Mahmud et al.

Saad Mahmud

Faria Nowshin Twinkle

Israt Hossain

Shahnaz Ameer

English 213

28 December, 2022

Abstract

In the year 1516, Sir Thomas More’s Utopia was the first book to use the word utopia in a direct

context. However, the genre of utopian literature has many examples that date back over a

thousand years before More’s book. This means the concept of the idealized world in literature

isn’t new in any way. However, a harmonious society may not be as ideal as it seems in these

books. Human beings are diverse in their own rights and any social system that does not respect

that diversity cannot be perfect. While in Utopia, little modification in the social order is shown

to accommodate some diversity, but it is far from the individual freedom that should be the ideal.
 Mahmud et al. 2

The Thin Line Between Utopia and Dystopia

More’s Utopia sets up its premise in sixteenth-century European society. More, Giles and

Hythloday talk about the problematic aspects of contemporary society and Hythloday shares his

opinions on things could be better. On the topic of said betterment, Hythloday brings up the

nation of Utopia, its geographical features, country life, cities, officials, occupations,

communities, economy, learning, philosophy, slavery, marriage, laws, wars, religions, and more.

Upon analyzing the discourse it is clear that Utopia is supposed to be the most uniformed,

harmonious society on the planet earth, where human happiness is viewed as a result of

prosperity and social stability. However, sacrificing human individuality in the pursuit of the

perfect society can be a major trade-off. Especially when human beings are by nature diverse. In

an ideal society, such diversities should be celebrated, not mitigated. If happiness is measured by

prosperity and stability, human individuals are forced to be happy. Utopia behind the curtains of

it’s so-called perfection hides patriarchy, colonialism, invasion of its citizen’s privacy, and the

death of individuality,

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, while discussing consensus sapientium, also known the

agreement of the wise or the proof of truth, in his book Twilight of the Idols, rejected the idea

and named it the evidence of untruth. The fact that everybody seems to agree about something

isn’t always proof that we’re right. And even if we are right, it may do us good to thing about the

principles, the values and ideals, that underlie our agreement, not just to make the consensus

more intellectually secure, but also to explore consequences we haven’t noticed. More’s Utopia

presents the reader with the idea that the nation of Utopia is the most ideal one that there could

be. However, behind this mask of perfectness, there are many underlying issues that the reader
 Mahmud et al. 3

can easily miss. Hythloday observes that the Utopian pre-supposition is that man’s final end is

happiness, and they hold pleasure to be the object of happiness. Hythloday chose his words

carefully instead of bluntly stating that the wisest people of Utopia were outright hedonists. Surtz

while discussing Utopian defence of pleasure suggested that the main justification provided for

their hedonism comes from their belief of religion. Religion allows them three truths: the

immortality of the soul, the special providence of God in ordaining man to happiness, and the

reward of virtue and punishment of the evil in the next life. Those who choose not to believe in

these three truths are treated with utmost disrespect. Utopians believe that due to their lack of

motive for a future reward, they would not live a virtuous life and disrupt the social prosperity by

which they measure their happiness. Their indifference towards the believers of alternative

disciplines violates their individuality. Their enforced idea of communical property is another

great example of the little to no importance they give towards individual liberty. In other’s words

utopians are forced to persue the pleasure of the afterlife and are expected to find happiness in

that idea.

The Utopians also marginalize foreign nationals, women and slaves. In Utopia, people could be

made slaves for four reasons. For instance, people who committed heinous crimes, prisoners

from battle, people who faced capital punishment in their country and came to Utopia to live, the

people out of poverty came here to live. Thus, these people will be forced to do hard labor and

unpleasant work. Such as butchering animals or sanitary services. “But there are special places

outside the town where all blood and dirt are first washed off in running water. The slaughtering

of livestock and cleaning of carcasses are done by slaves.” (More, p-12, Book-2) The slaves do

not receive fair treatment even though they are part of the same inhabitant community. Thus it
 Mahmud et al. 4

can be said that even within the realms of Utopia, marginalization was ever-present. At the same

time, the foreigners howsoever are going to be treated as criminals of society. “Those people,

who are outside of the Utopian establishment of perfection, are, by definition and nature, base

and wicked: had they been otherwise, they would necessarily become part of Utopia.” (Avineri,

p-289). Although More has stated that the “hard labor” is for the punishment of their crime and it

will make them good citizens and regain their freedom. Evidence of Utopia’s patriarchal bias and

mistreatment of women can be found as well as the Utopian regime allows the husbands to

“punish their wives” (More, p-35, Book-2). Utopian commonwealth’s choose a magistrate each

year as their government representative. However, “it does not seem that women can be admitted

to the magistrature” (Baker Smith, 2000, p. 165). This shows the institutional repressing of

women and the unequal treatment that is completely ignored in the idealization of the society.

Utopians condemn the ideas like celibacy, polygamy and divorce. Only “If both offenders are

married, their injured partners may, if they like, obtain a divorce and marry one another, or

anyone else they choose. But if they continue to love their undeserving mates, they’re allowed to

stay married to them, provided they’re willing to share their working conditions.” (More, p-34,

Book-2) This shows the over-governance of the state and its control over people’s lives. This

suggests that people are forced to be in a marriage only because their partner is loyal. This

overlooks the complexity of marriages. And the state deciding on weather to dissolve the

marriage and assigning guilt can be considered a violation of privacy.

The word dystopia refers to a rhetoric society where people lead dehumanized and wretched

lives in rampant fear and distress. In other words, utopia gone wrong. Orwell’s 1984 is a perfect
 Mahmud et al. 5

example of a dystopian society. Greene finds More’s idea of Utopia to be fascist. Moreover, she

finds that both Utopia and 1984 “are characterized by oppressive canons and the suffocation of

independent thought” (Greene, 2011, p. 2). From the provided evidence, utopia with all its lack

of individuality, barbaric slavery laws, marginalization of women, and over-governing in this day

and age is more like a dystopian nightmare than a perfect society.

References:

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Liberalism, Individuality, and Identity.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 27, no.

2, University of Chicago Press, Jan. 2001, pp. 305–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/449010.

Avineri, Shlomo. “War and Slavery in More's Utopia.” International Review of Social History,

vol. 7, no. 2, 1962, pp. 260–290., doi:10.1017/S0020859000002091.

Baker-Smith, Dominic. More's Utopia, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442677395

Greene, Vivien. “Utopia/Dystopia.” American Art, vol. 25, no. 2, 2011, pp. 2–7. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.1086/661960. Accessed 28 Dec. 2022.

More, Thomas, Utopia (Penguin Classics). Translated by Turner, Paul. Revised ed., Penguin

Classics, 2003.

Nendza, James. “Political Idealism in More’s Utopia.” The Review of Politics, vol. 46, no. 3,

Cambridge UP (CUP), July 1984, pp. 428–51.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500047963.

Surtz, Edward L. “The Defense of Pleasure in More’s ‘Utopia.’” Studies in Philology, vol. 46,

no. 2, 1949, pp. 99–112. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4172882. Accessed 28 Dec.

2022.
Mahmud et al. 7