Fourier and the Fourierists
Charles Fourier’s intent was to describe a universal system of social organization whose presentation was never completed (Beecher 1986) and which differs considerably from the Saint-Simonian approach.
While Saint-Simonians argued in favour of an extensive development of industrial society, Fourier was critical of “false industry” characterized by indigence of the population, treachery and revolutions: industry, he thought, brings about poverty as a result of abundance itself. Fourier provided a parody of the hypocritical “appeal” of free competition, commerce, free trade and the stock exchange. He was also critical of the principle of the division of labour, and also of the subordination of agriculture to the manufacturing industry.While the Saint-Simonians argued in favour of the perfectibility of mankind, Fourier rejected this hypothesis and advanced a cyclic and non-linear approach. Humanity would pass through eight stages (from primitive stage to the highest stage of harmony); however, he suggested that mankind might end up straying away from its destiny and fall into a social trap. This fall would be the consequence of a philosophy of progress that had failed to recognize the intentions of the deity and to identify the social code that governs the organization of human societies.
While Saint-Simonians strove to establish a framework for human behaviour through a global view of functions and their coordination revolving around a social objective, Fourier radically based social and economic order on individual desire, passions and “passionate attraction” (Fourier 1829). This attraction pushes individuals to freely join agricultural and domestic groups which are built up in a precise manner, vary over time and enable the expression and development of passions. The economic and social approach proposed by the Saint-Simonians came with a call for strict industrial hierarchy, administration by those with the ability and, in the case of Enfantin, a religious and sectarian order.
Fourier’s approach is closely associated with cosmological speculations (Beecher 1986: ch. 17) and a theory of “destinies” mainly based on the satisfaction of personal well-being: repressing or even modifying natural passions is impossible. In this way, any new organization of production must accept that “the main issue in social mechanics is getting people to rise to the role of proprietor” (Fourier 1836 [2013]: 15): no solution can be based on a revolutionary working class which positions itself as the enemy of the wealthy classes and a wealthy class which is the enemy of the people. Every individual must be proportionally enriched according to three criteria based on work, capital and skill. In this way, Fourier argued in favour of a combined industry and “phalanxes” (with 1620 members in each phalanx, or twice the number of people depicting the 810 passional personality types) bringing together the full range of male and female passions and leading to a “quadrupling of production”. The main characteristics of this organization are the following: (1) work units which are specialized or make use of a specific means of production; (2) the flourishing of individuals’ instincts which develop each and everyone’s productive values and vocations, as opposed to the industrial system in civilization which stifles and alters instincts via education and domestic violence; (3) universal attraction, linked to attractiveness and emulation, once tasks are distributed among a series of special groups with short work sessions and each individual participating in various groups; and (4) converging participation based on an unequal share distribution within the group. This distribution is supposed to grant access to dividends and varied and refined types of gratification, which in turn stimulates consumption, the latter being the basis for production. Thus, the hallmarks of the phalanx - the community which Fourier proposes as the basis from which to launch the new social organization - are the refusal of equality, a respect for property, an increase in the wealth of all classes of society without spoliation, the absence of a centralizing and federating body between communities, an increase of production which is strictly dependent on the intensity and refinement of passions, and free and voluntary participation.While Saint-Simonians went ahead with concrete applications of their utopian system and set up industrial and banking projects within industrial society itself, the disciples of Fourier - Considerant in particular - established Fourierist communities or phalanxes which experimented with the concept of ideal society as a whole in virgin locations (for example, near Dallas in Texas as from 1857 after the two French experiments in 1833 and 1842 and numerous American experiments). However, the influence of the Fourierists was not limited to the creation of phalanxes: from 1831, part of the Saint-Simonians switched to Fourierism and joined what was to become the “Ecole societaire”. Having made certain adjustments to the doctrine, its leader, Considerant, played a major role in its diffusion (Beecher 2001) and, opposed to Fourier, tried to bring together theory and politics by establishing connections with a republican program (right to vote and electoral reform in particular). Considerant (1839 [1848]) continued to defend the natural right to individual property, free inheritance without state intervention, and the idea of harmony between the classes within a community. However, he introduced a right to work compensating for spoliation of usufruct rights pertaining to land with the guarantee of paid work enabling the disinherited to live on. The degree of uncertainty regarding the position adopted by Considerant from the late 1840s mirrors the difficulty in grasping the changes brought about by the entry of the working classes into politics (revolution of February 1848), even though the Fourierist movement has often been interpreted as anticipating associative socialism.