The root and foundation of utopia is the perpetual need felt by human beings to devise plans for perfect governmental and social order, which will assure mankind of complete and everlasting happiness in this life. The aspiration that lives in the heart of man, despite everything, for happiness, liberty, integrity, peace, order – the aspiration for perfection, in a sense – is evident in all utopias. But is this aspiration at all founded, and is there any hope of its being fulfilled by the means the utopists offer us? How do the world-view and lifestyle of the utopists compare to the world-view and lifestyle of those who abandon hope, or who lead a religious life, or who humbly accept hardship? And why is it that one individual may dismiss entirely any idea of utopia, while his neighbor cannot live without dreaming about the goodness of the future and preaching of the days to come, which will be better than the present? And do utopists all strive towards one goal, or are they, too, divided into various factions? Is there one endorsed ideal of governmental and public order, or are there many diverse and contradictory ones? I doubt that our present discussion can adequately answer these questions, for it is indeed only a utopist who believes that he has comprehended fully the nature of this world and resolved all difficult questions. The world and the various views of it cannot be learned like a geometric theorem or taught like the rules of grammar. We think thus and not otherwise because our mentality is thus and not otherwise. We can discuss issues only with those of a similar mentality to ours. Together we approach, explore and question, together we inquire, examine and seek a solution.
A utopia is an ideal image of other worlds, the potentiality of which is believed but cannot be proven scientifically. Nevertheless utopias do appear from time to time, and always with great pretence of having an entirely scientific foundation. The belief in the feasibility of that ideal world is so strong it can embrace many people and define the course of their political action; hence the real value of utopias, which play a significant role in politics and may shape the character of a whole era. There have been utopian dreams to which almost all passionate, imaginative members of a generation subscribed. As the inclination of the general public shifted, so the dreams changed. In individuals, the notion of what a utopia is may alter with age. In the lives of nations there are periods of ecstasy and periods of sobriety. In every reformative movement there is a modicum of utopianism; without it, the movement cannot flourish. People who are passionate about a political cause need a banner with a motto that expresses something utopian, which lies outside the boundaries of present reality. The inertia of the propertied classes, the love of stagnancy and the unwillingness to upset the existing balance – all of these cannot be vanquished by the near and the practicable, but only by a great vision for distant days. Such is human nature.
Utopia addresses the ultimate question: what is the future of mankind? But it is not concerned with the future physical development of man, and its accompanying spiritual development, from the viewpoint of natural-historical science. This grand objective is far beyond it. Likewise it does not accord importance to the improvement of man’s soul, as the religious approach does, since this is a matter for metaphysics rather than for this world. Utopias absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that the improvement of man’s mind and soul, in the moral and religious sense, may form a basis for the improvement of the governmental and economic order. Utopists also reject their opponents’ claims that heaven on earth is inconceivable unless humans first become ministering angels. Not at all! Man will remain what he is, no particular abilities or new skills will develop, and it is only his circumstances that must alter and the environment that must be changed. Then, as far as this is necessary, man too will change. For man is not the center of creation, a creature that depends only upon himself and his inner tendencies, but primarily a social animal, and as such dependent on the social relationships within which he operates. This perspective is essential to any utopist, since he is not inclined to wait for future mysteries to unfold, has no patience, and means to begin changing the existing order at once. At most he assumes that a certain period will be needed for preparation, but insists that change is in fact imminent. Utopians always believe it to be so.
There do exist ideal images of the future which were conceived by philosophers and which do not bear the mark of political radicalism. These are not utopias in the present sense of this word, but some of these ideal moral visions are construed – if not by their creators then by their pupils – as designs for utopias. This is mainly due to their need to combat social realism, the enemy of utopia.
Social realism takes various forms. Firstly there is an “innocent” realism that stems from the widespread view that the existing social conditions, be they good or bad, are meted out by the Almighty and have been so since Creation. They are as unchanging as the order of nature, the laws of heaven and earth, day and night, summer and winter, all of which are also alternately good and bad for man. Man’s sense of complete helplessness before blind fate does not allow him to imagine that he can change or improve anything by his own actions.
There is also a category of persons that have no cause to want any change. They enjoy peace and prosperity, and lack nothing. These satiated individuals tend, naturally, to believe that the world is operating in the best possible way, both generally and particularly. Usually they have no notion that there are people whose circumstances are unlike their own, and if they are aware of this, they find that it is as it should be, since those sufferers do not know how to “get along” in life. One must know how to live, and the knowledge is given only to a chosen few. Those who lack the suitable skills and knowledge should resent no one but themselves. Just as it is impossible to demand that everybody have a talent for art, so it is impossible to create conditions conducive to everybody’s happiness. What use, then, are utopias?
But there are also those who are needy and who reject any utopia, resigning themselves to fate and abandoning all hope for better things in this life. “Do not lift your gaze to those more successful than you,” such persons will say. “Rather bend your head to see those who are in worse circumstances.” This category of social realists also includes those meek souls who do not believe in change. This is due neither to satisfaction nor to frivolity, nor to lack of sympathy for the condition of their fellow man, but rather to profound reflection and experience. Many a member of this humble, resigned group once listened fervently to all the promises of utopianism, and perhaps even engaged in dreaming and devising various utopian plans… But at last he realized that everything his imagination paints as splendid and easy is impossible in reality, since man’s life is not determined by his own will – as he thought at first – but depends on circumstances and powers he does not control. A social realist of this type will relinquish all great plans, be disdainful of dreams, and will always be prepared to perform various small acts for the good of such or other person, since there can be no redemption for all.
- - -
The assumption that the religious perspective conflicts with the utopian one has its contestants. They recall the tales of a lost Garden of Eden in ancient religious texts, they cite the prophets’ “It shall come to pass at the end of days.” But those who put forward such arguments have not fully understood the meaning of the word “utopia” as it is used today. For these fantasies of a past “golden age”, as opposed to today’s utopias that are concerned with the future, are based on the belief that human nature was different then, innocent and pure. Man and his wife in the Garden of Eden were naked and not ashamed, and were content. Only once they had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and their nature had changed did they lose the Garden of Eden. The inner Eden and the outer are interlinked. “The golden age… when Man yet new / No rule but uncorrupted reason knew / And, with a native bent, did good pursue / Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear.” That age, as described by Ovid in his Metamorphases, became an impossibility at the moment when man became changed. Even the prophet, gazing forwards rather than back, relied in his vision on a change in the nature of the wolf, who would consequently dwell with the lamb: a change in the nature of the ruler, who would no longer be a wolf but a man touched by the spirit of God, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, and who would therefore look to justice and truth – entirely unlike the rulers in the prophet’s days and in ours.

Excerpt taken from Hebrew edition of: Thomas More Utopia, translated by Dr Ephraim Shmueli, Sifriyat Poalim. Excerpt translated by Shlomit Cnaan.