In Heroes and Hero Worship Thomas Carlyle attempts to draw a picture of the development of the human intellect by using historical figures as coordinates. Some scholars take a perspective of history in terms of “the environment” or “the times” and “causes,” while others, like Carlyle, have the view that human advancement was not continuous, discrete and rather being made up of a series of jumps; these jumps were caused for the most part by specific individuals whom Carlyle calls “Heroes.” This is like the wave/particle duality of the “nature of light.” In some phenomena light behaves like a wave, while in others it behaves like a particle. One can write a history based on the ideas, cultures, and mediums in which people lived; or the same history can be written by focusing on certain individuals and following them and their actions.

The writings of Carlyle and those of many other authors of that time, of course, are very perceptive. Carlyle is not really trying to be objective on the matter. He has an idea, and he wants to tell us about this idea; while telling you what this idea is about he uses whatever his hands and mind can take hold of. Being so passionate about what is being said is probably a good thing. But if one is over-passionate, there cannot help but be wild swings in the appreciation of the historical person in question. If we use an analogy of a drawing, the historical person is no longer a point on the painting, but rather a hair of the brush. But that should not prevent us from benefiting from writing of Thomas Carlyle.

Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, has a special place in the book under the chapter title “Hero as a Prophet.” In the book, Carlyle declares his admiration of God’s Messenger, “… The word of such a man (Muhammad) is a Voice direct from Nature’s own Heart. Men do and must listen to that as to nothing else; all else is wind in comparison.” Carlyle’s answers to pointed questions on Islam and the Prophet show interesting similarities to Said Nursi’s line of answers to similar questions. “…For a wretched Simulacrum, a hungry Imposter without eyes or heart, practicing for a mess of pottage such blasphemous swindlery, forgery of celestial documents, continual high-treason against his Maker and Self, we will not and cannot take him” reads very much like Said Nursi’s “The Addendum to the Fifteenth Word,” where he makes a long imaginary discussion with Satan and shows how people are inclined to unbelief, thinking that they are evaluating divine revelation from a neutral perspective “…O Satan! Objective reasoning means impartial judgment or not taking sides, but the objective reasoning which you and your disciples suggest is, in fact, taking the part of those in opposition to the Qur’an; not impartiality but an attitude of temporary unbelief. This is really so because to suppose the Qur’an the work of a human being and to build an argument on this supposition is to side with unbelief or falsehood…”

Considering the fact that at that time the West and the East were at odds with one another, and that the means of communications were quite inferior to our times, Carlyle having such an open mind to the “other” puts him in a category of his own with thinkers like Swedenborg, Emerson and Thoreau. I think when we are trying to build bridges between the peoples of the West and the East we should not overlook these early historical representatives of dialogue; this is something that Nursi has foreseen in his writings.

Life in Utopia

In More’s classless society, everyone does the same work, is equal, has the same rights, and must work at least 6 hours every day at whatever they do best. As Utopia is an agricultural society, all people work the land. This creates the same conditions for everyone and ensures ample supplies to suppress the animal fear of want.

All clothing is plain, simple, and designed for utility and practicality. Finer material would give no better protection from the cold or make people appear better dressed. To prevent ostentation, Utopians exchange homes every 10 years and eat in mess halls. Hereditary distinctions are unknown, for children move from household to household, depending on which skill they want to learn. Since there is little distinction in occupation, dress, lodging, riches, or use of free time, pride is almost non-existent.

Utopia’s collective agriculture displays the division of labor. Everyone learns the rudiments of agriculture to better serve the common good. “No one will have to do this hard work against his will for more than two years, but many of them ask to stay longer because they take a natural delight in farm life.”(1) This ensures Utopia’s food supply and gives everyone access to civilized life. If an excessive surplus is produced, a holiday is declared so that no one works without purpose.

Utopia’s separate groups (e.g., magistrates and the prince, priests and intellectuals) are not a social or economic class. The syphogrants and the prince are elected autocrats. Their power derives from-and can be removed by-the people. Specialists are not isolated, but rather leaders in an institution in which all can participate. Learning is valued and respected as a means of fully developing one’s specific capacities, not as an indication of social standing.

Why Is Utopia Desirable?

One of More’s reasons for suggesting a Utopia was to end exploitation. More was most likely revolted by the luxury of sixteenth-century Europe’s ruling class, which he saw as a result of the peasantry’s impoverishment. If poverty were to be excluded from Utopia, luxury must suffer the same fate. More saw no benefit to the common good if peasant labor benefited only a very small minority.

As a classless society cannot have pride, Utopians consider it a social vice and pass this view on to their children at an early age. As Hythloday says: “Men and animals alike are greedy and rapacious from fear of want. Only human pride glories in surpassing others in conspicuous consumption. For this kind of vice there is no room whatsoever in the Utopian way of life.”(2) Lack of pride rids Utopia of class and potential social discord, for a commonwealth without pride is like a single united family.

An even division of labor and a lack of pride clears the way for life’s pleasures. There can be no better good than striving for the maximum happiness of all, at the least cost or disadvantage to oneself and society. More believes that money, a symbolic capital that people desire, is the problem, and so Utopia has no money or capital. Thus freed from worrying about food, bills, and other necessities, they enjoy such physical pleasures as fine dining, eating, drinking, and merrymaking (though without alcohol). There is music, a pleasure to the mind and body. For similar reasons, each house has a large garden into which much love and leisure time goes. Their desire to have the best garden, the most pleasing sanctuary, is perhaps the only competition among families.

Pride is replaced by spiritual fulfillment. They pursue philosophy and religion in their quest for virtue and contemplation of the truth, respectively. Their society’s primary virtue is natural reason: the reasons for humanity’s creation. For them, living according to nature is to be humanitarian. More mentions this: “As nature bids us mutually to make our lives merry and delightful, so she also bids again and again not to destroy or diminish other people’s pleasure in seeking our own.”(3)

Religion gives great satisfaction to most Utopians. This is unique to More, for neither Plato nor Marx accept religion. Utopia’s king decreed that all citizens should believe in at least two things: the soul’s immortality and the existence of rewards and punishments in the next life. In religion, Utopians find peace and contemplation of the truth. As education is the most efficient way to overcome corruption and crime, it is entrusted to priests. As a result, few laws are needed and existing ones require only the most obvious and easiest interpretation.

Utopia’s government consists of magistrates and a prince who handle the country’s affairs. This does not contradict communism, as government’s sole purpose is to maintain the status quo and prevent idleness. The government is designed in the most responsible way. All matters must be considered for a day and cannot be passed without 3 days of contemplation. It is a capital offense to consult together on public affairs outside the senate or the people’s assembly. Raphael says: “They take care to deliberate wisely rather than speedily … considering the public good.”(4)

Conclusion

More’s Utopia has a major failing: it is static and unchanging, instead of evolving, and allows no place for growth and development. Thus only a miracle or a prince gifted with a measure of divine power could bring it into existence. More understood that his Utopia was not a possible solution, but had no idea of the historical process that might lead to a future socialism.

Utopia is only put forward so that readers will understand that Utopian values are really the fundamental values of human nature, and that the world is imperfect. As Hythloday says at the end: “I must confess that there are many things in the Utopian Commonwealth that I wish rather than expect to see among our citizens.”(5)

More does not call for a revolution, nor is he a leader of the proletariat who wants to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Instead, More is like his Utopians, simply contemplating what would be nice, a daydream maybe. While More’s Utopia anticipates the characteristics of a modern classless society, he proposes no means by which to obtain this blissful paradise.

Footnotes

1. Thomas More, Utopia, ed./trans. H.V.S. Ogden (Illinois: ARM, 1949), 29.
2. Ibid., 38.
3. Ibid., 48.
4. Ibid., 33.
5. Ibid., 83.

They did this within their own families as well, developing parent-child relationships, child rearing, values and beliefs, and other systems. If a society cannot develop one or more socially acceptable systems by which to raise its young people, its continued existence is called into question.

Like everything else, systems are dynamic and evolving. A major ingredient for a successful system-wide change is sufficient time to adapt. We hear of animal species dying out and indigenous peoples losing their culture because they could nol adapt fast enough. However, some people are impatient with the pace of change. They want to speed it up, by force if necessary. One man enforced rapid national change through decree and enforced it with raw power: Pol Pot, leader of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge. The results, nol surprisingly, were beyond belief.

Other Utopians, among them Plato and Sir Thomas More, confined their utopias to books. Ironically, a close reading of their texts or those of the self-proclaimed utopian societies that have emerged probably would encourage people to flee from them. Why? Because they are grounded in suppressing individuality in the name of pursuing “Ihe greater good”-usually at any cost. But what else is a man or a woman if not an individual? To insist upon being an individual under the Khmer Rouge literally meant instant death. We can only speculate how the inhabitants of Plato’s or Sir Thomas More’s ideal societies would deal with non-conformists.

In the scientific realm, scientists are devising artificial systems to improve our quality of life. One example is the electronic nose, which can be used to detect spoiled food and air quality, assist doctors and nurses in medical diagnoses, and help the military clear land mines. Another example is that of superconductivity. Using various combinations of elements, wires, and temperatures, scientists erect elaborate structures that result in supercomputers, mag-lev trains, SQUIDS (used to study the brain), particle accelerators, and other devices

One artificial system that has spread like wildfire in many countries is e-mail. Once the preserve of the American government and military, it is now an established part of many people’s and businesses’ daily routine. Although far from perfect, the current system seems to function rather well.

And then there are the more abstract systems that shape a culture: religion, one’s conception of how and why the universe functions, why things were created, what being civilized means, and how one can live a moral life. Some civilizations define themselves and are defined by-their religion. During the Middle Ages, Christian Europe applied this standard to the Muslim world. The resulting stereotypes and misunderstandings, despite calls for mutual understanding and acceptance, are alive today and color all relations between these two civilizations.

We hope that you enjoy this issue and, as always, look forward to your comments.