Utopia

“Utopian schemes are inherently unstable, as they depend on the perfectibility of man, which is a false and dangerous assumption.” Roger Scruton

Most of us have heard of the term ‘Utopia’ or ‘Utopian’. Few probably know where the term comes from or to what it originally referred.

In 1516, English author, statesman and philosopher Thomas More wrote a fictional work which he titled Utopia (‘Nowhere’). It was a critique of the society in which he lived, and has been the topic of debate and controversy ever since. In the story, a traveler named Raphael Hythloday begins a discourse about a small island in the New World from which he recently returned. This man-made island and society was called, of course, Utopia. Hythloday characterizes the society as one of peace, equality and social harmony. Here are some features of Utopia.

It was organized with communal ownership. That is, private property was abolished and all goods are held ‘in common’. Citizens lived in uniform housing and dined in communal halls. There was no class distinction. No one was rich or poor. Everyone contributed to society by their labor. Utopia was governed by an elected council (Senate) and a single ‘Prince’ at the head. This head ruler was elected for life, though they could be removed because of misconduct.

Slavery was a feature of the Utopian society. Slaves could be captured soldiers, or purchased from merchants with whom they traded when a person was condemned to die. Slavery was used as punishment for crimes against society as well. Natives condemned to slavery were treated worse than slaves that were acquired by conquest or purchase because natives were considered to be given all the advantages of Utopian society but were incorrigible and thus deserving of more severe treatment. All slaves were kept in chains and subject to perpetual labor.

Women could not marry before the age of eighteen and men before the age of twenty-two. If they engaged in marital activities before they were married, they were punished in order to make an example of them, and then could not marry unless they received special dispensation from the Prince. The parents of the family in which this happened fell under reproach also because it was assumed they had failed in their duty. Polygamy was not allowed. Nor was divorce, except for gross perversion or adultery, and the Senate dissolved the marriage. They may have granted the victim of the offense the ability to marry again, but the guilty person was made an example of, condemned to slavery, and was not allowed to marry again.

The law did not provide punishments for other offenses. That was left to the judgment of the council. Though the death penalty was exercised in some cases, slavery was considered of more benefit to the society as there was value in the labor. Also, because slavery caused such misery, it was considered a greater deterrent. If slaves rebelled and would not bear their forced labor, they were put to death. If they complied, it was possible that the Prince or the community would see their repentance and restore their freedom. There were few laws, and no lawyers, which gave the individual the chance to plead their own case, but left the outcome to the judgment of unpredictable entities.

More seems to me to be advocating for a communist society, long before Marx, Engels and Lenin brought this concept into common use. What’s interesting to me is that he begins with an established society without showing how a society with such traits could be brought about. Was it wishful thinking, did More believe that people would embrace a culture such as that, or was he trying to make conversation? As I mentioned in Socialism Has Just Never Been Done Right?, I believe that immutable human characteristics render such a society impossible without force, which certainly does not lead to the peaceful, harmonious world More suggests.

Today, the term utopia often has the meaning “the best expression of an ideal”, or “perfection”. (though some times it is a sarcasm.) Of course it is used in many ways. You might speak of a ‘Teacher’s utopia’, a ‘Socialist utopia’ a ‘Christian utopia’, or a number of other descriptors. I’ve come to think that this framing of the concept is dangerous because we cannot know the perspective of the listener. It would be very awkward to find myself advocating for (in the mind of another) such a society as is described. Whether we are referring to the apparent communist ideal originally envisioned, or another un-realizable object, it seems to me like we need to be more careful when we suggest a Utopian anything.

Would it even be desirable to achieve a society such as described by More? Are people ‘perfectible’? The history of the term being what it is, is it prudent to continue to use it as the symbol of a perfected ideal? What do you think?

If you’d like to know when I post these random bits, put your e-mail address in the box and touch ‘Subscribe’. It’s free.