Thomas More skrifaði bókina Utopia í byrjun 16. aldar og lýsti þar ímynduðu samfélagi. Í dag er nafn bókarinnar oftar en ekki notað yfir samfélög sem eiga að vera fullkomin.
Hér er bútur úr ritgerð um jafnrétti í þessari frábæru bók, sem allir ættu að lesa.


I. Equality in Utopia

Utopian society might be a communist one, but it is certainly not classless. There is a distinct hierarchy with priests and mayors on top, slaves on the bottom and everyone else in between. Crossing this hierarchy is another one based on age and sex. Here the sex based hierarchy will be closely looked at; within religion, work, family, education and official positions in Utopian society.

This survey is therefore based around book two of Utopia, where Raphael Nonsenso describes Utopian society. Without going into details about book one and the setup of the whole book, a few words concerning the relationship between More and Nonsenso are necessary. With his fictional friend More establishes a safeguard for himself, makes it another man’s tale that he is merely reporting. Nonsenso thereby makes it easier for More to make his opinion clear on controversial issues. Another ‘literary trick’ that More employs is putting in little anecdotes of absurd practices of the Utopians; making it easier for him, in case of questioning or censorship, to proclaim it all as a joke, supported then by the very name of the narrator. What then are More’s real ideas and what is a joke? Needless to say there is little agreement on this subject, some see the work as almost purely a jest while others see More’s serious intention in every word and of course still others take various positions in between these two extremes. The general view taken here is that More is serious concerning the gender issues, but the more contested points on gold chamber pots and a nude show before marriage are not treated here. However it is not necessary for the reader to decide one way or the other, if the ambiguity is kept in mind throughout.


Government, family and education

When the Utopian society is described in book two of Utopia, Raphael Nonsenso quickly comes to “their system of local government.” His example will be followed here. The Stywards, Bencheaters and Mayors are all elected with different set of rules around the election. Nonsenso describes the system with simplicity and does not raise the issue of women in government. Nor does he mention whether women can be part of the annual meeting of three wise older citizens from each town. However we can see that it is presupposed that the mayor is a male, as the Mayor is referred to as ‘he’ in the text. Later it is confirmed that this applies to other officials as well, they’re “normally addressed as ‘Father’, and that’s how they behave.” Officials are the patriarchal fathers of society; women are not to take part in this sphere of life.

Whether women can vote for Stywards, Bencheaters and Mayors is not clear – it isn’t brought up or even hinted at. Then again, it isn’t clearly stated that women cannot be public officials – it only becomes clear with a passing remark. As will become clear the status of women is often brought up in Utopia, particularly when women have the same rights as men, but this is not the case when elections and official positions are discussed. We are therefore left with the impression that women are not ‘allowed’ or ‘trusted’ to vote in Utopia. An important part of citizenship is thereby denied to the female population of the little island. With this negative reading the bar might be raised to far, all the way from sixteenth century reality to 21st century ideals. In the interest of fairness it is therefore right to remind the reader that Utopia was far more democratised than More’s England; where voting was limited by class, property and gender as well as having less of an influence.

The life of the largest part of English society in the 16th century, the common rural people, was built around the whole household and not only the blood related family, which normally was one married couple and their children. Utopian society is also based around the household, but it is far larger than its English counterpart – with each household having 10-16 adults. Both private and public life is centred on the household. It is therefore necessary to look at how equal men and women are within the household. A relatively large section in Nonsenso’s description is devoted to the eating habits of the Utopians. Meals are shared by a number of households and the preparation is done by a different household each time, so the workload is considerably less than if everyone would make separate meals. However all the preparation is done by women, while the men sit around and wait for the meal to arrive. A certain hierarchy is stated in the seating arrangements at mealtimes but a clearer statement is made regarding where people live.
“When a girl grows up and gets married, she joins her husband’s household, but the boys of each generation stay at home, under the control of their oldest male relative – unless he becomes senile, in which case the next oldest takes over.” The intent behind this Utopian custom is not clear, but one guess would be to secure the patriarchy: men never join the household of their wives, boys never come under the control of women and women can never be the head of a household. Just as the population is kept under strict regulation, so is the backbone of society, the household, made stable.

Although women seem to take responsibility of child caring, mothers are not part of the picture when it comes to adoption. Children are adopted if they want to pursue a different trade than their parents, so that they can learn the trade of their choice. In such a situation “great care is taken, not only by the father, but also by the local authorities, to see that the foster-father is a decent, respectable type.” The emphasis is on the father, both the one adopting the child and the real father, but the mothers have no say on the matter as well as seeming to be of no relevance when the decision is taken.

Before work starts every morning many Utopians go to classes to continue their education, but every child gets some education. In this area there is no difference between boys and girls or men and women. ‘Even’ the small group of students that go on to focus on their studies probably includes women, for the priests are picked from this group, and as we will see women do have a chance to become priests. The reason behind the gender equality in this area is that the Utopians organise their society so that everyone “can cultivate his mind – which they regard as the secret of a happy life.”


Religion, work and appearances

Near the end of Nonsenso’s description of Utopia the religious ideas and practises of Utopians are extensively discussed. Such a large proportion will not be dedicated to religion here, but some comments are necessary. Starting from the top we immediately see that the ultimate power, for most Utopians, is called “The Parent” and everyone uses the word “Mythras” for describing their “Supreme being.” The Roman/Persian god Mithras, which More probably had in mind when using this name, was usually shown as a man and Nonsenso always refers to this Supreme being as being male. But what is more interesting is the other name that the majority uses, ‘The Parent’. With this name More might have given the Utopians a more liberal and modern outlook than he intended; they seem to have a non-gendered Supreme being, but Nonsenso – More’s mouthpiece – refers to the Parent as ‘Him’. If we see ‘The Parent’ as possibly not masculine, that fits perfectly with the priesthood of Utopia: they are most often men, referred to as men in the text but there is the possibility of women priests. Quite contrary to 16th century European reality, “there’s nothing to stop a woman from becoming a priest” in Utopia. Despite this women are rarely elected for the office (perhaps an indicator that women could not vote). Then again they have to meet other standards than the men and do not have the same rights as male priests if elected. Only “elderly widows are eligible” and they cannot marry like the male priests. This discrepancy can best be explained by the notion that women are subordinate to their husband or father, and are therefore not able to think independently and can therefore only serve as priests if they have neither a father nor a husband.

Stepping down from the Supreme Being and the priesthood and into the homes we witness a strange custom. Once a month “wives kneel down at home before their husbands … to confess all their sins of omission and commission, and ask to be forgiven.” Not only do men seem to be household priests taking confessions, but this only applies to women and children. Thereby women and children are put on the same low level, while the men stand above as dispensers of forgiveness and peace of mind. The purpose of this monthly confession session is to clean the air before going to church, but the men seem to either not having any omissions to confess or just keep their troubles to themselves. After this it comes as no surprise that Utopian men look for modesty in prospective brides.
Should a couple want a divorce because of “incompatibility” a special permission is needed, but can be granted. This is, of course, quite contrary to Catholic practice – both in the 16th and 21st centuries. What is most striking about the divorce procedure in Utopia is that the permission is given by not only the Bencheaters but also their wives. Thereby the views of both the wife and husband are heard by their peers, and the Utopians show gender equality ‘in practice’.

What the Utopians get most practice at is work. It is conducted in a considerably different manner than in 16th century Europe. Utopians only work for six hours a day, whereas their European counterparts did not have such a strict measure of how much work they did every day. The work of More’s contemporary peasants and townspeople was very much divided by gender, women doing certain jobs (often centred on the home) and men others (e.g. ploughing or a certain craft). In Utopia by contrast everyone “irrespective of sex” does farming and learns a certain trade. We also learn that this, in Nonsenso’s/More’s eyes, is quite different from European reality were “practically all the women” are “unemployed.” Historians disagree with this view, arguing that a peasant household “could only hope to survive” with both a man and a women since both made vital and necessary contributions. Looking away from More’s rather odd perception of his society we are left with quite a modern notion of both sexes doing the same jobs. Or at least almost the same jobs, since “the weaker sex are given the lighter jobs … while the men do the heavier ones.” Bear in mind though that ‘the weaker sex’ takes care of the children and cooks on top of doing the same work as the men, making the workload considerably less for men than women.

Utopians seem to have quite a mix of gender based equality and inequality; women cannot become officials of their community, cannot vote for those officials, are subordinate to their husbands and fathers, take care of cooking and child caring, but both sexes get equal educational opportunities, work in the same trades and have a chance of becoming priests. Subordination weighing heavily, it is unfair to say that this mix is equal on the positive and negative sides. One thing has not been addressed: the appearance of the sexes on the streets of Utopia. “Everyone on the island wears the same sort of clothes,” Nonsenso informs us, and these are always the same as the fashion never changes. This is a remarkable contrast to, not only our modern day fashion and appearance obsessed culture, but also, Renaissance Europe. With this ‘lack’ of fashion Utopians need no dressmakers and tailors – the simple outfits are made at home. The same sort of clothes does, however, not mean a unisex outfit which would make distinction between the sexes harder based on appearances alone. For although not fond of showing the hierarchy of officials publicly, Utopians show the sex based hierarchy in their clothes: they vary “according to sex and marital status.” Despite the simplicity of their clothing the status of every individual is shown, although only in the gender based hierarchy and not according to class.