IMAGINING OTHER
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY – A PRIMER
Thomas More (1478 – 1535), utopias, humanism
etc (pp5)
Links: Thomas More - Extracts
Luther, Calvin, Thomas More: Summary
Political
Philosophy Contents Page
Luther, Calvin, The Reformation
(pp6)
Main Sources:
Ackroyd, P.: The Life of Thomas More, Chatto and Windus 1998
Berneri, M.L.: Journey Through Utopia, Freedom Press 1982
Kenny, A.: Thomas More,
Kumar, K.: Utopianism, Open University 1991
Mackenney, R.: Sixteenth Century
Also referred to:
Cole, K. et al: Why Economists Disagree, Longman 1983
Kautsky, Karl: Thomas More and his Utopia,
Additional reference: Terry
Eagleton in Observer
Summary:
1. Notes on ‘utopias’:
1.1 notes on the definition of the word ‘utopia’
1.2 types of utopias
in different writings
1.3 why read or write
utopias – especially in studying
political
philosophy?
1.4 what common features can be found in utopian
writing?
1.5 another way of ‘classifying’ utopias: authoritarian
vs. libertarian
1.6 other (later)
utopias.
2. The Context of More’s Utopia:
2.1 the context of the times
2.2 More’s life and character
3. Utopia:
3.1
overview of main points
3.2 specific topics debated in Utopia.
1. Notes on ‘utopias’:
1.1 notes on the
definition of the word ‘utopia’.
The word utopia was coined by Thomas More (1478 – 1535).
Right from when it was first used it is an ambiguous word:
Since it is a transcription into English letters from Greek, it could
mean either "no place" [outopia] or "beautiful place"
[eutopia].
Incidentally, the book was written in Latin and has many such puns…
Some cannot easily be translated (belluinam beastly, is translated as subhuman,
when there is a pun on bellum meaning war).
Definition: (Kumar) “a world that cannot be, but where one fervently
wishes to be… tantalizingly existing on the edge of possibility…”
H.G.
Wells: [our aim was] “to make vivid and credible if we can... an imaginary
whole and happy world. Our deliberate intention is to be not, indeed
impossible, but most distinctly impracticable, by every scale that reaches
only between today and tomorrow…”
(Concerning: A Modern Utopia, 1905, cited in Kumar p 3)
1.2 there are several
broad types of utopias in different writings:
1.2.1 (Scruton) account of an ideal society, which also sets out to
help explain things about politics,
human nature etc i.e. Plato's republic, some of Aristotle, perhaps Zeno (Stoic,
300 BC)
1.2.2 recommendations for an
ideal society - and only that (no stating how arrive etc) e.g. More, and most
others
1.2.3 "dystopias" –
‘nasty’ places! e.g. 1984, Brave new world
But even 2 and 3 may contain pointers
to philosophy through assumptions about: human nature, change, order, values
etc
1.2.4 utopias may also be reactions against an unacceptable or
troubling, disturbed, or changing
present i.e. critique/satire (and note that satire is often affectionate...)
1.3 Why read or write
utopias – especially in studying political philosophy?
1.3.1 ‘For’:
(i) they represent dreams, ideals, hopes, the imagination (Berneri) - what might be possible?! (Kumar:)
the visionary " and impracticable" quality of utopia is its strength
(ii) they may be useful critiques - raising questions about society,
human nature and behaviour etc.
1.3.2 ‘Against’: (and especially, reasons against taking them seriously or trying to
implement what they describe) :
(i) they ignore the 'proven realities of human nature' (Scruton)
(ii) my utopia isn't yours – it is impossible to realize all social etc
goods simultaneously and continuously (Nozick)
(iii) they may be unrealistic because backward-looking
(iv) they produce uniformity, and make change impossible
(v) they lead to force/oppression in practice, either: because they
ignore the real (Scruton), because any ‘blueprint’ leads to forcing reality to
fit it (Popper)
[do ‘utopias’ then serve a useful purpose in thinking about politics?
1.4 What common features
can be found in utopian writing? (what Kumar calls
"boundaries"):
- memories of a Golden Age (Plato, Virgil et al) + Australian Dreamtime, and in Hinduism, Taoism.. and the
Christian Paradise Lost,
- dreams of a future dramatic change e.g. the Christian Millenium...
- an ideal city (Plato and Augustine) - More's Utopia is most like this
in its planning, and its echoes of Plato
1.5 Another way of
‘classifying’ utopias: authoritarian vs. libertarian
(from Berneri, an anarchist writer):
1.5.1 authoritarian/nationalist
- for the greatness of
the state
- the individual is
sacrificed, and no one is strong enough to threaten or change the existing
order (e.g. artists for Plato were a danger to the state)
- the code of laws and
morality is made for (not by) the citizens (a ‘freedom’ which is given
ceases to be freedom)
- note also how many
creators of utopias imagine themselves as the rulers!
- so-called ‘laws of
nature’ are also drawn up or invented by an authority, they are not based on
observation or 'how people are'- they are mechanical rather than organic
- they may abolish inequality (and so
seem ideal from an anarchist or socialist point of view) but they are likely to
suggest further measures e.g. the abolition of private property or the family,
not
because
this will free people, but because property, the family etc are seen as a
threat to the state and to social order...
- conversely, if the
family etc are kept, this is because this helps support public order
- symmetry, and
planning is artificial, it misrepresents how human communities have developed
organically – a point made by both Berneri and Scruton, i.e. from an anarchist
and a conservative point
of view
respectively!)
- they often have two sets of law, one
for the city or nation, another for 'barbarians' and what does this show?
1.5.2 libertarian
allow the free
expression of personality
contain diversity and
differentiation
[note the situationists in
1.6 Other (later) Utopias:
- Rabelais: Gargantua etc
1533 libertarian (fay ce que vouldras)
- Campanella - early 17th
c - a platonic republic (The City of the Sun)
- Andreae – 17th c
- emphasis on education and social reform, cf Robert Owen, and Calvin’s
- Bacon – 17th c -
science, i.e. scientific control (also a rigid division of labour, science for
the state, involving secrecy, colonial plunder
etc.) - authoritarian
- de Foigny - late 17th
c. (from
- Diderot - 1700 "
- Saint Simon and Fourier: 18th c - planned and
technocratic socialism
- Robert Owen: New Lanark:
ideal living conditions for his workers
[Recently: Ursula Le Guin, Aleister Crowley – others?
2. The Context of More's Utopia:
2.1 The Context of the Times:
(Mackenney)
More (1478 – 1535) wrote "Utopia" in 1516.
Humanism and The Renaissance -
spread from Italy – a ‘rebirth’ of classical learning, which meant a return to
the “sources” – The Ancients, The Bible - and which explored the relationship
between the ancient world and ‘now’; the Renaissance also went with a decline
in religion, so "things human" were more central: hence ‘humanism’…
During this period, there was a preoccupation with:
- the power of language (esp.
More who had experienced diplomacy...), i.e. both grammar (with its rules that
made it an "external" authority, as Ackroyd puts it), and rhetoric…
More wrote powerful pamphlets where sometimes the language was pushed to
extremes. Accurate translations were sought, but there was a reaction against
the technical logical and philosophical studies of "scholasticism";
also, this was a period in which countries became more aware of, and proud of,
their own distinct languages.
[What
is the relationship between nationality and language?
- the nature of time (in the
Middle Ages time belonged to God; hence the banning of usury)
- exploration (e.g. Amerigo
Vespucci - though note (Kumar and Ackroyd) that many of the tales allegedly
told about the ‘
- an interest (from this?) in alternative cultures and societies
- humanism was in some ways closer to Plato than Aristotle, in its
quest for the sublime, the elevation of man (ct. Middle Ages, which were
Aristotelean, scholastic…)
- the beginnings of science - Que sais-je? (Montaigne) – Francis Bacon…
- a "man"-centred universe - Michelangelo, Da Vinci et al.
- cf. Shakespeare: the infinite diversity of man, as a consolation for
a finite life... (“gather ye rosebuds while ye may”)
- expanding knowledge:
printing presses in
200 towns in 1500
Universities set up:
in 1600, at
BUT: (as in Utopia) there were still aspects which were typical of the
"middle ages": a desire for a stable, ordered society -
"earthy" (cf. Ackroyd)
ALSO: it was an age of religious conflict and barbaric practices:
- More, as a child, passed a place of execution on the way to school
(Ackroyd),
- an individual could earn £50,000 a year, while thousands starved or
were hanged for stealing food (Paul Turner, Intro to "Utopia")
- both da Vinci and Durer were melancholic about the human condition
(Mackenney p 121)
- More himself was executed for not
expressing public support for Henry VIII because he refused to consent to Acts
of Parliament which negated Papal supremacy (Kenny). As one writer puts it: “for private opinions
- his very silence was a political crime" (Turner). Political power was
ruthless.
[are people more likely to explore ideas of alternative
societies during a period of rapid change or upheaval?
2.2 More’s Life and Character
(Kenny, Ackroyd)
1. The dispute with Henry VIII:
More refused to sign an oath attached to the Act of Succession i.e. a
declaration supporting Henry's divorce - which would make Catherine of Aragon's
daughter illegitimate – but why did he refuse?
It is clear that he put his conscience uppermost but was this
(i) a religious dispute i.e. vs. subordination of church to state? - but it is unlikely that he was defending
the power of the Pope, as by 1534/5 he had accepted a significant amount of
Henry's Reformation
(ii) out of attachment to medieval idea of law? (see John Kenyon's
review of the biography by Richard Marius, cited below *)
2. the different sides of Thomas More, (Kenny), and
how to reconcile them:
- the gentle martyr with the persecuting Lord Chancellor;
- the utopian reformer with his occupying a high state role?
(i) More was a believer in Christian restraint, conciliation and the
application of reason to politics – a humanist - (friends with Erasmus, and
defended him); wanted to reform the church without a schism
- he attacked the tyranny of both clergy and monarchy; man should give
up selfishness and pride
- this is shown in his attitude to imprisonment - when his daughter
reminded him that he had said that others might have signed in good conscience,
and they might be right: "I never intend to pin my soul to another man's
back" (I am not proud enough to say that I am right and others wrong…)
[but
can conscience be relative, differing from individual to individual, and yet
binding?
- when reproached by his wife for not trying to get out of prison by
giving in, he said he ‘would have chosen such a small room’ (as the prison
cell) - i.e. he had a monastic spirit, (which is reflected in Utopia (p 14 P))
(ii) but he also published 'obscene guttersnipe pamphlets against
Protestantism, and relentlessly sent them [Protestants] to be burnt...'
(Kenyon)
was he 'hard, self-seeking, vindictive... a domestic tyrant.. a
hypocrite and someone who sought attention in public life?'
(iii) *Marius: a complex, haunted and not altogether admirable man...
may not have had a peaceful family life - more a medieval schoolman than
a renaissance statesman - had a vocation for contemplative life which was
overborne by sexual needs, which he tried to fulfil in marriage - all this set
up tensions in his private and public life, e.g. his instinctive revulsion
against Henry's affair with Anne Boleyn
- maybe martyrdom 'made sense of' his life (i.e. the fact of it was
more important than the reasons for it)
- More was beatified in 1886, and canonised in 1935 “as a saint of the
Church of Rome”. But his appeal goes beyond Catholicism: because “he died
opposing the imposition of a novel ideology by fear and force” (Kenny p 104).
3. The Main Themes in Utopia.
Edition used: More, T.: Utopia (1516), Penguin Classics 1965 - Translated and
Introduced by Paul Turner
3.1 general points:
- there is no oppression, crime, violence, or inequality, because there is no private
property (etc); gold and other riches are not taken seriously…
[this seems attractive, BUT is it impossible? Is it a precursor of
Marx’s communism?
- although there are authoritarian aspects, in the rigid, planned and
rule-bound society portrayed, still More has a sense of humour and of the
ridiculous, shown in mock-Greek names – “Tallstoria” etc. But this does not
mean that More’s intent was just to amuse: he was also mocking life as it was
in his time (Kenny)
- the people in Utopia don't have a Christian religion, yet they are
clearly good… this is a demonstration of an ethical state, in contrast to the
“power-politics” view of Machiavelli… BUT is the aim to show up the
inadequacies of Christianity (to show readers how to improve their lives) OR is
it simply a discourse, in the traditional medieval manner… (an academic
exercise in debate)? After all, we know that More was a devoted Christian…
[are humanism and theology irreconcilable?
3.2 specific topics debated in Utopia:
see Extracts
NB there are two parts: the second, with the descriptions of Utopia,
was written first; the first part has criticisms of English politics and
society...
Issues raised in the first
part:
Quote 1. The role of philosophers
vis a vis kings p 42 (all page references are to Penguin Classics edition,
unless otherwise stated): Raphael argues that it is pointless for philosophers
to try to advise the court. At the same time, he expresses surprise
(sarcastically) that even in England such things happen!
Quote 2. Crime and punishment:
The case is put against harsh punishment, on several grounds: it is
undesirable, and it doesn’t work as a deterrent (he is replying to an
“Englishman” who says that he is pleased to see so many people being hanged for
theft, but wonders why there are still so many thieves!)
But there is also a discussion of the origin of crime – when the nobles’
retainers are dismissed they become a problem because they have no other skills
than service, so they turn to crime, as will soldiers, when not at war. More
draws attention to the similarity between soldiers and thieves! There is even a
comment on the growing tendency to enclose land for sheep, thus evicting
tenants who are likely to turn to crime in desperation. (p 47) This is surely
quite a modern attitude – that society creates thieves.
In a passage with modern echoes, non-violent offenders are set to work
on public works – some even have to wear clothes of a special colour so people
know they are offenders!!
These criminals, together with soldiers captured in war, are described
as “slaves” – and we might note that St Augustine explained the origin of
slavery in similar terms. (See also p 101) So the question of what to do with
“enemy combatants” is also far from new!
Book 2.
Quote 3. Planning:
In Book 2, “Utopia”, an island about 200 miles across, is described. It
was founded by Utopos, but was originally called Sansculottia (without
trousers!). One of the most striking features of “Utopia” is the way every
detail is planned, and every town and building conforms to the agreed design.
Most of us would balk at this, I am sure!
There are forty people in each house, but half of these are away at any
one time working on the land. This they do for two years.
Quote 4. Work:
Again, there is conformity in life-styles with regard to work, and a
very restricted range of activities: but this is a pre-industrial society.
Two amazing ideas stand out: that if you employ everyone, including
women (and there’s no wasteful production…) no one needs to work more than six
hours a day. Quite recently, economists have argued that two hours a day would
be sufficient if we did away with wasteful production. Secondly, when not at
work, the population voluntary attends further education classes!
Quote 5. Households and
towns, warehouses: ”to each according to their needs”…
What I find striking here (apart from the prescription!) is the
combination of what we would regard as reactionary and progressive ideas: on
the one hand a sort of patriarchy and hierarchical arrangement in the
household, and on the other the belief that houses are not our property, and
people are free to come and go; most controversial though is the warehouse from
which households take what they need… True communism!
More, as represented by the Utopians did not have the same notion of
wealth as we do (see Quote 7). It has even been suggested, by Cole et al, that
his view was similar to Marx’s much later argument: money is abolished in
Utopia, as it "conceals human relationships and displaces the world of
innocent natural behaviour which More primarily values".
At the time he was writing the merchants wanted to be free of the
restraints of "statute and competition" – banking and commerce were
expanding. Cole et al suggest that More chose against the [King], nobility, and
aristocrats, because "noble patronage was not a protection for the poor, and
the trappings of nobility did not conceal the fundamental brutality of feudal
society"... More did see value, however, in international trade,
and he is therefore a precursor of mercantilism... (Cole et al p 22, 23)
Quote 6. Local government:
These are More’s ideas on how to ensure democratic decision-making. Not
bad for the sixteenth century?!
Quote 7. Wealth and
happiness:
As we saw above, the secret of a happy life is to cultivate the mind.
More evidently has a dislike of gold (i.e. he portrays the Utopians as
thinking this way – and his arguments seem to be sincere…) He also illustrates
his point with an amusing episode when visiting dignitaries are greeted by the
inhabitants: when they see some wearing gold, they assume these are the lowest
status people! Iron goods are practical and therefore of much greater real
value.
We see here an idea that came from Aristotle – the difference between
use-value and exchange-value – but that was to become one of the bases of
Marx’s economic theory.
He is also opposed to luxury, and criticises the rich for being mean.
Recent studies have shown that the poor give a higher proportion of their
earnings to charity than the better-off do…
But he does not go as far as asceticism, the denial of pleasure.
Rather, again like Aristotle, he believes that the pursuit of true happiness is
natural, and a “virtue.” Our reason and instinct together tell us that
pleasure, provided it doesn’t hurt others, is the purpose of life.
Quote 8. Law:
Perhaps the point about few laws is rather trite and over-simple, but
what about the idea that we should only have laws we can read and understand
ourselves?! And this from a former Lord Chancellor!
Quote 9. Travel:
More seems to contradict the point just made, when he makes it a
serious offence to travel outside your own district without permission. To my
mind, the reason for this and similar restrictions is not clearly given. Part
of it seems to be a need to keep people working, to contribute to the needs of
the town. But if everyone really accepts the value of work, why punish so
harshly anyone who is regarded as a “deserter”?
Quote 10. War:
As another example (I believe!) of reactionary thinking, wars of
expansion are justified: when the population grows and needs more space, the
inhabitants take the neighbouring land (i.e. they have a right to colonise it)
"if the inhabitants have more soil than they can well cultivate".
This invites a comparison with the situation in the Middle East, where
Israelis have argued that they are putting the land to better use than the
Palestinians. I was amazed to find recently that even the forward-thinking
Martin Buber argued for the right of the Israelis to have land if it had been
neglected. (The Pacifist Conscience, p 270 ff)
However, More went even further: if the colonised people settle down to
Utopian laws all well and good, but if they don't "they drive them
out"… and there would be a ‘just cause’ for war if they prevent the
utopians from using the land.
All this rests on another of these “laws of nature” that political
philosophers are so fond of: here, that each has a right to land necessary for
his subsistence.
Quote 11. Other wars.
Here is a statement which must sound very familiar to us today! The
Utopians do not want wars – but have to be prepared; they also, on grounds of
fellow-feeling, conduct wars to assist friendly countries, and to save others
from dictatorship.
[We call this “liberal interventionism” nowadays…
This passage goes on to describe their military tactics, which include
putting up posters in the enemy country once war is declared, offering a reward
for anyone who will kill their own king!
There is much more in More’s
Utopia! Here is a summary of a few points:
- the integration of town and country through people changing jobs
- free medical care, health service, euthanasia
- religious toleration (p 119 – 120, but not for atheists?)
END