Scholars are divided on this book, and so am I. Some say More is actually espousing an ideal way of life, while others insist it is all moral allegory. I'm afraid I cannot tell. More was a devout Catholic, and rather intolerant of other religions, and so the vague communal faith of the Utopians seems entirely imcompatible with his beliefs. But for what, then, did he write the book.
The Utopia is an island in some inscrutable place. Its inhabitants are housed, fed, clothed, and employed by the government. In return, they work diligently eight hours a day. They're moderately well-educated, and encouraged to attend instructional lectures in their spare time. Gold and jewels are despised and used for chamberpots and such, and no one seems to mind not owning anything because they want for nothing necessary. Church attendance is compulsory, but the service is inter-faith, for various beliefs abound, their only common thread being a monotheism.
For, the whole of the societal structure depends upon the individual's belief in a benevolent higher power. As More readily admits, no man would work toward the good of the whole his entire life if he didn't have any spiritual incentive, any afterlife impetus. As long as the Utopians believe that their cooperation is in their best interests, they will continue to do their respective shares.
The state holds a terrible amount of power in Utopia. Travel is restricted; marriage is regulated. Every aspect of the citizens' lives is dependent upon the government. Though each is guaranteed food, shelter, and steady work, the arrangement is neither desirable nor feasible. At the end of the day, it is all no less that state-controlled slavery. Freedom, even an impoverished freedom, as Frederick Douglass said, is surely better than this.
Individual ownership is one of the chief desires of man. As I heard a pastor recently say, "The early Christians did not preach Communism. Communism says, 'What's yours is mine.' Communalism says, 'What's mine is yours.' The early Christians practiced communalism." Philanthropy should be born of an intrinsic motivation to give, not by the state's insistence. The motive to do good, in fact, in completely eradicated when sin and virtue are determined by authority, when unquestioning compliance is all that is asked of the individual.
So why did More write this book? Perhaps, in the pre-Marx world, a communism seemed plausible. Or perhaps More was entirely aware of the shortcomings of his invented society, and intended it only as a backdrop upon which to present his carefully veiled critiques of his contemporary life. For my part, I hope for the latter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment