Rawls`s "Realistic Utopia", and a Distinction between "Expectational" and "Aspirational" Messianism

John Rawls invoked the concept of a “realistic utopia” ‑‑ “taking men as they are,” but imagining institutions “as they might be.” Lenn Goodman criticized this as misguided “messianic thinking,” “presuming the transformation his utopia requires.” We identify Rawls’ concept, rather, as a heuristic device, as an aspect of “ideal theory,” and as a prerequisite to better understanding, by contrast, our present condition as a matter of “non-ideal theory.” We suggest that this same heuristic ‑‑ which we call, in this context, the distinction between ‘aspirational’ and ‘expectational’ messianism ‑‑ illuminates analysis of Jewish messianic thought.

For example: Neusner argued that the Mishnah is not messianic, in that it refers only once, vaguely, to the birth-pangs of the messianic era. Kraemer argues that “the Mishnah represents the early rabbinic vision of a restored, Torah-perfected ‘messianic’ world” ‑‑ “using the term ‘messianic’ loosely.” We suggest that Neusner is concerned with ‘expectational’ messianism, and Kraemer with ‘aspirational.’

This distinction allows us also to articulate interesting historical questions, such as, when did messianic speculation, from an ‘aspirational’ viewpoint, first focus on a Davidic monarch; and interesting philosophic questions, like, why has that political picture not evolved? (Cf. Hartman, advocating “accepting messianism as a normative challenge.”)

The distinction may also ‘unlock’ Scholem’s proposed linkage of “Messianic utopianism” to an “antinomian,” “anarchic breeze.”

[FULL PAPER AVAILABLE ON REQUEST]