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
|