Realism in political theory
Realism in political theory
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1474885110374001
复制
发表时间：
2010-10-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Galston, William A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Galston, William A.
近几十年来，理想政治理论之外的一种“现实主义”选择已经慢慢形成。这场反对运动将哲学家、政治理论家和政治学家聚集在一起，试图重新构建对政治和政治规范的调查框架。这种努力的特点包括：包括激情和情感的道德心理；对政治可能性和对乌托邦思维的拒绝的坚定概念；认为政治冲突--价值观和利益--既是根本的，也是不可根除的；把制度作为调解和遏制冲突的场所的重点；以及将政治视为一个截然不同的、自主的、受制于个人道德规范的活动领域的概念。对于政治现实主义者来说，“秩序良好的社会”是很难实现的；没有就基本原则达成一致的权宜之计往往是唯一的现实可能性。这不仅将永远无法实现“完全遵守”，而且还是一种假设，会产生对政治规范的误导描述。虽然现实主义者对理想理论提出了许多令人信服的批评，但他们的立场存在一些漏洞。目前尚不清楚现实主义是否构成了理想主义的一种连贯的肯定选择。现实主义者也没有澄清冲突的程度与政治秩序本身是一致的。而且，由于双方都接受“应该暗示可以”作为对政治规范有效性的约束，现实主义者和理想主义者之间的大部分辩论都围绕着尚未澄清的深刻的经验分歧。
In recent decades, a 'realist' alternative to ideal theories of politics has slowly taken shape. Bringing together philosophers, political theorists, and political scientists, this countermovement seeks to reframe inquiry into politics and political norms. Among the hallmarks of this endeavor are a moral psychology that includes the passions and emotions; a robust conception of political possibility and rejection of utopian thinking; the belief that political conflict - of values as well as interests - is both fundamental and ineradicable; a focus on institutions as the arenas within which conflict is mediated and contained; and a conception of politics as a sphere of activity that is distinct, autonomous, and subject to norms that cannot be derived from individual morality. For political realists, a 'well-ordered society' is rarely attainable; a modus vivendi without agreement on first principles is often the only practical possibility. Not only will 'full compliance' never be achieved, but also it is an assumption that yields misleading accounts of political norms. While realists offer a number of compelling criticisms of ideal theory, there are some lacunae in their stance. It is not yet clear whether realism constitutes a coherent affirmative alternative to idealism. Nor have realists clarified the extent of conflict that is consistent with political order as such. And because both sides accept 'ought implies can' as a constraint on the validity of political norms, much of the debate between realists and idealists revolves around deep empirical disagreements that are yet to be clarified.