A Manifesto for a Criticism of Imaginary Objects

1. It is self-evident that the world as it is is neither perfect nor is it ideal. A perfect world could not get better, nor could it change from that which it was, for to improve is to admit that improvement is possible, while to have a capacity to decline would be an imperfection in and of itself. We agree instead that the world is capable of change, be that improvement or decline.
2. Perfection is an objectively defined state, for the very concept of perfection requires there to be an external, Platonic measure, against which perfection can be gauged. Ideality is subjective, in that the ideal iteration of a given something is that which fits the needs and desires of the subject that interacts with it. As the set of subjects who are not a given subject will always outnumber the set of those who are, and that to exist in an unideal state is to have some level of unhappiness within one’s life, measures of ideality must take into account the manifest weight of unhappiness extant in this calculus. It follows, given this logic of unhappiness, that the world as-is is far from even being good by any valid understanding of the term.
3. The metaphysician Pyrrho refused to believe in any given view of the reality of the world, not because he felt that he couldn’t be convinced of its correctness but because he could not say for certain that a convincing counter argument would never be thought of and advanced. Therefore he sacrificed any possibility of the comfort of Truth on the altar of the future. We believe that this is a true selflessness, one that understands and accepts that to live in the present is to struggle constantly in order that one may measure up to the judges of the future, not one that rejects reality wholesale.
4. A multiplicity of possible voices, none of which contain or encompass an objective truth, provides context for rather than refutation of our complex reality. Destruction of the self in the public discourse does not need to be a step towards the vacuousness and societal damage of nihilism, nor should it be used to justify the erasure of voices. In fact, the refutation of the ideality of the present is served better when the multiplicity of voices is as diverse as possible on a localised level. The old order cannot be overthrown by the old order, and the counter-argument that has not yet been heard is something to be actively searched for rather than resisted.
5. Reality is, therefore, a construct, constructed dynamically in the moment of its construction. When reality is constructed as a network of understandings, that construction is stronger and more robust the more those understandings vary. It becomes a net of interweaved, and intersecting, threads, with points of contact and agreement linked by threads of individual understanding. This net can catch and support and react and integrate far more freely than the brittle node of a consensus reality. Reality is, and must be, therefore, intersectional.
6. Any given work of art, no matter how modern, is doomed to a future in which it is old and tired and no matter how progressive it is it will someday be a relic of oppression and hatred. No art can be the art that we need to exist.
7. The claim of the artist is that the critic cannot create, only destroy; that the critic has no business criticising that which the artist poured their heart and soul into. We dispute this on the behalf of the critic, for the act of criticism is the act of bringing into the world new understandings, but find ourselves in the position where we cannot deny the personal reality of it for the artist and therefore must embrace it as part of our construction of the shared reality that we must all live in.
8. Given that the critic is not fit to criticise that which exists, and given that that which exists is by definition flawed and cannot hope to be of value beyond the shortest span of time, it is open only for the critic to criticise that which does not exist.
9. Utopias are places that cannot exist, but that through their description urge the conditions to form so that the world comes closer to their state. However, utopian visions are necessarily corrupted by the corruption and imperfect state of the world that describes them. No utopia is truly utopian because it nevertheless exists in a world which we assert cannot contain perfections. By describing a utopia in words it is corrupted and brought down.
10. A Utopian Fiction is, rather than the fictional description of a utopia, a form of work of art that is ideal. It cannot be, but can only be described. Just as a Utopia cannot be realised, a utopian fiction cannot be written; if it is not written, but instead hinted at and and talked around, then it may somehow retain its perfection.
11. The job of the critic of the Utopian Fiction is to describe the reality against which the fictional fiction arrays itself. The critic is not a creator in the normal sense but instead a fiction themselves, existing within that which they conjure forth. In this sense, the critic of the Utopian Fiction takes the same place as any ordinary person in any given reality.
12. It is therefore our opinion that the critique of the imaginary object is a true aspect of utopian politics that is available to those who are not able, through resources or skill or temperament or because of barriers beyond their control, to create art or cultural objects that can impact the wider reality themselves. By critiquing a world which is not ours there is a freedom to imagine a world in which our concerns are given more consideration and by imagining that world we bring it’s reality nearer to the surface, sparking points of contact that will fuse and engage with the ever constructing construction.
13. The radical act always requires the imagination to see the world not as it is but as it could or should be. The imaginary is the radical in its nascent form. We believe in radical change that, at it’s heart, imagines a better future.