Nonideal theory without delay

Many of us are our drawn to political theory by a keen awareness of social injustice. Amongst other things, we would like the field to help guide us in our efforts to transition from society as it is to something better. On this front, many of us remain frustrated and disappointed. The problem is not that many in political theory deny that the field should help to guide the transition to a more just society. There seems to be broad agreement on this. The problem is that this guidance is too often delayed to a future time that never comes. One reason for this delay can be traced to the distinction between ideal and nonideal theory. Ideal theory refers to that part of political theory dedicated to identifying the perfectly just society and nonideal theory refers to that part of political theory dedicated to explaining how it is that we advance towards perfection from where we are. According to the dominant approach in political theory, ideal theory is methodologically prior to nonideal theory. The rationale for prioritizing ideal over nonideal theory is that we do not want whatever incremental steps we take in the short term to foreclose the possibility of much more ambitious gains at a later date. In other words, we need to chart a viable route from where we are to where we eventually want to be. But political theorists disagree about what perfect social justice looks like. And, given that transitioning to a just society it going to be a collective endeavor, it may seem that we need more agreement on ideal theory before we can move on to nonideal theory. A second reason for delay is the fact that, because nonideal theory as a practical orientation, doing nonideal theory will involve making empirical judgements as well as theoretical ones. This means that nonideal theory will need to draw on social-scientific fields which seek to understand the operation and dynamics of social phenomena. But social scientific work is hard and often inconclusive, and disagreement amongst social scientists is common. Given that doing nonideal theory requires one to make empirical judgements which draw on social scientific insights, it seems sensible to wait until the evidence from social science is clear and settled before proceeding. My aim is to suggest that neither of these considerations provides us with reason to delay. Regarding the need to for ideal theory to provide an end goal which we can use to help us chart a route, I will argue that, while there may be much disagreement about the end goal, there is much less about the early steps. Regarding the need for social-scientific insights on which to base our empirical judgements, I will argue that, here too, we know enough to say more about nonideal theory than has hitherto been said, and I will illustrate this point with examples. We should do less talking about doing nonideal theory and more doing of it. There is no need for delay.