Fact-Centric Political Theory, Three Ways: Normative Behaviourism, Grounded Normative Theory, and Radical Realism
Fact-Centric Political Theory, Three Ways: Normative Behaviourism, Grounded Normative Theory, and Radical Realism
复制标题
以事实为中心的政治理论，三种方式：规范行为主义、扎根规范理论和激进现实主义
作者：
Enzo Rossi
在过去的二十年里，英语国家的政治理论见证了对社会科学实证发现的新兴趣-部分是对以抽象的、直觉驱动的道德原则的表述为中心的规范性理论的反应。这篇简短的文章首先展示了这一转向是如何采取两种不同的形式的：（1）非理想的理论取向，它试图平衡对道德原则的强调与可行性和紧迫性的考虑，（2）以事实为中心的取向，它试图将规范性结论建立在经验结果的基础上。文章的核心是比较和对比三种以事实为中心的政治理论：规范行为主义，扎根规范理论和激进现实主义。结果是：规范行为主义以现状偏见为代价实现了对可观察行为的关注，扎根的规范理论以认可理论化的积极取向为代价实现了激进主义，激进现实主义将非积极取向与对现状进行深远批判的潜力结合起来。
In the last two decades, Anglophone political theory witnessed a renewed interest in social-scientific empirical findings – partly as a reaction against normative theorising centred on the formulation of abstract, intuition-driven moral principles. This brief article begins by showing how this turn has taken two distinct forms: (1) a nonideal theoretical orientation, which seeks to balance the emphasis on moral principles with feasibility and urgency considerations, and (2) a fact-centric orientation, which seeks to ground normative conclusions in empirical results. The core of the article then compares and contrasts three variants of fact-centric political theory: normative behaviourism, grounded normative theory and radical realism. The upshot: normative behaviourism achieves focus on observable behaviour at the cost of status quo bias, grounded normative theory achieves radicalism at the cost of endorsing an activist orientation to theorising and radical realism combines a non-activist orientation with the potential for far-reaching critique of the status quo.