Neal Stephenson's "Wrong 5" argues that Thomas More's Utopia hypocritically condemns individual acquisitiveness while simultaneously advocating for England's imperial expansion and resource extraction under the guise of "improvement." More portrays Utopians as morally superior for rejecting private property, yet Stephenson contends this stance ignores the exploitative nature of acquiring resources and labor to establish and maintain Utopia's seemingly idyllic state. He highlights the inherent contradiction of More, a wealthy lawyer serving a rapacious empire, decrying individual greed while remaining silent about the systemic greed driving England's colonial ambitions. Essentially, Stephenson posits that Utopia serves as a veiled justification for powerful entities seizing resources under the pretense of societal betterment, a process mirroring England's contemporary actions.
Neal Stephenson, in the fifth installment of his "The Wrongs of Thomas More" series, delves into a multifaceted critique of More's Utopia, specifically focusing on the seemingly contradictory stance the book takes on slavery. Stephenson meticulously dissects More's portrayal of slavery within the fictional Utopian society, highlighting its presence despite the society's purportedly advanced and equitable nature. He meticulously examines the various justifications offered within the text for the institution of slavery, such as punishment for crimes and the incorporation of enslaved populations from neighboring societies. Stephenson meticulously deconstructs these arguments, meticulously exploring the inherent ethical dilemmas they present.
He elaborates on the specific types of slavery practiced in Utopia, including penal servitude for Utopian citizens who commit crimes and the enslavement of prisoners of war and foreign criminals brought into Utopia. Stephenson draws a parallel between these practices and historical forms of indentured servitude and penal labor, thereby illustrating the complexities and nuances of More's depiction. He further posits that the existence of slavery within Utopia, despite its idealistic underpinnings, serves as a crucial element in More's exploration of societal imperfections and the inherent challenges in achieving true utopian ideals.
Furthermore, Stephenson meticulously analyzes the economic implications of slavery within the Utopian system, examining its role in supporting the society's overall functionality and prosperity. He considers how the reliance on slave labor might impact the distribution of wealth and labor within Utopia, potentially undermining some of the egalitarian principles upon which the society is ostensibly founded. He suggests that More's inclusion of slavery might be a deliberate attempt to grapple with the practical realities of societal organization and resource management, even within a theoretical ideal.
The author also meticulously explicates the narrative structure and rhetorical strategies employed by More in presenting these justifications. He examines how More uses the dialogue format, particularly through the character of Hythloday, to present and potentially critique the institution of slavery within Utopia. Stephenson meticulously dissects the nuances of Hythloday's pronouncements and More's responses, arguing that this literary technique allows More to explore complex and potentially controversial ideas without necessarily endorsing them. He posits that More's ultimate objective might be to provoke thoughtful consideration and debate among his readers regarding the ethical and societal implications of slavery, rather than to offer definitive answers or solutions.
Finally, Stephenson meticulously connects More's depiction of slavery in Utopia to the broader historical context of the early modern period, considering the prevailing social and economic structures that influenced More's thinking. He explores the contemporary understandings of slavery and its role in various societies, suggesting that More's work might be viewed as both a reflection of and a departure from these prevailing norms. He concludes that More's exploration of slavery in Utopia, while potentially problematic and inherently complex, provides a valuable lens through which to examine the historical evolution of thought on this critical social issue, and serves as a enduring testament to the enduring challenges in defining and achieving a truly just and equitable society.
Summary of Comments ( 17 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43158442
The Hacker News comments generally agree with Stephenson's critique of Thomas More's Utopia, finding his vision naive and impractical. Several commenters point out the hypocrisy of More's personal wealth and position contrasting with the communist ideals he espouses in Utopia. Some discuss the inherent difficulties and contradictions in attempting to design a perfect society, citing issues of human nature and the potential for tyranny. Others find value in utopian thought experiments, even if flawed, as they can spark discussion and inspire incremental improvements. A few commenters delve into More's religious context and the historical influences on his writing, suggesting that modern interpretations may miss nuances of his intent. One commenter highlights the darkly satirical elements of Utopia, arguing that it shouldn't be taken entirely at face value.
The Hacker News post titled "The Wrongs of Thomas More (Wrong 5)" generated several comments discussing Neal Stephenson's essay on the historical figure. Many commenters engaged with Stephenson's exploration of More's complex character and the nuances of historical interpretation.
Several commenters appreciated Stephenson's detailed and nuanced approach to history, praising his ability to avoid simplistic moral judgments and acknowledge the complexities of figures like More. They found his exploration of More's intellectual context and the challenges of applying modern morality to historical figures to be insightful.
Some commenters focused on the specific arguments within Stephenson's essay, discussing the nature of heresy and the political climate of More's time. They debated the legitimacy of More's actions, with some arguing that he was a product of his era while others condemned his persecution of Protestants.
One compelling line of discussion revolved around the idea of historical relativism. Commenters grappled with the question of how to judge historical figures by the standards of their own time versus contemporary values. This led to a broader discussion about the challenges of interpreting history and the importance of understanding context.
Another interesting thread emerged around the concept of Utopia and its inherent contradictions. Commenters discussed More's "Utopia" and its portrayal of an idealized society, contrasting it with the realities of More's own actions and beliefs. This prompted reflection on the nature of utopian thought and the tension between ideals and reality.
Some commenters also brought in comparisons to other historical figures and events, further enriching the discussion. They drew parallels to contemporary issues, demonstrating the relevance of historical analysis to understanding present-day challenges.
While there was general agreement on the quality of Stephenson's writing and the thought-provoking nature of his arguments, there wasn't a consensus on More's legacy. The comments reflected a diversity of opinions, demonstrating the ongoing debate about how to interpret complex historical figures and their actions.