Analysis Of Thomas More's Utopi A Modern Day Dystopia

Thomas More’s Utopia: A Modern Day Dystopia

In 1516, Thomas More first coined the term “Utopia” with his novel by the same name. The word itself is derived from the Greek words ou, which means not, and topos, meaning place. Combining those two words, you create a new meaning of “no -place”. Utopia itself is a place that does not exist. Utopia is nowhere. Throughout the history of Utopian literature, Utopia’s are meant to symbolize an ideal place or society, one often very different than the author's own. Within Thomas More’s Utopia, we see characteristics that contrast greatly with 16th century Europe. However, the ideal society in More’s Utopia tends to mask the consequences of said society, and with further consideration, shares characteristics with a Dystopia.

While Utopia shines a light on what a society could achieve, Dystopia shines a light on how they can fail. Both a Utopia and Dystopia can begin with the same goals in mind, although in the end can have very different results. When describing a dystopian society, our minds often conjure up the words “dictatorship” or “totalitarianism”. Both these words are commonly associated with forms of government and lack of the common man’s control. Constant supervision, regulated activities, and lack of individualism and emotion are all common signs of a

dystopian society. In novels such as George Orwell’s 1984, his protagonist, Winston, lives in a society where every aspect of one's life is controlled, and he must hide his need for individuality and his disdain for society. There is another prevailing characteristic of a Dystopia, and that is it’s ability to present itself as a Utopia. Using Orwell’s 1984 as an example again, we see society through the eyes of Winston. We witness how family will turn on family because of their faith in their society. It creates an atmosphere of fear for our protagonist, who, much like the reader, sees the society as anything but ideal. However, imagine if Winston did believe and support his government. Would we as reader still see his society as unjust and inhumane? The opinion of the narrator doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to share that opinion. In Jonathan Swift’s novel, Gulliver’s Travels, the protagonist Gulliver eventually finds himself in the country of the Houyhnhnms, a race of talking, civilized horses. Throughout his time there, Gulliver’s opinions on the Houyhnhnms radically changes, to the point where he idolizes the Houyhnhnms and their way of life. Yet as readers we can infer from the text that the Houyhnhnms are not as grand as Gulliver sees. Both the societies in 1984 and Gulliver’s Travels contain elements that could be associated with Dystopias, the difference being how they are presented through the eyes of the narrator.
In Orwell’s 1984, Winston goes into great detail about the importance of unity and loyalty is to the Oceania society, and how it’s fundamental to maintaining their civilization.

Much like Oceania, Utopia stives off the unity of it’s people. To them, a commonwealth is key to a functioning society. Whereas one might argue that Utopia is filled with satisfied and content people, we as readers can’t actually know that. All information that the reader receives is from Hythloday, an outsider who grew up in a vastly different culture. With this in mind, if you re-evaluate Utopia from a different perspective, certain elements start to resemble Dystopian

features.
Hythloday praises many aspects of Utopia, one of the most important being the practicality of it. Every member of Utopia works for the commonwealth, for Utopia itself. However, Hythloday fails to mention how this subjugates its people as well. Utopia’s government has complete control over its people, to the point of complete obedience. Those who disagree with Utopia is punished, dissuading others to object. Hythloday even states in the novel that
“Anyone who takes upon himself to leave his district without permission, and is caught, without the governor’s letter, is treated with contempt, brought back as a runaway, and severely punished. If he os bold enough to try a second time, he is made a slave. Anyone who wants to stroll about and explore the extent of his own district is not prevented, provided he first obtains his father’s permission and his wife’s consent. But wherever he goes in the countryside, he gets no food until he has completed either a morning’s or an afternoon’s stint of work. On these terms, he may go where he pleases within his own district, yet be just as useful to the city as if he were at home.” (53)
With the threat of potentially becoming a slave, the thought of leaving suddenly has a connotation of fear to it. Why would anyone leave on their own accord, knowing that doing so without numerous degrees of consent would led them to greater oppression. Even those that do have consent can only travel to another district, but won’t be feed until he works. Not only has Utopia ensured that its people don’t leave, it also enforces that those who work for Utopia as a whole, will be provided for. Utopia believes that in order for it’s citizens to function efficiently, everyone, regardless of gender, should be educated. While it appears the Utopia centers itself around education, cultivating one’s mind does not take precedent over one’s duty to society, as only the brightest and most intelligent can pursue education full time, and escape the hardships of labor. Not only are these select scholars free of labor, but the are the only part of the population that can hold a position of power. “From this class of scholars are chosen ambassadors, priests, tranibors, and the governor himself…” (47). A hierarchy of control and ranking is still prevalent in Utopia.
In comparison to 16th century Europe, the gender gap in Utopia is seemingly non existent. Women have the same rights to education as men do, work in the fields alongside men, and even have the same rights as men in matters of divorce. Despite this, Hythloday mentions numerous times that women are still under the control of men, as “Wives are subject to their husbands.” (50) and in terms of minor punishment, “Husbands chastise their wives….”. Even in terms of communal dinner, women are still responsible for the planning and preparing of meals, and must sit away from the men. A woman cannot lead her household, or take responsibility for herself, and yet her range of freedom allows her to contribute to the commonwealth.
More’s Utopia seems to present the perfect world at first glance. A nation thriving on rational thought, equality, tolerance, and fairness would appear to be an ideal Utopia. However, our opinion on Utopia is influenced by our narrator, who compares Utopia to 16th century Europe, a time much different than our own. As a modern reader, our expectations of a perfect society differ vastly than that of Thomas More. While More’s character is presented as a neutral party in the novel, through Hythloday we see More’s ideals of what Utopia should be. Although More’s Utopia could easily be described as such in 16th century Europe, a time of much greater oppression and hardship, as a modern reader of More’s novel, it’s difficult to accept More’s Utopia as out Utopia. A 16th century woman would might feel more liberated in More’s Utopia, however, she might also feel liberated in the 21st century, a time where many women are still fighting against oppression. More’s Utopia is in correlation with his own culture and society, but it is not a Utopia that holds up as time goes on. The foundation of many Dystopian novels are built on just that; Failed Utopias. While More’s fictional society could be a 16th century Utopia, throughout time it may be seen as a modern day Dystopia.