In this blog post, I examined the historical context and ideological foundations of Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’, as well as the institutions and customs of the ideal state presented in the work, to reflect on what the work seeks to convey.

What was the historical context in which ‘Utopia’ was written?

Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ was published in Latin in 1516 and takes the form of a fictional narrative to satirize society and politics. Set on an imaginary island nation called Utopia, the book provides a detailed description of the religious, social, and political institutions and customs practiced there. The original title of the work translates to “An Amusing, Useful, and Most Excellent Little Book on the Best Form of a Republic and the New Island Called Utopia.” From the title alone, one can sense that this work is not merely a story but a book intended to present an ideal society and political system.
The nature of the work is also clearly reflected in the word “Utopia” itself. In Greek, “u” means “not” or “no,” and “topos” means “place.” The word “Utopia” was formed by adding a Latin suffix denoting a place, so the name ultimately means “a place that does not exist anywhere.” I was able to understand the satirical nature of this work in that it examines real-world society by imagining a country that does not actually exist.
Ancient people believed that the ideal realm existed in a specific place in the afterlife. A prime example is “Elysium,” which appears in Greek and Roman mythology. Elysium was considered a blessed land where heroes favored by the gods entered as immortal beings, or where people went after completing their earthly lives. It was thought to lie at the western edge of the Oceanus, which encircled the earth, and was also called the “Fields of Elysium.”
According to ancient beliefs, after death, the virtuous went to Elysium, while the wicked went to Hades. However, both Elysium and Hades were believed to exist on Earth. Since it was believed that the gods, the living, and the dead coexisted on Earth, the present world and the afterlife were not completely separate but interconnected. This concept can also be found in the philosophies of Pythagoras and Plato; in the ‘Phaedo’, Plato discusses the immortality of the soul, the utopian afterlife such as Elysium, and reincarnation.
This belief—that the soul is immortal and that the present world and the afterlife are interconnected—is also significant for understanding ‘Utopia’. For the people of Utopia in the work, the immortality of the soul is one of the most fundamental religious beliefs and is presented as a principle that can be proven through human reason. The idea that the dead exist alongside the living—even though they are invisible to the living—is also connected to this worldview.
However, it was Plato who first fully articulated the concept of an ideal state realized in this world, rather than an ideal realm in the afterlife. In ‘The Republic’, he presented a republic governed by philosophers as the ideal state and argued that the communal ownership of property is the foundation of a society based on equality and justice. Plato was the first to systematically present his ideas about an ideal state in this world in the form of philosophical discourse.
In this regard, Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ can be viewed as a work that depicts the ideal state—which Plato had presented as a philosophical discourse—as a concrete social model. Thomas More vividly portrayed the theory of the ideal state, which had previously existed only within philosophical discussions, as a society that could actually exist. In particular, it is deeply connected to Plato’s ideas in that it abolishes private property and adopts communal ownership as its foundation.
This ideal of the utopian state gained a more concrete theoretical foundation in the modern era through Marx’s ‘Capital’. Just as Thomas More identified private property as the root cause of social ills, Marx also approached the issue of private property through dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Here, we can identify a single intellectual current that argues that, in order to eliminate the various social ills that have plagued human society and to create a just and equal society, private property must be abolished and collective production and collective ownership realized.
Of course, there are clear differences between the ideas of Plato, Thomas More, and Marx. Plato and Thomas More acknowledged the existence of God and, on that foundation, conceived of the ideal state and social system—one in which private property had been abolished—through rational thought. Marx, on the other hand, thoroughly rejected the existence of God and viewed history based on human reason and materialism. He believed that, as productive forces developed, human history would inevitably progress toward a society in which private property had been abolished.
Considering these differences, I felt it was highly meaningful to read ‘The Republic’, ‘Utopia’, and ‘Capital’ together. Especially when reflecting on the reality of the many contradictions that arise in a capitalist society based on private property, I believe that reading these three works together and comparing the ideas about an ideal society presented within them remains a highly meaningful exercise even today.

What kind of society existed when ‘Utopia’ was written?

The era in which Thomas More lived was a time when absolute monarchy and the Renaissance humanist movement coexisted. This historical atmosphere is fully reflected in ‘Utopia’.
The Plantagenet dynasty was the family that established the British monarchy. This dynasty began as a kingdom with vast territories in both England and France, but soon lost most of its French territories. As a result, constant warfare raged between England and France for hundreds of years throughout the Middle Ages, culminating in the Hundred Years’ War during the transition from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period. This was followed by civil wars over the throne, known as the Wars of the Roses.
As England fought the Hundred Years’ War externally and endured the Wars of the Roses internally, the country descended into a state of near lawlessness. At the time, the forests were infested with bands of robbers, and merchants had to hire mercenaries to protect themselves from these bandits. The people’s lives were filled with suffering, and the streets were overflowing with beggars, mendicant monks, and pilgrims. These social hardships served as a crucial backdrop for the creation of ‘Utopia’, and they are particularly evident in Book I, which critiques the problems of society at that time.
After the Wars of the Roses ended, the Tudor dynasty began. The England in which Thomas More lived was precisely this early Tudor period. The Tudor dynasty ushered in the era of absolute monarchy and laid the foundation for the future growth of the British Empire. The king whom Thomas More served directly was Henry VIII.
In 1497, when Henry VIII was still a child, a rebellion broke out in Cornwall, and the rebel forces advanced as far as Blackheath, not far from London. Henry VIII, who was five years old at the time, was forced to take refuge in the Tower of London with his mother. During his reign, England suffered from severe inflation caused by rising royal expenditures and excessive coinage. As common lands were privatized through the Enclosure Movement, peasants fell into ruin and suffered extreme exploitation, while the rapid growth of London’s population exacerbated various social problems in the city.
Thomas More served as a judge in London and as an advisor to the king during precisely this era, eventually rising to the position of Lord Chancellor. Therefore, when reading ‘Utopia’, it is important to keep in mind that he was someone who had firsthand experience with the politics and society of his time.
Absolute monarchy was a political system that emerged during the transitional period from medieval feudal society to modern civil society. It strengthened the system of government centered on the absolute monarch, maintained a bureaucracy and a standing army, and pursued national wealth through mercantilism. Since this was a period in which medieval and modern elements coexisted, characteristics of different eras were intermingled in various sectors of society.
To solidify the system of government centered on the absolute monarch, the absolute monarchy strictly maintained class distinctions, and the nobility monopolized political power. State interference and control over economic life were severe, extending even to the wages and working hours of laborers. To this end, laws were enforced harshly and strictly. These social realities can also be considered a key backdrop to the creation of ‘Utopia’.
In particular, the Enclosure Movement is indispensable to understanding English society at that time. Beginning in the late 15th century, the development of the woolen industry in England caused wool prices to rise significantly. To increase their profits, landowners converted farmland and common land into pastures and grazing lands. This was the Enclosure Movement.
Through the Enclosure Movement, landowners accumulated wealth, but peasants lost their livelihoods. Many peasants, having lost their farmland, were driven into the cities and became wage laborers. Thomas More’s remark that “formerly men fed the sheep, but now the sheep devour men” was a critique of this very reality. This statement struck me as particularly powerful when I was trying to understand the social criticism in ‘Utopia’.
Another important historical trend during Thomas More’s lifetime was the Renaissance. The Renaissance signified a rebirth of scholarship and the arts and is often referred to as the cultural revival movement. It spread widely across Western Europe from the 14th to the 16th century, with Italy as its center. The leaders of this movement were humanists, who viewed the scholarship and culture of ancient Greece and Rome as ideal and sought to revive them to create a new culture.
Erasmus, one of the leading humanists of the time, was a close friend of Thomas More. Born in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Erasmus studied classical Latin and theology at a grammar school and a monastery, and at the age of twenty-one, he became a monk at an Augustinian monastery. After meeting humanists such as Thomas More and John Colet in England in 1499, he made it his life’s work to combine the liberal humanistic ideals found in the classics with the spirit of Christianity.
His masterpiece, ‘In Praise of Folly’, was completed during a week-long stay at the home of Thomas More in England in 1509 and was published in 1511. In this work, which satirizes monastic life, the goddess of folly, “Moria,” appears as the narrator. It is a method of revealing what true wisdom is through ridiculous and witty remarks that sound foolish. This atmosphere of satire and wit carries over into ‘Utopia’.

How was Thomas More’s life reflected in ‘Utopia’?

Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478, on Milk Street in London, the second son of Sir John More, a judge. He was educated at St. Anthony’s, considered one of the best schools in London, and in 1490, at the age of twelve, he entered the household of John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor, to serve as his secretary. At the time, working as a secretary to a powerful figure—assisting him while broadening one’s knowledge and network—was regarded as an important part of one’s education.
Morton, an ardent supporter of humanism, recognized Thomas More’s talent and arranged for him to receive a classical education at the University of Oxford beginning in 1492. He studied under Thomas Linecker and William Grocyn and mastered Latin and Greek in just two years. However, at his father’s urging, he returned to London and enrolled in the Inn of Law to study law.
Around 1503, he abandoned his legal career and yearned for the monastic life. He lived near a monastery, practicing asceticism and leading a life indistinguishable from that of a monk. However, after meeting Jane Colt, who would later become his wife, he remained a layperson; he married her in 1505, and they had one son and three daughters. He cherished the time he spent with his family, but his wife, Jane Colt, passed away in 1511. Subsequently, for the sake of his children, he remarried a wealthy widow, Alice Middleton. However, it is said that the two did not get along well and that their marriage was not a happy one. Even within such a marriage, Thomas More maintained a life of asceticism throughout his life.
He became a Member of Parliament in 1504 at the age of twenty-six, but after opposing Henry VII’s excessive taxation, he faced persecution and left politics to devote himself to his legal practice. However, after Henry VIII ascended the throne, he was appointed in 1510 as one of the two deputy justices overseeing the administration of justice in the City of London. He gained a reputation as an honest and capable official, and in 1514, he became a member of the Privy Council and an advisor to the king.
He traveled throughout Europe on diplomatic missions alongside Thomas Wolsey, Henry VIII’s first Lord Chancellor, and would often discuss matters late into the night over dinner with Henry VIII and Queen Catherine. After Thomas Wolsey fell from favor, More became Lord Chancellor in 1529, demonstrating outstanding administrative skills by processing legal cases at a remarkably rapid pace.
However, as Henry VIII sought to divorce Queen Catherine, he came into conflict with the Pope; his refusal to recognize the Pope’s authority and his attempt to become the head of the Church of England on his own led to a breakdown in their relationship. Thomas More interpreted this as Henry VIII’s intention to become an absolute monarch. Ultimately, in 1530, he refused to sign a letter requesting a divorce from Catherine, and in 1533, he did not attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn, whom Henry VIII had remarried. The two parted ways irrevocably, and Thomas More was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was sentenced to death on July 1, 1535, and the sentence was carried out on July 6.
Reflecting on his life, it became even clearer that ‘Utopia’ was not merely an idealized vision of society conceived at a desk, but a work created by someone who had direct experience with real-world politics and society as he observed his own era.

How did Catholic thought and humanism influence ‘Utopia’?

The two key factors that shaped Thomas More’s thought were Catholicism and Renaissance humanism. He regarded becoming a monk and living in a monastery as the ideal life, and in fact, he led an ascetic life akin to that of a monk throughout his life. Furthermore, he strongly opposed Luther’s Reformation and resolutely opposed Henry VIII’s attempt to break away from Roman Catholicism, establish the Church of England, and crown himself its head. Ultimately, he was executed because of this stance. The fact that Pope Pius XI later canonized Thomas More as a saint also demonstrates just how central his Catholic faith was to his life.
His Catholic ideology also plays a significant role in understanding ‘Utopia’. While the people of Utopia are free to practice various religions, there are two doctrines they must not deny. One is the immortality of the soul, and the other is that after death, in the afterlife, those who have lived wicked lives will be punished, while those who have lived virtuous lives will be rewarded. These ideas are presented not merely as matters of faith but as principles that can be proven through human reason.
The reason is that if the soul were not immortal and there were no rewards or punishments in the afterlife, people would be unwilling to sacrifice themselves or choose an ascetic life in this world. Therefore, the immortality of the soul and the rewards and punishments of the afterlife can be said to be the fundamental beliefs that underpin the entire lives of the people of Utopia.
Thomas More’s Catholic ideology, which regarded monastic life as the ideal way of life, is directly reflected in the institutions and customs of Utopia. Monastic characteristics are so strongly evident in the society’s way of life that one might view Utopia as a single, vast monastery. The lives of the Utopians—who valued labor while pursuing spiritual freedom on the basis of that labor—also served as a critique of the European and British nobility of the time, who lived luxuriously without performing any work.
Underlying this is the belief that labor is the most fundamental and honest way to contribute to the common good. This connects to the life of a monk, who pursued a devout faith grounded in labor. At the same time, a closer examination of Utopia’s institutions and customs reveals aspects that are overly controlling and ascetic, to the point where one might even wonder if it is a totalitarian society. These characteristics can be seen as stemming from the monastic asceticism that Thomas More pursued within the Catholic faith. Combined with humanist thought, this added an emphasis on pursuing intellectual freedom and self-improvement based on reason.
However, upon reading ‘Utopia’, one begins to wonder whether there are discrepancies between the Catholic teachings Thomas More actually believed in and the institutions of Utopia depicted in the work. Utopian institutions and customs—such as divorce, euthanasia, the marriage of clergy, and the ordination of women—were diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time. Furthermore, Utopia’s policy of religious tolerance appears to contradict Thomas More’s actual actions, as he persecuted Protestants after becoming Lord Chancellor. This raises the question: why would a staunch Catholic present such a system as the model for an ideal society?
Moreover, it feels ironic that Thomas More—who was one of England’s most influential jurists and lawyers—harshly criticized the legal profession in ‘Utopia’. However, these contradictions can be understood to some extent when one considers that he was not merely a devout Catholic but a Renaissance humanist.
He did not merely accept Catholic doctrine at face value but interpreted it from a humanistic perspective grounded in reason. Consequently, he believed that even institutions such as divorce, euthanasia, and the marriage of clergy—which conflicted with the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time—could be accepted from the standpoint of “rational faith,” and he was thus able to present them as the institutions and customs of Utopia.
His defense of Roman Catholicism and his criticism of Henry VIII’s establishment of the Church of England and Luther’s Reformation can also be understood from this perspective. As the religious views in ‘Utopia’ demonstrate, while it was permissible to have diverse religions based on fundamentally true doctrines under proper religious authority, he believed that religious views or movements that fundamentally undermined that order and tradition were unacceptable.
Therefore, the religious tolerance depicted in ‘Utopia’ is quite different from the free tolerance we envision today. The society portrayed in the work generally conveys a strong sense of strict order and control rather than free tolerance. Religions that acknowledge the two absolute truths—the immortality of the soul and rewards and punishments in the afterlife—are permitted within Utopia, but even this tolerance is possible only within the rigid framework of the Utopian system. Such tolerance would have been unthinkable in real-world English society.
It was also interesting that Thomas More, in comparing the people of England and Europe—where private property exists—with those of Utopia—where it does not—believed that people ultimately act only in accordance with the institutions and customs in which they find themselves. This is the idea that institutions and customs determine people’s thoughts and actions, and that such actions are, to a large extent, inevitable.
The fact that he was a lawyer yet harshly criticized the legal profession can also be understood in this context. In fact, one could argue that he was able to criticize it precisely because he knew better than anyone else what the profession entailed. That is why, even under a political system where private property existed, he served as Deputy Sheriff of London and did his utmost in his role, earning recognition as an honest and capable official.

Is ‘Utopia’ a book that dreams of an ideal society, or one that critiques real-world politics?

When considering the ideas of Thomas More as a Renaissance humanist, one of the most persuasive interpretations of ‘Utopia’ is the view presented by Quentin Skinner. According to him, Thomas More participated in the Renaissance humanist debate on true nobility and wrote ‘Utopia’ to demonstrate that a perfect republic cannot exist as long as the institution of private property exists.
According to Skinner’s interpretation, Raphael Hythloday represents Plato’s position that one should not intervene in practical politics, while Thomas More represents the more pragmatic perspective exemplified by Cicero. Although the society Raphael describes was clearly the ideal society Thomas More envisioned, he believed it was unlikely that a society based on collective production and collective ownership could actually exist in reality. Therefore, the interpretation is that he viewed it as wiser to adopt a practical perspective suited to reality rather than pursuing the ideal in its purest form.
Quentin Skinner’s interpretation connects with the views of Steven Greenblatt. According to Greenblatt, Thomas More was influenced by Epicurean philosophy through ‘On the Nature of Things’ by Lucretius, a Roman materialist philosopher and poet. This explains why, in ‘Utopia’, he described the people of Utopia as adopting “pleasure” as the guiding principle of their lives.
Examining these various interpretations reveals that the ideas of the Renaissance humanist Thomas More are deeply embedded throughout ‘Utopia’. The Renaissance was a movement aimed at reviving the scholarship, thought, and literature of ancient Greece and, based on that foundation, creating institutions and customs suited to the new era. At that time, humanists sought to affirm human values based on reason through classical culture, liberate humanity from irrationality, and thereby foster the development of human nature.
The fact that many of the proper names and place names appearing in ‘Utopia’ derive from Greek also illustrates this characteristic. The name “Utopia” itself originates from Greek, and “Amauros”—which can be considered the capital—means “dark” in Greek. The official titles “Sipograntor” and “Tranibora” also demonstrate this Greek influence. The work suggests that the people of Utopia are descendants of the Greeks and describes how they were overjoyed when taught Greek and given books written by Greeks.
Most importantly, despite the fact that Europe and England were in the era of absolute monarchy at the time, Thomas More presented a “republic” as the model for an ideal state. This demonstrates the profound influence that Plato’s writings had on him. Not only ‘The Republic’ but also ‘The Laws’ and various dialogues shaped his thought, and the democracy of Athens—where Plato lived—also exerted a significant influence.
Consequently, in ‘Utopia’, Thomas More states that while there is little to learn from the Romans, there is much to learn from the Greeks. In ‘The Republic’, Plato presented a state ruled by philosophers as the ideal state. He believed that philosophers could create an environment where citizens could pursue their own intellectual freedom without the coercion of law, enjoy true human happiness, and live in harmony.
In the Utopia envisioned by Thomas More, it is also a community of scholars that leads the nation. In the poem about Utopia, the founder, Utopos, is praised with the line, “Of all the countries without philosophy, he alone made Utopia a country with philosophy.” Therefore, the group of scholars referred to here can effectively be viewed as a group of philosophers. The mayor and officials who govern Utopia, as well as clergy and doctors—along with the various other positions that lead the country—are elected from this group of philosophers.
What role do satire and humor play in ‘Utopia’?
Thomas More translated several works by Lucian, a Greek satirist of the Roman era, into Latin, and Lucian’s writings—which were brimming with wit and humor—had a profound influence on Thomas More. Lucian used the forms of dialogue and letters to satirize all manner of folly and corruption found in religion, politics, philosophy, and society.
He also wrote ‘The True Story’, a fictional travelogue that can be considered the precursor to ‘Gulliver’s Travels’. This work begins by stating from the outset that the entire narrative is a fabrication, and it satirically depicts the adventures of Lucian and his fellow travelers as they journey through locations featured in Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ and Thucydides’ ‘History’. Lucian’s works influenced Erasmus in writing ‘In Praise of Folly’ and appear to have also significantly influenced Thomas More in crafting ‘Utopia’, in which he satirizes society through a fictional narrative disguised as a true story.
This fusion of ideas is clearly reflected in the name of ‘Utopia’’s narrator, Raphael Hythloday. “Raphael” is the name of an archangel who appears in the Book of Tobit in the Catholic Bible. Raphael guides the protagonist, Tobias, and heals his blind father. The name “Raphael,” which means “God has healed” in Hebrew, also carries the meaning of one who opens people’s eyes so they may see the truth.
In contrast, “Hittlodaio” is Greek for “one who spreads nonsense.” The name itself is imbued with satire and wit. Ultimately, it can be inferred that Thomas More intended to convey that while the stories told by Hittlodaio may seem like absurd, nonsensical tales, they actually contain a deeper truth.
Therefore, it can be argued that the name of this narrator embodies the biblical archangel Raphael, the Greek name “Hitlodaios,” the satire and wit of a Renaissance humanist, and the passion to discover the essence of humanity through reason.

How is ‘Utopia’ structured?

The first edition of ‘Utopia’ begins with a collection of letters exchanged between Thomas More and various people he met on the European continent. Among those featured are Peter Hilles, who served as chief secretary to the mayor of Antwerp, and Hieronymus Busridus, an advisor to King Charles V of Castile. Thomas More placed these letters at the beginning of the text as a literary device to make the story of the fictional island of Utopia appear as if it were based on actual events. In later editions, these letters were moved to the back of the book.
Book I begins with Thomas More crossing to the continent as Henry VIII’s plenipotentiary to resolve a trade dispute with the King of Castile. In Antwerp, through the introduction of his friend Peter Hilles, he meets an explorer named Raphael Hitlrodio.
Thomas More highly values Raphael’s exceptional insight and suggests that he become an advisor to the king, working for the good of the country and its people. However, Raphael counters by asking how he could possibly become an advisor to the king when it is obvious that kings pursue only the expansion of territory and the accumulation of wealth.
Rafael then points out various social ills that were widespread in European society at the time. In particular, he criticizes the reality in England where landlords drove peasants from their livelihoods through the Enclosure Movement, yet those who were driven into poverty and resorted to theft to survive were subjected to the extreme punishment of death.
Raphael concludes that the root cause of these social ills lies in private property. He argues that it is impossible to eliminate social ills without abolishing private property, and states that Utopia—a new world he discovered while exploring the globe—is precisely a nation where everything is produced and owned in common.
Thus, Book I serves as an introduction to Utopia, the ideal republic that will be fully described in Book II. The backdrop to this is the reality of British society at the time, where ordinary people serving the public interest struggled to make ends meet and were executed for petty theft, while nobles and landowners—who contributed nothing to the public good—lived lives of luxury. Thomas More identifies the root cause of these social ills in the institution of private property and, in Book II, illustrates what a society without private property would look like through the nation of Utopia.
In Book II, Raphael explains the institutions and customs of Utopia, dividing them into various categories. To lend the work a sense of realism, the story is set up so that Raphael, while traveling with Amerigo Vespucci—a famous explorer of the time—continued his exploration with the garrison left behind when Vespucci returned from his final expedition, and in doing so, discovered Utopia.
Utopia was not originally an island. After General Utopos conquered the land and established a nation there, he dug canals 15 miles wide at both corners, transforming it into an island. The island contains 54 cities, with Amauros, located in the center, serving as the capital. Each city is home to approximately 6,000 households, and each household consists of a family of about 10 to 16 people. The population of each city is roughly 100,000.
Every 30 households elect one official called a “Sipograntor,” and 10 Sipograntors elect one “Tranibora.” The city council, composed of 200 Sipograntors, elects the mayor by secret ballot. The mayor forms a municipal council with the Traniboras to manage the city’s affairs.
Utopia has no king and no permanent parliament. Each city resembles an ancient Greek city-state. Important matters affecting the entire island are handled by a National Assembly, composed of three representatives from each city whenever necessary; aside from this, there is no separate central government.
This political system was largely modeled after the democracy of ancient Athens. Under the Athenian democracy, there were ten tribes, known as phylae, and beneath them were over a hundred districts, known as demes. Fifty members were selected by lot from each tribe to form the Boule, a council of 500, and the term of office for council members was one year. The City Council administered the affairs of Athens and prepared the agenda for the Assembly, the general assembly of citizens, which held the final authority on all matters.

How did communal ownership and labor change the lives of the people of Utopia?

A city in Utopia consists of the urban center and the surrounding rural areas. Since private property is not recognized here, all citizens have their own occupations and must take turns living and working in the countryside for two-year periods.
All produce is gathered at the central market in the city and stored in various shops according to the type of goods. Production and distribution are organized around the community. Citizens work six hours a day and spend the rest of their time on leisure. However, they do not use this leisure time simply for rest; rather, they devote it primarily to self-improvement or honing their professional skills.
In Utopian society, the scholarly class holds a special position. Selected through a vote by officials following recommendations from the clergy, they belong to the small minority exempt from labor. While this is a society that values labor, it also places great importance on intellectual abilities and scholarship.
However, slavery also exists in Utopian society. Slaves are either prisoners of war, individuals who have committed serious crimes in other countries, or Utopian citizens who have been demoted to slavery for committing crimes. The fact that slavery exists even within a society that abolishes private property and strives for an egalitarian community demonstrates that this society is quite different from the ideal society we envision today.
Religion in Utopia is diverse. However, all people share a common belief in the basic doctrines of the immortality of the soul and rewards and punishments in the afterlife. Each city has 13 churches and 13 clergymen. When war breaks out, the clergy accompany the army to the battlefield and do their utmost to ensure that soldiers do not shed excessive blood. Consequently, the clergy of Utopia are held in high esteem even in other countries, regardless of whether they are fighting for the enemy or their own side.
In Utopia, wars are primarily waged by hiring mercenaries. To this end, they stockpile gold and silver. They export surplus produce to obtain large quantities of gold and silver, which they then store in preparation for emergencies. However, gold and silver themselves hold very little value to the people of Utopia. Since they regard them as little more than stones, they even make slaves’ chains out of gold and craft trivial utensils from gold and silver.
This portrayal can also be read as a satire on real-world societies that assign an excessively high value to gold and silver. This is because what is truly valuable to the people of Utopia is not the metals themselves, but communal life and people’s practical needs.
In Utopia, the right to privacy is not considered freedom. Everyone lives under the supervision of society and the family. During communal meals at government offices, the tables of the young are surrounded by those of the elderly, and in church, children sit among the adults. There are no taverns or brothels, nor is there any space where one can secretly hide and do something. Everything is transparently open to public view.
While such a society is stable in that it strictly upholds communal order and morality, it is also a highly controlling society from the perspective of individual freedom and privacy. I believe this is why ‘Utopia’, while depicting an ideal state, simultaneously gives off a totalitarian vibe.
Travel is not freely permitted either. To travel, one must obtain permission from the mayor, and no matter where one goes, one must complete a full day’s work. Only then can one receive meals even when traveling to other regions. Outside the city, there are several large hospitals, and these hospitals appear to form a small city of their own.
The institution of marriage is also strictly regulated. Divorce and remarriage are permitted only under very limited circumstances, a measure intended to ensure that married life is cherished. Premarital sex is severely punished. Since there are very few laws, the profession of lawyer does not exist.
Thus, the society depicted in ‘Utopia’ emphasizes equality and communal ownership while meticulously controlling individuals’ lives; it values labor and self-improvement while simultaneously recognizing a system of slavery. Consequently, the ideal society in this work feels less like a perfect paradise where everything is flawless and more like a social model created to solve various real-world problems—one that, at the same time, contains numerous questions and contradictions within itself.

Could an ideal nation like ‘Utopia’ truly exist?

One of the first questions that comes to mind after reading ‘Utopia’ is whether such a society could actually exist. The Utopia depicted in the work seeks to resolve the wealth gap and social ills by abolishing private property and implementing collective production and common ownership. However, at the same time, it thoroughly manages and controls people’s daily lives.
In this regard, Utopia is both a free society and a controlled one; it pursues equality while maintaining a system of slavery; and it acknowledges religious diversity while establishing absolute doctrines that must be strictly adhered to. Because of these contradictory aspects, I came to believe that this country is not merely a simple utopia but rather a device designed to make us reflect on the problems of real-world society.
Thomas More criticized the reality of English society, where the poor were sentenced to death for committing theft in order to survive, while nobles and landowners who contributed nothing to the public good lived lives of luxury. He identified the root cause of this in the system of private property. The communal ownership system in ‘Utopia’ is presented precisely as an alternative to this reality.
However, the work does not stop there. Everyone works, everyone is supervised, and even travel, marriage, and religious life are conducted according to specific rules. The order of the community takes precedence over individual freedom. Therefore, the moment one accepts Utopia as an ideal state, another problem arises: to what extent can individual freedom be restricted in order to eliminate social evils?
Ultimately, I felt that ‘Utopia’ is not simply a book that tells us what a “perfect society” looks like, but rather one that constantly prompts us to ask ourselves what kind of society we consider just. This is because the relationships between private property and communal ownership, freedom and control, religious tolerance and order, labor and leisure, and the individual and the community are all intertwined.
While the historical context of Thomas More’s era is important for understanding this work, it is equally significant that he embraced both the Catholic faith and Renaissance humanism. He valued faith while also placing great importance on reason; he took an interest in ancient Greek philosophy and political thought; and he exposed the social contradictions of his time through satire and wit.
In this regard, the very name of the character Raphael Hythloday aptly illustrates the nature of ‘Utopia’. “Raphael” signifies one who opens people’s eyes, while “Hythloday” means a person who spreads absurd tales. Ultimately, through the story of Utopia—which appears to be an absurd tale—the work actually enables us to see the truth of reality.
‘Utopia’ refers to a place that does not exist, yet through that nonexistent place, it enables us to view the reality in which we live with greater clarity. By describing a country that does not actually exist, it critiques real-world British society; by presenting a society without private property, it prompts us to reflect on the impact of private property on individuals and society. By depicting a republic governed by a philosopher, it prompts us to reflect on the absolute monarchy and political systems of the real world; and by emphasizing communal order, it makes us consider the nature of individual freedom.
Therefore, what is important in this work is not merely the question of whether the country of Utopia is truly achievable. Rather, I felt that the significance of this work lies in making us consider whether the social institutions and customs we now take for granted are necessarily correct, whether we can imagine a different kind of society, and what must be changed to achieve justice and equality.
The Utopia depicted by Thomas More is a place that exists nowhere. Yet, precisely because it does not exist, it serves as a mirror reflecting reality. It prompts us to consider just how unequal our real society is, how human desires drive social institutions, what social problems private property creates, and the tension that arises between individual freedom and communal order when attempting to build an ideal society.
Ultimately, I came to believe that ‘Utopia’ is not an ideal realm created to escape reality, but rather an imaginary space devised to examine reality more deeply. By combining Plato’s theory of the ideal state, Renaissance humanism, Catholic thought, ancient Greek philosophy, and Lucian-style satire and wit within a single work, this tale of a nonexistent country became a powerful tool for critiquing real-world politics and society.
What struck me most while reading this work was the realization that simply establishing good institutions is not enough to create an ideal society. People’s thoughts and actions are influenced by the institutions and customs within which they live, and when institutions change, human lives and values can also change. At the same time, it makes one consider the fact that even if an institution aims for human happiness and equality, it can restrict individual freedom through excessive control and discipline.
For this reason, ‘Utopia’ struck me less as a book that offers a single answer and more as one that raises numerous questions. Is private property truly the root cause of social ills? Can communal ownership create true equality? To what extent must humans follow the rules of the community? Can individual freedom be restricted for the sake of a just society? Is it possible to realize an ideal state in reality?
As one follows these questions, one reaffirms that ‘Utopia’ is not merely a classic novel but a complex intellectual work concerning politics, society, religion, and human nature. Above all, the work’s satire and wit struck me as even more vivid precisely because, by depicting a nonexistent country, it compels us to reflect on the world in which we actually live.