Utopia-Sir Thomas More Essay, Research Paper
Thomas More’s use of dialogue in “Utopia” is not only practical but masterly layed out
as well. The text itself is divided into two parts. The first , called “Book One”, describes the
English society of the fifteenth century with such perfection that it shows many complex sides
of the interpretted structure with such clarity and form that the reader is given the freedom for
interpretation as well. This flexibility clearly illustrates More’s request for discussion and
point of view from this reader. In one concise, artistic paragraph, More clearly illustrates his
proposition of the problems people possess within a capitalist society and the fault of the
structure itself; clearly showing More’s point of view for “Book One”. If More attempted to get
anything across to the people of England it was this:
Take a barren year of failed harvests, when many thousands of men have been carried off by hunger. If at the end of the famine the barns of the rich were searched. I dare say positively enough grain would be found in them to have saved the lives of all those who died from starvation and disease, if it had been divided equally among them. Nobody really need have suffered from a bad harvest at all. So easily might men get the necessities of life if that cursed money, which is supposed to provide access to them, were not in fact the chief barrier to our getting what we need to live. Even the rich, I’m sure, understand this. They must know that it’s better to have enough of what we really need than an abundance of superfluities, much better to escape from our many present troubles than to be burdened with great masses of wealth. And in fact I have no doubt that every man’s perception of where his true interest lies, along with with the authority of Christ our Saviour….. would long ago have brought the whole world to adopt Utopian laws, if it were not for one single monster, the prime plague and begetter of all others—I mean pride. (More, pg.83)
For one to fully realize the significance of this virtueous paragraph they first must remember
the time period it was written; more so now that we are in the twentieth century dominated by
capitalism.
Before More accounts for his rhetorical, socialist society of “Book Two” in detail, he
strengthens his idea of communism by pre-establishing the problems of England in “Book
One”. This measurement makes one see the strengths and weaknesses between the two; as
well as, their similarities. It is difficult to title Utopia as a socialist, communist society, in as
much, it is just as valid to argue that Utopia is as opressive as the England described in
“Book One”. If Utopia is a truely socialist state, then one can see that opression is
unescapable in either society. Either way, it just shows the absurdity to claim either of these
as an utopian commonwealth. However, it is clear that More’s attempt was to make Utopia an
egalitarian society for the better of the people as whole. His description of the institutions
Utopia is so prescise and well formatted that it is difficult to see any flaws other than the ones
that were out of his control. More, just as anyone, was a slave of the society he lived in. No
matter how hard More tried to escape it, his morals and values were still derived from the
society he lived in. This is why one must look at Utopia as a society designed only to better
the people of the capitalist England. It is absurd to look at Utopia as a perfect state, in as
much, the knowledge which was true to More would interfear with many areas within the
society of Utopia; More’s faith, his ignorance of the evolving future, and the societies outside
of Utopia described in “Book Two” would make the society of Utopia a paradox. The strength of
it all, is that More amazingly knew his socialist state was not perfect; even for the society of
England:
…though he is a man of unquestioned learning, and highly experienced in the ways of the world, I cannot agree with everything he said. Yet I confess there are many things in the Commonwealth of Utopia that I wish our own country would imitate—-though I don’t really expect it will (More, pg. 85)
In correlation to both societies described in “Utopia”, with both opressing the people
within it, controlling their knowledge and way of life, it is clear that utopia is impossible to
reach as long as human kind is confined to any institution. The difference between the two
societies is seen when one looks at where this opression stems from. England’s capitalist
society is structured in such a way that it allows the people within it to opress or be opressed
by each other. In Utopia the oppression is derived not from the people but from the structure
itself. Therefore, a capitalist societies’ structure allows more freedom for the people than the
egalitarian society; thus, ironically, it is argueable to state that capitalism is more socialist
than socialism. The problem of a capitalist society stems not from its’ structure but from the
people within it. In contrast, the people of the socialist society are all equal; yet, what makes
this possible is the structures’ control over the people. Both societies have strengths and
weaknesses. Untill humankind can be resocialized losing the terms power, greed , and pride
from our vocabulary, will there be terms like opression and freedom in it as well. The only
possibillity for this, is if humankind is confined within a similar society as described by More
called Utopia; then evolve into a society with the same structural freedoms like capitalism.
Therfore, for the capitalist England of the fifteenth century, More’s society in “Book Two” was
not his ideal utopian state; but a path leading towards it.
As you can see, More’s liturary dialogue called “Utopia”, as stressed through out this
essay, is not an attempt to illustrate an utopian society, and would be a parodox if done so. I
think one get’s this false interpretation through the title of the text and the name of his socialist
imaginary state with perfect political, social, conditions or constitution.”(pg.395) It also states
that “Utopia” is derived from the Greek words “no place”. If More had this definition in mind it
would clarify the a majority of the ambiguities within the context of the text, also illustrating
even more of the opression More faced in England; as well as, his fear of it. More’s “Utopia
was done in such a way to enlighten the people of England about their opressing capitalist
society. Instead of leaving the reader with a sense of hopelessness, he gives an alternative
society; not to make the reader interpret it as an ideal society to want over England’s, but
make one realize the possibility of change. It is aimed to make one contemplate on the
weaknesses and strengths of their own society and how to go about changing it to better the
common wealth of their people as a whole
|