¹ For an interesting overview of (and attempt to synthesize) several definitions of politics by theorists throughout the twentieth century see: Alexander, James, “Notes Towards a Definition of Politics,” Philosophy 89, no. 2 (2014): 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² The concern that contemporary political philosophy, especially in its ideal form, is insufficiently action guiding is central to the nonideal critique that will be discussed in the final section.

³ For helpful, and sometimes critical, overviews of this recent revival of interest in realism, see: Baderin, Alice, “Two Forms of Realism in Political Theory,” European Journal of Political Theory 13, no. 2 (2014): 132–53;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Freeden, Michael, “Interpretative Realism and Prescriptive Realism,” Journal of Political Ideologies 17, no. 1 (2012): 1–11;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Galston, William, “Realism in Political Theory,” European Journal of Political Theory 9, no. 4 (2010): 385–411;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Larmore, Charles, “What is Political Philosophy?” Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (2013): 276–306;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Little, Adrian, Finlayson, Alan, and Tormey, Simon, “Reconstituting Realism: Feasibility, Utopia and Epistemological Imperfection,” Contemporary Political Theory 14, no. 3 (2015): 276–313;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Philp, Mark, “Realism without Illusions,” Political Theory 40, no. 5 (2012): 629–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Rossi, Enzo and Sleat, Matt, “Realism in Normative Political Theory,” Philosophy Compass 9, no. 10 (2014): 689–701;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Runciman, David, “What Is Realistic Political Philosophy?” Metaphilosophy 43, nos. 1–2 (2012): 58–70;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Scheuerman, William E., “The Realist Revival in Political Philosophy, Or: Why New Is Not Always Improved,” International Politics 50, no. 6 (2013): 798–814;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Stears, Marc, “Liberalism and the Politics of Compulsion,” British Journal of Political Science 37 (2007): 533–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ This thought has often been put in terms of the “autonomy of the political.” This is not necessarily helpful, not least because it implies — or has been taken to imply — that politics is a fully autonomous sphere with its own internal logic that necessarily excludes values or concerns from other domains such as morality or economics. To think that politics is a completely independent realm of human activity would be deeply unrealistic. The claim is therefore better understood as one of irreducibility: politics is related to these other spheres but its ends, values, limits, means, and so on, are sufficiently distinct such that it cannot be reduced to them. For an interesting discussion of this, and how such claims to politics’ autonomy was viewed in classical realist thought, see Alison McQueen, “The Case for Kinship: Classical Realism and Political Realism,” https://www.academia.edu/14160494/The_Case_for_Kinship_Classical_Realism_and_Political_Realism (accessed 29/03/2016).

⁵ None of what follows should be taken to imply that the general conditions of the political that I focus on here exhaust all that might fall into that category. Certainly any complete account would need to say much more, where there is indeed more to be said.

⁶ Bellamy, Richard, “Dirty Hands and Clean Gloves: Liberal Ideals and Real Politics,” European Journal of Political Theory 9, no. 4 (2010): 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ “[T]he felt need among the members of a certain group for a common framework or decision or course of action on some matter, even in the face of disagreement about what that framework, decision, or action should be, are the circumstances of politics,” (Jeremy Waldron, Law and Disagreement [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 102).

⁸ Jeremy Waldron, cited in Baderin, Alice, “Political Theory and Public Opinion: Against Democratic Restraint,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 15, no. 3 (2016): 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ This relates to the so-called “basic legitimation demand” and the claim that it arises within the political realm. See Williams, Bernard, In the Beginning was the Deed, ed. Hawthorn, G. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), chap. 1;Google Scholar Hall, Edward, “Bernard Williams and the Basic Legitimation Demand: A Defence,” Political Studies 63, no. 2 (2015): 466–80;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sagar, Paul, “From Scepticism to Liberalism? Bernard Williams, the Foundations of Liberalism and Political Realism,” Political Studies 64, no. 2 (2016): 368–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sleat, Matt, “Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Moralism and Realpolitik,” Political Theory 42, no. 3 (2014): 314–37; Cf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Larmore, Charles, “What is Political Philosophy?” Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (2013): 276–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Philp, Mark, Political Conduct (London: Harvard University Press, 2007), 55.Google Scholar

¹¹ Geuss, Raymond, History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 17.Google Scholar

¹² Mason’s response to this is to claim that ideal theory ought to “concede that it is non-political in an important way” but that this is not problematic if it is then supplemented with nonideal questions such as “How should we respond to those who, we believe, unreasonably reject those procedures?” For reasons I discuss in the third section, I do not think such a defense is plausible.

¹³ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, trans. C. Betts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 54–55 (emphasis added).

¹⁴ Here I have been benefited greatly from Bernard Williams’s “From Freedom to Liberty: The Construction of a Political Value” (in Williams, In the Beginning Was the Deed). I have not followed him in distinguishing between the “proto-political” value of freedom and the political value of liberty, but I take what has been said here to be consistent with that way of thinking about how to construct political values.

¹⁵ Williams, Bernard, Making Sense of Humanity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., 136.

¹⁷ Ibid., 140.

¹⁸ Williams, In the Beginning Was the Deed, 92.

¹⁹ For an excellent discussion of these questions see William Galston’s contribution to this issue.

²⁰ For a good account of the various claims and positions that are included under the labels ideal and nonideal theory see Valentini, Laura, “Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map,” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 9 (2012): 654–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Estlund, David, “Utopophobia,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 42, no. 2 (2014): 113–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Ibid., 115.

²³ Cohen, G. A., Rescuing Justice and Equality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ David Estlund, “What Good Is It? Unrealistic Political Theory and the Value of Intellectual Work,” Analyse & Kritik 33, no. 2 (2011): 395-416. Adam Swift makes a similar point: “It seems plausible that we have an interest in knowing or understanding truths about justice that is distinct from our interest in achieving it, or guiding action towards it, and I see no reason to deny that those seeking such truths are engaging in political philosophy” (“The Value of Philosophy in Nonideal Circumstances,” Social Theory and Practice 34, no. 3 [2008]: 363-87, at 366). As does Alan Hamlin and Zofia Stemplowska: “It matters . . . to our understanding of justice whether some requirement is not a requirement of justice merely because satisfying it is not feasible, or because it would not be required by justice anyway. For example, it may well be feasible for all parents to give up their children happily. But we do not understand parental justice fully unless we ask whether justice would require this of parents if it became feasible” (“Theory, Ideal Theory and the Theory of Ideals,” Political Studies Review 10 [2012]: 48-62, at 55).

²⁵ The difference between nonideal and realist concerns has been explored in detail in Sleat, Matt, “Realism, Liberalism and Non-Ideal Theory: Are There Two Ways to Do Realistic Political Theory?” Political Studies 64, no. 1 (2016): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The distinctiveness of nonideal and realist concerns regarding how reality ought to impinge on our theorizing of politics means that it is perfectly possible for a theory to be susceptible to one charge but not the other. So one possibility that I shall return to at the end, for instance, is that a theory might be realistic (in the sense of being political, properly speaking) yet may lack any reasonable chance of being realized. A theory might therefore seem ideal from the perspective of nonideal theory without being so from that of realism, and vice versa.

²⁶ Estlund, “Utopophobia,” 130–31.

²⁷ Ibid., 131 (emphasis added).

²⁸ Similar arguments could be made of other practices also: For instance, we might reasonably think that a theory of business that did not take into account the profit motive, or of sport that ignored the fact that athletes compete to win, cannot be an appropriate theory for either, by virtue of not being about either.

²⁹ Dunn, John, The Cunning of Unreason (London: HarperCollins, 2000), 8.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., 7.

³¹ Williams, Bernard, Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline, ed. Moore, A. W. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 155.Google Scholar

³² This is a point made by Ed Hall in his contribution to this collection also.

³³ Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political (London: University of Chicago Press, 1996);Google Scholar Oakeshott, Michael, On Human Conduct (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991);Google Scholar Wolin, Sheldon, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press, 2004);Google Scholar Crick, Bernard, In Defence of Politics (London: Continuum, 2005);Google Scholar Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition (London: University of Chicago Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar