Beyond the nonideal: Why critical theory needs a utopian dimension

John Rawls famously argues that in order to arrive at a plausible conception of what justice requires politically, we ought proceed two steps (Rawls, 1971, pp. 245–246). First, develop an “ideal theory justice” lays out principles can be justified if imagine them govern society is unlike ours certain limitations are removed. Developing such theory, argues, necessary allow us grasp the correct justice. In second step, then use this find must do our actual, nonideal circumstances. The idea need refer utopian, ideal state affairs understand which most basic political concepts endorse one features Rawls's thought has attracted commentary (see Robeyns, 2008; Simmons, 2010; Valentini, 2012). Realist opponents sense sometimes argue pays too little attention questions feasibility, it does not take human nature seriously enough, and ill-equipped guide when thinking about trade-offs (Farrelly, 2007; Galston, Nagel, 1995). article, I will examine arguments different have historically emerged from tradition radical social critical theory. These object theorizing on grounds leads unrealistic demands or insufficiently constrained by realistic nature. Rather, these assume that, given circumstances current theorists themselves, they face their epistemic, imaginative, conceptual capacities distort ideals formulate thereby direction accommodates status quo much. response arguments, article pursues goals, constructive one. On hand, (but all) fail even successful versions require give up projects guided society. Critical exclusively enterprise. other outline methodological approach integrates theory's defining commitment immanent critique historical reason, but preserves role for construction idealized visions future its normative parts. Section 2, briefly survey Sections 3–6, focus four against emerge deny genuinely would like accessible us. distinguish between conceptual, moderate impossibility claim, conclude only claim offers argument theorizing. 7, rejecting (in broad sense) based runs risk unnecessarily constraining theories condemning form conservatism. 8, this: conceptions states derive people's awareness contradictions societies. allows commitments without falling victim pitfalls. principle affairs. Most importantly, purposes examination, well-ordered under favorable agents display “strict compliance” p. 8) with choose (Stemplowska & Swift, Just means disputed Sirsch, 2020, 30), behind engage idealization difficult understand. politics, good reason concede others frequently imperfectly motivated comply them. Consequently, often case do—taking imperfect motivation into account—is pursue outcomes fully just closer full than achieve were uncompromising program. However, clearly should lead identify conditions. Our justice, argue, determined way; instead, would, counterfactually, pursuing situation limitations. While acknowledges on-the-ground primarily informed takes fact noncompliance account, he justice—which justified, terms compromises makes, capacity move as closely possible ideally affairs—if previously “non-concessive” (Estlund, 2019, 6, 31). Even though immediately action guiding, clear his depends several ways project imagining which—due compliance conditions—our chosen realized. having norms rationally imagined provides understanding authority actions actually existing utopian reference free imperfections thus something able appreciate action. Second, also gives content since making concessions cannot avoided. Having assessment aim precondition knowing actual follows, objections serve goal orienting there objections—relating capacities—to found claims, same structure. They (or primarily) referring may desirable perhaps current, societies position any confidence ability correctly determine look like. This because ourselves radically constrain abilities determination. Although all authors surveyed following explicitly turn theory,” alone concept did yet exist some developed entail project. An epistemic implicit classic ideology, starting Marx. Such assume, least modern capitalist societies, injustices characterize structurally nontransparent agents, reasons. structures essentially misleading appearance. German Ideology, example, Marx (false) belief ideas structure material forms cooperation more mere mistake. “this phenomenon arises much life-process inversion objects retina physical life-process” (Marx Engels, 1970, 36). words, themselves systematically produce false beliefs effect. positions capacities. tradition, been defended Lukács (1923/1971) later Marxist-feminist standpoint (Hartsock, 1983). Both members groups constitutively excluded knowledge true (typically: dominant groups), whereas (subordinated) can, principle, gain part struggles. relates follows: If epistemically opaque (for society), typically lack required comprehend how violate various ideals. Not informs therefore likely contain adequate remedies relevant injustices, justification sufficiently comprehensive conception. case, appropriate activity sufficient justification. general transparency […] cognitive obstacles minimized limited biases self-interest intrinsic difficulties world, no paid distinctive hegemonic ideologies group-specific experience distorting perceptions order. (Mills, 2005, 169). Mills, endorses conditional (5) rejects (7), continuity potential [i.e., consequent (4)]. commits him denying possibility makes substantive claims. To avoid altogether, (1). (Epistemic Impossibility) paradigmatic cases, unjust limit attempt conceptualize distorted idealizations. people incapable helping orient towards abolishing oppression domination. first objection systematic It unclear whether affects From assumption follows never claims true. problem applies appear “nonideal” rely affairs—for relative improvements, trade-offs, so forth—at unless story why subject impact attempts otherwise (Stahl, 2022, 9). perspective socially subordinated generate evaluative place, reality privileged phenomenological basis 177). Whoever paints things, [has] meet know wants, disregard supremacy [of object], over him. could things altered, imagination remain chained present time static points reference, everything askew. freedom sharpest critic person, ones wants change. (Adorno, 1973, 352). (Imaginative imaginative Positive counterproductive vulnerable argument. affected than, say, incremental improvements. Again, hard see entails specific proceeds begin description safer created distortions. defenders make assumption. Rawls, particular, seems considerations feasibility. But then, worse shape factors affect across board. carries enormous justificatory burden, relies hypothesis nothing psychological household beings resist distortion forces, oppressed internal resistance oppression. Of course, strictly impossible true—and negativists Freyenhagen (2013) explored, building Adorno's work, construct considerable evidence before accept being simultaneously support claim. unlikely independently succeed where fails. Another focuses subjective availability hermeneutical schemes. A version holds due feature resources currently available us, necessarily adopt conceptualizations version, contrast, point context-specific always further revision. widely shared many feminist statement, Harding, 1986, 648–649), analyze here way worked Mills Adorno, approaches tied classical major consideration “conceptual adequacy” 174). Ideal theories, according conceptually adequate, concern describing schemes “tacitly [represent] simple deviation ideal” 168), opposed descriptive concepts, geared toward informative analysis injustice. type fail, describe help unsuited theory: those pose significant problems resulting descriptions suited fulfilling function (Conceptual Impossibility [Mills]) very trying just/free vocabulary affairs, described using assumes class-specific experiences theorists, who belong groups, account frame unsuitable 168). powerful offering explanation failures particular supports Mills's right share obscure aspects reality, question used model society, misleading. leaves open possibility, however, might better consciously drawing marginalized capturing central That consider “descriptive mapping concepts” 175) suitable specifically conceptualizing both isolation injustice, analysis, rules priori. obvious fine-grained vocabularies domination “exploitation” “sexual harassment” employed affirmatively well semantic contents inferential relations useful developing tools Indeed, impoverished traditional precisely injustice engaged analysis. Radical response, best analyses formulating enable say anything positive obviously Adorno presents general, 2017, 511). integrated “totality” overarching system technical control (and broadly). As development system, involved reasoning played ambivalent role. humans distance immediate through generalization liberate constraints external environment impulses. liberation involves subordination outer nature, impulses, ultimately 320). authoritarian aspect ultimate existence societies—the market and, subsequently, fascist authoritarianism. Because dynamics, world shaped allowing complete [Adorno]) oppressive totality, Being broader thesis, rejection background strike implausible, massive theoretical burdens carries. review debate here. For suffices discuss objection. totality. Axel Honneth (1985/1993) argued, comparable process works mostly manipulation preferences oppressed. unconvincing, denies importance processes legitimation. is, power, including domination, extent deal subjected them, expression conflicts. Social conflicts problems, however. arise expectations violated. consequence, respond degree legitimation stories, wish coercion exercise power acceptance contested offer counter-narratives competing interpretive framework people. challenged, ambivalent. conclusive—after all, remains empirical society—it strong reasons skeptical Next lies root tradition's skepticism utopianism. found, variants, Hegel thinkers beings' dynamic context. basis, reject situated hypothetical agreed contemporary readers Hegel, natural matter historical, practices rooted (Brandom, 2009, 66). consequences philosophy. preface Philosophy Right, task philosophy design “a be” rather rationality institutional (Hegel, 1991, 21). directly mediated bound self-understanding. individuals' made falsely believing direct, institutionally, unmediated access realm moral facts still hold thing criticism, environments critics are, point, rational provide standards criticism justifiably employ. We entitled assumption, believes, institutions incorporate results learning constitution; answer demand emerges failure earlier arrangements. structured self-understandings dialectical (Pinkard, 1996; Stahl, 2021, 26–28) product history revisions constitutes 2005; Jaeggi, 2018). Hegel's operates within frameworks one's rule criticism—after community's relationship institutions—it bases itself unsituated utopianism concerned designing reconstruct foundation premises anti-utopian commitments. He agrees politics social–historical contexts. draw conclusion reconstruction potentials reality. normal self-understanding context ideological. Marx's ideology read explains adoption ideological analyzing functionality Engels fragmentary language view, self-understandings. materialist understood broader, “material” helps coordinate 2013, 2022). expect reflect distinctions cooperative pursuit practical goals—at cases indeed cooperatively structured. simple, primordial “ideological” comes emergence hierarchy perform work setting goals 44–45). situation, longer transparently express underlying practice, class needs everyone practice. result, appearance independence purposes. Marxian