Note: I didn’t have a book copy, but used an online pdf, so my page numbers are most likely off.

When I was reading Book 2, I was struck by the idea that, even though this is a society of equals, ruled democratically, and has no money economy, almost exactly the same kind of hierarchy exists in Utopia as in any other European kingdom (England, France, Spain, etc.) of the time. We talked in class about how this text is meant mainly, or even purely, for governments and not for individuals or even for communities of people. This society exists as having equal standing for men, given that said men are not enslaved/indentured laborers.

For example, while this is a democratic government where all people supposedly get a say in each and every decision, there are appointed magistrates (Syphogrants/Philarchs) and head magistrates (Tranibores/Archpilarchs) (pg. 71). If this didn’t already show that there is some difference in decision-making between “normal people” and magistrates, we even have different levels of magistrates, and even a Prince, who all get special treatment, such as being first in line for the “best things” a physician prescribes at the hospital (pg. 86) or get special seating arrangements at the dinner table (pg. 88). These kinds of examples are strewn in throughout the book, and all point toward a strict hierarchy based upon some sort of status.

But what was this status marked by? Clearly not material goods, right? In the chapter entitled “Of the Traveling of the Utopians,” we see that Utopians use gold and silver as “worthless” metals to either eat or drink out of, or make into “chains and fetters for their slaves…as a badge of infamy” (pg 96). This shows that these people pride themselves in not lusting after gold, instead using the precious metals as simple household objects. This is interesting, to me, because Thomas More is attempting to show or satirize the West’s obsession with material wealth, and advocates for more practical materials, like iron. I see this as an okay way to show how Utopia could be better in how economy is not based around wealth, but around production, but I feel like he cleanly falls flat in other areas such as how this economy works (by having everyone robotically work for six hours a day and then have planned leisure time) where everyone gets equal goods, but clearly the “higher-ups” are “more equal” and get better things.

So, we kind of sort of see More trying to build a community that is equal based on wealth, but also has some understandable setbacks because he is, in fact, writing for the King. I can get that if I’m thinking as a contemporary at the time. The way that Thomas More really just ruins this Utopia for me is where he insinuates where the real source of hierarchy is: in knowledge/education. People gain status, not from wealth, but my how much they learn. For example, “sometimes a mechanic so employs his leisure hours hours as to make a considerable advancement in learning is eased from being a tradesman and ranked among the learned men” who are “ambassadors, their priests, their Tranibors, and the Prince himself” (pg 79). Wait, did I read that correctly? Everyone is equal in this society, but if you have “more” then you are “better” and thus have a better station.

Ultimately, this Utopia seems, to me, like the exact same thing as life in Europe/England at the time, with only a couple minor changes, or rather, minor illusions, that cover up how society is organized. People are equal, but some people are just more equal. And that just makes me think that More used this text, not as a call for action, but just as a satire on the dystopian frameworks of England at the time.