Mrs. Levitas claims: In William Morris’s 1890 utopia News from Nowhere, there is a very short chapter, ‘Concerning Politics’. The visitor, William Guest, asks his informant ‘How do you manage with politics?’. He receives the reply ‘… we are very well off as to politics, - because we have none.’ This lecture is about the relationship between sociology and utopia, and some might expect it to be equally brief, and for the same reason, that there is none. H. G. Wells, however, whose A Modern Utopia was published a hundred years ago this year, thought otherwise. He argued that: … the creation of utopias – and their exhaustive criticism – is the proper and distinctive method of sociology (Wells 1914: 204) This is counter-intuitive. Sociology, surely, is a discipline of social science, and even those who doubt its scientific credentials, or question the meaning of scientificity itself would argue that it offers thick description and explanation of reality, of what IS. Utopia, on the other hand, is essentially about what is not, and what ought to be. The only relationship between the two that would seem to make sense, therefore, is a sociology of utopia, in which sociology is the master narrative explaining the various forms and expressions of utopianism in relation to their social context. Wells’s statement implies something else – that we must consider sociology as utopia, and utopia as sociology. she also states that it is not the idea that is debated it is the physical attainment society itself bumps heads on. Levitas, Ruth. "The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society, or, Why Sociologists and Others Should Take Utopia More Seriously". (n.d.) Bristol.ac.uk. July 27, 2010. University of Bristol (.doc): http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sociology/staff/inaugural.doc Google Webcache (.html): http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...w.bristol.ac.uk/sociology/staff/inaugural.doc Drop Archive (.pdf): http://drop.io/adrilankha2/asset/levitas-inaugurual-pdf Mod Edit: Add source citation; see Action Note at #2590465/54.