Thomas Mores Utopia and George Orwells Dystopia

Ioana-Alexandra Dorin (Studente Erasmus)

Concepts of utopia and dystopia represent imaginary societies in which people live their life
either in a perfect environment, governed by the laws that provide happiness to everyone, or
in an oppressive society that is ruled by repressive and controlled state. Origin of these
concepts can be traced to the year of 380BC, when Greek philosopher Plato released his
influential political dialogue called Republic. In it, he first postulated the main themes of
utopian society and his visions of the perfect Greek city-state that provided stable life for all
of its citizens.
The modern world Utopia came to life during early years of 16th century, in the work of the
famous English philosopher Thomas Moore. His description of utopian society gave birth to
enormous wave of utopian thought that influenced the life and works of many future
philosophers and novelist, and helped in creation of several important political movements
(most notably socialism). Utopias that were envisioned by the minds of those authors can
most easily be divided in several distinct categories, all based on the means of their creation
Ecology utopia, Economic utopia, Political utopia, Religious utopia, Feminists utopia and
Science and technological utopia. 19th century gave the birth of the largest wave of utopian
thought the world has ever seen. Numerous novelist and philosophers focused their careers on
the exploration of those themes, and result of their work influenced the audiences across the
entire world.
Utopian fiction is the creation of an ideal world, or utopia, as the setting for a novel.
Dystopian fiction is the opposite: creation of a nightmare world, or dystopia. Many novels
combine both, often as a metaphor for the different directions humanity can take in its
choices, ending up with one of two possible futures. Both utopias and dystopias are
commonly found in science fiction and other speculative fiction genres, and arguably are by
definition a type of speculative fiction.
More than 400 utopian works were published prior to the year 1900 in the English language
alone, with more than a thousand others during the twentieth century.
The word utopia comes from the Greek words ou, meaning "no" or "not," and topos, meaning
"place." Since its original conception, utopia has come to mean a place that we can only
dream about, a true paradise.
Dystopia, which is the direct opposite of utopia, is a term used to describe a utopian society in
which things have gone wrong.
Both utopias and dystopias share characteristics of science fiction and fantasy, and both are
usually set in a future in which technology has been used to create perfect living conditions.
However, once the setting of a utopian or dystopian novel has been established, the focus of
the novel is usually not on the technology itself but rather on the psychology and emotions of
the characters who live under such conditions.
Dystopia usually presents a story told out of despair. Utopia presents the "prime directive", so
to speak, of a message of hope and occasionally, overwhelming so. Dystopia normally has an
overwhelming message of warning.
Dystopia, more often than, makes use of "big government" and military, using tactics of
intimidation and sometimes mind control; often a sole evil head of government is responsible
or a representative of the oppression. Usually, there is a hierarchy that works to the advantage
of government loyalists, especially those who never question it's ultimate control. Those
outside of the government are seen as lower on the totem pole. Utopia usually has a sort of
Council or more of a communal society, where decisions are made based on the "greater
good."
Utopian societies are generally based on the so-called equality of all humankind. Meanwhile,
dystopia presents societies based on segregation, inequality, and oppression. Many times the
equality of the society in utopian fiction is an illusion.
While it's true that most utopia masquerades under the guise of dystopia, the difference is
sometimes only in perspective. Is the story told from a perspective of despair or of hope?
If the ending presents hope as an option, then the story more than likely has more utopian
qualities. If the message is without hope or full of distress and pain, then it would more likely
lean toward dystopia.
The truth is that the line is very thin and both genres can have aspects of the other.


Here are some general guidelines for making the distinction:
Dystopia
Big government and military, evil government leader
Inequality
Segregated and oppressed society
Underlying message of despair and warning
Utopia
Council (or similar) whose members who work for the "greater good"
Equality
Integrated and communal society
Underlying message of hope
Utopia, a place where everything is done in the best possible way ,as established in the
tradition of Sir Thomas Mores Utopia, proves implausible due to mans rebellion to universal
conformity as illustrated in George Orwells 1984. Utopia has a long tradition dating from
biblical times and the times of Aristotle and Plato.
In 1516, More developed a perfect place called Utopia based on these traditions. Utopias
government paralleled a communist state where everything was done to develop the good
life of its citizens. Mores motivation for composing Utopia and designing its government
this way was to suggest a more proper governing system to the tyrannical leaders of the
Renaissance, such as Henry VIII.
A new genre began to develop after the horror of the Second World Warantiutopian fiction.
George Orwell published 1984 in 1949 which hypothesized that if totalitarianism was not
thwarted, the world of Oceania, as depicted in 1984, could be our future world. In 1984, the
centralized totalitarian power of the inner party manifested itself in the omnipresent icon of
Big Brother. Oceanias communistic government reflected the dark realities that lie
underneath the idealism if Marxs communism as turned it into totalitarianism.
Therefore, as shown in 1984, Utopia, in the Mores tradition, cannot be achieved due to flaws
in human naturethe same flaws that destroyed Marxs idealistic concept of communism.
The most fatal of these flaws is the individualism man possesses that cause him to rebel
against the conformity of this centralized power. In Thomas Mores Utopia,the idea of a
place where everything is done in the best possible way excites mans imagination. However,
these dreams easily crumble when faced with the reality of inescapable oppression, such as
the Holocaust. Such turmoil of the twentieth century gave birth to a new genre of utopian
literatureanti-utopian fiction also known as distopian literature. Through such literature,
mans utopian doctrine of man perfected has now turned into man perverted . George
Orwells 1984 undoubtedly illustrates this through the complete power of the inner party,
embodied by the icon of Big Brother and through the destruction of its main character,
Winston. Therefore, Mores Utopia proves implausible due to mans rebellion against
universal conformity as Orwells 1984 illustrates.
The establishment of the utopian tradition has its earliest roots in the Old Testament of the
Bible, as written in Genesis: Then the Lord God Planted a Garden in Eden, in the east, and he
placed there the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made various
trees grow that were delightful to look at and for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the
garden and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (Gen. 2.8-9)
This passage illustrates mans first Utopia from which he will be exiled and will forever try to
again attain. Even the word Eden has a utopian meaning behind it. A similar sounding
Hebrew word means delight so that the Garden of Eden may be synonymous with the
garden of delight. The utopian tradition also has intellectual and political roots as shown in
both Aristotles Politics and Platos Republic which outline governments that would best
uphold the Good Life (Dixon 2; Sprague 10). These governments develop into primitive
utopian states, and Aristotle and Plato further elaborate on class structure, equality, and justice
in their respective works. Through the writings of these philosophers, especially Platos
Republic, More molded his vision of Utopia: Wherefore Plato, by a goodlye similitude
declareth, why wise men refraine to medle in the common wealthe [they] being content that
they be saffe them selves, seinge they cannot remedye the follye of the people. (More 150)
This is only one belief adopted by More in the creation of his Utopia. Plato and More also
agree on the topics of equality in which each government emulates a state of communism
where all people are not necessarily given, but, instead, not denied property. The public owns
everything in order to avoid the greed and corruption which would stress the fabric of Utopia .
The day in Utopia consists of six work hours, three before dinner and three after, compulsory
bed times at eight oclock, eight hours of sleep, and lectures early in the morning which
further enlightens and educates the citizens. Such a system exemplifies the model to which
More intended to leave the tyrannical European leaders of the Renaissance, such as Henry
VIII.
Four hundred thirty-two years later, George Orwell wrote 1984 which took the optimistic
utopian tradition and reversed it into the pessimism of anti-utopian fiction.
According to Michael Wilding, a motive for composing this genre of literature arises from
the certainty that man can now destroy not only himself as an individual but all of mankind,
that governments can bend people to any kind of purpose whatsoever. This was Orwells
motivation when composing 1984to show that distopia is a real possibility in our future .
This is exactly what Orwell does by exposing totalitarianisms worst aspect: its unhesitating
entry into the innermost reaches of the human mind and spirit to corrupt and destroy them.
Integral to totalitarianism is the absolute control of reality. Such power resides in the Party;
The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish
once and for all the possibility of independent thought . In order to achieve such power, Big
Brother, the omnipresent, superficial icon of the Party, rewrites history to suit the Partys
benefit. Ironically, this is Winstons, the protagonists, task at the Ministry of Truth.
Unfortunately he knows of the truth, and cannot achieve the willing suspension of disbelief to
conform to the rest of society; therefore the powers of Oceania brands him as a dissenter.
Ultimately, Oceania discovers and condemns his seditious thoughts and actualizations, also
known as thinkcrimes, and he is completely rehabilitated into subjugation to and love for
Big Brother.
A main focus through 1984 is the desire for free expression in both speech and sexual desires.
The idea that sex deprivation is at the heart of totalitarian society as the highest form of
control and the subsequent atmosphere of 1984 as a prison environment is inferred through
the words of Orwell;
Through Winstons pseudo-escape from Big Brother, he and Julia, his lover in rehabilitation,
freely express sexual desires. Together until their discovery, they fulfill the void inflicted
upon Winston by the totalitarian concepts of the Party and the sexual gratification creates for
him a utilitarian utopia.
Both Utopia and 1984 outwardly protest current politics and leadership but each takes a
different approach. Utopia means to be a model by which the populace may form ideals for
their society and a subtle suggestion to the leaders as to what they are doing wrong. 1984, on
the other hand, sternly warns and predicts the unfavorable conditions that will result from the
current course of actions involving corruption and subjugation.
Both emulate communism, yet each differs in the mood of its discourse. Daphne Patai noted
this when she contrasted Mores Utopias communism to Orwells 1984s communism.
Simply put, Utopias communism embodies Marxs idealism illustrated in the Communist
Manifesto while 1984s communism emulates the dreadful reality of Stalins communism . In
Utopia all is well and the citizens willingly accept their established form of government, while
1984s government does not yield the option of consent to its people. Therefore, the single
most important element to differentiate between these works of utopian literature is the
consent of the individual to whatever
form of government brings to him his ideal of utopia.
Therefore, any chance of utopia, in the tradition established by More, has become
unattainable due to the irreversible flaws of mankindof which individualism is the most
tragic. Utopia demands a high degree of universal conformity and submission to authority
which makes life rigidly routine and intolerable to the free spirit of human nature. Orwells
1984 not only pioneered a new frontier in utopian literature and warned of the corrosiveness
of totalitarianism but also brought to life an everyday Joe, evidenced in Winstons
character, misplaced in this world only years ahead. Through identification with Winston,
utopian ideals shatter only to be replaced with the reality that this world is neither perfect, nor
perfectable and that the world of 1984 could be the world of the future unless totalitarianism
is thwarted.
Thomas More coined the word Utopia for his novel of this same name, in which he created
one of the first fictional Utopian societies in 1516. Over 400 years later, George Orwell
composed one of the most widely known Dystopias in the society of Oceania in his 1948
novel Nineteen Eighty-four. The two novels are regarded as opposites; as two different
visions of two different societies. And while the key differences that demanded the split in
fictional social commentaries appear in the works, there are many similarities in the novels as
well. Just as it is said that one cannot know great joy without great pain, one cannot
experience a Utopian society without the knowledge of a Dystopia. Likewise, one cannot
create a warning of a Dystopia without some idea of what a Utopia would look like. Both
genres are equally effective in examining society and the philosophies needed to live in
civilization, and the line between Utopia and Dystopia is often blurred.
Similarities can be found not only in the novels themselves, but in the authors who created
them. Not only do the novels share specific aspects and tones, but the authors share certain
characteristics as well. One of the most striking commonalities between the two is that they
both came to be at odds with an ideology they had at one time fought for, and both their
novels reflect that struggle. At the time More wrote Utopia, he was in great conflict within
himself. His longing to be a scholar and his heartfelt duty to the king were two aspects of
himself that he was struggling with at the time the novel was written. During the introduction
for More in The Norton Anthology, he is described as having a lingering sense that he was
never quite at home in any of the parts he played. (519) This ambiguity follows More into
the novel as it is never made clear whether More finds the Utopian society more valuable than
the English society at the time. The quote though he is a man of unquestioned learning, and
highly experienced in the ways of the world, I cannot agree with everything he said. Yet I
freely confess there are many things in the Commonwealth of Utopia that in our own societies
I would wish rather than expect to see, (More, 588) is an example of the ambiguity of the
text. It is clear that there are things that he would like to see changed in society, but unclear as
to if those changes are enough for him to wish for complete reformation. Regardless, shortly
after writing the text, More was given the title of Lord Chancellor and served under the King
of England.
Just as More used his life experiences to tread through the waters of Utopia, George Orwell
used his present reality to create and describe Oceania. The Socialist Party of Great Britain
suggests that any study of Orwell must keep in mind the fact that there is some fiction in all
his autobiography and some autobiography in all of his fiction. (The Political Ideas of
George Orwell) Just as More used the names of real people and places, Orwell used the post-
war climate of England to enhance the atmosphere of his novel. By placing Winston in the
city of London, he rooted Oceania into a future setting of England, not of an ambiguous or
unimaginable place or time. Just as More was conflicted by his life as a scholar and his life
under the Kings court, Orwell seemed to write of great conflict in his ideas of socialist
philosophy. He was outspoken about his stance against totalitarianism and for democratic
socialism, but the content of Nineteen Eight-four seems to question the possible success of
either. (Orwell, 8) Both More and Winston end their journey without a real sense of forward
movement. While More will not decide to agree or disagree with Hythloday, the reader cannot
know if Winstons love of Big Brother is genuine, or forced and embellished.
Another grouping of similarities between the works can be found in the societies themselves.
One of the most prevalent characteristics of Dystopian and Utopian literature, one that is
almost absolutely necessary, is the isolation of the society that is being examined. Both
Utopia and Oceania are almost completely isolated from any other civilization. The only
somewhat regular contact that they have with any other nation is through war, and the main
difference between the two societies is their reaction to necessity of war. While the Utopians
go to war only for good reasons; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. (More,
574) The civilians reaction is also very different. While The Utopians are not only troubled
but ashamed when their forces gain a bloody victory, the members of the Inner and Outer
Party of Oceania are required to participate in the Two-minutes hate; a daily dedicated time in
which the Party members are required to publically spew their hate for the enemy and
celebrate the presence and victories of Big Brother. (More, 575)
Another similarity is in the unity required to maintain the civilization. Both Utopia and
Oceania maintain strict class divisions. Each society has the presence of a basic upper, middle
and lower class. Despite the distinctions between the educated Utopians and the slaves, or the
Inner Party and the Proletarians; the oppression of unity is absolutely required for the
continued success of the nations. Just as everyone must do some sort of labor to promote the
success of Utopia, everyone is required to love Big Brother and to live with absolute loyalty
to their nation. The difference between the two however, is the means of how the oppression
is executed.
According to Fredric Jameson, For the Utopians themselves, however, a rather different
rationale for these oppressive forms of unanimity seems to have imposed itself. (205) While
there is little to no evidence of unhappiness felt by the Utopians, Winston is a gleaming
example of the outside force of happiness. Winston is internally enraged by the oppression of
Big Brother, but he is forced by surveillance and punishment to show his loyalty to the
government. While it is safe to assume that the slaves of Utopia are unsatisfied with their
place in society as well, the reader is not given their perspective, so it is impossible to know
for certain. It is in this difference of perspective in which the greatest difference in the two
works can be found.
While Nineteen Eighty-four is told from the perspective of an Outer Party member, Utopia is
told from a neutral, outside narrator. This difference in perspective plays a key role in the
categorization of the two works. After reading Utopia, there is room for either a Utopian or
Dystopian interpretation of the novel. There is an ambiguity that can be read either way.
There is a total lack of perspective of those in Utopia who may be dissatisfied with their
leadership and government. Just as the character More must decide how he will interpret and
value the society, the reader must decide for themselves if the society is, in fact, Utopian. The
ambiguity of the opinion of the author leaves a room for the reader to decide if the society is
desirable or not.
In Nineteen Eighty-four, however, Winstons perspective leaves little room for a positive
reading or opinion of the governing powers of Oceania. While there is no direct evidence that
the slaves are oppressed and miserable, Winstons narrative is a direct statement against the
cruelty of The Inner Party. The entire novel is a treatise against oppressive, totalitarian
government. The perspective and struggles of Winston Smith are a direct result of the authors
distaste for totalitarian societies. If Oceania was described in the same form as Utopia, that is
from an outside and neutral perspective, then a reader may be able to see the benefits of the
society through examining the Inner Party. This opportunity is not given however, and the
lack of outside opinion forces the Dystopian categorization. It is impossible to see the positive
aspects of Oceania through the eyes of a severely oppressed and antagonized citizen. This
perspective enabled Orwell to create a stark and lasting warning of overpowered governing
powers, but without an equally powerful perspective of a Utopian society, one could not fully
understand the basis for Orwells treatise.
While the execution differs, the objective of both Thomas Mores Utopia and George
Orwells Nineteen Eighty-four is essentially the same. Both novels seek to question and
analyze the rules, boundaries and qualities of society. Without a skeptical, yet thorough
examination of the perfect society, there could be no examination of an undesirable society.
Thomas Mores Utopia led to the genre of social commentary, and just as he questioned his
societal surroundings, authors continue to question their own and prophesize those of the
future.


























Biography

Genesis. The New American Bible. Kansas: Catholic Bible, c. 1992.

More, Thomas. Utopia. New York: Scribners, 1953.

Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1981.

Wilding, Michael. Orwells 1984: Rewriting the Future. Sydney Studies in English.
Vol. 2, 1976.

Utopia/Dystopia: Conditions of Historical Possibility edited by Michael D. Gordin, Helen
Tilley, Gyan Prakash