No Place Like Utopia

There’s No Place Like Utopia

    Utopia is a word commonly used in conversation to describe an ideal society where every system functions seamlessly and all the people are perfectly happy. Many novels, movies, and books have been made about utopias, and it is an idea that has fascinated people for centuries. However, the word “Utopia” actually originated with a man named Thomas More in his book Utopia, and it did not become an official word in the English language until much later. In its conception, “Utopia” was used to describe a specific place in the New World of Amerigo Vespucci (More 17) that was discovered and inhabited for five years by a very traveled man named Raphael Nonsenso. Raphael fondly describes this civilization as the best and most prosperous country he’s seen, and asserts that if More had seen it himself he would admit that he’d “never seen a country so well organized” (More 46). As the story proceeds, Raphael describes a fantastical place of equality, but upon closer examination it is seen that along with the positives there are also great negatives of the proposed society, and the end result is a conclusion that must be reached by each respective reader.

    The first point to be examined is the assertion pushed by Raphael that Utopian organization and systems are “better than ours” (More 47). He details several differences between their society and the societies of the rest of the world, each time contending that their variation is superior and results in a better overall community. The majority of their successes stem from their view of citizenship. Their system is so effective “because it’s based on communal ownership rather than private property” (More 43). Rather than focus on land as territory, they view all of their land as something to cultivate and get sustenance from, so they do not focus on border expansion or material wealth. Instead, they focus on running the land they already possess and facilitating the welfare of the people. In their view, “silver and gold… get no more respect from anyone than their intrinsic value deserves” (More 66) and they use them “for the humblest items of domestic equipment, such as chamber pots” (More 67). Because their people are constantly exposed to material money as an object of “contempt” (More 67), they focus instead on the health and betterment of the general population and no one is concerned with self gain. Even the shops and markets do not exchange money, but simply give the items to citizens who request them. Because everyone focuses on the community rather than themselves, they all contribute their time and effort freely and this results in a selfless, productive population able of accomplishing more than any other society on earth.

    The picture of Utopia painted from the positive aspect looks like a dreamland of incredible opportunity with fair treatment of everyone and humans that are as perfect as humanly possible. However, throughout the narration of Utopia’s attributes, More consistently employs phrases and makes points that cause the reader to wonder whether Utopia is as perfect as it seems. The annual meeting of Utopia’s Parliament is known as the “Lietalk” (More 65). The leaders of the local Utopian households are known as “Stywards” (More 54). Even the name of their capital is called “Aircastle” (More 65) implying that it is full of wind, a metaphor commonly associated with emptiness. One of the most alarming downsides of their communal mindset is the effect on the value of the individual life. If a person becomes sick beyond recovery, local government leaders and priests visit them and tell them that they are “just a nuisance to other people and a burden” to themselves (More 83). They then attempt to convince them to commit suicide to alleviate the leech on the community. Even the name of Utopias narrator himself is Raphael Nonsenso. Each of these points provides raises the question of whether More truly believes what he is writing or not.

    Throughout the novel, More paints Utopia as a paradise and then follows each praise with a biting undercut. There has been much debate over whether he actually believed Nonsenso’s perfect community as a viable option for the real world or not. It is my own conviction that More’s purpose was not to solely exalt or deplore this society, but to engage his readers in examining government and society form many different angles. His goal, in my view, was to present his readers with various viewpoints and encourage them to come to their own conclusions about the viability of this system in the real world. In the end, it is up to the reader to gauge these ideas and their applicability to reality.