Thomas More's Utopia - serious joke?

While reading in preparation to write an essay on Thomas More’s Utopia (ISBN: 0521403189) (which is the ‘father’ of subsequent utopian works), I stumbled across a few interesting points. But firstly, anyone interested in modern utopian (or dystopian) literature should read More. I would also like to note that I regard Utopia as a serious work, although many people don’t. Some scholars argue that the unwillingness to accept More’s work in its entirety (there are some ‘acceptable’ bits that gets discussed and praised; and there are ‘unacceptable’ bits that are dismissed and ignored) results from paying too much attention to what we as modern readers want to read or don’t want to read. So for this reflection, I stand on the side that takes all of Utopia seriously, even the satiric parts.

But I wanted to briefly comment on 3 things: 1) Utopian military foreign policy; 2) it’s depiction of human nature; 3) is the Utopia described in the book desirable?

I’ll list down a few aspects of Utopian military foreign policy. Firstly, ‘they utterly despise war as an activity fit only for beasts’ (p.201) yet they go to war for ‘good’ reasons: to protect their own land, to drive invading armies from the territories of their friends, or to liberate an oppressed people, in the name of compassion and humanity, from tyranny and servitude’ (p.201-3). I think this sounds fair, but later we hear about some of their practices that might make us squeamish. For example, ‘they war not only to protect their friends from present danger, but sometimes to repay and avenge previous injuries,’ and the example of a war over ‘a wrong (as they saw it)’ – this sounds suspicious to me – follows (p.2013). When war is declared, they also send spies to incite rebellion against the current enemy ruler and offer rewards for assassinations of high-profile enemy targets, among other things. They also hire mercenaries (especially from a people group called the Zapoletes) and basically put them on the front lines and are unaffected by the implicit genocide they are committing. I think we are right to feel disgusted about these military policies, but I wonder whether the Western world needs to rethink theirs as well. Just today Prime Minister David Cameron made his case to MPs for UK airstrikes against IS in Syria. Scholars have suggested the imperialistic slant in the Utopians’ militaristic practices, and I think there are corollaries between them and that proposed by Cameron.

Secondly, its depiction of human nature is bleak. The character More in the book offers a stinging reason why things really aren’t getting better (despite we wanting it to be so): ‘For it is impossible to make everything good unless men are good, and that I don’t expect to see for quite a few years yet’ (p.97). We’ve waited for about 500 years and Jacob Needleman seems to concur with More in his book ‘Why Can’t We Be Good?’ I think the title speaks for itself. So More in the book proposes institutional structures as a means by which human happiness or flourishing can be achieved. Using human reason – that faculty so celebrated by the Enlightenment that it became the god of the modern age – More conducted a best-commonwealth exercise which probably surpasses Plato and Aristotle in numerous ways. And yet, his conclusion is not positive as there are problems aplenty in Utopian society that modern readers will be terribly uncomfortable with. In this exercise, More shows the limits of rationality in achieving ultimate human happiness.

          This leads to my final question of desirability. I was in a tutorial a few weeks ago and when our tutor asked us what we thought of the book, 6 of 8 students said they couldn’t connect with the book and they found many of the Utopian governing principles distasteful, perhaps verging on outrageous according to modern standards of ‘human rights.’ But I found the book relevant in that 500 years after its publication, the book still critiques a predominantly capitalist society that exhibits all the vices More talks about in his book. One of the differences is that these have now somehow become acceptable norms. Realistically, Utopia cannot be achieved. No amount of technology or self-help can overcome the innate problem within us – that which Christians call rebellion against our Maker. At our core, we aren’t good people, and we know that, that’s why we have laws. We know that left to our own devices, we will tend towards harm instead of good.

          So what options do we have? As a Christian, this reminds me not to desire a ‘heaven on earth,’ not to desire a ‘Christian’ nation. Because Jesus will return, and he will restructure society totally - all evil will be wiped out and the new world that he ushers in will be perfect in every way. So what shall I say as I sit reading Utopia and seeing the mess that we’ve made the world into? Only this: ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’ (Rev. 22:20b).