A Pragmatist critique of progressive realism in foreign policy

Abstract How might pragmatism inform foreign policy? In the United Kingdom's policy sphere, pragmatism is often conflated with realism to mean either a philosophical acceptance of the way the world is, or a prudential awareness that progressive change is difficult but still possible. David Lammy's advocacy of ‘progressive realism’ as a foreign policy ethos seems to favour the latter; yet, we see two problems with Lammy's formulation for progressive foreign policy. First, shackling pragmatism to realism could result in progressive opportunities being missed. Second, as a means towards (or a check on) progressive ends, realist pragmatism risks assuming the undemocratic position that those ends are given (by western powers) and beyond (multilateral) dialogue. We argue that a policy informed by philosophical Pragmatism avoids these risks because unlike realists (and International Relations realists) these Pragmatists are more aware of the constructed and processual (rather than essential and fixed) nature of social problems. In that awareness they will be: 1) less sceptical and more creative in the pursuit of progress; 2) less inclined to compromise on multilateral practices; and 3) more committed to the democratization of those practices as a method of uncovering and solving practical problems. We apply this three-part definition of ‘progressive Pragmatism’ to two hard cases confronting UK foreign policy: the challenge of global governance in a multipolar system and Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Lammy claims his realism is not ‘cynical’. We argue he can better protect progressivism against realist cynicism if he pairs it with Pragmatism.