15315-wolbert

Chapter 3 47 ideal, i.e. what is logically possible, whereas both realistic idealism and nonideal theory develop ideals that are educationally, sociologically, anthropologically or politically possible, 76 i.e. common ideals. 77 Nonideal theory, however, is concerned with the actual situation and what is actually possible, whereas it seems that the realism of realistic idealism remains limited to what is possible in the world as it is (as opposed to denying fundamental features of the world), even if it may not be realisable in the actual situation. But the crucial difference between ideal theory (whether utopian or realistic) and nonideal theory is how the theory is constructed. Ideal theory, including realistic ideal theory, starts by theorising the ideal, and as such constructs its theory around the (albeit common) ideal, making it the centre of gravity. In the example of a nonideal theory of autonomy given here, by starting at the nonideal constrained experiences, the theory is constructed around the actual, thus making the actual its key focus. Even though a similar kind of ideal is constructed as in realistic ideal theory, they have a different position and therefore value in the theory. On the level of nonideal theory on education for autonomy this might lead to theorising how parents or teachers can help children learn to deliberate about different values children themselves have, and with regard to other people’s desire for autonomy (instead of for example learning what choice would optimise their autonomy). Children (and educators too for that matter) might learn to see themselves as dependent on each other in making autonomous choices. This compromise-character will be the central feature of such a nonideal theory, and the theory’s aim will be to provide tools to cope with the ideal of education for autonomy in the real, actual world. As shown with these examples, nonideal theory can avoid certain problems we have discussed in relation to ideal theory. We have given two worthwhile options of nonideal theorising. The ‘radical’ suggestion of prioritising theorising about fulfilling children’s basic needs instead of theorising about ideals, and the less radical option of starting with, and centralizing the actual world in reflecting on what might be ideal. This is not to argue that nonideal trumps ideal theory, we have not argued that all forms of ideal theory are necessarily problematic. Yet, exclusive reliance on ideal theory is unacceptable, and misses out opportunities to navigate real world problems. 78 At the moment, the balance is skewed toward ideal theory, therefore we need more nonideal theory to create a better balance. A suggestion for the form or style in which such nonideal theorising can be done is given by Avishai Margalit who distinguishes between ‘i.e. philosophy’ and ‘e.g. philosophy’. 79 I.e. philosophy 76 See Schmidtz 2016, p. 2. 77 De Ruyter 2007, p. 25. 78 See Frazer 2016. 79 Margalit 2002.