![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Charles Fourier
Charles Fourier: genius, nutjob, satirist, architect, social commentator, sad lonely old man? I say all of the above, many simultaneously.
I have just been able to touch upon Fourier's work, but even so, the breadth and depth of it cannot be summarized in one post. I'll just give some points that stick in my head.
Fourier could write outrageous satire. He could write whimsical passages and wax poetic. He could make acute observations about what would one day become sociology and psychology. He could come up with very concrete little bits of example and over the top hyperbole. Perhaps the reason he was never well understood is because he didn't bother to inform anyone which of these things he was writing in a given instant. Is he serious about this? Is he being whimsical? Or is this a satirical parody? For any given passage you don't know if he's having fun, railing against a current institution, or expressing his theories literally. Scholars make guesses, but the everyday reader doesn't stand a chance of figuring out what's real and what's memorex.
A fair amount of the details of his theory has been shown to be off base at this point. His need to explain everything in mathematical progressions is quaint and naive if you know even a hint of the complex math behind nature. But he had some great insights and his theories can perhaps yield treasure on sufficient meditation.
To read the bits of Fourier's ranting against the merchants they could have been written yesterday. Just change the term merchants to multinationals and you're all set. I'd say his points are more valid today than when he made them. It's a small mercy the man couldn't see the future that is today, the vision would have driven him right over the edge.
His outlook on labor turns most other philosophies right on their head. Labor could be made something people would want to do, would willingly go to every day. There would be no need for punishments, judges, or even assigning work. Sixteen hundred people in a settlement (Phalanx) would self determine their work. A lot of the details require the standard philosopher out: "people raised in this future society will be ideal people."
Honestly, I have to admit that in his paradise where work is pleasure I thought he made pleasure sound like work. To me passions are more like swirls in a brook not blocks to be mortared into a wall. I must give him credit where others seem to discount him: I thought he nailed jealousy on the head, although his focus was just physical. He felt that if your needs are being met, you will not be jealous. Funny, we hear that echoed in poly circles a couple of hundred years later.
His statements on repressed passions would only later be brought to light again after fifty years when Freud started poking around in the subconscious. Fourier seems to have understood a lot about human motivation although he couldn't seem to apply his insight in his own relations.
It is truly sick humor that the man who came up with all these theories about how a society could become so closely knit together himself couldn't work and play well with others. Was he able to integrate sexual relations with close friendship and trust? The historical record is incomplete, but I wouldn't bet he ever did. It only took him a year of working closely with most devoted disciples to alienate them all to one degree or another.
I can say I've had enough with Utopians, even philosophers in general, for a while. Utopians are best taken in small doses.
There is more wank in philosophy, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your fandom.
I have just been able to touch upon Fourier's work, but even so, the breadth and depth of it cannot be summarized in one post. I'll just give some points that stick in my head.
Fourier could write outrageous satire. He could write whimsical passages and wax poetic. He could make acute observations about what would one day become sociology and psychology. He could come up with very concrete little bits of example and over the top hyperbole. Perhaps the reason he was never well understood is because he didn't bother to inform anyone which of these things he was writing in a given instant. Is he serious about this? Is he being whimsical? Or is this a satirical parody? For any given passage you don't know if he's having fun, railing against a current institution, or expressing his theories literally. Scholars make guesses, but the everyday reader doesn't stand a chance of figuring out what's real and what's memorex.
A fair amount of the details of his theory has been shown to be off base at this point. His need to explain everything in mathematical progressions is quaint and naive if you know even a hint of the complex math behind nature. But he had some great insights and his theories can perhaps yield treasure on sufficient meditation.
To read the bits of Fourier's ranting against the merchants they could have been written yesterday. Just change the term merchants to multinationals and you're all set. I'd say his points are more valid today than when he made them. It's a small mercy the man couldn't see the future that is today, the vision would have driven him right over the edge.
His outlook on labor turns most other philosophies right on their head. Labor could be made something people would want to do, would willingly go to every day. There would be no need for punishments, judges, or even assigning work. Sixteen hundred people in a settlement (Phalanx) would self determine their work. A lot of the details require the standard philosopher out: "people raised in this future society will be ideal people."
Honestly, I have to admit that in his paradise where work is pleasure I thought he made pleasure sound like work. To me passions are more like swirls in a brook not blocks to be mortared into a wall. I must give him credit where others seem to discount him: I thought he nailed jealousy on the head, although his focus was just physical. He felt that if your needs are being met, you will not be jealous. Funny, we hear that echoed in poly circles a couple of hundred years later.
His statements on repressed passions would only later be brought to light again after fifty years when Freud started poking around in the subconscious. Fourier seems to have understood a lot about human motivation although he couldn't seem to apply his insight in his own relations.
It is truly sick humor that the man who came up with all these theories about how a society could become so closely knit together himself couldn't work and play well with others. Was he able to integrate sexual relations with close friendship and trust? The historical record is incomplete, but I wouldn't bet he ever did. It only took him a year of working closely with most devoted disciples to alienate them all to one degree or another.
I can say I've had enough with Utopians, even philosophers in general, for a while. Utopians are best taken in small doses.
There is more wank in philosophy, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your fandom.