From Utopia to Reality: Formulating a Realist Approach in Political Thought

The tension between reality and ideal, or between “what is” and “what ought to be,” has remained a persistent concern in the history of political thought. Although positivist and behavioral approaches to political science sought to marginalize normative and prescriptive concerns by concentrating primarily on the explanation of political facts,
the revival of normative political thought in recent decades has once again made the relationship between reality, ideals, and political action a significant theoretical issue. Against this background, the purpose of this article is to formulate and theoretically develop a distinct approach termed the "Realistic Approach". The study seeks to demonstrate that political thinking need not be confined to the conventional alternatives of idealistic abstraction, submission to existing realities, or pragmatic expediency. The central research question is: How can the relationship among objective realities, normative ideals, and practical prescriptions be explained in political thought? More specifically, can
the relationship between “what is,” “what ought to be,” and “what ought to be done” be adequately explained through the conventional opposition among idealism, realism, and pragmatism, or does it require a distinct conceptual framework? The history of political thought indicates that these three approaches have emphasized different dimensions of political reasoning. Idealism primarily focuses on “what ought to be,” giving priority
to normative principles, values, and desirable political ends, often without sufficiently considering the practical conditions and constraints of their realization. Realism concentrates on “what is,” emphasizing existing realities, power relations, historical circumstances, and practical limitations, but may ultimately accommodate itself to the existing order at the expense of normative ideals. Pragmatism, meanwhile, emphasizes “what ought to be done,” evaluating political ideas and prescriptions primarily in terms of their practical utility, consequences, and effectiveness. The problem addressed by this study is therefore whether these three approaches exhaust the possible forms of political thinking or whether a fourth approach can establish a more productive relationship between reality, ideals, and action. This study employs an analytical-comparative methodology. It examines the conceptual foundations and distinctive characteristics of idealism, realism, and pragmatism through a critical engagement with selected examples from the history of political thought and the ideas of prominent political thinkers. The comparative analysis is used to identify the epistemological, normative, and practical assumptions underlying each approach and to clarify their respective positions concerning the relationship between reality and ideals. On this basis, the study seeks to extract and formulate the conceptual components of the Realistic Approach. The findings indicate that the Realistic Approach
is distinguished by four fundamental characteristics. First, political thinking should be grounded in an accurate and comprehensive understanding of existing reality. Social problems, political crises, historical circumstances, power structures, and the concrete conditions of political life constitute the starting point of political reflection. In this respect, the Realistic Approach differs from idealism by refusing to begin with an abstract
and purely imagined political order detached from concrete circumstances. Second, it emphasizes the primacy of thought over reality. Attention to existing realities does not imply submission to them; rather, reality must be critically examined and evaluated through the categories, concepts, and normative standards of political thought. This principle preserves the autonomy of thought and prevents political reflection from becoming merely an instrument for legitimizing or reproducing the status quo. Third, the Realistic Approach maintains a commitment to ideals in light of practical possibilities and constraints. Ideals are neither abandoned when confronted with reality nor treated as immutable commands entirely detached from the conditions of their realization. Instead, they function as guiding normative principles whose priority, interpretation, and modes of implementation may be reconsidered and adjusted in response to concrete circumstances. Fourth, the Realistic Approach requires avoiding pragmatism and purely interest-driven reasoning. Practical feasibility and effectiveness are important considerations, but they cannot constitute the sole criteria for evaluating political ideas and prescriptions. Political ideals retain intrinsic normative significance and should not be sacrificed merely for immediate utility or efficiency. These characteristics distinguish the Realistic Approach from the three competing approaches. Unlike realism, it does not equate attention to reality with accommodation to the status quo. Unlike idealism, it does not disregard the practical limitations and conditions necessary for the realization of normative ideals. Unlike pragmatism, it does not reduce the validity of ideas and values to their usefulness or practical consequences. Instead, it seeks to establish a dynamic relationship between reality and ideals, theory and practice, and stability and reform-oriented dynamism. The study concludes that the relationship between “what is,” “what ought to be,” and “what ought to be done” cannot be adequately explained through a simplistic opposition between idealism, realism, and pragmatism. The Realistic Approach offers a distinct theoretical framework in which reality constitutes the starting point and the boundary of possibility for political reflection, but not its ultimate normative criterion. Ideals remain indispensable as sources of direction and normative evaluation, but their realization requires continuous reconsideration in light of concrete circumstances, available resources, social conditions, and practical constraints. Political action, accordingly, should neither wait for the realization of a perfect utopia nor abandon normative aspirations for the sake of immediate efficiency. Rather, the Realistic Approach advocates gradual and feasible reform within a long-term normative trajectory. It can therefore be understood as a theoretically grounded middle path between radical idealism and radical realism, while remaining distinct from pragmatism: a mode of political thinking that connects theory and practice within the “geography of the possible.” Through a dynamic and dialectical interaction between “what is” and “what ought to be,” it seeks to preserve the normative significance of political ideals while creating realistic conditions for their gradual, feasible, and meaningful realization.