On the problem of the structure-forming elements of Utopian Discourse and its specifics

Gudilina Ekaterina Nikolaevna ORCID: 0000-0002-0435-1671 Postgraduate student of the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Politics, Faculty of Political Science, St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, nab. Universitetskaya, 7-9 ek.gudilina@gmail.com

Poroshkov Mikhail Mikhailovich ORCID: 0000-0002-2445-0669 Postgraduate student of the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Politics, Faculty of Political Science, St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, nab. Universitetskaya, 7-9 mikhail.poroshkov@yandex.ru

1. Introduction.  The concept of utopia in modern political studies

Reflections on a different political system, which is qualitatively different for the better and is more just, more perfect, more humane, accompany humanity throughout its history, reflecting the "natural need to push the boundaries of the historical moment" ^{[1, p.7]}. But the genesis of utopian thought, as well as numerous studies of utopia (so-called Utopian studies) have led to the fact that the very concept of utopia has become ambiguous and blurred, often receiving negative connotations and assessments.

The distinction between utopia as a social phenomenon, the result of the origin, development and realization of utopian thought, and research, one way or another related to the utopian dimension of reality, is reflected in the paradox when the number of utopias being created decreases (even with the total accounting of both utopias and dystopias), and the number of studies on already created specific utopias or about abstract utopia is growing ^{[2, p. 34]}. The directions of utopia research are constantly varying and being revised, from criticizing utopia as a false consciousness and considering utopia in constant conjunction with ideology to justifying (apologizing) utopia and attributing to it a number of unique features and functions, such as constructing desirable worlds ^[3].Among the most prominent critics of utopia we will name K. Marx, F. Engels and K. Popper, among the defenders - P. Riker, R. Nozik, L.T. Sargent, S. Zizek. 

The basis of the positive perception of utopia was laid by E. Bloch (1885-1977), who throughout his life addressed the topic of utopia, exploring it through the prism of the principle of hope ("The Spirit of Utopia" (1918), "Freedom and Order. An Essay on Social Utopias" (1946), "The Principle of Hope" (in three volumes – 1954, 1955, 1960). In the "Principle of Hope", written from 1938 to 1947 and first published in 1953, E. Bloch considers the Future as a material force, as "the basic definition of objective reality as a whole" ^{[4, p. 7]}, as "a guiding act of the cognitive kind" ^{[4, p. 12]}, as "a component of reality itself" ^{[4, p. 197]}.

If Bloch thought about utopia in a philosophical way, seeing in it the manifestation of the principle of hope, then a number of modern researchers operationalize utopia, considering it primarily as a tool of social analysis and research.Consideration of utopia as a method involves highlighting, emphasizing the following points:

-Frederick Jamieson, adhering to the goal of "justifying utopia," reveals new facets in the phenomenon: utopia is not only a better society and/or the desire for a better society. For Jamison, utopia is the ability to desire, a skill that needs to be developed. In utopia, not only and not so much the result (constructing a model of a better society) is important, but the process of achieving this result itself, which develops the ability of a person, a social group, society to use their imagination and discipline it: by constructing a utopia, its author demonstrates both a vision of the real world and a vision of the desired world ^[3].

-Darko Suvin sees utopia as a procedure of "exclusion", for which it is more important not how much the author of utopia approaches perfection or the ideal, but the very need and opportunity to create an image-model of a possible desired world ^{[5, p. 9]}. Utopia as a method of critical perception of reality, in which constructed images that differ from the Present allow deeper comprehension, perception of this Present.

- Russell Jacobi suggests focusing on an iconoclastic utopia (a utopia aimed at criticizing reality), and not on a projective utopia (a utopia containing completed projects of a different political structure) ^[6]. For Jacobi, iconoclastic utopia is a method that allows you to see alternatives, imagine a different world order, and wish for the best. The goal of utopia is not to offer a qualitatively better version of the social structure, but that the very process of constructing such an image-model reveals all possible alternative versions of reality. The goal of utopia is to explore the whole variety of options. Utopia supports a departure from the invariant in the direction of the variability of reality.

- Martin Parker also evaluates utopia as a method that allows you to see and fix alternatives to current development, and protects it "from the opposite": ignoring the potential of utopia will lead to the fact that consciousness, individual and collective, will not be able to see, imagine, design alternatives to the capitalist system. The narrowing of the mental space and the reduction of the level of critical perception of reality to the only true, possible and acceptable variant of the existence of reality (for example, capitalism) can only lead to the degradation of society and its intellectual impoverishment and simplification ^{[7, p. 22]}.

-Chamsi el-Oheili sees utopia as optics, a set of guiding principles that allow him, as a researcher, to talk about trends in the development of basic ideological constellations, such as liberalism, post-fascism and communism. El-Oheili defines utopia as "a method of interpretation, ubiquitous and multivalent, and also diagnostically important, despite its still rather marginal place in the humanities" ^{[8, p. 2]}. El–Oheili's method is that based on the state of political thought of a particular ideological trend, it is possible using utopian optics, to see the possible near future, strengthening and developing existing trends.

-Ruth Levitas continues Bloch's line and evaluates utopia as a method of social analysis based on the "education of desire", and utopianism as "fundamental... the propensity of people" ^{[9, p. 1]}. Levitas explains the existing diversity of utopia concepts by the attention of one or another researcher to the specific side of utopia (to the content, to the form, to the functions, to the topos) ^{[10, p.5]}:

-if we focus on the content of utopia, then utopia is generally defined as a narrative about a social structure that is radically different from the social order familiar to the author of utopia;

-attention to the form of utopia allows you to see a genre in it (utopia as a kind of works characterized by certain plot and stylistic features);

-emphasizing the functions of utopia leads to definitions that somehow fix the positive or negative impact of utopia on reality: utopia as a phenomenon that hinders the knowledge of reality (Marx), as a phenomenon that explodes reality (Mannheim), as a phenomenon that allows you to see alternatives to the existing order (Riker), etc.;

-an appeal to etymology leads to an emphasis on the topos, the location of utopia: utopia as a Nigdea, as a mental space that does not correspond to the material and geographical understanding of the territory.

According to Levitas, in order to see utopia as an effective method of imaginary reconstruction of society, it is necessary to fix the widest possible understanding of utopia. Levitas suggests defining utopia as "an expression of striving for a better way of life or being" ^{[10, p. 5]}.

Exploring utopia, Levitas proposes to distinguish three modalities that allow taking into account the diverse facets of the phenomenon: utopia as archaeology, utopia as ontology and utopia as architecture.  Utopia as archaeology implies "bringing together images of a good society that are embedded in political programs and social and economic policies", the search for often "implicit images of a good society and views on what people are or should be" ^{[11, p. 153-154]}. Utopia as an ontology focuses on the most important issues "about human nature and human prosperity" ^{[11, p. 177]}. Utopia as architecture is defined by structuring the imaginary world and describing its social institutions. This modality of utopia has a pronounced critical and constructivist (constructivism) orientation, focusing on the creation of alternative versions of the political system.

Of particular interest are studies in which utopia is considered not only as a method of cognition and understanding of political reality in general, but also as a tool that has a significant impact on other phenomena (primarily ideology).A number of researchers (Chamsi el-Oheili ^[8], K. Kastoriadis ^[12]) associate the stability and stability of an ideology with the ability of ideology to maintain a utopian dimension. The hypothesis they prove is as follows: there is a direct connection between the appeal of ideology to utopia and high indicators of the viability of ideology. The narrowing of the utopian dimension of ideologies leads to a state in which "society discovers that it has no idea of its own future, and is also devoid of projects" ^[12]. Ignoring the utopian dimension by political thought creates "an all-pervading atmosphere of hesitation, defensive behavior, fear, as well as the reduction of images of a better future" ^{[8, p. 47]}.

The horizon of the Future is also considered by Graham Gill as a vital necessity for the existence of any ideology. Gill, aimed at studying the processes of legitimation/delegitimization in Soviet Russia, offers a model of understanding civilization, including the Soviet one, which binds together ideology, meta-narratives, myths and symbols.

Ideology is the basis on which subsequent levels of meta-narrative, myths and symbols are built. Gill defines ideology as "a consistent set of values, assumptions, principles and arguments that contains an idea of how historical development takes place, and includes both an assessment of the shortcomings of the Past (and possibly the Present), and some recommendations on what needs to be done to achieve the desired changes" ^{[13, p. 2]}. Gill understands ideology in a highly philosophical way (ideology as the "philosophical basis of the regime" ^{[13, p. 2]}, as "the dominant concepts of the social reality of society" ^{[13, p. 3]}), because ideology, according to the researcher, contains, first of all, abstract constructions, explaining a variety of existing and possible social forms and practices. But in order to convey the provisions of the ideology to various segments of the population, its clarification and simplification is required, which is carried out at the level of the meta-narrative.

The metanarrative is "a set of discourses, which is a simplified form of ideology and which is a means of communication between the regime and those who live under it ^{[13, p. 3]}. The metanarrative allows you to "translate" the philosophical positions and constructions of ideology into the language of everyday life understandable to an ordinary citizen: the metanarrative is both narrower and more a phenomenon closer to the people who perceive it than ideology ^{[13, p. 3]}. The meta-narrative is focused "on the symbolic construction of society, explaining both the current reality and the future trajectory of its development" ^{[13, p. 3]}.

Myths, due to their "narrative structure and consistency with the history of society" ^{[13, p. 3]}, act as components of a meta-narrative, deploying it in a symbolic space and giving it meaning, revealing how society arose, how it exists and functions, where it is moving. For a myth, it is not so much the empirical component and reliance on reality that is important, as faith in it: "the myth is socially constructed and is a means of both defining and explaining reality for those who believe in it" ^{[13, p. 4]}

Symbols are not so much a level, as connecting links between ideology, meta-narrative and myths. Symbols are "a form of language expressing, often in a vivid form, principles, assumptions, concepts and ideas that are quite complex and politically significant" ^{[13, p. 5]}.

Analyzing the problems of legitimacy in the Soviet state, Gill comes to the conclusion that the meta-narrative, constantly changing and being consistent with both the state vision of the development of society and social demands (the dynamic nature of the meta-narrative), is able to maintain viability and stability only if it retains within itself not only an understanding of time periods and a certain correlation of the Past, The present and the Future, but also, above all, the necessary and sufficient space for the Future.

Gill notes that the stability of the meta–narrative before 1961 can be explained, on the one hand, by its intention for the Future (a new world, a new society, a new person, etc.); on the other hand, by the fuzziness and blurriness of the outlines of the Future, which made it possible to create a symbolic space in which everyone found the desired features for themselves. The turning point for the beginning of the destruction of the meta-narrative was 1961 and the Third Program of the CPSU, which changed the timing and construction of time. Until the Third Program of the CPSU in 1961, the meta-narrative never indicated the time coordinates of the achievement of communism. Socialist realism also pushed communism into an indefinite future: "at times there were signs that its [communism's] achievement was not far off, the meta-narrative never set a definite schedule" ^{[13, p.247]}. But in 1961, a timeline for the arrival of communism was established in the meta-narrative, which became a criterion for evaluating progress towards this goal. This allowed us to see not only progress, but also to fix emerging problems and lagging behind schedule.

So, the instrumental approach to utopia is split into the following directions:

-utopia as an interpretive and research tool. In this direction, utopia is seen as a method of social analysis and research, which is aimed primarily at understanding and understanding reality, and not at changing it (the theoretical level of utopia);

-utopia as an effective method of forecasting and planning the future. This variety considers utopia as a practice-oriented tool that creates a vital dimension of alternatives and opportunities for any political system of ideas, beliefs and beliefs (ideology, myth, etc.) (a practice-oriented level of utopia).

2. Conceptualization of utopian discourse as a semantic and symbolic matrix

The recorded variety of approaches to utopia, which can be understood both as a phenomenon (regardless of its positive or negative impact on reality) and as a tool of social analysis, research or impact on political reality, is supplemented by a significant number of concepts related to the utopian dimension of reality and understanding of the future (utopia, utopian element, utopian impulse utopian optics, utopianism, utopian consciousness, utopian thinking, dystopia, etc.). Suppose that the existing variety of these concepts can be considered within the framework of utopian discourse, which will allow, if not to smooth out the contradictions between the concepts and bring them to a single internally consistent system, then, in any case, to outline the boundaries of space, within which these concepts are developing, as well as to identify the features and characteristics that unite them. The concept of utopian discourse is able to structure concepts related to the utopian dimension of reality; to comprehend the logic of designing a different, possible, desired social order; to analyze the mechanics of the action of "a complex cognitive apparatus that allows you to work with the border areas of experience" ^{[14, p. 44]}.

One of the options for distinguishing utopian and other types of discourse can be called the quantitative ratio of discursive and recursive statements: discursive statements are statements whose totality generates new ideas, meanings, meanings; recursive statements are statements repeating the same information without significant change and without increment of meaning or the appearance of shades of meaning ^[15]. The ratio of discursive and recursive utterances in discourse allows us to label utopian discourse as a discourse with a significant predominance of discursive utterances. In addition, this ratio allows us to assume the parameters of the viability of ideological discourse:

1. the crisis of ideological discourse ^{[16, pp. 199-200]} – ideological discourse with a significant predominance of recursive practices, within which ideology becomes unable to match the dynamics of social life; ideological discourse without a utopian dimension.

2. the viability of ideological discourse – an approximate combination of discursive and recursive statements is based on a ratio of 80% to 20% ^[17]; ideological discourse with a utopian dimension.

The separation of discursive and recursive utterances within the framework of discourse lays down the main feature of distinguishing utopian discourse from other types of discourse: the construction of radically new ideas and social practices. As an additional feature, the material manifestation of discourses can be distinguished. Ideological discourse is practice-oriented and is able to bridge the gap between spiritual production and the formation of a system of ideas, beliefs and beliefs and the transition to practical (material) activity, whether it is material production or socially transformative activity.

The utopian discourse splits during the transition to material production: part remains within the utopian dimension of reality (by what does not exist in the material sphere); and the part that overcomes the boundary between the ideological sphere and the material (what has become part of social material practice) is transformed into social institutions as social relations -connections (social practices).

This splitting of utopian discourse is also confirmed by empirical data: utopian discourse depends on the actual social order taken in the concreteness of space-time coordinates: what in one historical period will be labeled as falling into the sphere of utopian discourse, in another historical period will become part of everyday social practice.Those social practices that are already in operation can be attributed to the utopian dimension of reality only in retrospect, because the utopian dimension of reality is a gap between the description of the material, already existing order and the speculative social structure built on top of this order. If the gap disappears, the utopian dimension disappears.

The concept of utopian discourse is based on a communicative approach, in which any relative stable belief system exists in the form of speech and textual practices. To identify the boundaries of utopian discourse, it is productive to use the matrix concept, which was proposed and developed by Clifford Geertz in the Interpretation of Cultures.Rethinking ideology within the framework of the hermeneutic approach, Girtz justified the following vision of ideology: ideology is not only and not so much a combination of political and legal values in one sequence or another, leading to the formulation of a specific "ism", be it conservatism, liberalism, socialism, etc. Ideology is a symbolic and semantic matrix, the task of which is "to make autonomous politics possible by creating authoritative concepts that would give it meaning and convincing images that would make it accessible to perception" ^[18]. That is, ideology becomes an instrument, an instrument of cognition of political reality: a person, a social group, a society are in a specific political and legal reality with certain spatial and temporal dimensions.time coordinates. Ideologies help to comprehend and understand this reality as "maps of problematic social reality and matrices according to which collective consciousness is created" ^[18].

The formation of ideology as a "symbolic matrix", as a "map of problematic social reality" requires a stage of accumulation of political experience. But it is this experience that allows us to take a step forward and see ideology as a system of "isms" consisting of ideas and beliefs, ideology as "a way of functioning of a wide range of symbolic forms" ^{[19, p. 20]}. Such an understanding of ideology removes the dichotomy of the ideology of a false image of reality and reality itself, because now the question of the true reflection of reality is not raised: the problem of understanding reality as such becomes more important.  Ideology offers a matrix – a coordinate system within which reality is interpreted. Geertz's concept of ideology as an interpretive matrix can be extrapolated to utopia and utopian discourse, since these phenomena are also aimed not only at understanding and comprehending, but also at interpreting political and legal reality.

Researchers who identify utopia codes or utopian field criteria often overlook the uniqueness of utopia in the sense that their proposed characteristics do not allow to distinguish utopia from adjacent or even opposite phenomena with a sufficient degree of certainty, because a number of codes can be transferred to other phenomena without loss of explanatory power. For example, V.S. Vakhstein identifies 4 utopia codes: rationalism, universalism, transcendentalism, criticism ^{[20, pp. 223-229]}; L.I. Letyagin speaks of spatial isolation, timelessness, autarky, regularity as characteristic features of classical (Morovian) utopia ^{[21, pp. 80-81]}; G.D. Leontiev refers to sketchiness, singularity, constancy to the invariants of utopian discourse ^{[22, p. 18]}. L. Geler and M. Nike, fixing the boundaries of the utopian field, talk about 2 criteria: a break with the Present and the collective nature of the ideal or utopian goal ^[23].  The assumption that the codes of various phenomena can overlap is not disputed (for example, criticism as a code can belong to both utopia and ideology; rationality – to utopia and science; collective character – to utopia, ideology, and religion; sketchiness – to utopia and myth, etc.), but there must be codes which will allow us to consider utopia and utopian discourse as something peculiar.

For utopian discourse, such structural elements can be called exaggerated dichotomy of thinking (thinking with dichotomies) and otherness.

In principle, dichotomy is inherent in consciousness: "what is good" and "what is bad" permeates the entire history of mankind, regardless of what in the concreteness of the space-time continuum will be understood as "good" and what is "bad" ^[24]: on the opposition of "friend–foe" builds its own the concept of the political K. Schmitt ^[25], and T.A. van Dijk marks the principle "emphasize what characterizes Us positively, and Them negatively" as fundamental for the construction of ideological discourse ^[26].

Dichotomy helps a person, a social group, a society to navigate in space, but it also causes significant contradictions when it is necessary to correlate binary oppositions with reality. Dichotomy can be overcome by considering the phenomenon in dynamics (removal of contradictions according to G.F. Hegel, inversion according to J. Derrida), but this mental operation is so complex that in the vast majority of cases it remains unrealized.

Utopian discourse is based on a pyramid of dichotomies divided into levels: system-forming dichotomy, key dichotomies, peripheral dichotomies. Dichotomies in general are relatively neutral in the sense that only the so-called system-forming dichotomy "true-false" and its derivatives (such as, for example, "good–bad", "good-evil", "right-wrong", etc.) have an evaluative value. The system-forming dichotomy does not lend itself to a neutral formulation and outlines the positive and negative poles to which the elements of all other dichotomies will be attracted ^{[27, p. 40]}. Thinking with dichotomies presupposes thinking in terms of two–valued logic, where only 2 meanings are available: "truth" (1) or "lie" (0). The peculiarity of utopian discourse is the consolidation of the meaning of "lie" for the existing, established social social order, and the meaning of "truth" for the image of the proposed social order. From utopia to utopia, the meanings will be preserved: the starting point, the criticism of the Present is always "false", and the image of the Future is "true". At the same time, as soon as only those elements of the dichotomy are used to explain reality, which are given a positive coloring (truth), and all negative ones are discarded (lies), thinking becomes utopian.

The multivariance of both the criticized Present and the proposed Future is considered in the framework of utopian discourse as a space for the development and increment of social experience and thought, and not as an example of an erroneous direction of reflection. Utopian discourse does not smooth out the juxtaposition of the elements of the dichotomy, but, on the contrary, focuses on their presence and increases the distance between them.

The algorithm of thinking with dichotomies that forms utopian discourse can be represented as follows:

- the whole variety of reality is divided into dichotomous pairs, organized around the structure-forming dichotomy "truth – lie";

-in various key and peripheral dichotomous pairs, one element is attracted to the "truth" pole, the other to the "lie" pole;;

-utopian discourse preserves only positive elements of dichotomies, discarding negative elements;

-on the basis of positive elements, a narrative is built, linking the elements into a single harmonious closed system-narration.

Such a logic of fixing utopian discourse does not prevent the construction of diverse combinations of elements of key and, moreover, peripheral dichotomies. For example, the choice of private property from the dichotomy "private property – common property" can be supplemented by both "professing any religion" (Mora's choice in the dichotomy "professing any religion –not professing any religion ^[28]) and "professing Christianity" (Campanella's choice in the dichotomy "Christianity – non-Christianity" ^[29]). From utopia to utopia, the number of key dichotomies and their combinations may differ, but in each utopia there is at least one key dichotomy (Mohr, Campanella: private property – common/collective property; Plato: ruler-philosopher – ruler-non-philosopher; Bacon: science as the basis of society – non-science ^[30], etc.). Within the utopian discourse, key and even more peripheral dichotomies can be combined in the most sophisticated way: for example, Pestilence has no private property, but this does not prevent the preservation of slavery and the obligation of religion as necessary for a stable and prosperous society institutions.

The exaggerated dichotomy of thinking is complemented by otherness as a structure–forming element of utopian discourse, since the image constructed by utopian discourse is an image not only and not so much of the proper, but of a different order (Hegel's otherness, Bloch's "yet-not-being" ^[4]). Utopian discourse is filled with the code of otherness, otherness. When referring to utopia, duality in its etymology is often mentioned (utopia – from other-Greek. O? "not" + "place"; according to another version from others-Greek. "good", that is, "good place"): utopia can be understood both as a place that does not exist (Nigdeya) and as a good place. Note the interesting interweaving of these seemingly opposite meanings. If you combine them (a good place that does not exist), then it becomes clear why utopia is so common at different times and in different territories: the very fact of absence makes utopia desirable, because a person always strives for what he does not have.

Saturation with otherness manifests itself as follows:

- historicity of utopian discourse;

- the radicality of utopian discourse;

- the connection of utopian discourse with the Present, criticism of the Present as a vital need of utopian discourse.

The correlation of utopian discourse with a specific space and time determines those norms, social relations and institutions that are utopian for a given historical period: "the utopias of each epoch ... bear the imprint of the time and place in which they arose ... these are answers not only to eternal questions about human existence, but also to questions of specific historical societies" ^{[31, p. 46]}. The change of epochs leads to changes in utopian discourse, which is influenced by "1) specific social conditions, 2) the prevailing ideological paradigm, 3) the achieved level of development of the theory and methodology of social cognition" ^{[21, p. 80]}. In this case, the very essence of utopian discourse is invariant, namely, dichotomy and otherness.

Otherness leads utopian discourse and utopias to radicalism, because criticism of the Present reaches its denial, to the rejection of the "here-and-now" state. The desire not just to change or improve the political system, but to build a new social order, a new society, a new person determines the orientation of utopian discourse on radical criticism of the Present. Utopian discourse tries to overcome the framework of causality and builds the social from the so-called "point zero", offering the subjects of discourse to take the position of an outside observer, allowing them to take themselves beyond the current social order. As a result, it becomes possible to construct an alternative variant of the development of society, to outline significant points of bifurcation.

So, the radicality of utopian discourse is manifested in the fact that within its framework there is a reassembly of the social, and also the social is constructed from the so-called point zero. Utopian discourse tries not only to change and improve the existing social order, but also always suggests discarding, ignoring the Present and starting from scratch.

The manifestation of the otherness of utopian discourse is observed, which is not a little paradoxical, in its inextricable connection with the Present. Criticism of the Present is a vital need of utopian discourse: without criticism of the Present, the construction of utopian discourse is impossible). Utopian discourse constantly turns to the Present, generating more and more layers of its criticism. Such intentionality of utopian discourse is often complemented by psychological tricks, manipulation of consciousness. Artificially created contrast, with an emphasis on the greatest possible dilution and opposition of the Present and the Future, leads to catharsis when fixing the proposed Future, built on prepared ground-criticism of the Present. The present, perceived exclusively in a negative way, cannot but be replaced by a utopian Future, bright and perfect. Utopian discourse takes advantage of the fact that the Future is felt more acutely, desired more strongly if the Present is described in terms of utter decline, and not neutral or least critical.

3. Additional characteristics of utopian discourse

In addition to dichotomous thinking and otherness, manifested in historicity, radicality and inextricable connection with the Present, utopian discourse is characterized by:

-narrativity – fixation of an image in the form of a narrative ^{[15, pp. 65-67]}.Utopian discourse "unfolds" selected dichotomies in a narrative that is not only critical and publicistic, but also largely descriptive. Utopian discourse does not try to prove that the social order it fixes should be implemented. He does not aim to put forward theses and prove them by giving rational and logical arguments. The narrative of utopian discourse is primarily addressed to the intuitive perception of reality (as well as to experience), when what is described at the emotional level is recognized as the most preferable, best and desired.

In this narrative, there is a conscious hyperbolization and idealization; for the emotional and intimate perception of utopia, its author (even if it is popular) consciously strives to ensure that the model of public order differs as much as possible from the existing public order. Strengthening of features should be considered exclusively as an artistic technique aimed at emphasizing the advantages of the proposed model. Utopia simplifies reality by sometimes artificially tightening the manifestation of the negative in the current and strengthening the positive in the social order proposed by utopia.

-opposition of the structure of social order and human nature in utopian discourse. Utopian discourse, using "public order (society) – human nature (man)" as one of the key dichotomies, comes to the assertion that numerous social problems have not a psychological, but a structural essence. And if for many researchers a critical understanding of this dichotomy (society – man) If it does not contain an answer lying on the surface ^{[32, pp. 117-121]}, then utopians in their utopias give numerous illustrations of the idea of the primacy of the structure of public order over human nature: in a must-organized society, an organized person cannot but exist. In utopia as a model of social structure, all its positive characteristics (be it justice, equality, efficiency or any other characteristic significant for the author of utopia) depend on the initially given structure of such a device, and not on the nature of man.

Utopian discourse, reflecting on a different, possible, desired social order, one way or another, but chooses the statement "what kind of society, such and man", and not "what kind of person, such and society". The structure is primary, human nature is secondary: if you set the right structure, a person cannot fail to be appropriate to the best device, i.e., the best.

The primacy of the structure of social order finds its continuation in the totality of utopia. Utopian discourse seeks to extend its specificity to the whole society, shifting the emphasis from individual and group interests to public interests. In value terms, the whole in utopian discourse is hierarchically higher than the particular and the individual.

-utopia as the most widespread and rigid form of fixing utopian discourse of a particular historical period. Utopia presupposes the presence of a complete text (the statics of utopian discourse), which can be interpreted both by the contemporaries of the author of a particular utopia, and by representatives of any other historical epoch (the dynamics of utopian discourse) ^[9]. As a genre, utopia presupposes a description of the constructed best social order; a description of an idealized social order that absolutizes improvements. The theme of any utopia is to think about which specific elements make up the best society, which structural elements construct the best social order; how they should interact and function. The idea of utopia is that the best society is possible, because society as a mechanism is amenable to adjustment and adjustment. If one mechanism society does not function properly (the society of the Present), then it can and should be replaced radically by another mechanism society.

4. Advantages and disadvantages of Utopian discourse

Thinking in dichotomies and focusing on otherness is both the strength and weakness of utopian discourse. The weakness of utopian discourse is manifested in its limited demand in the political sphere ^[6], which is explained by the direct dependence between the level of legitimacy of the existing public order and the frequency of recourse to utopian constructions: if the public order is legitimate, then utopia rather does not receive the necessary support.

Utopian discourse, criticizing the existing social relations, seeks to go beyond them, to reinvent reality, but this leads to the following problems:

-Utopian discourse is not able to overcome the situation when an old, already existing system or its elements somehow penetrates into utopia as a new system of social order. As a result, utopia is only a reflection of the criticized system, which, due to its fuzziness and blurriness, the author of utopia is labeled as a new, improved version of the old system. Note that the break with the Present is also a certain convention in the sense that such a break is possible only as a thought experiment. No matter how much the creator of utopia does not want to completely go beyond the boundaries of the "here-and-now", having discarded and stepped over a specific political structure, he takes into his utopia his subjective preferences and attitudes and the social structure in which he lives.

-Utopian discourse is based on the choice of one or another element in various dichotomies, but when utopian discourse takes the opposite position, replaces one element of the dichotomy with another (for example, a call to replace private property with collective property), this does not remove utopia and utopian discourse from the already existing system of dichotomies (in the proposed example, these are property relationsThat is, the goal of utopian discourse is to go beyond the existing system, fixing one or another element of a particular dichotomy, but utopia only replaces one element of the dichotomy with another, and therefore it is not possible to go beyond this dichotomy.

- Utopian discourse often becomes an extremely truncated and inconsistent quasi-philosophical system. In the plan, utopia wants a radically different society and a radically different social order. But this requires, at least, a whole and integral philosophical system consisting of ontology, epistemology, axiology and ethics. Utopian discourse and utopia avoid touching on these problems, follow the simplest path, ignoring the need for a theoretical foundation. But without a conceptual basis and argumentation, the model of the Future proposed by utopian discourse looks unfounded and undocumented.

The identified weaknesses of utopian discourse to some extent clarify the reasons why it receives skeptical assessments, and explain the prevalence of negative connotations of utopia, the very concept of which is used in political reality to discredit the position of a competitor or opponent. But weakness can hide strength, so the appeal to the strengths of utopian discourse is aimed at understanding its potential and understanding the reasons for the viability/non-viability of utopia as a concept. The mentioned correlation between the level of legitimacy of the existing public order and the frequency of recourse to utopian constructions in a situation of low legitimacy leads to increased attention to possible alternatives, including utopian constructions. I.e., if the public order is unstable, illegitimate, then utopia becomes desirable; society begins to realize the absence of utopia as qualitatively different from the Present the system and desire it, strive for its implementation. The most productive time for constructing utopias is a period of instability, but overcoming the identified weaknesses is required to realize one's potential.

Conclusion

The concept of utopian discourse has significant explanatory and prognostic potential, since it reveals the features of the utopian dimension of reality and the features of its impact on political reality. The structure of utopian discourse is primarily the interaction and mutual influence of dichotomous thinking and the otherness formed on its basis. Dichotomy is aimed at adapting consciousness to the existing reality, but, at the same time, it becomes the foundation for constructing a speculative image of a different social order. The choice of one or another element of possible dichotomies (system-forming dichotomy, key dichotomies, peripheral dichotomies) leads to diverse options for the Future, reflecting the desire not only to critically evaluate the Present, but also to revise it and radically change it. The dichotomy and otherness of utopian discourse, manifested in historicity, radicality and inextricable connection with the Present, is complemented by the narrative and primacy of the social order regarding human nature.

In the limit, the potential of utopian discourse is not only going beyond reality and the existing social order, but also going beyond dichotomies and dichotomous thinking. Utopian discourse can and should construct, at least speculatively, a model of society that will not just be an improved version of the old, already existing, model, but a qualitatively new reading of the possibilities and limitations of social reality.