Political Economy of Thomas More’s Utopia

The political economy of Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) was a system of agrarian socialism combined with democratic good governance. Based on a ‘dream island,’ very much similar to Ceylon, More was describing a harmonious social system where men and women, and all sections of society, work and live in equality and happiness.

More obviously was not in a position to completely transcend the social practices or institutions of his time. He talked about a ‘Prince’ as the head of the political system and ‘slavery’ took a milder form as a method of punishment.

Nevertheless, many of his propositions were remarkably futuristic, the practice or advocacy of them could be seen today although there can be doubts whether the type of ‘socialism’ that he talked about ‘without any property’ could be at all put into practice. More himself was not sure, and perhaps that was the reason why he titled the system as Utopia. It meant ‘good, but no place’ in Greek.

More advocated a society of equality without social classes, exploitation or poverty. That is possible to achieve. It was a society of plenty. His political system was ‘liberal’ with few laws but an orderly government. The highest officers worked with the people. He advocated a ‘six hour working day’ and perhaps one of the first to stand for gender equity at least in some form. Some of his other innovative ideas were related to ‘euthanasia,’ ‘rainwater harvesting,’ and ‘urban-rural harmony.’

With an extensive welfare system, he gave priority to health and education. His system was almost a ‘knowledge economy.’ Although he gave priority to ‘freedom of choice’ what he terribly missed was the ‘individual privacy.’ Anyone could walk into anyone’s home!

The Country

In Thomas More’s Utopia, written as a fiction and/or ‘report of a traveller,’ there were many inconsistencies or contradictions. They could also be the results of bad translation and/or subsequent editing. The initial text was written in Latin, edited by Erasmus of Rotterdam, the well-known and eminent Catholic theologian of that time. There cannot be any question about that.

The first English translation was by Ralph Robinson in 1556. Thereafter, there had been many editions, excluding and then including several initial sections back and forth, largely adding to the confusion. Perhaps More himself anticipated different interpretations of what he wanted to say. The present article or interpretation is based on Ideal Commonwealths by Universal Library (The Colonial Press, 1901), selected for the possible lucid interpretation.

Utopia is a small island of around 20,000 square kilometres with about six million adult population. There are fifty-four districts in the island with main towns, Amaurot being the island’s capital; “all large and well built: the manners, customs, and laws of which are the same.” As More further says, “He that knows one of their towns knows them all; they are so like one another, except where the situation makes some difference.”

There is confusion in the translation; the term ‘city’ used to denote the district, at times using it also for the main town. To avoid this ambiguity ‘district’ is used instead of ‘city’ in [box brackets] wherever appropriate.

A district comprises a main town and surrounding country. “None of their [districts] may contain above 6,000 families.” They have a system of one third of the families going to the country from the town, every year, and living and working there for two years. Therefore, at a given time, the population distribution is about one to two between the town and country. That is how the balance between the rural and the urban is maintained and the economy is run.

The extended family is the basis of the society, the size of which, according to More, is around ten to sixteen adult members. “Their women are not married before eighteen, or their men before two-and-twenty.” “Their women, when they grow up, are married out; but all the males, both children and grandchildren, live still in the same house, in great obedience to their common parents.” “There is a master and a mistress set over every family.”

“But to return to their manner of living in society, the oldest man of every family, as has been already said, is its governor. Wives serve their husbands, and children their parents, and always the younger serves the elder.” In that sense, the society is hierarchical on a family basis.

The following is how More explains the houses of the Utopians in towns.

“Their buildings are good, and are so uniform that a whole side of a street looks like one house. The streets are twenty feet broad; there lie gardens behind all their houses; these are large but enclosed with buildings that on all hands face the streets; so that every house has both a door to the street, and a back door to the garden.” This is very much similar to the townhouse system in many Western countries today.

The backyard gardens are of particular importance to leisure, pleasure and day to day crops of fruit and flower. As More said, “They cultivate their gardens with great care, so that they have vines, fruits, herbs, and flowers in them; and all is so well ordered, and so finely kept, that I never saw gardens anywhere that were both so fruitful and so beautiful as theirs.”

“And this humour of ordering their gardens so well is not only kept up by the pleasure they find in it, but also by emulation between the inhabitants of the several streets, who vie with each other; and there is indeed nothing belonging to the whole town that is both more useful and more pleasant.”

The Economy

The main base of the Utopian economy is agriculture and “no person, either man or woman, is ignorant of it.” “They are instructed in it from their childhood, partly by what they learn at school and partly by practice; they being led out often into the fields, about the town, where they not only see others at work, but are likewise exercised in it themselves.”

Here is a model for any country to emulate today; linking school education to surrounding farming activities and cultivation.

“They have built over all the country, farmhouses for husbandmen, which are well contrived, and are furnished with all things necessary for country labour. Inhabitants are sent by turns from the cities to dwell in them.”

About three families related to each other live in one farmhouse like a large extended family. “These husbandmen till the ground, breed cattle, hew wood, and convey it to the towns, either by land or water, as is most convenient.”

There are some unique features peculiar to Asian societies. “They breed very few horses…for they do not put them to any work, either of ploughing or carriage, in which they employ oxen; for though their horses are stronger, yet they find oxen can hold out longer; and as they are not subject to so many diseases, so they are kept upon a less charge, and with less trouble; and even when they are so worn out, that they are no more fit for labour, they are good meat at last.”

“They breed an infinite multitude of chickens in a very curious manner; for the hens do not sit and hatch them, but vast numbers of eggs are laid in a gentle and equal heat, in order to be hatched, and they are no sooner out of the shell, and able to stir about, but they seem to consider those that feed them as their mothers, and follow them as other chickens do the hen that hatched them.”

It is not clear from the above description whether ‘artificial incubation’ was in practice in England at that time, where More was living. Otherwise, there is no reason to call the ‘manner very curious.’ Most probably the information came from the Philippines or any other Southeast Asian country. They were the earliest to practice artificial incubation.

“Besides agriculture, which is so common to them all, every man has some peculiar trade to which he applies himself, such as the manufacture of [wool], or flax, masonry, smith's work, or carpenter's work; for there is no sort of trade that is not in great esteem among them.” Although wool is mentioned there is no mentioning of any sheep!

“The same trade generally passes down from father to son, inclinations often following descent; but if any man's genius lays another way, he is by adoption translated into a family that deals in the trade to which he is inclined.” Therefore, there was no compulsion in selecting a trade, and it was largely done by choice. This was like a guild or a loose caste system.

The following is the most important of their economy. “They do not wear themselves out with perpetual toil, from morning to night.” Their life style is orderly and systematic. They divide “the day and night into twenty-four hours, appoint six of these for work; three of which are before dinner, and three after. They then sup, and at eight o'clock, counting from noon, go to bed and sleep eight hours.”

“The rest of their time besides that taken up in work, eating and sleeping, is left to every man's discretion; yet they are not to abuse that interval to luxury and idleness, but must employ it in some proper exercise according to their various inclinations, which is for the most part reading.”

More was imagining a system where people only work for only six hours a day. According to him it is possible for the following reasons. First, “if those who work were employed only in such things as the conveniences of life require, there would be such an abundance of them.” Second, if people do not consume more than the conveniences of life require then “the prices of them would so sink that tradesmen could not be maintained by their gains.”

Thirdly and finally, “if all those who labour about useless things were set to more profitable employments, and if all they that languish out their lives in sloth and idleness”…” were forced to labour, you may easily imagine that a small proportion of time would serve for doing all that is either necessary, profitable, or pleasant to mankind, especially while pleasure is kept within its due bounds.”

More repeatedly said about ‘conveniences of life require’ and ‘keeping pleasure within due bounds.’ He also used the terms ‘necessary and pleasant to mankind.’

Then he said, “This appears very plainly in Utopia, for there, in a great [town], and in all the territory that lies round it, you can scarce find 500, either men or women, by their age and strength, are capable of labour, that are not engaged in it.” It was a system of full employment. Even the officials and people’s representatives “though excused by the law, yet do not excuse themselves, but work.” Those who are not directly engaged in labour are the priests.

Their system of trade is simple but impractical. “Every [town] is divided into four equal parts, and in the middle of each there is a marketplace: what is brought thither, and manufactured by the several families, is carried from thence to houses appointed for that purpose, in which all things of a sort are laid by themselves; and thither every father goes and takes whatsoever he or his family stand in need of, without either paying for it or leaving anything in exchange.”

“Near these markets there are others for all sorts of provisions, where there are not only herbs, fruits, and bread, but also fish, fowl, and cattle.”

Political System

Their political system is light and simple. It consists of few layers of officials mostly elected by the people. It is very much similar to the ancient village headman system in Sri Lanka. It is not very clear however that the Prince that More talks about is for the whole country or for the district. It is more likely that he talks about a system for the district, which is similar in all the districts.

He says, “Thirty families choose every year a magistrate, who was anciently called the Syphogrant, but is now called the Philarch.” Then “over every ten Syphogrant, with the families subject to them, there is another magistrate, who was anciently called the Tranibor, but of late the Archphilarch.” This is very much similar to the Headman (Philarch) and the Chief-Headman (Archpilarch) system in ancient Sri Lanka. There are 200 Philarchs and 20 Archpilarchs for a district.

“All the [Philarchs], who are in number 200, choose the Prince out of a list of four, who are named by the people of the four divisions of the [district]: but they take an oath before they proceed to an election, that they will choose him whom they think most fit for the office.” “They give their voices secretly, so that it is not known for whom everyone gives his suffrage.”

The Prince, sometimes called Barzanes meaning ‘leader of cattle,’ “is for life, unless he is removed upon suspicion of some design to enslave the people.” What More explains mostly is a district or city administration. There is a Council and there is a Senate, the distinction of which is not clear. In addition, there is a Supreme Council for the whole island, sitting in Amaurot.

“It is a fundamental rule of their government that no conclusion can be made in anything that relates to the public till it has been first debated several days in their Council. It is death for any to meet and consult concerning the State, unless it is either in their ordinary Council, or in the assembly of the whole body of the people.” This is odd and contradictory. It places restrictions on public debate, although Swiss commune type meetings are allowed.

“One rule observed in their Council, is, never to debate a thing on the same day in which it is first proposed; for that is always referred to the next meeting, that so men may not rashly, and in the heat of discourse, engage themselves too soon, which might bias them so much, that instead of consulting the good of the public, they might rather study to support their first opinions, and by a perverse and preposterous sort of shame, hazard their country rather than endanger their own reputation, or venture the being suspected to have wanted foresight in the expedients that they at first proposed. And therefore to prevent this, they take care that they may rather be deliberate than sudden in their motions.”

“If any man aspires to any office, he is sure never to compass it: they all live easily together, for none of the magistrates are either insolent or cruel to the people: they affect rather to be called fathers, and by being really so, they well deserve the name; and the people pay them all the marks of honour the more freely, because none are exacted from them.”

“The Prince himself has no distinction, either of garments or of a crown; but is only distinguished by a sheaf of corn carried before him; as the high- priest is also known by his being preceded by a person carrying a wax light.”

More undoubtedly was designing a system which he considered ideal and exemplary, he also took the opportunity to express his contempt towards what he considered disagreeable in England during his time. The following is an example. “They have but few laws, and such is their constitution that they need not many.”

“They have no lawyers among them, for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters and to wrest the laws.”

Summation

It is fairly clear that the Utopian system that More outlines is not possible to implement completely under modern circumstances. That is not probably what even More wanted to mean. He was basically visualizing a system as an extreme or ideal example taking some information from, in my opinion, from the Asiatic system and/or ancient Sri Lanka, and adding his own views on the subject for a ‘good commonwealth.’

In the eventuality, there are instances where he contradicted himself on the subject and left ambiguities. For example, when he says “wives serve their husbands,” he contradicted his main principle of gender quality that he tried to establish in the manner of living, economic activity and in family life. But “children serving the parents and young always the elder” has some validity even today with reciprocity. Instead of the word ‘serving,’ ‘respect’ might be the more appropriate term. This resonate some versions of the Singalovada Sutta of the Buddha.

It is also clear that if a country, a party or a leader attempts to implement such a scheme by force it could be more disastrous than the existing system of capitalism. That is what in a way happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-79) and to a great extent in many communist countries.

Pol Pot completely abolished private property. The personal belongings only limited to a kind of a toothbrush. In collective farms, the black tunic should be collected from the store, and a plate and a spoon from the dormitory for eating. There were major differences as well. People were forced to the rural areas from the cities. The institution of the family was abolished, and people had to work for long hours.

On the contrary, Utopia is a humane society. The main thrust is to eradicate social inequalities as much as possible, eradicate poverty and establish human happiness to all. As I write this summation, there is a TV discussion in ‘Sunrise’ program on Australian Channel Seven resourced by Dr Keith Suter, about extreme exploitation of workers in Foxconn factories in Taiwan and China.

Foxconn is a multinational which supplies 40 per cent of electronic items particularly IPhones and IPods for Apple with billions and billions of annual profit. But workers are paid barely a ‘dollar a day’ with long hours of ten to twelve. This is what More wanted to change through a new system.

He argues that ‘pleasure of life’ in moderation is the basis of human happiness. This is what the nature dictates us. He also argues that “in order to our supporting the pleasures of life, nature inclines us to enter into society.” This is a ‘social contract’ different to and broader than what the liberal thinkers like John Locke or Jean Jack Rousseau talked about later. More’s argument against vast social or economic inequalities is the following.

“For there is no man so much raised above the rest of mankind as to be the only favourite of nature who, on the contrary, seems to have placed on a level all those that belong to the same species.” In other words, he supports a system where ‘all those that belong to the same human species’ are ‘placed on the same level of work, comforts, pleasure and happiness.’ That level can be a reasonable social band and not a uniform line or a point. There can be differences.

“Upon this” he infers “that no man ought to seek his own conveniences so eagerly as to prejudice others.” Therefore he thinks that “laws ought to be kept” which people have consented without oppression or tyranny “for distributing those conveniences of life which afford us all our pleasures.”

- Asian Tribune –

Tweet