Sir Thomas More'sUtopiaand the transformation of England from absolute monarchy to egalitarian society

Functions of Utopia: How Utopian Thinking Motivates Societal Engagement

“…Calling it Utopia (Trans. 1965)—a play on the Greek words for both “no-place” ( ou topia) and “good-place” ( eu topia)—he highlighted the societal failings of his own Tudor England by contrasting them with this ideal island society (Gerard & Sterling, 2005). Although stories and writings of ideal societies existed well before More—in, for example, myths describing humanity’s paradisiacal origins such as Biblical accounts of the Garden of Eden , as well as Classical texts like Plato’s Republic (see Kumar, 1987; Levitas, 1990; Sargent, 1994)— utopia has become the generic term for these imagined ideal worlds (Hölscher, 1996; Kumar, 1987).…”

Scribbling Toward Utopia

“…Often, I fail. I don’t think it would be possible to slouch all the way to Utopia (see Gerard & Sterling, 2005; More, 1516/1992). Getting there would take a greater effort.…”

“…It reflected More’s deep concern about the gaps between the rich and poor in England. He satirized the rich and capitalism itself where wealth had come to signify both covetousness and pride and, as a result, had created a broken society (see Gerard & Sterling, 2005, p. 76). More contrasted England’s hideous poverty with its wanton luxury (see More, 1516/1992, p.131).…”

“…In their island-state they shared resources equally so that all lived in conditions of plenty. By contrast, the wealthy in Tudor England continuously increased their fortunes through, for example, the enclosure of common land thereby depriving farmers and laborers of their jobs and livelihoods (Gerard & Sterling, 2005, p. 77). Or, as Sir Thomas put it: “one greedy, insatiable glutton .…”

“…Thus, in England, the rich created a socioeconomic as well as a physical division between the classes. Indeed, the rich had such a lack of respect for work or the land or the harvest that the poor had to work harder and harder to survive (Gerard & Sterling, 2005, pp. 78–79).…”