C-uppsats Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Uppsala universitet Ideal or non-ideal theory? The challenge of Charles W. Mills Antal ord: 13 951 Sidor: 31 Julius Lagerlöf Handledare: Mats Lundström 2020-12-29 1 Table of contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Rawls ideal method ................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 The non-ideal approach............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Contemporary critiques of ideal theory .................................................................................... 6 3. Purpose statement and research question ..................................................................................... 7 4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Reconstructing an argument ..................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Logical validity, empirical and normative feasibility ................................................................. 8 4.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 9 5. Material ........................................................................................................................................... 9 6. Mills argument ................................................................................................................................ 9 6.1 Mills distinctions ...................................................................................................................... 10 6.2 Ideal theory as exclusion of the actual .................................................................................... 12 6.3 Ideal theory as ideology .......................................................................................................... 13 6.4 Non-ideal theory ...................................................................................................................... 14 6.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 16 7. Discussion and critique .................................................................................................................. 17 7.1 Problems with Mills distinctions ............................................................................................. 17 7.2 Deriving normative ideals ........................................................................................................ 19 7.3 Differences in kind or differences in degree? ......................................................................... 21 7.4 The efficacy of ideal theory ..................................................................................................... 22 7.5 Mills ideological critique .......................................................................................................... 24 7.6 The danger of relativism .......................................................................................................... 27 8. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30 9. References ..................................................................................................................................... 31 2 1. Introduction Recently political philosophers have begun to critically examine their own methodology. The problematic that stimulate this “methodological turn” is the feeling that political theory does not sufficiently engage with real politics and does little to improve actual circumstances in society (Valentini, 2012, s. 1). The mainstream, and largely Rawlsian, approach stand accused of being too abstract and too far removed from actual conditions and injustices. The discourse surrounding these methodological issues and its consequences has become known as the debate between ideal and non-ideal theory. The relationship between the ideal and the non-ideal is a long-standing issue in many areas of philosophy. For mainstream political theory, however, it is largely a question over methodology. Here the challenge by non-idealists is significant because of the widespread use and importance of ideal content, particularly in the liberal tradition. An interrogation of ideal theory would be an interrogation of the established methodology of the entire discipline. One of the more damning and controversial critiques sees ideal theory as ideological in the pejorative sense of upholding certain (illegitimate) power relations. Indeed, in his seminal paper “Ideal theory as ideology” Charles W. Mills constructs the ideal frameworks of contemporary political theory as a false consciousness emerging out of masculine, white Anglo perspectivity and argues for an alternative non-ideal approach to political theory (Mills, 2005). This reflects the additional concern that the theoretical framework and philosophical methodology hitherto employed is maladaptive for guiding increasingly diverse populations towards a good and ethical political order. Considering the importance of ideal content to political theory and its use by important thinkers such as John Rawls this would constitute a major upset to the discipline. Mills argument, therefore, requires careful examination. 2. Background In the general history of philosophy, it is difficult to pinpoint the origin of the concept of the ideal. However, Plato is, as with so many things, often cited as an important progenitor. Famously his theory of the forms posits perfect ideal forms of all things by means of which they are defined and evaluated. A perfect circle, for example, has a precise definition as a shape in which all points are equidistant to the center. Such an ideal circle can then be found to have very precise mathematical 3 qualities common to all such forms regardless of time, place and even what consciousness, or machine, is interacting with it. However, as Nietzsche pointed out, there are no perfect circles in nature. This raises the question of the relationship between the ideal and the non-ideal or empirical world. For Plato this relationship between the ideal form and the empirical world we inhabit is one between the perfect and the imperfect. Every circular shape share in the ideal form of the perfect circle but is flawed in some way. We can perceive and evaluate these flaws because of our knowledge of the ideal form (the circle in this case) which is imperfectly instantiated in nature. By cross-referencing empirical things with their ideal forms, we can attain knowledge of how well they approximate their ideals, how they could be improved and what their flaws are. However, for political theory, the true relevance of platonic forms lies not in their metaphysical or geometric application but in normative societal ideals. Famously, in The Republic, Socrates describes an ideal city arrived at in thought by philosophical investigation. This method of positing ideal states, arguably inaugurated by Plato, is still, in its essence, at work today. We can, through philosophy, gain knowledge of the ideal society, ideal citizens and the ideal forms of virtues such as justice, beauty, truth and goodness. If we know the ideal state of a just society, we can “apply” it to the actual societies we live in to gauge their level of justice and posit a goal towards which we should strive to become “more just”. 2.1 Rawls ideal method In contemporary political theory the notion of ideal theory is contrasted and compared with non- ideal theory. However, despite attempts at thematizing the issue such as Marceta (2019), Valentini (2012) and Stemplowska (2008) there is little consensus on what exactly the debate is about. One thing that seems clear is that the notion of ideal theory most relevant to the contemporary debate was first brought up by Rawls (1999, s. 8 & 215). Therefore, taking account of Rawls use of ideal theory will help provide some clarification. For Rawls ideal theory entails the use of abstract principles and categories which help orient, guide and assess empirical reality. This is reminiscent of Plato’s ideals, although there are important differences. For Rawls, an ideal society1 is a 1 Rawls ideal is laid out in his famous book A Theory of Justice (Rawls, 1999). In this book Rawls argues that a just society would fulfil several principles in descending priority. The structure of “lexical” priority is such that in the case of conflict between any two principles the higher one wins out. The first principle is sometimes called the “liberty principle” and guarantees equal access to fundamental rights such as freedom of expressions, suffrage, due process etc. This has absolute priority for Rawls and cannot be infringed upon. The second principle is that of equal opportunity which merits meritocratic selection for societal positions. However, due to the morally arbitrary distribution of natural talents that influence performance in such competitive selection