With radicals like these, who needs conservatives? Doom, gloom, and realism in political theory

Abstract

This paper attempts to get some critical distance on the increasingly fashionable issue of realism in political theory. Realism has an ambiguous status: it is sometimes presented as a radical challenge to the status quo; but it also often appears as a conservative force, aimed at clipping the wings of more 'idealistic' political theorists. I suggest that what we might call 'actually existing realism' is indeed a conservative presence in political philosophy, and that its ambiguous status plays a part in making it so. But I also argue that there is no necessary connection between realism and conservatism. This paper describes the three contingent and suspiciously quick steps which lead from an initial commitment to being attentive to the real world, via a particular kind of pessimism about political possibilities, to an unnecessarily conservative destination. In the process, I try to show how the ubiquitous trinity of realism, pessimism and conservatism might be pulled apart, thus removing the artificial tension between 'being realistic' and the demand for far-reaching social change.

“What is to be done” when there is nothing to do?: Realism and political inequality

“…Others will nevertheless register the complaint that a renewed focus on non‐political strategies of endurance or survival—especially at the presumed expense of time spent theorizing progressive possibilities for collective action—smacks of defeatism and, hence, conservatism. A similar critique has been recently raised by Lorna Finlayson (), who accuses political realists of settling for a diluted liberalism devoid of aspirations beyond stability (p. 269). Despite noting a number of ways in which realists can avoid this pitfall without sacrificing their core commitments, she takes both Williams and Geuss to task for adopting such a pessimistic view on social organization that anything more than eliminating violence or explicit domination appears far‐fetched.…”

“…Despite noting a number of ways in which realists can avoid this pitfall without sacrificing their core commitments, she takes both Williams and Geuss to task for adopting such a pessimistic view on social organization that anything more than eliminating violence or explicit domination appears far‐fetched. She makes clear this “kind of ‘pessimism’”—which ignores both human plurality and “certain recalcitrant phenomena” exemplified by anti‐war movements—“is not the understandable gloom or anxiety about the fate of human societies, but a mask for misanthropy so profound as to be incompatible with any serious interest in either political philosophy or political action” (Finlayson, , pp. 274–275) .…”

“…274–275) . She later takes the extra step of comparing such realists to those who blame victims of rape (rather than the rapist), suggesting that Williams's and Geuss's dismal views of humanity lead them to condemn the masses rather than the elites, who not only share their faults but govern despite them (Finlayson, , pp. 275–276)…”

“…Unless trends shift dramatically, political engagement, for most citizens, will tend to be reactive more than active, private more than public, and constricted more than autonomous. Even Finlayson () notes that, in some instances, quietism might constitute “the most appropriate course,” as long as we hold “some kind of commitment to the possibility of change for the better, even if this is no more than a leap of faith” (p. 274). In a context in which hope for influence, not progress, has become a leap of faith, we need to begin to recognize and explore the manifold forms that quietism can take, ranging from partisan spectatorship to ironic detachment, and from furtive resistance to silent desperation (see Green, ; Riesman, , pp.…”

“…1010One concluding passage of hers is worth noting in its entirety: “At its worst, the realist attitude to citizens is imperious—bordering on imperialist reminiscent not only of rape apologism but also of classic depictions of ‘barbarians’ and ‘savages’: passion‐driven beasts who, if left unchecked, will stick spears into each other and eat their own babies” (Finlayson, , p. 276).…”