scholarly journals Political Realism as Methods not Metaethics

Author(s):  
Jonathan Leader Maynard

AbstractThis paper makes the case for a revision of contemporary forms of political realism in political theory. I argue that contemporary realists have gone awry in increasingly centring their approach around a metaethical claim: that political theory should be rooted in a political form of normativity that is distinct from moral normativity. Several critics of realism have argued that this claim is unconvincing. But I suggest that it is also a counterintuitive starting point for realism, and one unnecessary to avoid the ‘applied morality’ approach to political theory that realists oppose. Instead, realism should be methodologically orientated around what I term ‘empirically constitutive political realities’ - enduring features of real political contexts that are systematically consequential in their normative implications. Realists can persuasively argue that such empirically constitutive political realities must be attended to in political theory-building, and not merely treated as a context in which independently formulated moral theories are simply applied. This framing of realism accords real politics a genuinely foundational theoretical role, but without requiring any contentious metaethical stance about a non-moral political normativity. I explain some methodological implications that follow for realism – in particular the need to prioritise empirically grounded theorisation of real political contexts over abstract and rather essentialist claims about ‘the political’. I also argue that such a framing of realism helps engender a more accurate, less divisive, and more pluralist conception of methodological debates within political theory.

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-290
Author(s):  
Derek Edyvane

The revival of interest in realism in political theory is comprehensively explored in Politics Recovered, a major new volume of 14 original essays edited by Matt Sleat. Wide-ranging and engaging throughout, the book takes in both supporters and critics of the realist turn and addresses neglected questions of the political application of realism and of the connection between contemporary political realism and the classical IR tradition of realist thought. But I argue that the book also prompts some troubling questions about the ultimate coherence of the realist orientation and about the way in which realists interpret the limits of political theory and of political theorists.


Journalism ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 146488492091338
Author(s):  
Chris W Anderson

What should journalism do, and for what reasons should it do it? The starting point of this article is that two distinct but converging factors have made this question increasingly hard to answer. On one hand, the seemingly perpetual crisis in newsroom capacity has made it hard to sustain a maximalist normative conception of what journalism should accomplish. On the other hand, the globalization of journalism studies research has problematized the assumed link between journalism and democracy. In response, this article outlines a new normative journalistic ideal, grounded in the political theory of the late Judith Shklar – a ‘journalism of fear’. Under this model, the link between journalism and liberalism is asserted over and above the link between journalism and democracy. Drawing on Shklar, the journalism of fear contends that the worst of all evils is cruelty, and the purpose of journalism is to minimize that cruelty. The article elaborates Shklar’s thinking by comparing her perspective on a number of issues to those of a far more familiar political philosopher, John Dewey. It concludes by looking at what a journalism of fear would look like in practice by briefly discussing newsroom responses to the Windrush scandal in the United Kingdom.


Theoria ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (155) ◽  
pp. 26-49
Author(s):  
Attila Gyulai

Political realism claims that politics should be understood as politics and not as a derivative of any other field of human activity. While contemporary realists often argue for the autonomy of politics, this article suggests that only the primacy of politics can be the starting point of political realism. The aim of the article is to expose a conceptual deficiency, namely, the unclear difference between the autonomy and the primacy approach in contemporary realist theory by going back to Carl Schmitt’s contribution to political realism. It will be argued that Schmitt’s concept of the political foreshadowed the ambiguities of contemporary realist theory, exemplified by key authors such as Bernard Williams, Raymond Geuss and Mark Philp.


Author(s):  
Celia Romm-Livermore ◽  
Pierluigi Rippa ◽  
Mahesh S. Raisinghani

This study focuses on the political strategies that are utilized in the context of eLearning. The starting point for this paper is the eLearning Political Strategies (ELPoS) model. The model is based on two dimensions: 1) the direction of the political strategy (upward or downward), and 2) the scope of the political strategy (individual or group based). The interaction between the above dimensions defines four types of eLearning political strategies, which result in different political outcomes. The presentation of the model is followed by four mini case studies that demonstrate the political strategies that the model outlines. The discussion and conclusion sections integrate the findings from the case studies and elaborate on the rules that govern the application of political strategies in different eLearning contexts.


1969 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-132
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Migliore

“Our task today is to discern the interaction of God's promise and man's historical experience in the political arena. Men today are increasingly aware that major issues affecting the present and future quality of human life often take a social and political form. This being the case, God's promise must be apprehended in its political bearing if it is not to be an empty or escapist phrase for men in modern society. A proper understanding of the gospel today brings men into a creative opposition to experienced social and political realities.”


Author(s):  
Eva Erman ◽  
Niklas Möller

AbstractPolitical realists’ rejection of the so-called ‘ethics first’ approach of political moralists (mainstream liberals), has raised concerns about their own source of normativity. Some realists have responded to such concerns by theorizing a distinctively political normativity. According to this view, politics is seen as an autonomous, independent domain with its own evaluative standards. Therefore, it is in this source, rather than in some moral values ‘outside’ of this domain, that normative justification should be sought when theorizing justice, democracy, political legitimacy, and the like. For realists the question about a distinctively political normativity is important, because they take the fact that politics is a distinct affair to have severe consequences for both how to approach the subject matter as such and for which principles and values can be justified. Still, realists have had a hard time clarifying what this distinctively political normativity consists of and why, more precisely, it matters. The aim of this paper is to take some further steps in answering these questions. We argue that realists have the choice of committing themselves to one of two coherent notions of distinctively political normativity: one that is independent of moral values, where political normativity is taken to be a kind of instrumental normativity; another where the distinctness still retains a justificatory dependence on moral values. We argue that the former notion is unattractive since the costs of commitment will be too high (first claim), and that the latter notion is sound but redundant since no moralist would ever reject it (second claim). Furthermore, we end the paper by discussing what we see as the most fruitful way of approaching political and moral normativity in political theory.


2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Saar

AbstractThe current enthusiasm for the original and radical democratic nature of Spinoza’s political philosophy is not easy to justify, given the elusive character of his few systematic remarks on democracy. But the Ethics as well as the political writings contain a substantial political theory centered on the figure of the multitudo (or people) that proves useful for current theorizing. It can help to conceive of democracy not only as form-of-state but as form-of-life; it might serve as the starting point for a conception of non-identitarian, “heterogeneous democracy”; and it can provide a model for understanding political philosophy as political ontology.


2021 ◽  

This volume takes its starting point from one of the most prominent and lively debates in recent political theory, which has been conducted intensively in the German-language context of political theory for more than a decade. At the centre of the discussion is the distinction between politics and ‘the political’, in the light of which the contributions to this volume address questions of radical democracy, the resistance of the political, and the lines of reception of this important debate. With contributions by Oliver Flügel-Martinsen, Werner Friedrichs, Mareike Gebhardt, Anastasiya Kasko, Oliver Marchart, Franziska Martinsen, Martin Nonhoff, Martin Saar, Hagen Schölzel, Karsten Schubert, Manon Westphal and Markus Wolf


Author(s):  
Christian List ◽  
Valentini Laura

Just as different sciences deal with different facts—say, physics versus biology—so we may ask a similar question about normative theories. Is normative political theory concerned with the same normative facts as moral theory or different ones? By developing an analogy with the sciences, this chapter argues that the normative facts of political theory belong to a higher—more coarse-grained—level than those of moral theory. The latter are multiply realizable by the former: competing facts at the moral level can underpin the same facts at the political one. Consequently, some questions that moral theories answer are indeterminate at the political level. This proposal offers a novel interpretation of John Rawls’s idea that, in public reasoning, we should abstract away from comprehensive moral doctrines. The chapter contrasts its distinction between facts at different levels with the distinction between admissible and inadmissible evidence, and discusses some implications for the practice of political theory.


Author(s):  
Ilan Zvi Baron

This book has been driven by one large question: how are we to understand the Jewish Diaspora’s relationship with Israel when it is no longer appropriate, if it ever was, to presume that to be a good Jew means being a Zionist? Answering this question has meant working out what is it about Jewish identity that ties it to Israel, and what theoretical framework can be used to explore this relationship. The language of political obligation raised the hope that political theory could provide a starting point for working out the complexities of a relationship that involved obligations and had clear political aspects to it, but was characterized by a transnational geography spreading across a Diaspora and involving a specific state. The political obligation literature provided some headway, but it became clear very quickly that because of its state-centric focus, this language of political theory was not appropriate....


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document