‘Ideal’ normative theories of politics have been criticized for formulating action-guiding principles that have limited applicability in political practice because they are inadequately responsive to empirical facts about the motives, constraints, and timeframes of real political action. ‘Non-ideal’ and ‘realist’ normative theories highlight the need to achieve greater responsiveness to these facts in the formulation of normative principles, as a basis for strengthening their practical relevance. But these theories remain unclear about how this responsiveness should be achieved – since highlighting empirical facts does not in itself embody any substantive normative content that could ground action-guiding principles independently from political ideals. In this paper we sketch what we call a ‘problem-based’ method of political theorizing that can ground non-ideal principles of this kind, by focusing theoretical analysis on the diagnosis of political problems rather than the construction of political ideals. By problem-centred, we mean a theoretical strategy that formulates and justifies normative principles for political action and institutions through direct and systematic engagement with political predicaments and dilemmas, as these are actually understood by the political actors whom the theory aims to guide. Problem-centred analysis begins by identifying – at variable levels of theoretical generality – concrete problem situations, defined in terms of: (a) a set of circumstances that are in some way problematic or unsatisfactory for the political actors confronting them; and (b) some process of inquiry aimed at identifying principles or strategies for action to navigate pathways out of these predicaments. The paper argues that ‘bottom-up’ theorizing of this kind provides a richer and more empirically grounded foundation for the development of normative political theories than the approaches underpinning ideal, non-ideal and realist theories as they stand.
