Plato’s ideas as espoused in his writing, “The Republic” greatly influenced Thomas More’s utopian society. Irrespective of this heavy borrowing, the book reveals some highlights which greatly undermine the setup of Plato’s commonwealth because of the contrasting perspectives of More and the context in which the writing takes place. There are quite some similarities and differences between the two texts. The paper aims at revealing how More borrows and undermines the construction of ideal commonwealths as espoused in Plato’s, “The Republic.”
The two books are written using open dialogue which grants the author the discretion to advance opposite views. Plato’s, the Republic is one of the primary texts which precede More’s work. The influence of Plato’s work is massive as revealed in the following examples: More develops the same central theme of justice as does Plato (Fokkema 2011). In the Republic, community leaders have to be selfless and intelligent individuals called philosopher-kings or guardians, who run the affairs of the public for the good of all in a nation. The principle of communism applies in this context: “everything belongs to the community.” There is no private property (Fokkema 2011). The coinage of silver and gold is illegal, and there is a strict banning of ostentation and luxury. All members of the society are expected to behave according to the strict and ethical code of conduct. In both cases, the educational curriculum for the intelligentsia follows an idealistic and elaborate design. The two books oppose gender equality, but for specific reasons. Moreover, Plato gives some room for the practice of slavery in the same manner as More (Fokkema 2011).
On the contrary, More’s Utopia dramatically departs from Plato’s Republic in some ways. The Republic provides a significant classification of all members of the society: the society constitutes of the slaves, laborers, artisans, merchants, commoners, warriors, and the ruling intelligentsia. More’s Utopia recognizes none of these social groupings (Hsueh 2013). Moreover, the religious practices and beliefs of both authors are very different. Further, More differs significantly with Plato on the concept of family. In The Republic, children and women are held and ranked at the same level- there is no giving in the institution of marriage. Sexual intercourse is meant to meet eugenic needs; Utopia in the contrary views marriage and the family as the foundation of entire social setup (Hsueh 2013).
Moreover, the two philosophers show a lot of caution against innovation as they hold that it can destroy or endanger their whole commonwealths. Also, Plato rebukes continuous law-making, while his protégé, More states that Utopian laws are both few and precise. Plato approves equality between men and women to the extent that he grants them same justice in the field of politics and says that women should take frontline positions in battlefield alongside men (Pordzik 2009). More gives them the same equality but to a lesser level, i.e., they cannot handle a leading role in warfare. The method of gaining allies in combat is another point of similarity. The two philosophers state that there is no need for the use of money and thus can make a lavish and a generous promise to any nation that will wage its war. It is shocking to point out that More, through Utopia prefers to attack the opposing army from behind by barring their leaders and princes. On the contrary, Plato’s guardian punishes the leaders and critical commanders leaving the average people to go. Such a show of wisdom and compassion appear to have got enlargement amongst the Utopians. But the level of amplification is horrendous (Pordzik 2009). It is rare to state that Thomas More believed that the policy was justifiable, failing to take into consideration that it is not permissible to use illegal means to attain the end irrespective of how appealing appears. Moreover, it is against the moral tenets of Utopia to mobilize others to participate in acts of treachery and rebellion as it is illegitimate to do it even at an individual level (Pordzik 2009).
In many parts where More borrows from Plato, it is apparent that both writers agree, except in the question of equality, where Plato goes to extreme levels. Nature has not put women in a state of absolute equality with men because they lack some qualities to allow them to be on par with males. A point which arises against More’s permission to women to wage in war is permissible to situations of emergency and should be on a voluntary basis (Pordzik 2009).
Plato appears to be silent about government machinery which is contrary to More’s stance. More is pro-democracy, a concept familiar in Utopia, and famous in an American thinker and perceived as a superior to the aristocratic framework advanced in the Republic. At any point, scholars may conclude that More, augmented by the medieval perspective of democracy, posited that the democratic system was the most reasonable form of administration that human beings could devise (Tally 2013).
It is worth noting that women got practical dignity in the Utopian system by seizing their position as mothers irrespective of losing in the debate about equality. On the contrary to the Platonic framework, the status of women in society was not backed up by reason, because it entailed neglecting their psychological and physiological state (Wilde 2012).
More puts the family as the prime building block of his representative governance (Wilde 2012). Thus, the position of the family in place of the state is apparent, and any attempt of totalitarianism cannot work. Authoritarian democracy appears as a model which underpins the Utopian country which is a contrast of the present individualistic capitalism represented by the United States (Wilde 2012).
The economic standpoints of the two utopias
Both More’s Utopia and Plato’s the republic are identical in that both follow the communist school of thought. The two systems depict a situation which does not need money to operate. Moreover, the rule of thumb is specialization, though More follows a liberal framework (Hugh 1982, p. 330). Another identical position in both cases is the problem of population control. Nonetheless, the system advanced in the Utopian constitution is very similar to the Republic in all aspects. However, a person might predict that the correct mating provisions for the guardian class might compel them to desist from getting children beyond their economic means. The situation made More to think and propose a better response to this concern of great significance for the ordinary people (Hugh 1982, p. 330).
The betterment which More has provided to Plato’s views in highlighting the communistic economic structure is evident. The position of women on matters of equality is apparent, but because of their inherent weakness and hence they handle tasks which are in line with their abilities. In this context More is applying the power of reason and experience than Plato (Foss 2010, p.36). Moreover, his assertion of exporting the surplus, providing a form of safety during work and giving of machinery is thorough and articulate. More’s Utopians are well endowed with resources than Plato’s guardians because they store surplus silver and gold, which they use to bribe traitors in the enemy’s backyard, hire soldiers, and acquire allies (Foss 2010, p.36).
Communism in Utopia is identical to the one prevailing in the Republic. People use common markets and general stores. People take their meals from halls of different Syphogrants, but the people have a choice to prepare and make meals from their homes in a state where they are generously allocated meals from the typical markets and stores meant for all (Engeman1982, p. 132). Nevertheless, the Utopian communism goes a notch higher and provides that people should wear identical fashion of clothes, saving the separation of men and women, the married and the ones who are not (Engeman1982, p. 132).
As a requirement in the communist society, agriculture and industries are under the control of the state. More states publicly that it is the primary duty of the government to protect commonwealth to manage the production of various commodities so that the burden of labor is evenly distributed (Brendan 1981, p. 4). Also, the people share the responsibility for labor provision equally. Besides, working hours are regulated. People should work three hours in the morning and three during afternoon hours, but sometimes the hours are reduced when there is a surplus (Brendan 1981, p. 4).
Finally, it can be stated that, there a certain level of dependence on Plato’s the Republic in the political thinking of Utopia. It is proven that More uses The Republic as a point of reference which needs to be followed closely, but also departs from Plato’s thinking in some instances and contrasts his ways of thinking. Besides, the contribution of women in the political arena from the democratic systems reveals that the Utopian state of More respects both the fundamental rights of individuals ones of the country. Further, it can be concluded that More intended best for humans through independent reasoning. Furthermore, everybody works in both cases including the magistrates who are exempted by law. However, women handle lighter duties, for instance, sewing, weaving, and spinning while men engage in more involving tasks. Both men and women actively participate in agriculture though in turns.
References
Brendan, B., 1981. More on Utopia. The Historical Journal. Vol 24, no. 1, pp. 1-27
Engeman, T.S., 1982. Hythloday's Utopia and More's England: an Interpretation of Thomas More's Utopia. The Journal of Politics, 44(1), pp.131-149.
Fokkema, D., 2011. Perfect worlds: Utopian fiction in China and the West (p. 448). Amsterdam University Press.
Foss, C., 2010. Plato's American Republic. History Today, 60(12), p.36.
Hsueh, C.F., 2013. Anxieties and Reconciliations: Travel and Science in Four Utopian Texts of Early Modern Britain.
Hugh, T., 1982. Sir Thomas More and Utopia. Renaissance Essays: Thomas I. White, ‘Pride and the public good: Thomas More’s use of Plato in Utopia,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy. Vol. 20, no4, pp 329-354.
Pordzik, R., 2009. Chater I: constructing borders, defining limits: the ideal space of utopia revisited. Spatial Practices, (9), p.23.
Tally Jr, R.T., 2013. Utopia in the Age of Globalization: Space, Representation, and the World-system. Springer.
Wilde, O., 2012. Narratives and identity. The Politics and Ethics of Identity: In Search of Ourselves, p.46.
