Bringing Critical and Normative Theory Together? An Exploration of Ontological Contextualism

Looking at the evolution of the political theory literature on multiculturalism over the last twenty years, it is possible to notice an important turn, namely the shift from highly abstract philosophical debates to more applied, case-centred, approaches that are becoming increasingly relevant. According to the latter view (incarnated by Joseph Carens), at an abstract level, there is little room left for an improvement of normative theory, as the only way to extend the theories is by addressing particular cases, by applying theories to contexts, and by nourishing theories from contexts. Among others, two different factors might explain this turn: first, the increasing scepticism about the possibility to build a sound general (not to say universal) normative model dealing with issues pertaining to differences, identities, cultures or religions; second, some theorists’ willingness to put forward actual solutions to politically sensitive cases. At the same time, in the same field, normative ideal political theory has been challenged by critical theory. Epistemologically, this family of approaches has called into question the relevance of normative theory for at least four reasons: first, the skepticism towards universal principles, taken as forms of ideology or hegemonic discourse; second, the need to consider the historicity of concepts and theories, as well as their performative political implications; third, the reflection on the ontological foundations of political and moral concepts; and finally the consideration of power relations as the structural feature of any political phenomenon. However, critical theory (declined in its several modalities, as discourse theory, post-colonial approaches, feminist critical theory, etc.) has showed an important heuristic strength in the empirical analysis of cases, controversies or policies, showing and reconstructing the structural logics underlying them. Therefore, the question arises: is it possible to formulate normative assessments on the basis of the knowledge produced by critical perspectives, and this being consistent both with critical epistemological assumptions and with some independent criteria of normative validity? In this paper I tackle this general question by suggesting an approach tentatively named ontological contextualism. It is composed of (at least) three assumptions and a four constitutive ideas: (1) the ontological assumption of the inescapability of power relations structuring all the case under-scrutiny; (2) the contingency of the institutional translation of (abstract) moral concepts into morally situated conceptions embedded in political institutions; (3) the existence of conflicts and tensions between the moral principles at stake in the context; and (4) the normative (democratic) value of the procedural democratic process needed to deal with (1), uncovering the 'contingent universality' of (2), and adjudicate the moral hierarchy of (3). The paper maintains that in order to address cases pertaining to democratic justice - in particular the integration of immigrants - through ontological political contextualism is suited to make a normative assessment, and that such normative assessment takes seriously critical theory insights about the inescapabilty of power relations and their performative effects over inclusion / exclusion dynamics.