Between Utopianism and Realism: The Limits of Partisanship as an Academic Methodology

Abstract

Taking debates about democracy in the EU as an example, Fabio Wolkenstein proposes that normative theorists should adopt a ‘partisan’ approach that engages with ‘formative agents’ to advocate for transformative political and societal change, such as the creation of a transnational democracy at the EU level. He criticises those he calls ‘democratic intergovernmentalists’ for adopting a ‘first principles’ approach that forecloses both contestation and political agency by treating the principles underlying the status quo as universal. This comment disputes both the validity of his criticisms of the work of myself and others, and the coherence of the particular partisan approach motivating them. At its heart lies a dispute as to the relationship between facts and principles, and the possibility of a utopian realism of the Rawlsean kind. It is argued that Rawls’ position proves more democratic and plausible and possesses greater critical and political leverage than Wolkenstein’s partisanship alternative.