Realism (political theory)

In the political theory, Galston attributes the following authors as supporters of a “realistic” perspective ^[2] :

• Critics of the moralist trend in American political theory. First of all, it is B. Williams , who introduced into the scientific discourse the distinction between realism and moralism in modern political theory. Other authors in a similar position: S. Hampshire , J. Dunne , G. Newey , R. Bellamy , J. Hawthorne , R. Gouss , J. Gray .
• “Left Nietzscheans ”: W. Conollie , B. Honig . Honig in Political Theory and Repression of Politics (1993) separates virtue theorists (virtue theorists) - those who "deny conflict , identify policy with governance, and see judicial regulation as a key task of policy and political theory" (for example, Kant , Sandel, or Rawls ), - and the theoreticians virtù (virtù theorists) - those who are confident in the conflicting nature of politics and its definition as “disruptive practice” (these include Nietzsche and Arendt ) - and criticizes the position of theorists of virtue ^[3] .
• " Machiavellianists ", in which Galston denotes S. Muff and M. Philip . So Philip emphasized the importance of the Machiavellian thesis that politics has its own normativeness and that politicians cannot be judged by the laws of individual ethics - accordingly, key political concepts need to be considered outside the scope of standard moral argument ^[4] .
• Some representatives of the Cambridge School of Intellectual History .
• J. Shklyar and her followers, "professing dystopian skepticism ."
• J. Waldron and his supporters, guided in their philosophy by political institutions, in particular the institutions of democracy .
• A number of representatives of the empirical political science , pedaling the relevance of the argumentation of the “ Notes of the Federalist ” for the real modern political reality, headed by S. Elkin .

The general position of political realism - the autonomy of the political sphere of society - is articulated differently in the works united under a realistic “umbrella”. "Strong", according to the terminology of Rossi and Slit, the version of the argument about the autonomy of politics postulates the existence of values that are not moral. Accordingly, the normative policy derives from special political values . The “weak” vision of the autonomy of the political sphere does not recognize the rigid distinction between politics and ethics, leaving behind the status of one of the sources of political norm. At the same time, supporters of this approach emphasize specific limitations that the policy imposes on the normative constructions of ethics and which are not reducible to any other sphere ^[5] .

The key problem point that opens up the possibility for realistic argumentation is the doubt that morality can be considered a sufficient regulator of social behavior. For some reason, people resort to politics, political institutions, despite the fact that their personal relationships are successfully regulated by morality. Going back to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes , this observation implies that politics is a source of norms that ensures political order and public coordination, but independent of ethics ^[6] .

There are several ways in which writings belonging to a realistic direction justify the autonomy of the political sphere.

Criticism of the Rolza agreement. In the liberal political theory of John Rawls, social coordination is achieved through the consent of the participants (consent) regarding the general concept of justice, and coordination requires an incomplete response from the political community to the question of “good” or “proper” life. Realists, in general, reject this argument, because from it it is not clear how exactly (by what measures and tools) to achieve this agreement in real communities. They focus on the fact that in order to achieve social coordination, it is necessary that its potential participants share the understanding that the benefits of coordination exceed the benefits of its absence, and that political activity avoids anarchy without erecting tyranny ^[7] .

Policy as a response to specific circumstances. This line of reasoning is based on the fact that politics as a sphere of public activity is the answer to certain challenges that cannot be solved by using tools from other spheres. Rawls's theory of justice , according to the authors of this approach, reduces political activity to the choice of institutional design, which already implies a certain public consensus on the principles of justice. Jeremy Waldron and Stephen Elkins reject such a position as uninteresting from the point of view of studying political processes, offering to investigate not “circumstances of justice” ( eng. Circumstances of justice , Rolzovsky term for describing the initial state), but “circumstances of politics” ^[8] .

Politics as a sphere of political decisions. Proponents of this type of justification emphasize the special nature of political decisions. Although decisions made in “normal” political situations may seem like moral ones, that is, those made by weighing alternatives with respect to certain values, emergency conditions , as a rule, require politicians to make decisions that cannot be justified within the framework of ethics ^{[ 9]} .

Rossi and Slit identified four main themes that are being developed within the framework of a realistic approach: the correlation of ethics and politics, the ideological nature of political moralism, the correlation of legitimacy and justice , as well as the origin and properties of political decisions ^[6] .

Sightseeing

• Galston W. Realism in Political Theory // European Journal of Political Theory. - 2010. - Vol. 9, No. 4 . - p. 385–411.
• Runciman D. What is Realistic Political Philosophy? // Metaphilosophy. - 2012. - Vol. 43, No. 1-2 . - P. 58–70.
• Rossi E., Sleat M. Realism in the Normative Political Theory // Philosophy Compass. - 2014. - No. 9 . - p. 689–701. - DOI : 10.1111 / phc3.12148 .

Works of Realists

• Philip M. What is to be done? Political Theory and Political Realism // European Journal of Political Theory. - 2010. - Vol. 9, No. 4 . - P. 466–484.
• Honig B. Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics . - Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. - 304 p. - (Contestations: Cornell Studies in Political Theory). - ISBN 978-0-8014-8072-0 .
• Geuss R. Philosophy and Real Politics. - Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008.