A person’s image of utopia varies depending on their individual life experiences and the expectations of the society in which they live; utopia could be described as an ideal place where equality, comfort, safety, compassion, and freedom are important qualities. In Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, the elimination of property and money has all citizens working for the commonwealth and it is “where every man has a right to everything, they all know that if care is taken to keep the public stores full, no private man can want anything; for among them there is no unequal distribution so that no man is poor, none in necessity; and though no man has anything, yet they are all rich” (More 81). More’s Utopia also encourages a balance of power within society; where an individual in a position of power is not “as idle as drones, that subsist on other men’s labour” (More 7) and where that individual gives “more regard to the riches of his country than to his own wealth” (More 21). Equality of basic needs, elimination of poverty, and balance of power within society are features of Utopia that appeal to both Renaissance and modern readers; however, modern society may find the manipulation of the individual for the good of the commonwealth and the negative attitude towards women to be dystopic features of Utopia that hinder it from being an ideal place.
Through expectations and restrictions individuals in Utopia are manipulated into pursuing a trade that benefits the commonwealth. This manipulation can be seen in how all Utopian lives, from childhood, are geared to agriculture. To be expected to follow one path would be dystopic to a modern reader who has many options open to them and they may find the lack of diversity monotonous. ...
... middle of paper ...
...t of the minds of their people all the seeds of both ambition and faction” (More 84), and “as men live happily under” (More 84) this form of government the happiness of women is not mentioned. The reoccurring negative attitude towards women also stands out for modern readers due to the increasing education and awareness of women’s rights since More wrote Utopia. Therefore, a Renaissance reader may be more receptive to Sir Thomas More’s Utopia because it is only somewhat different from the reality of that time. In the end, a modern reader may not be able to ignore the dystopic features of Utopia as they are more enlightened to the rights of the individual and of women and that may leave them to see More’s Utopia as only having the potential to be an ideal place.
Works Cited
More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1997. Print.
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 order to create structure in a society, one must ensure the care of its people. In the imaginary civilization of Utopia, the main strategy is to "get through life as comfortably and cheerfully as we can, and help other members of our species to do so too" (More 92). More focuses on the well being of its citizens to create happiness and order within the society. He does this by initiating the idea of human rights and equality. With the sense of equality in society people can help each other to live blissfully, and stop trying to become better than their neighbors.
This serene society greatly contradicts the one we live in. Our society is furnished with hatred and warfare, yet in return, we are given freedom and the privilege of having distinctive characters. Given the nature of human beings, our society is more idealistic to live in. Utopia is an imaginary state, which consists of people who believe they are more capable of living in a group than alone. In such a community, the welfare of the group is the primary interest compared to the comfort of individuals.
The expression "utopia" in reality explains to "nowhere," because human natural world just doesn’t allow excellence. As an individual being, I can form my own utopia by implementing my accountability and regulations on myself. For Perfect society I cannot do anything but if we get together we can bring a change but still we cannot develop utopia; for the reason that we cannot determine people’s judgment.
Conditionally being free within society from oppressive limitations, or the right to pursue after whatever makes one subjectively happy is human instinct. Equality, Liberty, and alongside the pursuit of happiness goes among with visualizing a place in which the economy, social conditions, and government, are perfect is the interpretation of an immaculate culture. As ideas are formed absorbing conciseness from one person to another, so did the start of forming a society. Slowly human culture began arriving to decisions establishing in one place developing their own food, fabricating a system of letters, and constructing permanent homes creating the first civilizations. The multitude of people living with each other in a more or less ordered
From the American Revolution to independence movements in Latin America, the forming a commonwealth free of vice, tyranny, and inequality has always been one of man’s greatest intentions. In this commonwealth, everyone’s needs are met, society is free of all hierarchies, and everyone works for the common good. However, history has proved that this commonwealth can never truly exist. On a rudimentary level, it is impossible for any large group to properly function without someone or a group of people creating and enforcing the necessary laws and customs. On a deeper level, it seems impossible to eschew avarice, inequality, war, and many other aspects commonwealths face. Sir Thomas More, a lawyer, statesman, and philosopher imagined this perfect commonwealth and dubbed it, Utopia. In Utopia, Sir Thomas More describes a place where all citizens are content with their lives and there is no social inequality. However, readers easily notice contradictions that are present in this seemingly perfect place. In their treatment of gold and iron, slaves, and gender roles, Utopians prove to readers that a commonwealth free of hierarchies, vice, and tyranny can never truly exist.
In Thomas More’s Utopia, an ideal society is presented, and several of this society’s different institutions are detailed. I will compare More’s version of an ideal society with Marx’s vision of what a conflict free communist society would be. I will examine the societal system as a whole focusing on the hierarchy of Utopia, the process of production, distribution of resources, and money.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland in light of Thomas More’s Utopia. The focus is to compare and contrast both societies in efforts to assess them individually. The aspects that I will review for each society are status of women, education and religion. I believe that elements of family roles and environment (or setting) are also factors that impact these societies and how they function. The status of women is the foundation of this paper in both education and religion. In conclusion I will offer my view of what a good society would look like to me.
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.
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.
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.