Although this is a work of fiction, it’s hard to know with certainty whether More’s work is a deliberate treatise on ideal government, or whether it’s really a satire attempting to show the futility of Utopian thinking. As the introduction makes clear, most scholars argue that, paradoxically, it is not Utopian at all. In fact, it’s hard to read more than just a few pages without realizing how dystopian it really is. I have two main problems with the society described in Utopia. First is the problem of its inherent and necessary authoritarian nature. Second is the problem of it’s gross misrepresentation of human nature by, ironically, presenting it better than it really is.

First the problem of its authoritarian regime. In Utopia, those who are free not to work are those who have been chosen by the community to be given the “privilege of a perpetual sabbatical” so that they can concentrate on intellectual inquiry (p. 100). To the extent that the intellectual inquiry is a privilege, one can be free to not work. It’s not that I don’t support intellectual inquiry; rather, the problem is that the community stipulates what is or what isn’t worthy of pursuit, not the individual. It is up to the community to determine what’s good and what isn’t. Effectively, there’s no possibility of personal development in the sense of individuals tailoring their interests based on life experience, because the community will ultimately tell you what’s worthy and what isn’t. Another example of this “community fiat” is found in the following: “For true happiness, they believe, is to be found in spiritual development” (p. 102). Again, by what right does the community legislate what happiness is? Happiness ceases to be an abstract concept, subject to an individual’s goals and aspirations, and instead becomes something with a face–specifically, spiritual development.

Now the larger problem of its misrepresentation of human nature. In Utopia, it is customary for sons, and males in general, “to obey the eldest male inhabitant,” provided that his faculties have not been diminished by old age (p. 102). The problem here is that it presupposes a (somewhat) direct relationship between age and wisdom/intelligence/mental capacity. In other words, older males ought to be listened to simply by virtue of their age, irrespective of their merit (similar to the conflict in Titus). But this is simply foolish. There is no direct correlation between age and competency/merit, nor is it even the inverted-U curve that assumes competency increases with age then declines after a certain point. Neither is true. What is true is that mental faculties, competence, and merit to rule are determined by numerous factors other than age. Reducing the “right to rule” to age is simply foolish and stands in the way of ideal governance. Now consider the way in which More generalizes the behavior of sons everywhere–except for in Utopia. Sons will inherit their fathers’ estates, and because they mismanage the money, the estates will eventually fall to ruin and will have to be rebuilt. Sons in Utopia, in contrast, don’t experience the same problem because in Utopia, “everything is well managed and the government properly ordered” (p. 101). This is entirely unfounded. There’s no good reason to assume that males (or people in general), simply because they exist in a different space in time, will be fundamentally different with regards to nature, i.e., the psychological feature of self-control deficiency, an inclination to gorge and overspend, and an overestimation of the rewards of today relative to tomorrow. Next, there is a huge disregard for human nature in the following example: “Why suspect of someone taking too much, when you know he is confident there will always be enough to go around?” (p. 104). Here is an unfounded assumption of rationality. If people really were rational, then the question is a good one. But they in fact aren’t, so it’s ridiculous to assume that greed will be nonexistent. For example, people at all-you-can-eat buffets regularly overeat in an attempt to “get their money’s worth,” which is irrational because the amount paid is always the same.

In short, the two biggest problems for me are the gross overgeneralizations of human nature and its mischaracterization, and Utopia’s apparent “rule by decree” modus operandi. Coincidentally, Plato’s vision of a utopian Republic is also sinisterly authoritarian/dystopian; personal freedom is nonexistent and propaganda is state-controlled. It’s a bit ironic how in their attempts to create a utopia, both More and Plato inevitably stumble onto societies that are “utopian” in name but don’t resonate well with contemporary readers. Nonetheless, it’s noteworthy that More’s Utopia is a “utopia” not by virtue of ideal governance, sound laws, egalitarianism, etc., rather, it becomes utopian by manipulating human nature. The Utopia emerges only after correcting for human flaws. And since that can’t really be done, perhaps More is saying that a utopian society is impossible in principle.

~ Mina Rostom

The Value of Gold and Absence of Monetary Value

Though not explicitly a law or policy in Utopian society, what I found particularly interesting, astonishing, and equally unrealistic at the same time, was the insignificant value of precious metals and absence of money in this ideal society. Ultimately, this concept is attributed to the severely socialist-based society into which Utopia is made. All citizens produce for the entire society, and consumption is equal as well.

“Whatever he asks for, he’s allowed to take away without any sort of payment, either in money or in kind. After all, ‘why shouldn’t he? There’s more than enough of everything to go round, so there’s no risk of his asking for more than he needs.” Hythloday goes on to say that no living creature is inherently greedy, aside from “want” or “in the case of human beings, from vanity.” Hythloday introduces this discussion by addressing that it will come as a shock to most, and he himself was also astonished to learn of such an ideology. Nonetheless, I believe Hythloday–as an idealist, and admirer of the Utopian society–blindly accepts and relishes at every aspect of this idealized civilization. He’s taken by their use of gold and silver, as common materials to create housewares and even made into rings to distinguish slaves from civilians.

Realistically, I feel as though Hythloday understands there cannot be an absence of money and a lack of value placed on gold and silver. In “regular” society, currency and commerce, as well as the value of precious metals, is something that simply won’t instantaneously diminish. Still, the concept is a contemporary one: money is the root cause of greed and vanity that taints humanity.

– Stephanie Sica

Choose one of the four prompts below and share your thoughts in the comments on this post. No need to write much, or to write anything formal, but we’d love to hear something from everybody before Wednesday’s class.

1. On Justice and Free Will

In the Apology Socrates finds it “impossible to keep quiet” (38a., p. 39).  In fact, he claims that if the Athenian court forbade him to practice philosophy from then on, he would refuse to obey. In the Crito, however, he seems to suggest that one must always obey the laws of his state, even when they command what is unjust (52e, 53, p. 53).  Is there a way to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements?

2. On Piety and Self Knowledge

Socrates, Euthyphro, and Meletus all invoke the divine in their arguments. How does each understand it and what role does the divine play in civic and philosophical deliberations?

3. The Theater of Politics

Discuss Socrates’ Apology as public performance. Obviously it fails to persuade the jury, but is it convincing in other ways? What strategies does he deploy?

4. On Exile, Duty, and the Global State

Use Socrates’ argument in Crito to think about Edward Snowden.

A number of you have brought our attention to contemporary (or roughly contemporary) examples of real-life Lysistratas–women who’ve organized sex strikes in order to achieve specific political goals. Ari mentioned one organized by the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace, which, as he puts it, “ended the Second Liberian Civil War in 2003 through a sex strike, as well as other forms of civil disobedience.” (The image above is from a documentary on the subject.) And Andrew shared with us an article about a proposed sex boycott in Japan. Are there others you’ve come across? Feel free to add links / descriptions in the comments. 

This course explores how pre-modern conceptions of sovereignty, agency, and freedom, inform our present-day negotiations—civic, personal, economic, and political—and condition our views of political agency and civic legitimacy.