Utopia and Pride: how Thomas More’s island society is reliant upon the denial of individuality.
Utopia and Pride: how Thomas More’s island society is reliant upon the denial of individuality.
I recently completed a piece of academic writing for my studies on whether Thomas More's Utopian society is as idealistic as it originally seems. This is not something I would normally post, but I found my research into this area fascinating, and I hope anyone familiar with the book will also.
Thomas More’s Utopia is a narrative depicting a fictional island life and the accompanying social and political ideals that belong to it. One of the most troublesome questions asked about Utopia is what More’s reason for writing it was. One highly influential interpretation of Utopia comes from Quentin Skinner who believes that Utopia was purposefully
‘presented in a deliberately evasive style’ and ‘offers an analysis of the relationship between private property and the public.’
These thoughts can be seen expressed through Raphael Hythloday who believes that Utopia is the greatest social order in the world as
‘everywhere else people talk about the public good but pay attention to their own private interests. In Utopia, where there is no private property, everyone is seriously concerned with pursuing the public welfare.’
These statements show how there is a relationship between Utopian’s abolishing private property and achieving an egalitarian society. Therefore, in this essay I am going to explore and examine if the viewpoint of Raphael Hythloday can be trusted without reservation and if his narrative of events suggests that the political system in place in Thomas More’s Utopia is dependent upon the denial of human individuality, which is extinguished primarily through the abolishment of private property, and as result of this, pride.
The primary narrative within Utopia is split into two parts; book one and book two. Within book one we are introduced to the character of More, Peter Giles and Hythloday who discuss a range of philosophical, religious, and social issues which are then followed by Hythloday discussing how society much like our own today, is organized by pride, the ultimate source of injustice within society. This is continued in book two when Hythloday gives a detailed description about the island life of Utopia and its social policies, enlightening More and his companion Peter about the correct way to run and order society. In his argument, Hythloday leads us to believe that the Utopian regime has been perfected due to the focus on the elimination of private property, and as a result of this, pride. For Hythloday pride is considered an evil, something which he describes as
‘a serpent from hell that twines itself around the hearts of men […] to hold them back from choosing a better way of life.’
From this description we can see Hythloday believes that pride is something which should be eliminated, due to the way it restricts society and people from fulfilling their potential, unfortunately, the language used also suggests that the abolishment of pride is out of human control, and is something which Is not easily disposed of. Therefore, for the Utopian society to succeed in removing issues surrounding class status, greed, and property, the removal of pride is necessary. Unfortunately removing pride coincides directly with the removal of individualism in society, as is evident in Utopia, Hythloday concurs that
‘I have no doubt that every man’s perception of where his true interest lies … 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.’
Therefore, it is safe to assert that for Hythloday the abolishment of pride and as a result, individualism are both necessary to achieve his idea of a perfect society. For More and Peter Giles, however, these ideals raise certain issues, for example, one of More’s primary concerns with the Utopian state is directly related to the Utopian’s abolishment of private property, something Hythloday views as a necessity, whereas More is primarily concerned with moral and ethical Implications behind it. For example, More believed that the abolishment of private property and pride was a purely idealistic notion which is impossible to achieve within society as it suggests an environment in which people are not directly rewarded for their work. Additionally, More was unconvinced with the dominancy of Utopian regime, as it restricted it’s citizens pleasure to the mere necessary, denying them of their individuality. For More these conflicting ideas would mean Hythloday’s promise of Utopia fails as the society presented by him could no longer be viewed as a perfect state.
To distinguish if the Utopian society is possible without denying its subjects individuality we must first examine the authenticity of Hythloday’s account, and if his narrative of events is to be trusted. For readers, Hythloday’s account of Utopia is vital as we are solely relying on his descriptions and interpretations to envision the Utopian state. Hythloday is described as an experienced explorer and sailor, claiming to have been
‘Vespucci’s constant companion on the last three of his voyages.’
This is an important detail within the narrative as it creates the idea that More is lucky to be in the company of Hythloday and receive his teachings. This is until we examine the true meaning behind the name Thomas More gave to his character ‘Hythloday’, which in Greek is translated as ‘nonsense peddler.’ When writing his text More emphasised the importance of his lexical choices, which means the choice to name his apparent intelligent and reliable narrator ‘Hythloday’ was no mistake or accident, this raises issues surrounding the legitimacy of Hythloday’s account as it does not seem accurate to suggest Hythloday’s name is pure coincidence. This is even more concerning as we are reliant on Hythloday’s account of Utopia for the premise of the entire text, Peter Giles even supports this when he states that
‘there is no mortal alive today [who] can tell you so much about unknown people and lands.’
Although it is impossible to prove the accuracy of Hythloday’s account, the presumption that specific details may have been false allows us to explain some contradictory examples between that of the Utopian island state and that of More the author. For example, when comparing the religious beliefs and systems in place within Utopia to that of More (author) we encounter two polarising opinions. More was a devout Roman Catholic who refused King Henry’s claim as ‘supreme head of the Church of England’ and would later die for this belief claiming
‘I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first.’
Whereas Hythloday’s descriptions of Utopia describes a state that when a Utopian decides to ignore the law and preach his/her own religious views against others, they are
‘tried on a charge, not of despising their religion, but of creating a public disorder.’
This directly opposes the very viewpoint that More sacrificed his life for, meaning that either More changed his opinion that any religion is fine for society, or, in my opinion, the view that More in using his satirical language through Hythloday, is describing an island state that is not truly a Utopia.
This is further explored In Thomas Engeman’s journal article Hythloday’s Utopia and More’s England: An interpretation of Thomas More in which Engeman believes that only by understanding the personal character of Hythloday does his ‘utopian wisdom become clear’ and through this analysis, we can see the relationship between his personality and Utopian politics. Engeman strongly questions Hythloday’s credibility within Utopia and argues that
‘If, as indeed seems the case, Hythloday is not a credible witness, Utopia must be seen in an altogether different light.’
Engeman’s concern with the character of Hythloday originates from his claim to have abolished his links to private property at a young age, yet from evidence in the text, we see Hythloday is guilty of a re-emergence of pride through the way he seeks to dominate the conversation when in the presence of Peter Giles and More. This is an important detail as it shows how supposedly incorruptible utopian teachings have failed with Hythloday, showing that utopian teachings are not as perfect as once imagined. Engeman’s in-depth analysis of Hythloday also makes us aware of further inequalities present within the Utopian political system such as
‘the exceptional position of the priests [which] is emphasized in the uniqueness and expense of their dress’ and how these priests ‘are not subject to trial even if they commit crimes.’
These descriptions are uncharacteristic of Utopia which is supposedly an egalitarian society. As a result of his findings, Engeman concludes that More may have sympathised with some of Hythloday’s teachings, yet
‘he shrewdly developed a modern Utopia only to emphasize its ultimate limitations through its childlike founder, Raphael Hythloday.’
If this is the case we can presume that Hythloday’s teachings and account must be taken sparingly, although it seems likely More used the character of Hythloday to ultimately express his dissatisfaction toward the seemingly perfect island state and its political system.
In his book, A Study of English Utopian Writing 1516-1700 J.C. Davis explores Utopian writings to clarify and discuss existing dilemmas regarding Utopia’s and to isolate certain characteristics to compare them with other forms of society. In doing this Davis exposes multiple limitations of More’s supposedly egalitarian society. For example, Davis discusses how More’s Utopia is primarily concerned with the creation and maintenance of
‘a social order in which harmony is ensured in such a way that law and social pressure confirm the dictates of conscience.’
Although More’s utopia attempts to sustain good social order it fails due to the universal totality of Utopian institutions, as most aspects of the Utopian daily life are manipulated and regulated. For example, Utopian architecture is something which has
‘no allowance for idiosyncrasy or individuality,’ for the ‘streets are laid out in long, continuous blocks of houses similar in appearance and absent of privacy.’
These descriptions show how the Utopian public have no choice regarding what property they live in or opportunity to personalise themselves or their homes due to the belief that
‘the root cause of inefficacy of law was the system of private property.’
Further examples of the regulation of daily life and suppression of free will can be seen when looking at the allocation of time as even this ‘is not subject to the individuals choice but regulated to a standard pattern.’ This system forces the Utopians to work for a minimum of six hours per day in which they are unable to
‘withdraw or refuse labour.’
Even Utopian fashion suppresses the individual's freedom of choice as all clothing is uniform with only distinctions between married, unmarried and the sexes. This is similar with descriptions of Utopian leisure which on one hand claims to be >
‘left to every man’s discretion,’
yet later we are told this time should be used for
‘the freedom and culture of the mind.’
Although this is not necessarily wrong, it shows that for the Utopians to sustain order
‘the bureaucratic structures have to be given almost unquestioned and absolute control over the minutest details of people’s lives, actions and thoughts.’
By doing this the Utopians are creating a society in which
‘the standard of goodness … was preordained, not chosen by the inhabitants of that society, and to which their wilfulness was made to conform.’
Thus describing a society which has achieved stability through the constant and total control and regulation of its subjects, in which citizens are not allowed to express themselves or live a life at all. For the regulations and surveillance in place have similar characteristics to a totalitarian state, implying the complete suppression of free will within society.
Additionally, my research has allowed an in-depth examination of Utopia’s political and social system and how it presents a society which seems to flourish through the denial of individuality and restricting the freedom of its citizens. This is evident through the similarities between Utopia and the Panopticon discussed in Michel Foucault’s essay ‘Discipline and Punish’. For Foucault the Panopticon was a prison which offered an effective means of suppression by placing its subjects under constant surveillance, encapsulating Bentham’s belief that power should be visible and unverifiable. For example, the Panopticon
‘embodies the ideals of observation, control, and discipline’
and although More’s Utopia is described as a perfect society it shares similarities with the prison described by Bentham to maintain control of its citizens, and thus denying them of individuality. For example, Utopia is described as having
‘no hiding place; no spots for secret meetings because [the inhabitants] live in full view of all.’
The lack of privacy given to the Utopian public is comparable to that of the subjects of the prison and suggests that the Utopian society shares some goals as that of the Panopticon, as for both their
‘overriding aim is the elimination of social discord and individual unhappiness caused by unrestrained desires and strivings.’
More’s Utopia complies with this statement through its attempts to remove ‘human desires of want and pride’ from its subjects and the removal of material goods from society, creating an environment which is arguably totalitarian in its execution and denies it's subjects the freedom of choice. Furthermore, within More’s Utopia and Foucault’s Panopticon idleness is described as one of the vices held accountable for social corruption. In an attempt to resolve this we see people assigned roles to combat the idleness present within society. For example,
‘the chief and almost the only business of the syphogrants is to take care and see to it that no one sits around in idleness, and to make sure that everyone works hard at his trade.’
This coincides with More’s idea of the island being
‘in full view of all’
as much like the Panopticon work was unavoidable and the only opportunity the citizens had for pardon was when showing potential of higher learning. Although being unable to avoid work, More assured readers that
‘no one has to be exhausted with endless toil from early morning to late at night like a beast of burden’
claiming that such a life may be common for usual men but not for that of Utopians as it is a worse life than that of a slave. This displays further examples of how the Utopian system limits individualism and denies it subjects freedom, for the citizens of Utopia are assigned roles and forced to work, they are not given a choice regarding what role they have in society or if they want to work at all, as for Utopian’s, idleness is one of the primary causes of social corruption. Further implications of surveillance is present when examining the political court of Utopia, as More describes how
‘political discussion outside the Senate is prohibited and is a capital offence.’
Although this may not be directly comparable to the Panopticon it is still troublesome as it raises the issue that discussion regarding the life of Utopian citizens is not permitted unless you are addressing certain members of society. Thus, taking power and the ability to think for themselves away from the public, as when
‘under the eyes of all, people are bound either to be performing the usual labour or to be enjoying their leisure in a fashion not without decency.’
Much like with the Panopticon, the Utopians must presume they are under observation at all times, as a result, they must comply with the laws which are upheld by society at all times and not let their thoughts stray at risk of being punished.
Further examples of a harsh and controlling government which limits its citizen's free will is present when analysing the concept of travel within Utopia. For example, Utopian’s are only allowed to travel outside their city of residence with the permission from a ‘phlyarch and protophlyarch’ and only if accompanied by an official party and return by an official date. Furthermore, they may not stay at a place for longer than a day without contributing to work,
‘the punishment for non-observance of these regulations is severe and for a second offence the penalty is slavery.’
The strict regulations in place even for leisure such as travelling from one place to another, further exemplifies how Utopian men and women are contained by the law, social arrangements and constant surveillance.
Finally, if More created his Utopia as a society with the intent that everyone is equal, then the choice to include slavery is one of the most troublesome concepts attached to an otherwise visionary idea. For example, Hythloday discusses how for Utopians slavery is a punishment for serious crime and
‘the only prisoners of war the Utopians keep as slaves are those captured in wars they fight themselves.’
More importantly points out that Utopian slavery does not have economic ideals, but instead is used as a means of reform and deterrence, for the Utopians believe that slavery is a more lasting terror than that of death and view it as beneficial for society as their labour is of greater value than their death. Despite the Utopians idealistic view of slavery, it still suggests a class divide within the novel which we had previously believed to be impossible due to the abolishment of pride and private property. Furthermore, the issue of slavery also raises a paradox as the Utopian society cannot succeed without the use of slaves, yet the society cannot be described as Utopian if there are slaves present as they represent inequality within society. Therefore, slavery for Utopians becomes a means to an end, for instance, slaves have no essential economic function and their primary tasks involve that which would corrupt Utopian teachings such as the slaughtering of cattle.
In conclusion, I believe that although Thomas More’s Utopia could be viewed as a perfect island state it ultimately fails due to its attempts to suppresses individualism within society through the constant supervision and regulation set in place by the officials of Utopia. The reasoning behind this is to remove the inequalities caused by private property and as a result of this pride. The removal of private property from Utopia claims to create an equal society
‘where everything belongs to everybody … and the individual will lack nothing for private use.’
Yet we know this to be untrue as this is the same society which approves of slavery, allows no time for idleness and is unable to give its citizens basic privacy. Furthermore, Utopian teachings are often described as incorruptible, yet we see them fail with the character of Hythloday who is guilty of a re-emergence of his pride. This shows how Utopian teachings are not as flawless as once described and raises another limitation of this island state. This also raises the issues of Hythloday’s legitimacy, for if we assume More used the character of Hythloday to highlight the limitations of Utopia then we must assume it is not as utopic as once imagined, as the Utopian stability is reliant on the constant conformity of it’s peers. Therefore, even though the citizens of Utopia may believe everything to be perfect and that they have freedom of choice, realistically they only have the freedom to choose from a pre-defined set of interests and past times. Nothing about the Utopian Environment Is ideal as the subjects are unable to think for themselves, thus, as a result, Utopia ‘offers a republic of subjects, not citizens’ as individuals are forced to conform to certain behaviours.
Thank you for reading - if you made it this far I salute you!
Would love to hear peoples thoughts.
Bibliography
"BBC - History - Historic Figures: Thomas More (1478 - 1535)", Bbc.Co.Uk, 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/more_sir_thomas.shtml [Accessed 3 March 2018].
Davis, J. C., Utopia & The Ideal Society: A Study Of English Utopian Writing 1516-1700(Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 42-61.
Engeman, Thomas S., "Hythloday's Utopia And More's England: An Interpretation Of Thomas More's Utopia", The Journal Of Politics, 44 (1982), 131-149.
Foucault, Michel, Discipline And Punish (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977).
Kumar, Krishan, Utopia And Anti-Utopia In Modern Times (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), p. 37.
More, Thomas, George M Logan, and Robert Merrihew Adams, Utopia (Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Nendza, James, "Political Idealism In More's Utopia", The Review Of Politics, 46 (1984), 437-438.
Skinner, Quentin, "The Lesson Of Thomas More", The New York Review Of Books, 25 (1978) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/12/the-lesson-of-thomas-more/ [Accessed 1 May 2018]
“The Center For Thomas More Studies - Home", Thomasmorestudies.Org, 2018 http://www.thomasmorestudies.org [Accessed 3 March 2018].
