Political realism and moral corruption

What is it about?

Political realists like Bernard Williams, Raymond Geuss, and their followers have a set of theoretical and conceptual commitments that open them to the charge that their approach amounts to little more than a rationalization of the status quo and an apology for power. This paper evaluates this charge by turning to the work of an earlier generation of political realists within the field of International Relations (IR). I acknowledge that the charge of rationalization is a morally serious one, but I argue that the problem is hardly particular to political realists. I then go on to show that IR realists like Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr were attuned to the morally corrupting effects of rationalization and that they saw realism as an antidote to this problem. However, they also recognized the particular ways in which realist arguments could nonetheless rationalize existing power relations and affirm the status quo by default, if not by design.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

(1) The paper offers a new perspective on a very old question. What is the appropriate relationship between political thought and our actually existing world? This is a hard question that runs through the history of political thought. Some strands of political thought are highly aspirational. They take very few of our existing institutions and practices as given and offer a demanding picture of what a fully just society might look like. This kind of theorizing can be very appealing to reformists and radicals because it demands fundamental changes in our existing political world. Other strands of political thought are less aspirational. They take more of our existing institutions and practices as given and offer a picture of what a more just society--the kind of society we might plausibly be able to reach from our existing circumstances. This kind of theorizing can be very appealing to conservatives and cautious reformers because it demands that we accept certain features of our existing political world as relatively fixed. Many political realists are hard to categorize on these dimensions. Their political positions can sometimes be quite aspirational and radical. But something about their approach to political theorizing seems to repeatedly open them to the charge that they affirm too much of our existing political world. This paper tries to get to the bottom of this puzzle. (2) The paper contributes to a growing set of debates in contemporary political theory. In the last decade, realism has re-emerged as a reaction against and proposed antidote to the liberal approaches that have dominated contemporary political theory. However, very little of the work on realism or by self-identified realists has looked back at the earlier generation of realists within the field of International Relations (IR). This article suggests that there is much to be gained from such an engagement. (3) The paper brings research in moral and social psychology to bear on questions in contemporary political theory. This is the sort of engagement with empirical facts that some political realists think should happen more often in contemporary political theory.

Perspectives