Beyond Moralism: Realism and the Social Conditions of Political Judgement

Öz

This article re-examines the contemporary debate between moralistic and realist approaches in political theory through a sociological lens. Rather than treating the controversy as a purely methodological disagreement about whether practical judgement should begin from moral principles or from political reality, it argues that the central issue concerns the social organisation of practical reason. Political judgement is formed under specific social conditions. It is construed within institutional roles and incentives, informational infrastructures, professional vocabularies, and relations of authority that privilege some descriptions of reality while marginalising others. On this basis, the article develops a classificatory scheme that orders contemporary realisms by how they understand “the real” to bear on the practical question “What is to be done?” It distinguishes paralyzing realism, in which the real chiefly disables agency and leaves theory largely non-directive; neutral realism, which treats the real primarily as feasibility constraint and tends to underestimate the socially mediated character of political facts; and activist realism, which treats the real as a contested field of interpretation and a resource for improving judgement from within practice. The article then illustrates what this activist orientation looks like in practice through John Dunn’s account of democracy and the conditions of realistic political judgement. The article concludes that a non-metaphysical, non-foundational account of the theory–practice relation is most compatible with this activist orientation and provides the most plausible basis for reconnecting political theory and political practice without relying on an Archimedean standpoint.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Political Realism
• Moralism
• Political Judgement.

Moralizmin Ötesinde: Realizm ve Siyasal Yargının Toplumsal Koşulları

Öz

Bu makale, siyaset teorisindeki moralist ve realist yaklaşımlar arasındaki güncel tartışmayı sosyolojik bir mercekten yeniden ele almakta. Tartışmayı yalnızca “siyasal yargı ahlaki ilkelerden mi yoksa ‘siyasal gerçeklik’ten mi başlamalı?” şeklindeki yöntemsel bir ihtilafa indirgemek yerine, asıl meselenin pratik aklın toplumsal örgütlenmesi olduğunu savunuyor. Siyasal yargı, belirli toplumsal koşullar altında, kurumsal roller ve teşvikler, enformasyon altyapıları, mesleki diller ve otorite ilişkileri içinde oluşur. Bu koşullar bazı gerçeklik tasvirlerini ayrıcalıklı kılarken diğerlerini marjinalleştirir. Bu çerçevede makale, “gerçek”(liğ)in” “Ne yapılmalı?” sorusuna nasıl etki ettiğini temel alarak çağdaş realizmler için bir sınıflandırma önermektedir. Buna göre felç edici realizm gerçekliği ağırlıklı olarak eylemliliği devre dışı bırakan bir sınır olarak kavrar. Nötr realizm gerçekliği çoğunlukla yapılabilirlik kısıtı olarak ele alır ve siyasal olguların toplumsal olarak aracılanmış karakterini yeterince hesaba katmaz. Aktivist realizm ise gerçekliği yorumların çatıştığı bir alan ve yargıyı pratik içinde geliştirmek için bir imkân olarak görür. Makale bu aktivist yönelimin pratikte nasıl işlediğini John Dunn’ın demokrasi tartışması ve realist siyasal yargının koşullarına ilişkin analizi üzerinden örneklendirmektedir. Makale, sonuç olarak metafizik olmayan ve temelci olmayan bir teori–pratik ilişkisi anlayışının aktivist realizmle daha uyumlu olduğunu ve Arşimetçi bir dayanak noktasına yaslanmadan teori ile pratiği yeniden ilişkilendirmek için daha ikna edici bir zemin sunduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siyasal Realizm
• Moralizm
• Siyasal Yargı.

Kaynakça

1. Baderin, A. (2014). Two forms of realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 13(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885113483284
2. Bavister-Gould, A. (2013). Bernard Williams: Political realism and the limits of legitimacy. European Journal of Philosophy, 21(4), 593-610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00464.x
3. Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press.
4. Bevir, M. (1999) The Logic of the History of Ideas. Cambridge University Press.
5. Bourke, R., & Geuss, R. (Eds.). (2009). Political judgement: Essays for John Dunn. Cambridge University Press.
6. Ceva, E., & Rossi, E. (2012). Justice, legitimacy and diversity: Political authority between realism and moralism. Routledge.
7. Collingwood, R. G. (1924). Speculum Mentis: Or, The Map of Knowledge. Clarendon Press.
8. Dienstag, J. F. (2009). Pessimistic realism and realistic pessimism. In D. Bell (Ed.), Political thought and international relations: Variations on a realist theme (pp. 159–176). Oxford University Press.

9. Dunn, J. (1990). Interpreting political responsibility: Essays 1981–1989. Princeton University Press.
10. Dunn, J. (1996). How democracies succeed. Economy and Society, 25(4), 511-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149600000026
11. Dunn, J. (2000). The cunning of unreason: Making sense of politics. HarperCollins.
12. Dunn, J. (2014). Breaking democracy’s spell. Yale University Press.
13. Erman, E., & Möller, N. (2013). Three failed charges against ideal theory. Social Theory and Practice, 39(1), 19-44. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20133912
14. Farrelly, C. (2007). Justice in ideal theory: A refutation. Political Studies, 55(4), 844-864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00656.x
15. Finlayson, L. (2009). Constructiveness in political criticism. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 16, 48-63.
16. Finlayson, L. (2015a). With radicals like these who needs conservatives? Doom, gloom and realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 16(3), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885114568815
17. Finlayson, L. (2015b). The political is political: Conformity and the illusion of dissent in contemporary political philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield.
18. Floyd, J., & Stears, M. (Eds.). (2011). Political philosophy versus history? Contextualism and real politics in contemporary political thought. Cambridge University Press.
19. Freeden, M. (2012). Interpretative realism and prescriptive realism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 17(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2012.651883
20. Galston, W. A. (2010). Realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 385-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374001
21. Geuss, R. (2005). Outside ethics. Princeton University Press.
22. Geuss, R. (2008). Philosophy and real politics. Princeton University Press.
23. Geuss, R. (2015). Reality and Its Dreams. Harvard University Press.
24. Gray, J. (1995). Enlightenment’s wake: Politics and culture at the close of modern age. Routledge.
25. Hall, E. (2013). Political realism and fact-sensitivity. Res Publica, 19(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-012-9199-x
26. Hall, E., & Sleat, M. (2017). Ethics, morality and the case for realist political theory. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(3), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2017.1293343
27. Hamlin, A., & Stemplowska, Z. (2012). Theory, ideal theory and the theory of ideals. Political Studies Review, 10(1), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00244.x
28. Honig, B. (1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Cornell University Press.
29. Horton, J. (2010). Realism, liberal moralism and a political theory of modus vivendi. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 431-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374004
30. Hurka, T. (2009, January 19). Book review: Raymond Geuss—Philosophy and real politics [Review of the book Philosophy and real politics, by R. Geuss]. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/philosophy-and-real-politics/
31. Jubb, R. (2012). The tragedy of non-ideal theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 11(3), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885111430611
32. Newey, G. (2010). Two dogmas of liberalism. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374007
33. Philp, M. (2010). What is to be done? Political theory and political realism. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 466-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374010
34. Philp, M. (2012). Realism without illusions. Political Theory, 40(5), 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591712451723 Podoksik, E. (2003). In Defence of Modernity: Role-Complexity and Individual Liberty. Imprint Academic.
35. Robeyns, I. (2008). Ideal theory in theory and practice. Social Theory and Practice, 34(3), 341-362. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200834321
36. Rossi, E. (2012). Justice, legitimacy and (normative) authority for political realists. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15(2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2012.651016
37. Rossi, E. (2019). Being realistic and demanding the impossible. Constellations, 26(4), 638-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12446
38. Rossi, E., & Sleat, M. (2014). Realism in normative political theory. Philosophy Compass, 9(10), 689-701. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12148
39. Runciman, D. (2012). What is realistic political philosophy? Metaphilosophy, 43(1-2), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01730.x
40. Sangiovanni, A. (2008). Justice and the priority of politics to morality. Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(2), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00291.x
41. Sigwart, H.-J. (2013). The logic of legitimacy: Ethics in political realism. The Review of Politics, 75(3), 407-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670513000338
42. Sleat, M. (2010). Bernard Williams and the possibility of a realist political theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 9(4), 485-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110382689
43. Sleat, M. (2011). Liberal realism: A liberal response to the realist challenge. The Review of Politics, 73(3), 469-496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670511003457
44. Sleat, M. (2012). Legitimacy in a non-ideal key. Political Theory, 40(5), 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591712453020
45. Sleat, M. (2013). Liberal realism: A realist theory of liberal politics. Manchester University Press.
46. Sleat, M. (2014). Legitimacy in realist thought: Between moralism and Realpolitik. Political Theory, 42(3), 314-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591714522250
47. Sleat, M. (2016). Realism, liberalism and non-ideal theory: Or, are there two ways to do realistic political theory? Political Studies, 64(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12152
48. Stears, M. (2007). Liberalism and the politics of compulsion. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 533-553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123407000270
49. Stemplowska, Z. (2008). What’s ideal about ideal theory? Social Theory and Practice, 34(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200834320
50. Swift, A. (2008). The value of philosophy in non-ideal circumstances. Social Theory and Practice, 34(3), 363-387. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200834322
51. Swift, A., & White, S. (2008). Political theory, social science and real politics. In D. Leopold & M. Stears (Eds.), Political theory: Methods and approaches (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press.
52. Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00500.x
53. Williams, B. (2005). In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument (G. Hawthorn, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
54. Zuolo, F. (2013). Realism and idealism. In A. Besussi (Ed.), A companion to political philosophy: Methods, tools, topics (pp. 65-75). Ashgate.