالعات زنان.
Aldous Huxley (1949)to George Orwell: My Hellish Vision of the Future is Better Than Yours.
Biesterfeld, W. (1982) Die literarische Utopie (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Chignola, S. (2002) History of political thought and the history of political concepts: Koselleck's proposal and Italian research. History of Political Thought, 23(3), 517–541.
Hesiod (2018) Work and Days. Penguin classics.
Hassing, Ander (2015) What is Conceptual History? CLEAR Project. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20180919122951/https://www.clear-project.net/system/files/What%20is%20Conceptual%20History%20A%20Hassing.pdf.
Koselleck, R. (1982) Begriffsgeschichte and social history. economy and society, Vol 11(4): 409-427.
---------------- (2002) The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford University Press.
Levitas, Ruth (2013) Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society, New York, Palgrave.
More, T. (1516) Utopia (H. V. S. Ogden, Ed. & Trans.). Crofts Classics. (Original work published 1516).
Vieira, F. (2010) The concept of utopia. The Cambridge companion to utopian literature, 3-27.
