Prompt: "Why does More present the traveler as a sensible reformer early in Book I, but not later?"
Utopia is an imagined, idealized society often portrayed in literature, where everything is perfect and harmonious. Linguistically, it is a play on the greek words for "good place" and "no place". It first appears in the west as the name of a nation in the first fictional utopian satire. Written by the venerable Sir Thomas More and originally penned in Latin, wasn't intended for mass consumption but literate elites. Despite claims to the contrary, it is intended as a haughty work of satire, not an actual revolutionary document. Published in 1516, with Luther's 95 theses a year later, it emerged during a tumultuous period of intellectual and religious upheaval. Its narritive unfolds through the voice of Raphael Hythloday, a skeptical and learned world traveler whose name happens to mean 'talking nonsense.' Book I is known by Hytholoday's sweeping critique of English society meets with disdain for issues like the nobility, the capital punishment of theft, the eagerness of kings to wage wars, and private property itself. The fictional island of Utopia, with its communal living, absence of private property, and egalitarian democracy, serves as an idealized contrast. Throughout, Hythloday advocates for state intervention to eliminate these afflictions, proposing radical reforms to the existing order.
While the traveler is initially presented as a sensible, albeit critical reformer and potential courtier in Book I, we soon come to see absurdities and imposible claims made about the country of Utopia, models seemingly offered as unironic solutions to the former social ills. This may lead the reader, and often has, to ask why his credulity was nessesary at all, or if the author intended his magnificent fiction to be taken more seriously than he could openly admit. But the heart of the satire is revealed in More's subtle commentary on the impracticality of radical idealism. By presenting the traveler as a humanist critic initially, More sets up a contrast that highlights the absurdity of the traveler's later, idealistc proposals. This satirical approach prompts readers to question the viability of utopian visions and to consider the complexities of implementing such radical changes. Ultimately, More uses this transition to satirize extreme philosophical propositions and advocate for a more pragmatic and nuanced approach to societal improvement.
At the end of the first book, we enter a debate that marks a deeper engagement with the philosophical and political traditions of Plato and Aristotle, almost directly quoting their ancient debate. Through dialectical exploration, More invites readers to critically reflect on the tension between utopian ideals and the pragmatic challenges of real-world governance. Then its narrative structure seamlessly shifts between critique and idealism, creating a coherent and engaging dialogue that underscores the complexities of political philosophy. This difference also reflects the contemporary, even internal tension of More between the sometimes radical Renaissance Humanism of the day and the grounded Piety of his Catholic faith and political prominence in the English State. Through authentic and genuine discourse, More's "Utopia" continues to resonate as a timeless exploration of societal transformation and the pursuit of elusive political ideals.
Book I of "Utopia" introduces Raphael, a seasoned world traveler, former nobleman, and companion of Vespucci to the new world. Presented before a group including Sir Thomas More, Raphael assumes the role of a storyteller, sharing his experiences of a marvelous world scarcely witnessed by others. Despite his extensive travels, Raphael asserts himself as a philosopher rather than a mere seaman, aligning with the Platonic ideal of a philosopher king, or perhaps the Renaissance man. His critique of English society unfolds with a particular disdain for nobles and standing armies, attributing numerous societal ills to selfishness, materialism and economic injustice. Raphael extends aversion to enclosed sheep ranches, the free market, taverns, and more, condemning them all as afflictions requiring state intervention. He proposes radical reforms, envisioning a society without any of these perceived vices, by law.
Raphael's detailed critique intensifies as he addresses issues of poverty, crime, and punishment. He challenges the conventional approach to justice, advocating for systemic changes to prevent theft by addressing its root causes. Rejecting capital punishment, he argues for restitution and proposes convicts be employed by the state, asserting the oppertunity to work for the public can eliminate their criminal tendencies. However, his proposals take a dark turn as he suggests segregating and marking convicts, and that providing them with money or arms would be equivlent to a capital crime against the State. The narrative underscores the satirical nature of Raphael's utopian ideals, inviting readers to question the feasibility and ethics of his propositions.
The dialogue shifts to a Cardinal, who endorses Raphael's ideas for dealing with vagabonds. Then, a Jester extends this proposal to friars, emphasizing the widespread implications of these new ideas. Still, the scenario descends into absurdity, illustrating the potential chaos that seemingly agreeable ideas can unleash. Raphael announces his disillusionment with advising kings or court reforms due to their inherent corruption, criticizing ministers for favoring war, high taxes, and tyranny. He also in a strikingly modern way identifies class conflict and cynically urges rulers to prioritize the welfare of the masses over imperialistic pursuits.
The debate on reform strategies emerges, with the choice between gradual reforms and radical change. Raphael places the blame for societal evils squarely on private property, advocating for its abolition as the key and sole hope for transformation. The narrator, likely representing More's perspective, counters by asserting the need for incentives in the real world. The tension between utopian ideals and practical realities becomes evident as Raphael insists that Utopia operates differently, free from the economic incentives that characterize other societies. This sets the stage for a profound exploration of political philosophy, where the clash between idealism and pragmatism drives the narrative forward.
Raphael begins by describing the country, a union of 54 cities forming an island. A notable feature of Utopian society is the absence of warfare between cities, a response, it seems, to Raphael's observations of civil wars in Europe. The only reason for this peace, it seems, are the annual councils of the city magistrates. The magistrates in Utopia seemingly possess omniscience over their dominion, meticulously orchestrating every aspect of society. It also seems that the key feature of Utopian society is the active participation of every individual in various occupations, with a regular rotation between them. This utopian vision challenges conventional notions of private property, relying on centralized planning and surplus sharing. Interestingly, it directly addresses the economic calculation problem often posed against socialism. The political system ensures widespread participation, resembling direct democratic rule, portraying a vision of collective diligence and equality. The narritive strikes uncanny similarities between Utopia's ideals and later revolutionary writings, most prominently those of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
In Utopia, there is a near total absence of slackers or lazy individuals, and the workday is limited to a mere six hours, showcasing the society's unthinkably high productivity. Clothing is simple, devoid of all fashion, and highly inexpensive. The mysterious people of Utopia are depicted as unilaterally content and totally devoid of greed. Family size is regulated by law, with excess children redistributed among families. Cities are restricted in size, reflecting the philosophical belief that order and democracy face challenges in larger cities and highlighting the almost fanatic devotion of the nation to that ideal.
The mention of slaves only comes later in our selection. These are described performing menial tasks like animal slaughter and laundry, and their depiction echoes both Athenian society from the 5th century BC and later utopian experiments. Meals are communal, aligning with Plato's principles and practices in societies like Sparta and the Soviet Union. Their concept of the family appears to be very nominal, almost incectile, with country people living in large communes. Surplus crops and even finished goods are freely distributed in the absence of money, besides for Iron, recognized for its utility.
Gold and silver are said hold no value beyond serving as chamber pots, symbolizing the rejection of material wealth and the pursuit of egalitarianism. The irony arises when comparing the narrative to Vladimir Lenin's later statement about gold and silver as only good for urinals in the commune. Despite the assertion that Utopia requires no trade in these metals, historical events show a different reality, and the audience may be aware of how absurd their supposed contentment with total subsistence austerity. The rejection of materialism extends to jewelry, reserved for children who only appreciate its shininess, devoid of significance for mature individuals, including women.
The narrative paints a picture of a utopian society characterized by collective cooperation, minimal conflict, and the absence of materialistic pursuits. Yet, the feasibility and desirability of such a society remain open to interpretation, inviting readers to critically examine the implications of these "Utopian" ideals on human behavior and societal organization.
Conclusions:
There is an anti-Plato bias evident in the narrative, which intensifies as the story progresses. Thomas More seems to be making a case against the centrally planned society described by Plato, aligning himself more with the philosophy of Aristotle, his King, and the Church. Throughout the book, there is a clear pro-Aristotle bias, reflecting a preference for Aristotle's pragmatic approach to societal organization and governance. This bias is consistently evident, and only readers who believe More is quite unironicallyattempting to enchant and persuade them about the feasibility of the traveler's world might overlook this dichotomy in the text.
The audience for "Utopia" would have likely recognized this bias. Latin readers were well educated, he knew his audience, and it was not uncommon to be familiar with the classical corpus. Additionally, the debate between Plato and Aristotle on the nature of the ideal society comes down through the lierature in other thinkers and featured prominently during the renaissance and beyond. A grounded realist, Aristotle advocated for a more pragmatic liberal society and distrusted the idea of philosopher-kings central planning. This satire at the expense of Plato would not have been lost on the audience, especially thanks to More's indulgence in philosophical discourse.
This alignment with Aristotle also seemingly provided support for the church, considering its overwhelming Aristotelian leanings by the 16th century. More's association with realism and later cannonization, further strengthens this link with the church and its pragmatic views. However, it's essential to note that the narrative is not inherently anti-reform. But More does include ideas like restitution, indicating a pro-property stance in terms of reform. During his career he was a well known friend and follower of Erasmus and other philosophers of the day, and was martyred for denoncing Henry VIII as the head of the church of England. These experiences reflect More's steadfast ideals and moral constitutions, not always fully aligned with the establishment. In the sature, the traveler's radical plans for complete societal transformation are exaggerated by fiction and critiqued through ironical satire, leading the audience to rexamine our own designs by the contrast of this implicit dialouge of the real and elisive ideals.
While the narrative does not explicitly advocate for the overthrow of kings and courts, it does prompt readers to reflect on the validity of the traveler's ideas in principle, or as arguments of contrast against worldly imperfections. More employs satire to critique these ideas, ultimately suggesting that political reform should not aim to remake individuals and society after a vain image. Instead, More tells us that whole reform sometimes the desirable, humane and just decision, the idea of fundamentally changing human nature through politics is only possible "in Utopia."
.png)