Compare Any Two Examples of the Utopia in the Text to Elements of Society Today

Compare any two examples of the Utopia in the text to elements of society today.

Utopia is a book written by Sir Thomas More in which he describes in detail the ingredients for the perfect society. The overall goal of Utopians is to use logic and modesty for the good of their society. This paper attempts to compare and contrast our society to the imaginary Utopian way, and determine which idea is more acceptable. There are many interesting examples available for comparison purposes, but their family values and religious practices differ from our society, the greatest. Our society believes in limited government and would never tolerate even a slight intrusion in these two sacred areas. Utopians accept and welcome control in these two vital sections of their lives.

The Utopians strongly enforce the policy of monogamy with the punishment of either slavery or death. Woman must be over eighteen and men over twenty-two to marry. Courtship rituals are straightforward, climaxing with bride and groom standing naked for inspection. The ritual is “the woman is shown naked to the suitor… and similarly, some honorable man presents the suitor to the woman” (More, 570). This process is described like when “men go to buy a colt” (More, 570). This unique practice of disclosing all the physical blemishes could be a signal for future couples to verbalize all secrets before union. Divorces are discouraged and the few occasions that a troubled marriage occurs require both the Senators and their wives to review all the circumstances.

Additionally, families and extended relatives all live under the same roof. They spend their entire day together; the only exception is when the children are attending school. The family traditionally

Siler 2

becomes proficient in one craft and continues to pass that knowledge from one member to the next. The exception being “if anyone is attracted to another occupation, he is transferred by Adoption into a family practicing the trade he prefers” (More, 551). Another reason for family members not living together is if adults are in surplus in one home and missing in another. These practices are based in logic not in emotion. Their games are also based on logic; gambling and other nonsense is out of the question. They have elaborate seating arrangements, for both meals and religious ceremonies. The main purpose of this is to mix older people with adolescents; this serves as mentorship sessions. The most interesting aspect is “both boys and girls up to the age of marriage, either wait on a table, stand by in absolute silence” (More, 556).

In simple terms, the modern family is loosely structured and saddled with numerous challenges, internally and externally. Children’s priorities are watching television, listening to music, or playing computer games; constructive purposes tend to lead to boredom. Their ability to work is restricted by child labor laws. Teenagers face a multitude of problems including: eating disorders, date rape, underage drinking, drug addiction, and incarceration. Parental guidance is poorly provided as a result of high divorce rates. The common survey data reports one divorce for every two marriages. In their book, Brenner and Haakens believe Government’s actions are useless, “Political forces are attempting to reimpose the traditional male breadwinner/female caregiver family ideal; the material basis of the patriarchal nuclear family is eroding” (334). Brenner and Haakens also assert that there is no longer a typical family model that is natural, normal or desirable in the twentieth century (336). Additionally, adults are burdened with an increasingly heavy work schedules. There is a saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Brenner and Haakens report the modern family endures by, “drawing on female

Siler 3

relatives for childcare, working different shifts so parents can trade-off being home, having fewer children” (337). Where Utopians schedule all meals together, modern families rarely have an opportunity to enjoy eating together. The bottom line is the modern families are under siege, but the answer is clearly not the Utopian way.

Our conservative party, the Republicans, constantly use this crisis for political gain. Many of the Utopian’s methods would probably be enacted by them, yet fortunately the constitution stands in their way. Their fear-based rhetoric plays well with the older generations, but on closer review blatant examples of hypocrisy are apparent. Republicans’ lack of properly funding programs like Social Security, Public Education, and children’s health care shows the true intentions of this party.

Switching gears, Sir Thomas More, Catholic Saint, can not envision an ideal society