Although comparing one society to another does not require them to be different in government or human behavior, it does necessarily weight one’s faults against its victories to render it better or worse than the other. This comparative structure, found between Thomas More’s two books of Utopia, poses the country of Utopia opposite the broader communities of world civilization. Despite the comparison of Utopia as distinct from and morally better than widespread society, in truth Utopia is, at best, an extension.
The sloth of governments abroad have led Utopians to pursue lives of group work rather than personal property. In Book I, Hythloday confronts the wealthy as "rapacious, wicked, and useless, while the poor are unassuming, modest men who work hard" (36). The duality of the claim of wealth versus work makes them appear dichotomous, not to mention cruel, and results in the desire of the Utopians to be free of not only "private property," but of laziness. Thus they partake of group labor, but wherein "every person learns a second trade, besides agriculture" (45). This appears fair and useful, especially when coupled with how "Utopians do not work very long hours, for to "exhaust himself with endless toil" is "such wretchedness, really worse than slavery" (45). Yet In Book I, Hythloday makes a positive example of the Persian Polylerites, whom, "apart from their constant work, they undergo no discomfort in living" (23). This contradiction of values is met with another: their own enslavement of others.
Though the struggles of the poor amid the wealth of leadership motivate the Utopians to abolish money, it is not to the effect of equality. Hythloday is critical of "a solitary ruler who enjoys a life of pleasure...while all abou...
... middle of paper ...
...uble with working for princes in the common world of government: "You must openly approve of the worst proposals, and consent to the most vicious policies" (35). In Utopia, while opposing the openness of the plans, do in subtle, frightful subjugations control their people in a remote society. While the character of More often argues with Hythloday in Book I for his opposition to wealth and government, by the end of Book II his primary concern is the same, glossing mindset of the loss of beautiful possessions and rule with their "splendor and majesty" (97). Although this position is deliberately focused on the monetary absence in Utopia, his listing of their observances shows acknowledgement; and while Utopia would itself never acknowledge its nearly Spartan oligarchy, between Books I and II it is clear that through comparison, its digression is anything but ideal.
In Utopia, hubris is believed to the root of everything wrong in the world. In both book 1 and 2, More tells how hubris ruins everything and causes people to become greedy and uncaring towards others. Hythloday believes that people in Utopia are happier because they do not worry about food and are concerned about the public. While people of other places are full of greed and are too prideful to help another person in need.
The authors therefor saw the ‘utopian’ societies to be a trap for weak minded publics, and that once in place, such systems would be able to perpetuate indefinitely due to the efficiency at which they protect and propagate themselves. Through fear, diversion and sedation the utopia can maintain a strong grip on the people it encompasses before anyone realizes the sacrifices made. The popularity of these books does rule out the possibility of such a society coming into existence in the future, however. The state of people is not about to change, and their ignorance will continue regardless of the harshness of the wake up calls issued.
Utopia is a term invented by Sir Thomas More in 1515. However, he traces the root two Greek words outopia and eutopia which means a place does not exist and a fantasy, invention. It is widely accepted that Plato was to first to picture a utopian order. In his masterpiece, “Republic”, he formed the principles of ideal commonsense and his utopia (Hertzler, 1922:7). After the classical age, Sir Thomas More assumed to be the first of the utopian writers in early modern period. As a humanist, he gave the world in his “Utopia” a vision of a perfect communistic commonwealth (the history of utopian thought). Utopia’s influence on contemporary and rival scholars is so deep that it has given its name to whole class of literature. Following the appearance of More’s Utopia, there was a lack of Utopian literature for nearly a century (Hertzler, 1922:7). This period ended with the works of Francis Bacon, Campanelle and Harrington. These early modern utopians, being the children of Renaissance, filled with a love of knowledge and high respect for the newly truths of science. Thus, they believed that the common attainment of knowledge means the largest participation of all members of society in its joys and benefits. After the period of early Utopians, continuation of a sprit of French Revolution and initial signs of industrial revolution resulted in the emergence of a new group of Utopians called Socialist Utopians (Hertzler, 1922: 181). The word “Socialism” seems to have been first used by one of the leading Utopian Socialists, St Simon. In politics utopia is a desire that never come true neither now nor afterwards, a wish that is not based on social forces (material conditions and production) and is not supported by the growth and development of political, class forces. This paper discusses the validity of this claim, tries to present and evaluate the political reforms, if any, offered by Socialist Utopians.
One of the reasons, the so called Utopia fails to exist time and again when attempts are taken solely on the ground of equity is that, even the most idyllic society is somewhat built on the foundation of pain, sacrifice of the weak for the benefits of strong. From the analysis of Omelas and the contemporary North American societies it is clear that there is no Utopia.
The so-called Utopia – the quasi-perfect society – flourishes in Margaret Cavendish’s “The Description of a New World, Called a Blazing World” and Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. While the former is a dreamlike account of fantasy rule and the latter a pseudo-realistic travelogue, both works paint a picture of worlds that are not so perfect after all. These imperfections glitter like false gemstones in the paths of these Utopians’ religious beliefs, political systems, and philosophical viewpoints.
In 1516 Thomas More published Utopia, which is the a beginning of the idea of a perfect society that was possibly the prominent humanist reform of a culture rebirth called the renaissance. More observes Six hour work days that were enough to contribute to a comfortable life in a community. Enough to produce plenty of everything if everyone contributes surprisingly, yet obvious if the unemployed, beggars or the people doing unnecessary work started to be instrumental in what the human race consumes. In utopia he viewed that “ Everyone gets a fair share, so there are never any poor men or beggars. Nobody owns anything, but everyone is rich.” Obviously through history people have normally been segregated into two groups workers that produce for minimal reward, and those who gain from that production from five hundred years ago to modern culture. Noticing that “No living creature is naturally greedy” as more says, yet if the society breeds a certain culture than the people will have that, so reward and incentify greed you get more rapacity same with other so called human nature such as
Before reading Utopia, it is essential that the reader understand that like Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal, Utopia is satirical. More creates a frame narrative in which Raphael Hythloday, the novel’s main character, recollects his observations of Utopia during his five-year stay. Hythloday spares no detail in his descriptions of Utopia, as he discusses everything from their military practices, foreign relations, religion, philosophy, and marriage customs. Interestingly enough, everything Hythloday discusses in Book II seems to be a direct response to of all of t...
Second, Utopians treat precious metals and jewels radically different than modern society. Today people adorn all sorts of jewelry to beautify themselves or attract attention to them. These precious metals are golden calves to many people. People today are like the Anemolian ambassadors, they strut their fine jewels because they are "more proud than wise, they decide, they decide to dress as splendidly as the very gods."
be like. Since the Utopia of Thomas More there have been several novels in which the
The most key and predominant aspect of More’s Utopian society is the abolishment of private property. This then leads to a battle and debate over the common welfare of the people against their private interests. Raphael and by extension More, feels that society and people in general greatly benefit from the loss of private interests. The general loss of privacy in Utopia leads to a situation in which ‘everyone has an eye on you’ so that the people of Utopia are ‘practically forced to get on’ with their jobs and ‘make some proper use’ of their spare time. This system creates a city in which every single member works and contributes to society in a positive way. Under this arrangement each member is considered equal in that no one man owns greater possessions or property than another.
All Utopians work. There are no rich people, deadbeats, or other people who go through life not working. Most people prefer to work and live in the city, but the work on the farms must be done as well. So, there is a rotation: everyone gets a turn to live and work in the city, and then must live and work on a farm for period of time. Since everyone must do this, there is no complaining from anyone. They see working on the farm as fulfilling their duty to the nation.
Thomas More’s Utopia and Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World , are novels about societies that differ from our own. Though the two authors have chosen different approaches to create an alternate society, both books have similarities which represent the visions of men who were moved to great indignation by the societies in which they lived. Both novels have transcended contemporary problems in society , they both have a structured, work based civilization and both have separated themselves from the ways of past society. It is important when reading these novels to focus on the differences as well as the similarities. The two novels differ in their views of love, religion, and the way to eliminate social classes. These differences seem to suggest that if we do not come closer to More’s goal in Utopia, we will end up in a society much like that of Huxley’s Brave New World.
Frank E. Manuel and Manuel Frtizie, Utopian Thought in the Western World. London: Belknap Press 1982
Because they are described in a detailed manner, the Utopia book itself seems to be enough to be a blueprint for the future. However, Thomas More clearly stated that he just wishes Europeans to follow some good qualities of the Utopian society—“there are many things in the Utopian commonwealth that in our own societies I would wish rather than expect to see” (97)—because he himself knows that it is impossible for any country to be like Utopia. This is apparent, because Utopia is possible on the premise that every factor comes together to create this ideal society. Even the geography has to contribute to this premise, as Hythloday explains the geography of Utopia as the place where strangers cannot enter without one of them (39). Moreover, from diligent and compassionate Utopians’ characteristics and their ways of life, they seem to be successful in reaching the fullest of every aspect of their life including physical, intellectual, social, spiritual, and emotional, when it is hardly possible to even have one person like that in real life.
Manuel, Frank E. and Fritzie P. Manuel. Utopian Thought in the Western World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap-Harvard Press, 1979.