Genealogical Solutions to the Problem of Critical Distance: Political Theory, Contextualism and the case of Punishment in Transitional Scenarios

Francesco Testini

doi:10.1007/s11158-021-09515-2

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that one approach to normative political theory, namely contextualism, can benefit from a specific kind of historical inquiry, namely genealogy, because the latter provides a solution to a deep-seated problem for the former. This problem consists in a lack of critical distance and originates from the justificatory role that contextualist approaches attribute to contextual facts. I compare two approaches to genealogical reconstruction, namely the historiographical method pioneered by Foucault and the hybrid method of pragmatic genealogy as practiced by Bernard Williams, arguing that they both ensure an increase in critical distance while preserving contextualism’s distinctiveness. I also show, however, that only the latter provides normative action-guidance and can thus assist the contextualist theorist in the crucial task of discerning how far certain contextual facts deserve their justificatory role. I prove this point by showing how a pragmatic genealogy of the practice of punishment can inform the contextualist’s reflection about the role this practice should play in a transitional scenario, i.e. in the set of circumstances societies go through in the aftermath of large-scale violence and human rights violations.

Highlights

There is a methodological trade-off in normative political theory that, in broad brushstrokes, may be rendered as follows
I started my inquiry from the problem of critical distance (CDP), a deep-seated problem for contextualist approaches and especially for theoretical contextualism, among whose endorsers there are Michael Walzer, David Miller and Andrea Sangiovanni
I showed that the Foucaultian conception of genealogy as a problematizing device does not provide any guidance for action, whereas the functionalist approach to genealogy pioneered by Williams supplies this guidance but proves to be a effective tool to deal with practices, like punishment, that are impervious to synchronic methods of functional interpretation, like Sangiovanni’s one

Summary

Introduction

There is a methodological trade-off in normative political theory that, in broad brushstrokes, may be rendered as follows. In what follows I shall focus on the variety which is arguably the most exposed, namely theoretical contextualism, which comprises approaches in which context determines the scope and content of normative principles and, a fortiori, the justification of judgments (at least as far as judgments are plausibly understood as applications of principles to specific cases).. Certain relationships are possible only under specific institutional frameworks and are themselves institutional (corporations, for instance, are networks of instrumental relations and, and crucially, institutions that produce and contribute to attributing meanings to goods) In light of this degree of interrelation, I believe it is safe to maintain, as Modood and Thompson do, that most of the differences between the ways in which contexts have been defined are best understood as different perspectives on the same underlying object, namely practices.. Practice and its norms, from which problematic aspects can emerge and assumptions can be questioned

Action-guidance

Distinctiveness

Conclusion