not the motorcycle diaries

“The axiomatic distinction between the utopic on the one hand and the utopian on the other can be described in terms of the latter as a perversion, a rigidification of the former. The utopic is a disposition, a manner of speech, an attitude, a procedure in semiosis, even if that procedure necessarily bears a proximity to the Kristevan semanalyse, the semiotic critique of the semiotic. Utopia is a fixed form. This analysis flies in the face of that line of interpretation that sees Utopia as heteroglossic. The heterological character of the discourse characterises the utopic. Utopia is the monoglossic face of the utopic. In Kristevan terms it is thetic, according to the categories of Roland Barthes it is doxic, a monologic discourse invariably constructed in terms of ideas by which contradictory and inevitable exclusions are defined.” (…)

“The utopic is the disagreement that Utopia cannot sustain. Utopia is the dream of perfect control, of both culture and nature. The definitive totalitarianisms of the twentieth century have utopian motivations, motivations resulting in the figure of perfectibility. Utopia is spoken in the language of domination, and speaks it.” (…)

“The utopic is marked by an excess of signification, Utopia by its formalisation. In the totalised ideological mise-en-scene that is late capitalist language, the utopic is the space of the displaced discourse, the internal exile of the concept.”

- Bernhard Sachs, ‘In the General Gouvernement of Semiosis/Against Utopia: Utopic Articulation as Act’, The Office of Utopic Procedures, West Space, 2002.