Is Hawken School a Utopian Society?

 Many parents and students seek out private schools like Hawken not only for their superb education but also to become members of a refined and elite community.  Indeed, they are willing to spend thousands of dollars of their hard-earned income to do so.  Some people may even be tempted to think of Hawken as a kind of Utopian school, better than ordinary schools that most other students must attend.

But are such aspirations to Utopia merited?  Are there elements of the Hawken experience that fit the model of Utopia -- and are there elements that fall short?  According to the standards of More's Utopia, is it a Utopia? 

No More Lululemon, Tesla, Or Uggs?

Perhaps the most striking and controversail element of More's Utopian society in Utopia is the abolition of private property (and the related reforms of uniform homes and clothing, communal living and the absence of currency).  As Raphael professes in Book 1, "I must freely own that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily (44).  He adds just a page later, "I am persuaded that till property is taken away, there can be no equitable or just distribution of things, not can the world be happily governed. . . (45).

What is the problem with private property?  Why is it a problem (what is one possible objection or argument against it)?  Consider such issues as equality, envy or resentiment, and providing for basic necessities (perhaps human rights).  Is it convincing?  Are there problems with abolishing private propert and money (as well as luxury items such as fancy houses and trendy clothing)?  Is Raphael correct about private property?

Blindspots and Unintended Consequences

More's Utopia is supposed to be a book (as he writes in the subtitle) "conerning the best state of a commonwealth."  Indeed there are many aspects of Utopian society that are progressive even by our standards.  Yet at the same time there are elements of his ideal society that seem anything but ideal.  He exhibits biases based on his own cultural, social and historical background.  Also, there are some promising and even praiseworthy values that have unintended negative consequences.

Focus on one such blindspot or unintended consequences.  Where do you see it in the text and how can (if at all) a defender of the values of Utopia address those concerns?  Can Utopia be fixed to avoid the blindspot or negative consequence? Or perhaps the so-called blindspot or negative consequence really is such a problem if you examine it closely.

"Take Good Heed That There Be in My Book Nothing False"

More's classic text Utopia is an account of an imaginary society that in many respects was an improvement over his own (and perhaps our) society.  Yet his account of Utopia is not a direct description: it is framed by story about meeting a traveler in Brussels named Raphael Hythloday who recounts his acquantance with the Utopians.  Further, that framed story is preceeded by a letter to Peter Giles, a friend of More who was allegedly at that meeting.  In the letter he writes, "For as I shall take good heed that there be in my book nothing false" (5)

What is going on with this framing story and this letter?  Why not just give an account directly instead of inventing a traveler?  Why appeals to the truth if this work is clearly an imaginative piece of fiction (and there are a lot of false things in the text)?