I think that one of the questions that intrigued me the most while reading through More’s Utopia is trying to understand exactly what his motivation was for writing the piece. It seems as though some people read it as More trying to describe a society that he literally believes to be the perfect utopia. At the same time, some people view it as a complete satire. I think that by studying a bit of Sir Thomas More’s life it seems like the answer might be somewhere in between.
Many of the ideals in the book are clearly good and beneficial to humanity. Some of these include the way the Utopians view wealth, their ideas on agriculture and food, and much of their government structure. Many of the ideals that More writes about seem to coincide with some of his personal beliefs and other writings. However, I think it also interesting to note that much of these positive concepts are written in a very over simplified fashion. The leaders in More’s Utopia do come off as benevolent but who is to say that they are not just as likely to become corrupted as we know happens so often in other societies? Likewise, it is easy to say that the religions of Utopia respect the beliefs of others but exactly how is that ideal achieved and sustained over time.
Some of the other ideals seem less than perfect (slavery, euthanasia) while others seem to be good but in direct contradiction with the beliefs of Sir Thomas More. Even a passing historical overview of Thomas More’s life shows his complete disagreement with divorce which the Utopians are able to achieve with relative ease. Furthermore, More was not exactly a shining example of religious tolerance and directly fought against the idea of female priests which is one of the principle tenants of Utopian religion.
In the end, Utopia is probably not a direct example of what More would really consider to be a perfect society. It is also interesting to note that a lot of these contradictions raises questions as to how much More may have felt pressure to hide and mask some of his personal beliefs in order to avoid both religious and monarchist persecution. However, the idea of More backing down or hiding his beliefs does not really line up with his public persona and tragic history.
It seems to me that for the most part More is simply trying to construct a portrait of a more perfect society, that he may not always agree with, in an effort to force his readers to reexamine the society that they live in and perhaps start the debate on what is right and wrong in Utopia and by extension what is right and wrong in their own respective societies. In other words, he does not always stack the deck with his own ideals but leaves much of it open in order to foster debate and hopefully realize real change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am wondering if More may have utilized a strategy of including items that contradict his personal worldview in Utopia to make the dissertation more convincing by providing an air of objectivity. If readers realize that he doesn't necessarily agree with everything he includes, they might feel that his more 'factual', thus making the entirety of the piece more convincing. An intellectual individual such as Sir More would certainly understand the importance of making a convincing statement, and it's certain that he implements a number of strategic devices in his writing to make his work more enticing.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the sustainability that you bring up is an interesting one (the lasting benevolence of rulers, the enduring views of religious tolerance, etc.). From my viewpoint, I think Sir More didn't concern himself with a long-term assessment of Utopian values because it is meant to be used as a contrast to the society in which More lives and writes. Since he is making a commentary on his immediate surroundings, it wasn't necessary for him to develop a long-term sociopolitical infrastructure for his idealized literary device.