ON THE NATURE OF FUTURE WORLDS? - CONSIDERATIONS OF VIRTUALITY AND UTOPIAS

Abstract

It has been a widespread belief that computers can create viable utopias, design the future and plan and co-ordinate things such that the world can be born anew. The exponential increase in computing power has allowed for interaction in imaginary places – utopian spaces – and the endless re-configuration of those places. There are then good reasons to make links between the realm of the virtual and the creation of utopian and future worlds. We explore some of these links in this article. Having offered a preliminary discussion of the nature of traditional utopian and future world thinking, we then draw a distinction between stable state and flexible utopias, the former characterized by structurally fixed blueprints, the latter by the possibilities of virtual technologies which allow us endlessly to re-configure virtual spaces. This distinction leads us on to a debate that is implicit in the writings of Sherry Turkle and Richard Coyne, namely the analysis of the virtual from a Husserlian, as opposed to the dominant Heideggerian view. We defend a Husserlian analysis which, it is shown, better satisfies the concept of ‘flexible utopias’. The totalizing existential experience by a Heideggerian analysis corresponds well to ‘immersion’ technologies e.g. games and VR, utopias as ready-mades but, a Husserlian approach allows us to account for the creative process of making utopian or future worlds using software such as interior design when one changes items ad infinitum as part of the normal practices of being a designer. In the conclusion we will pull together the strands of the article and, end by noting how the contemporary theorist, Robert Nozick complements our arguments when he offers a version of utopia as a meta-utopia of flexible utopias or future worlds!