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.
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.
Utopia and Il Muqaddimah both show the importance of families and social groups in the civilization they live in. Utopian families all have an equal role in the cities they live in; they are a microcosm of their city and its objective to survive; however, in Il Muqaddimah the subjects have the responsibility to help the ruler prosper. Utopians work and in return share what they earn, while subjects work for their survival. Utopians all have an equal work load and subjects hardships depend on their social status both situations lead to prosperity.
A Utopia is an imaginary place where human ideals are established; an idea of a place that is free from all of the human complications such as pain and suffering. Utopia writing has been around for thousands of years and can be found in almost all different cultures. Opposite of a Utopia, is a Dystopia, a fictional world where everything is unpleasant or dismal. Although the social pressures in which these utopias and dystopias were created from different pressures, all of these stories share the common theme of escapism and “what ifs?” The purpose of this paper will be to compare and contrast the novel Utopia, written by Thomas more with the dystopian novel Brave New world, written by Adlouls Huxley. I will also share my opinions about these
...t upon him. Utopia will avoid war at all costs because of concern for the well being of its citizens, while a Prince must initiate war and conquer other empires to show power in his empire and avoid being conquered by enemies. While Utopia focuses on communal ownership and devalues money and material objects, Machiavelli realizes the only way to be a successful Prince is to gain fortune through money, land, and fame in his society. Although only idealistic, these books offered solutions to many problems that faced the 16th century and could help future leaders to resolve issues to create a more structured civilization. Machiavelli and More opened the door for new ideas that essentially created many societies that exist today.
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...
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.
George Gilliam Marx/More Comparative Essay English 215 In both Thomas More’s Utopia and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, we see the authors portray two different visions of an improved reality in which all citizens are on an equal plane with one another. Both works stem from the authors’ own grievances regarding the ‘status quo’, and seek to provoke serious thought and (in Marx’s case) action about the existing state of affairs in their respective times. The context of both of these works is quite important when considering the substance of Utopia and the Communist Manifesto – Thomas More lived in a time when Europe’s government was based on of Feudalism, meaning royal families and rich nobles had the overwhelming majority of power. Marx lived during the Industrial Revolution, when class antagonisms became rather aggressive due to the major gap between rich and poor (Bourgeois and Proletariat) as a result of the greater need for a large number of workers and the subsequent wealthy minority. Utopia and the Communist Manifesto are similar in the way that they propose or at least stir visions of major changes in ideology, but both have a number of key differences as well. More’s Utopia is more like a fictional story on the surface, but of course there is a great deal of depth to this piece of literature. Utopia is set mainly as a conversation between three men: More, Hythloday, and Giles. Hythloday is arguably the most significant character in this story, as he is the one relaying all of the information about the land of Utopia to More. Hythloday went on many explorations with Amerigo Vespucci, and came across the island “Utopia” in his travels – there he had the opportunity to act almost like an anthropologist, observing and studyin...
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.
More, Sir Thomas. Utopia: A New Translation, Backgrounds, Criticism. Ed. and trans. Robert M. Adams. Toronto: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1988.
Utopia itself is divided into two different books, the first half of the book talks about ‘the obligations of a man of experience and integrity to play an active role in the service of a country and mankind,’ Moore puts himself into his narrative meeting a traveler called Raphael Hythloday. Hythloday is described as wise and well-travelled however, this fictional character has cruised with ‘the famed explored Amergio Vespucci.’ Vespucci was seen as a fraud to Moore and other philosophers, therefore its unclear whether Raphael Hythloday is truly reliable or not. The second half of the of the book goes into Hythloday’s tr...
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.
Sir Tomas More’s Utopia indirectly criticizes fifteen hundredth European catholic society of corruption, violence, poverty and of inequality. As a lord chancellor to Henry VIII, Thomas More was well aware of these problems and wrote a satire to propose his awareness in a carful manner, as we can see his hesitation to publish the book on his letter to Peter Giles especially when he described his “two minds” (More, 8). To criticize the problems of his times on a safe platform, he created a fictional character Raphael Hythloday, who is wise and knowledgeable of new places from the sailing experience with Amerigo Vespucci. This not only reflects the times in which people stepped out their voyages to the New World but also provides a foil to the European society—the