Dr. Peter Seyferth: Homo economicus and Homo utopicus: Towards a Synthesis. 1 Homo economicus and Homo utopicus: Towards a Synthesis Question: What are we humans? Answer: This is a good question, and all answers are debatable—even this one. It is impossible to have no answer (because our self-conception guides our acting and act we must), and at the same time it is impossible to get the one and only universally correct answer (since human beings can and do construct a very broad range of diverse self-conceptions, depending on historical circumstances). In this paper, I will discuss the prevailing idea of man 1 in contemporary political philosophy, in particular contractarianism: Homo economicus, which smacks of scientific accurateness and neutrality in spite of its ideological entanglements; and I will propose an alternative idea of man: Homo utopicus, 2 which is at least as ideological, but openly so. I argue that this changeover is a change for the better, since in political philosophy, ideology is unavoidable and thus has to be dealt with forthrightly. And whereas Homo economicus is associated with one ideology (neo- liberalism), Homo utopicus is open for ideologies of any kind (even including neo-liberalism). Throughout the discussion one should not forget that I do not discriminate between two different kinds of humans, but distinguish between two different kinds of talking about humans. My goal is to arrive at a narrative that both matches empirical data and makes possible utopian models, plans, and desires. It has not been attained yet, so the following proceedings do not only touch utopian themes, but are utopian in themselves. While I am quite sure that the philosophical grounding for Homo utopicus is sound, the defeat of Homo economicus’s hegemony is something to be hoped for, a Not-yet that keeps me walking to the ever-retreating horizon. You are invited to walk with me in this direction for a while. Homo economicus as a model For the time being, in classical rational choice and game theory, Homo economicus is defined as a self-interested and rational actor that has preferences. It is an actor, meaning that Homo economicus is consciously doing something, and it is the planning of this doing that is 1 It is maddening for me that in this article I so often have to use the word “man” to refer to human beings regardless of their gender or sex. “Human” (as noun) does not always feel right (to my ears it sounds like an adjective), “human being” is quite long but will be used when possible. The Latin “Homo” is as male as the German “Mensch” is “männisch” (manly). “Person” has a different meaning that does not match my intentions. Lucky utopians that have invented languages with gender-neutral (and non-possessive) nouns and pronouns, e.g. on Anarres or in Mattapoisett! 2 The term “Homo utopicus” is the title of a very helpful book that points to the relevance of Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology for bringing utopia back into political philosophy: Erik Zyber, Homo Utopicus. Die Utopie im Lichte der Philosophischen Anthropologie, eds Ernst Wolfgang Orth and Karl-Heinz Lembeck (Trierer Studien zur Kulturphilosophie. Paradigmen menschlicher Orientierung; Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2007). See below for further discussion.