I'm moving to Utopia!

If I was alive in 1516 when Utopia was written, and I knew this place described in Book II of More’s Utopia existed, I would go live there. Today it would be very difficult to give some of my possessions and technology, but I would still consider moving to Utopia. I liked their daily lifestyles and the rules they had in place. For example, I really liked that they only had to work for six hours a day and the rest of the time was for recreation and sleep. I also appreciated how they had their housing set up. I thought the idea of having a beautiful garden at the center of every block was great. We keep on building new developments and skyscrapers, and I think we have lost a lot of nature’s beauty because of it. Another lifestyle rule that they had is that everyone basically wears the same clothes. Even though I love being able to pick my own clothes, I think that making everyone where the same clothes is a smart idea. It creates a sense of equality among everyone, and people can’t judge you based on your clothes.

I also agree with a lot of their moral beliefs. The two ideas that stuck me the most was their beliefs on how you should treat people and what true pleasure is. On page 61, it says, “as long as they [the laws] are observed, to pursue your own interest is prudent; to pursue the public interest is pious; but to pursue your own pleasure by depriving others of theirs is unjust. On the other hand, deliberately to decrease one’s own pleasure in order to augment that of others is a work of humanity and benevolence which never fails to reward the doer over and above his sacrifice.” This passage really stood out to me, because was taught the same beliefs when I was growing up. It is good to do the right thing for yourself and follow the rules; it is bad to take from others for your own benefit. But when you give up what you have to help others, you are truly doing something good. The other idea that I really liked is that the people in Utopia didn't find pleasure in objects, and that just because you had a lot of stuff did not mean that you should be honored. I think this is a lesson that we have a hard time learning today. We place so much value on material objects and we idolize the rich and famous, but in the end does any of those things and those people really matter? I personally don’t think so, but I still find it hard to give up my phone, iPad and laptop and watching reality television.

Speaking of pleasure, I thought their definition of it was interesting. They believe the type of pleasure that goes beyond the surface of basic needs is based on having stable health. I never really thought of pleasure in that sense; however, it does make sense. Maybe it is just because I think I am about to catch a cold, but I understand where the Utopians are coming from because I know that I am never happy whenever I am sick. I agree with their belief that you need stable health to find pleasure, but I am unsure of whether or not I think that the source of pleasure is stable health.

As you can probably tell I was a fan of this reading, but now I understand Amber’s enthusiasm for it, because it has been my favorite reading so far. J

I don't want any (Sir Thomas) More

                In Thomas More’s Utopia, one of the main disadvantages that can be noticed immediately when reading is the use of slavery. At the time when More was writing the novel, slavery was a normal part of society. However, today most people recognize how oppressive and inhumane slavery is. The slavery presented in the novel is slightly different than that of past slavery in the United States.  In Utopia, people are only entered into slavery if they break the law, as an alternative to jail. This caveat makes the slavery seem less unwarranted. Yet, it is still a negative aspect and a microcosm of the full society.

                Despite being a free citizen in Utopia, the citizens have limited free choice in many areas. In some respects you could say that the citizens are slaves to the government. One could say the same about our society today, but Utopia has more constrictive policies than the United States. The political systems of both societies are set up similarly by electing officials to represent certain areas. However, in Utopia those positions are maintained for life rather than having reelections. Thus, the citizens cannot change the decision makers of the society until after the ruler’s death. Additionally, some of the punishments instituted by the government are very harsh. For example, certain age limits exist for marriage. Women must marry at age 18 and men at age 22. This eliminates free choice of when or if to marry. Another oppression that fits into the marriage framework is that premarital sex is illegal. Furthermore, the punishment for such an act is slavery for life. Adultery is also punished the same way. So, everyone is limited to one person for their entire lifetime and any deviation from that ideal is enslaved. If those were the rules in our society I am not sure how many people would not be slaves.

                The other main source of constricted free will in Utopia relates to occupations. On the surface, this seems to be an advantage of the society. The work day is compressed into six hours to allow time for other exploits by the citizens. Additionally, job rotation occurs which usually enriches interest in one’s work, since he or she is not always performing the same tasks. Yet, this typically positive work intervention is utilized poorly by the society. Each and every person in the society is forced to work on the farm for some portion of their life. The citizens are rotated through so that everyone must assist in food production in the society. When citizens are not on the farm, they have one other occupation that they carry out for life. No free choice is included in this decision, as most people are required to perform the same occupations that their parents perform. The society of Utopia can be viewed as analogous to a large organization. In this company, you will never be promoted, your job schedule will never change, and you will be forced to complete whatever projects are assigned to you. Oh, and most importantly no one can quit.

                The very first supposedly perfect society utilized humans simply as mechanisms in industrial and economic systems. People are valued for their role in the system rather than the unique characteristics that compose them. Hopefully, the other authors in the utopian tradition do not follow his lead. 

Sir/Saint Thomas Moore

I would like to first state a surprising fact I found. As I was driving to campus with my roommate, I was telling her I was reading Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore. She replied, as she went to Catholic school, that Thomas Moore was a canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic church as a martyr of the reformation. I found this intriguing as we refer to Saint Benedict and Saint Augustine by their canonized titles, but not Moore. I guess all of Moore's other accomplishments, such as his role as Lord Chancellor and his classic works outweigh his sainthood. So do we look at Utopia from a religious perspective the same way we look at City of God? I would inherently say no, but I think his religious background perhaps comes into play as he describes Utopia. Utopia is not Heaven and I do not think Utopia is a religious text at all, but I think elements were definitely taken from it.

For example, Moore places men in the characteristic head of household saying that "wives are subject to their husbands" and that "the head of household looks for whatever his family needs" (50). We discussed earlier how in past days, the head of households were not only responsible for taking care of the household but also their salvation. It would not have made any sense for Moore to exhibit other views about women at the time, though women did contribute to society in that they had assigned work. Even though Moore did use the phrase "weaker sex" on page 42, I will of course forgive his sexism because of those olden times he lived in. When he also mentions the religion of the people of Utopia on page 60, it sounds very similar to the Christian tradition; monotheistic, there is an afterlife, and good deeds on earth pay off in the end.

Anytime we talk about Utopia and whether it is good or bad, of course our morals come into play. I think there are a lot of good things in Utopia that we can all agree are good. Required farming so everyone has food seems pretty okay to me. Having people not covet money seems awesome! Venerating those that did not choose the academic life and instead chose trades and appreciating their contributions to society is something we talked about on the first day. Sure enough, this is discussed early on in the text. Moore obviously chose the way the people of Utopia lived based on what he deemed a morally good society. For him, and many others that are of Christian faith, these morals come from what their higher power deems right and wrong. Most of us being brought up in the society we live in which is bombarded with similar morals, whether we are believers or not. It does not suprise me that people genuinely like Utopia and think it is a cool place.

I am interested when we move on to sci-fi and more godless societies to see how our morality comes into play with liking or disliking the texts. Until then, I will think on the crescent island and its unreachable "perfection".

Could It Really Work?

Like many of the other readings that we have looked at already in this class, I think that the society that Moore proposes is a great one overall.  There is, like always, the question of whether or not this society would actually be able to be successful if it were real.  No matter what the authors claim of these fictional societies and people, we come from a society and have a background where people cannot be trusted to the extent that More describes the Utopians.  We always face these readings with the infamous fig stealer at the forefront of our mind.

Despite the questions about what can and cannot work in this society, there were many things that I liked about the way More set up Utopia.  I agreed very strongly with the government and the way it was run and used.  It is not a government like the one that we have today or like More had while he was writing.  The government officials are not elected, but are appointed by the people.  Those appointed do not act as though they have power over the other people.  They are more like caretakers and they make sure that their people have what they need.  It is at these officials' houses that the people of the towns are fed and the officials are the ones that work to distribute the wealth.  I also really enjoyed that there was no official justice system.  There were some understood and accepted laws, like those about drifters and deserters, but the other issues were handled on a case by case basis.

I also enjoyed how the schedule was arranged.  I found myself thinking as I read that I could be happy in a society where I was required to work and give back to society for six hours a day, which I found to be very reasonable.  They were then allowed to attend educational lectures or continue working.  I loved that both lunch and dinner began with reading from an intellectual work, and I loved the table arrangements.  I think that I took so kindly to this lifestyle because no one is overworked.  I am in charge of my own schedule and find myself constantly running back and forth trying to get everything done that I need to do, and usually there are just not enough hours in the day. This lifestyle really appealed to me because I would not be able to do this to myself and would be able to have time to do things that I enjoy doing, like attending the educational lectures.

I also really enjoyed the discussion of the uses for money, gold, silver and jewels.  I found this to be very backward from how we think and how they thought during More's time, but I loved it!  I really enjoyed the discussion about nature and his comment about how nature gives us everything that we need, so the gold and silver and jewels that are buried are not necessary and should not be given a higher value than a more useful material like iron.  I love that they made these metals something to be looked down upon, and I think More was correct when he said that by using the metals the Utopians were convinced that they were nothing, but by locking them up, they would spark curiosity.  I also laughed when I read that jewels were reserved for the toddlers.  I think that in a society where money is of no value, they dealt with the objects that were deemed valuable in other societies in a very clever way that really did make them of no value in their society.

There were a few things that I did disagree with as the book continued on, but they were not huge things, rather, things I found to be strange.  I found the rules governing the act of marriage to be strange, but I wonder if they were more in line with the practices of More's time and society than they are with ours.  I keep putting myself in the place of the girl for that awkward first meeting and just cannot wrap my head around how that could be normal.  I also found their means of population control to be strange.  I understood moving people around if they towns got too full, but I did not understand how they were able to let the colonists onto the island without any conflict.

That last idea brings me to my main thought as I went through the end of this book.  I found the ideas of respect and understanding to be of utmost importance in not only Utopian society but all of the other surrounding societies.  The Utopians all had respect for each other and for how the society was run, and those outside of Utopia seemed to have a relatively good understanding of how the Utopians lived and accepted them and left them alone.  I cannot help imagining this society in the world today and the need that many of the larger powers would have to make a trip over and enlighten them to the ways of a perfect world as we have done so many times before.  So, I guess I really do like More's ideas, but I still have those lingering questions of how this society would actually work in a world like the one we live in today and if it would actually work as well as More says it does if it did exist.

Utopia... and More Utopia

(There's nothing like starting a blog with a pun :p)

Sir Thomas More's Utopia is most famous for surviving on an economic theory we would refer to as communism. Everyone works for the society, and anything they produce is not privately owned but shared equally by the society. They have no money, except in a large communal treasury (or junkyard) to be used as a tool against foreigners. This economic system is one that, as we all know, always makes the most sense, and works fairly well in microscopic communities. But whenever it's applied to a large group of people, something always goes wrong. If this island were real, for instance, we would expect it's economy or government to collapse within a few years, let alone the 1,800 years Hythloday boasts of. The reader wonders why every citizen doesn't say "why should I work 6 hours a day? Don't we all live in abundant supply? If I work 5 or 4 hours, and spend the rest of the day in Epicurean pleasures, do I not end with the same lot? In fact, why should I work at all if everyone else will supply my needs?" While most people write off Utopia as either impossible or another example of a tiny community, I believe that Sir Thomas More did think of that problem, any answered it with the one thing every Marx, Mao, and Lenin completely missed.

The figures given of Utopia proves that we're not dealing with a small, classless state, as we're used to today. Because Sir Thomas More lived in an era of what we would "proto-novels", a lot of his details are much more precise than any Utopian work before him. Like many writers after him, he uses these details to give a sense of how big the island is, and therefore justify using a complex system to run it. He says that there are 30,000 people for every Syphogrant, and 200 Syphogrants all together, and therefore giving a total population of 6 million (more than twice the size of England). He says that there are 16 people per family, and 6,000 families per city, giving the total size of each city as more than 78,000 people (rounded to 100,000 in the footnotes, much larger than the average city in Europe). This size is exact for every city, because the laws force people to move if the numbers change. This means that there are 3 Syphogrants per city, as Hythloday confirms. Because there are 54 cities, then that approximates the urban  population to 5.4 million, meaning that about 600,000 live in the country. The island itself is circular shaped, with a diameter of 500 miles (or 800 km). That gives a total area of about 500,000 km2, which is twice the size of the British Isles, and closer to Madagascar. As there about 300,000 families, that means (in terms of population density) that every family gets about 1.6 km2, which is good because every family needs a farm. These figures make it even more remarkable that Hythloday boasts of 0% unemployment. But those who don't contribute to society are made slaves, and Hythodolay never mentions how many slaves there are, so we don't know what the actual unemployment rate is.

Anyway, now that this has proven that we're dealing with a developed, urban society and not a group of "noble savages", we come back to the original problem: how can we get 6 million people to contribute to society in an unbiased manner, without falling into sloth or greed? Sir Thomas More's answer is, surprisingly, very similar to the solutions of both Plato and Augustine before him: religion and philosophy. Everyone in the community, and therefore everyone who works, holds to the belief in an overarching deity that both created them, and holds them accountable to their actions. Not that people work out of fear of Mithra, but rather they see the goodness of God as analogous to the harmony of soul and body. Mithra looks faithfully over them, not merely as a judge, but as a bill of rights that everyone can turn to for absolute standards. All other traditions, philosophies, and sciences may vary among the citizens of Utopia, but this one fundamental axiom remains constant, like a cornerstone to their society. Once that is established, not only do all the citizens gladly work 6 hours a day, but improve their society to create new development of science and mathematics.

But what happened to the communist manifesto of Marx, Lenin, and Mao? Religion is merely the "opiate of the masses," and people are expected to work for the society simply for the sake of society, and nothing greater. The "enlightened" thinkers had dimmed their minds by rejecting the only thing in the world that is indispensable.

It's too bad that I have no skill in art, as it would complete my life to see Sir Thomas More's face Photoshopped into a stereotypical communist propaganda poster, perhaps with Plato and St. Benedict behind him.

Ain't about the cha-ching cha-ching, ain't about the b-bling b-bling

Things that work for me

1. They only drink wine, which is awesome. 'Cause wine.
2.The city/country exchange program. It’s the wife swap of workers.
3. Every ten years they switch houses. In a society of constant structure and singular lifestyle, a change of location, to another location run exactly the same way, is an effective way to keep citizens happy with a little variation while maintaining the way of life that works  best for the population as a whole.
4. The people don’t have the power exactly, but they have a say in who does. Being able to rid government of a tyrant is an awesome and rare thing to find in any utopian society. Bravo Thomas.
5. Each case of the breaking of a law is dealt with separately. The idea of no real systematic punishment is awesome. I think systematic law is often one of the most flawed parts of our own society, so I like that More has taken it into consideration.

 

Things that don't

1. What is the point of having slaves if each house already has forty workers and everything is so nicely put together and everyone works together? The workers will surely do their job, so there’s no need for slavery in a society where everyone does their part without question or cause for rebellion.

2. Moral discussions at dinner… ehhhh. Let me eat my chicken in peace, please. There are only six hours in the work day. Why does the discussion have to be at dinner time? This would just piss me off honestly. If I’m hungry, I don’t want to discuss how to be a good person. I want to eat my chicken. Then I want to eat my ice cream. The once my pint of ben and jerry’s is gone, we can talk.

 

$$$

The strongest part of More's Utopia for me is the non-existence of money and the lack of ownership. So let's touch on that.

1. Same clothing is fine. It’s just like if schools decide to use a uniform or not. The idea behind the uniform is a good one that forces a person to express themselves through different means and find something within themselves that makes them vary from the next person. No fancy jewels or suits. Additionally of course, there are no distractions and if everyone dresses exactly the same, there is less chance of the society crumbling due to bullying, class difference, or let’s be honest, sexual temptation. You have everything you need, and nothing that you don't. (Can you tell I'm all about the song lyrics this semester?)

2. Six hour work days! YES. Thank you King Utopus, you da best. No one has the attention span to actually work effectively for 8+ hours. Nor, is it necessary. Life shouldn’t be that complicated. 6 hours is plenty. Especially if we're not working for money. Not having money period is something that I think is great. We didn't always have it. What happened to just trading? Who even invented the concept of money when you can have a six hour work day without it and be perfectly content?

3. Nobody really owns anything. They put everything in a common area and people take what they need from it, preventing greed. Everyone supplies for everybody. No fig stealers!

4. I know a lot of people might be bothered by the gold toilet seats, but by all means. If you think something shouldn’t be melted down and shaped into a toilet, consider that things are only as valuable as we deem them to be. Kristian Bush has it down. Please watch and live by:

 

War! What is it good for? Makin lots of money.

So in British Literature I don’t think we touched on this much, but Book II of Utopia’s section on warfare includes something particularly interesting that I’ll dwell on a little bit in this blog post.

“As soon as war is declared, therefore, they have their secret agents simultaneously post many placards, each marked with their official seal, in the most conspicuous places throughout the enemy territory. In these proclamations they promise immense rewards to anyone who will kill the enemy’s king. They offer smaller but still very substantial sums for killing any of a list of other individuals whom they name.” (79)

                The Utopians aren’t giant fans of war. They don’t really see it as honorable, and I think that’s pretty cool. Thinking about our current day society, war feels like a constant thing that we’re always involved in. We’ve grown up in war (called “conflicts” or whatever), and we’re basically just used to it. Our soldiers are called heroes and, sure, putting your life on the line is definitely heroic, I’ll agree to that, but should we glorify it as much as we do?

                Back to the quote, since I never touched on it to begin with, it’s interesting to me that this is the option the Utopians go with. It seems sneaky, using secret agents, and yet, it’s… not? Like, they’re putting signs in obvious places saying “kill the king.” How often would that seriously work? I can understand wanting rewards, but that’s a pretty big task. Not to mention, in our current society, you could kill the leader but I really don’t think it would change too much. You would have to simultaneously knock out all of those “other individuals” along with the leader in order to actually end anything. It’s an interesting idea for sure, but I don’t think it would actually work.

                Outside of that, they also try to turn the enemy forces against each other with promises of rewards and personal safety to anyone who “turns against their comrades” (79), which, again, is a really strange tactic. I love that their war techniques are totally underhanded though. They don’t see war as honorable at all, and because of that, they fight wars in the sneakiest, most underhanded ways. As long as it’s resolved, that seems to be all that matters.

                The Utopians really seem to think they can just buy out anyone. From the Zapoletes, who they buy to fight for them, to the various reward posters they put up, they seem convinced that anyone outside of Utopia can be bought out pretty easily. I guess this is proven to work, if Utopia is known to have a track record, but I can’t see it working at all in our society. People can be bought out, for sure, but you’d have to pay someone a hell of a lot to assassinate their leader, and even then most people wouldn’t do it. In the end it’s an interesting idea, but I don’t consider it plausible at all in any kind of modernized society.