Private Property Sucks, Anyway
While Thomas More was made famous in a religious context (he was beheaded by Henry VIII for refusing to officially approve of his divorce, and canonized by the Catholic Church in 1935), he was largely a political thinker. If you would like to know more about his life and infamous death, I would recommend the multiple-Academy Award-winning film A Man for All Seasons, which reinforces this claim. Over the years, Utopia has become somewhat of a classic but for many different reasons, and More's actual intent is still unknown. Paul Turner, the translator of this edition, states in the introduction that the most widely held academic belief at the time was that the entire work was to be meant sarcastically, as a criticism of the sorry condition of 16th century England. Turner disagrees and states that he is "simple minded enough to believe, with certain qualifications, that the book means what it says, that it does attempt to solve the problems of human society."
To decide who was right, I decided to have a go at it myself. More tells the story, through the words of our narrator Raphael Nonsenso (name translated from the Latin), of an island paradise in the New World that is free of all political, economic, social and religious problems. He describes every aspect with painstaking attention to detail, from clothing to war-time strategy. It is a land with no private property, a population of farmers, and priests that are allowed to marry. But the important question is, "What did he mean by it?"
In many ways, More does seem to be vigorously pointing out the wrongs of the tyrannical system he endured. In other places, he makes claims that you would not attribute to More, the staunch Catholic and politician. While discerning what was meant in truth and what in jest certainly has its place, I think the most significant contribution that this book makes is the stimulation of thought on the topic. If all we have to live by are empty beliefs, then we are empty ourselves, or so the logic goes. It would make sense that More--living in and experiencing monarchical madness and its consequences, not to mention the most tumultuous times in the history of the Christian church--would be repulsed by the hypocrisy and emptiness of his times and inspried to motivate people to question the status quo. In this, I think he perfectly succeeds. He walks the fine line between fantasy and reality so well, presenting arguments so well-reasoned that the reader readily accepts them, until he occasionally steps across the line to point out the conflict he has brought you to (he was, after all, a masterful lawyer). The result is an intriguing read that will (hopefully) lead you to question the authority that you have tacitly accepted and to realize the folly of some modern norms.
Bottom line: Highly recommended for its political content, but readers looking for a religious Utopia may be disappointed.