During the nearly five centuries since the initial publication of More’s Utopia, critics have found themselves in two rather contradictory interpretive frameworks. Indeed, More’s seemingly contradictory text serves to promote such scholarly disagreement. It seems more likely, however, that the author did not in fact intend Utopia to be viewed as an ideal community, or for the text itself to be taken completely seriously: he is able to “[discuss] serious problems, but not in a humourless or depressing way” (p. 83). Modern readers might first be misled by the work’s title, as “Utopia” means no place in its Greek etymology, and does not refer to the modern lexicon. Throughout the text, More subverts the apparent realism of this fictional country by displaying its flaws and inconsistencies. One can conclude that he was highly sceptical whether a true utopia could in fact be created by humans.
An initial reading of the text may suggest that More is advancing a perfect community in which to live. The Utopians base their society and religious beliefs on the ideology of perfect happiness. This contentment comes through good deeds and a healthy lifestyle, while all other pleasures are illusory. While this theory is indeed noble and well-intentioned, it seems unlikely to have been practised in Utopia. Through several inconsistencies, one is led to question whether the Utopians themselves were in fact happy within their society. For More, the Utopian belief that the ultimate motive for life was the pursuit of pleasure was fallacious. Hythlodaeus repeatedly stresses that citizens were to put the desires of the community above their own, yet it seems that they are not provided with a satisfactory reason for doing so, and indeed this belief is in contradiction with an individual’s pursuit of pleasure. They reasoned that human nature was naturally virtuous, “which in their definition means following one’s natural impulses” (p. 91). Yet, such individual liberties cannot exist without harming some members of the community. Hythlodaeus states that many Utopians found happiness in relieving the discomforts of others despite increasing their own, yet they do not “boast about their own” lives and accomplishments (p. 122). He then seems to belie the good intentions of the Utopians by stating that some citizens erect statues of themselves as a tribute to their good deeds. Consequently, they are forced to believe in an afterlife since the absence of money and glory precludes a reward on earth for a morally-correct life. By pressuring its citizens to act in a good manner, Utopia removes from them the spiritual happiness and fulfilment that comes through the acceptance of God through the free will of humanity. Since they lack such a ‘pure’ relationship with God, they do not gain any revelation from Its wisdom. The prayer to Mythras demonstrates such a problematic situation:
I thank thee ... for letting me live in the happiest possible society, and
practise what I hope is the truest religion. If I am wrong, and if some
other religion or social system would be better and more acceptable to
Thee, I pray in Thy goodness to let me know it (p. 128)
Hythlodaeus states that the Utopians have no capacity for relevation, however, and thus they must perpetually exist in their vacuous and static society. They accept their religious principles not through religious revelation, but alternately through reason (p. 91). Therefore, it can be concluded that the social order of Utopia is based on a rational ideology, and not in any way ordained by God. More would have found such a society intolerable.
A more careful reading of the first book of Utopia provides a parallel which contradicts the supposition of the Utopians as a content people living in a perfect society. While the Utopians live in relative peace and stability, it becomes clear that they have no freedom in any fashion. Citizens have the freedom to travel within their local communities, but if they leave without permission they are severely reprimanded; “for a second offence the punishment is slavery” (p. 84). Hythlodaeus subverts this law with a line from the Utopians’ religious philosophy: “perfect happiness implies complete freedom of movement” (p. 121). This restriction likens them to the prisoners in the nation of the Tallstorians (pp. 51-3). Additionally, citizens are moved around the island at the will of their supervisors to balance the population. Similarly, there is no freedom of thought, although this was not an overt restriction. Children were taught “the right ideas about things — the sort of ideas best calculated to preserve the structure of their society” (p. 124). However, the Utopian religion seems somewhat contradictory, as “one of the most ancient principles of their constitution is religious toleration” (p. 119), yet one ‘destructive’ ideal, atheism, is in fact completely forbidden (pp. 119-20). The Utopians’ practise of such conservatism is in fact parallel to More’s own beliefs as a conservative Catholic, and as a man who convicted several heretics. The stability of their society is stressed, however; they neither engage in many wars with foreign powers, nor do they have internal disputes. Yet, as has been stated earlier, More does not consider them truly happy. Instead, they live in a society of physical well-being without any genuine spiritual contentment. Such a life is fallacious, as Hythlodaeus states: “freedom from pain is anaesthesia” (p. 96). As they lacked any true connection with God, More would agree with his ‘dispenser of nonsense’.
Utopia was definitely constructed by More in a paradoxical and somewhat unclear manner for a specific purpose. He wanted the intellectuals of his age to contemplate the problems it addressed. Simultaneously, however, he did not wish any radical subversions to the established English court society of which he was a part. Humour and satire were therefore the principle methods by which he achieved his goal. Utopia was to be taken lightheartedly, and indeed, one can thus understand the self-referential irony in Hythlodaeus’s doubts whether “there was anything in Latin that [the Utopians] would like very much” (p. 99). Indeed, they would not have liked the portrait that More painted of them.
Bibliography
More, Thomas. Utopia. Trans. Paul Turner. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1981.
New, Peter. Fiction and Purpose In Utopia, Rasselas, The Mill on the Floss, and Women In Love. Hong Kong: MacMillan Press, Ltd, 1985.
No comments:
Post a Comment