The Geography and Diplomacy of Utopia

In Book II of Thomas Moore's Utopia, two concepts I found interesting that were discussed were the geography of Utopia, and the relations Utopia has with other "countries." Prior to reading Book II, I has not really considered how to geographically define a Utopia. According to Moore, Utopia has no borders. I find this particularly significant because it implies that Utopia is not a limited space. In other words, that Utopia can expand, and likely contract as well. It would probably be very difficult to draw an exact map of a Utopia since it does not have defined borders in this case. Unless the Utopia is on an island, the borders end up being subjectively defined. I think I like the idea of a Utopia being malleable. When we go to make our class definition, I think it might be a good idea to include that aspect because it leaves room for Utopia to evolve.

If Utopia can evolve as a space, the other interesting aspect from this reading is how it relates and interacts with other "countries." Without having defined borders, it makes me wonder how Utopia would avoid being conquered or attacked by foreign or bordering countries. In our world's international relations, countries that border each other define their territories, but do not always agree on those definitions. I would imagine that a place without borders would cause a lot of trouble for other countries. However, although countries in our world have borders they do recognize that they can change as well, so maybe it isn't too significant. For example, when countries wage wars sometimes territories are redefined by the victors historically.

Ultimately, as far as the borders go for Utopia it makes me wonder how it will interact with other countries. Since international relations exist in our world, will they exist in a world with a Utopia? Does a Utopia need to interact with other countries? or is is self-sufficient and "perfect" enough not to need allies or diplomatic relations? Book II mentions how Utopians do not engage in trading or have allies, so I would imagine that without having relations with surrounding nations that it could risk being conquered. For example, organizations in our world like NATO have relations where if a member is attacked, the other members will defend and aid them. How could a Utopia survive without aid in a war? Do they have a very good military? How does a Utopia defend itself?    
      

Humans and Utopia: Would We Make the Cut?

I have spent a great deal of thought on the structure of a utopia, however I have recently noticed I have been failing to consider the nature of the inhabitants of this 'place'. If utopia is an idealized version of our current environment, then the people who occupy the utopia must also be an upgraded model of us (I like to call these fictional people ‘the Human 2.0’). The analyses we have been forming of utopian societies in our readings are heavily based on our own experiences. I do not see anything wrong with this, however it’s important to consider the fact that our class is a miniscule portion of the world’s population that happens to be alive in the year 2017. While each of us is quite unique, we all occupy the same classroom for a period of roughly 2 and a half hours per week on a college campus of 2,000 students in the city of Frederick, in the state of Maryland, in the United states of America on the planet Earth. We share more similarities with each other than we do differences.

Raphael’s account on Persia’s treatment of thieves would probably not work well in Frederick, Maryland in the year 2017. This doesn’t mean that it can’t work ever. We discussed the argument “but what if you are a reformed thief released back into society and your neighbor doesn’t like you” in class and agreed that this is a possibility in our society. Humans can’t exist the way they do now in a utopia, or it would quickly turn into a dystopian teen novel plot line. This is where the Human 2.0 comes into play.

One of the most curious descriptions of Utopia in More’s book came from Raphael on page 59.  He says, “…no town has any desire to extend its territory, for its citizens consider themselves to be cultivators, not owners of what they hold.” This statement is a stark contrast to his earlier narrative on monarchy where he proclaims, “[princes] care much more for how, by hook or crook, they may win fresh kingdoms than how to administer well those they already have (p.32).”

I’d speculate citizens of utopia would be very similar to us Human 1.0 models, however they would also be resistant to the pursuits that tempt us and ultimately cause unhappiness and destruction in the present society. I do not think that humans as we exist currently are inherently bad, however when we allow pride, greed, wrath, envy, sloth, lust and gluttony too steer our actions, we can end up with a planet that doesn’t look all that different from this one:

(warning: some slightly disturbing content is contained in this video)

Here we see a powerful narrative by artist Steve Cutts on the egocentric nature that a capitalistic society can create. My first thought when I watched it were that it was quite extreme, until I realized that maybe it isn’t that absurd if humans were to continue down the destructive path of competition we seem to be on. Competition between different species as well as members of the same species is natural. On a certain level—take Raphael’s tale of competitive gardening for example— it can be quite healthy for a population.

A Lack of Diversity

My first thought when starting Book 2 was: this place seems really boring. Reading about how each of the 54 cities/country towns are "identical in language, manners, customs and laws," I could not imagine being happy in a place like this. I know that the point of making everything the same is to rid society of "unnecessary desires" and to not make any one person better than another. However, I cannot imagine a life without different cultures and languages. While these differences may be a problem for many people in this world, I find them to be beautiful and intriguing and therefore I would not want to be a part of More's Utopia.

I can, however, appreciate the fact that in this utopia, basic skills like agriculture are taught to everyone. I think that's an important concept that should be implemented everywhere. At this time, agriculture was an important skill set and one that everyone should have. In today's time, there are many skills that everyone should be taught, but sadly are not.

Utility over Creativity

Thomas More's Utopia addresses the societal issues of his time with thought-provoking - and at times humorous - solutions.  In Utopia, a material’s worth is measured by its purposefulness.  For instance, Raphael argues that “anyone can see that gold and silver are less useful than iron…Nature gave gold and silver no utility” (75).  Rather, it is our own perceptions of these materials that give them value.  We associate these metals with wealth due to our culture, and we thereby view them as precious.  While good for making jewelry, or coins due to their rarity, gold and silver do not serve any vital purpose.  Therefore, these metals are merely made into chamber pots and slave chains in Utopia (which is also to conceal the fact that people outside of Utopia value gold and silver). Even clothing made from finely-spun wool is seen as unnecessary, for it does not serve its purpose in keeping you any warmer.  Gemstones are toys for children, because although they may be aesthetically pleasing, they do not have any real use for the Utopians. 

It is interesting that anything we currently perceive as valuable could be turned into “marks of disgrace” simply by changing what we associate it with (76).  What already disgusts us – not by its own nature, but merely by what we relate it to?  What I find concerning, though, is how the mindset in Utopia would affect the arts and creative expression.  Even the clothes of the Utopians resemble uniforms in that they're all very similar.  If personal expression does more harm than good, then it certainly would not have a place in Utopia.  However, something seems to be missing from a society that focuses so deeply on utility and not so much on artistry.  While I commend this overall ideal in removing any unnecessary, negative distinction between people, a level of creativity and craftsmanship may also be lost.

Reference:

More, Thomas. Utopia. Toronto: Broadview, 2010. Print.