What are the implications of philosophical pragmatism for international relations theory and foreign policy practice? According to John Ryder, "a foreign policy built on pragmatist principles is neither naive nor dangerous. In fact, it is very much what both the U.S. and the world are currently in need of." Close observers of Barack Obama's foreign policy statements have also raised the possibility of a distinctly pragmatist approach to international relations. Absent from the three dominant theoretical perspectives in the field-realism, idealism and constructivism-is any mention of pragmatism, except in the very limited, instrumentalist sense of choosing appropriate foreign policy tools to achieve proposed policy objectives. The key commitments of any international relations approach in the pragmatist tradition could include a flexible approach to crafting policy ends, theory integrally related to practice, a concern for both the normative and explanatory dimensions of international relations research, and policy means treated as hypotheses for experimental testing. Following the example of classic pragmatists such as John Dewey and neo-pragmatists like Richard Rorty, international relations scholars and foreign policy practitioners would have to forgo grand theories, instead embracing a situationally-specific approach to understanding and addressing emerging global problems. Unfortunately, commentary on the relationship between philosophical pragmatism and international relations has been limited. The authors in Philosophical Pragmatism and International Relations remedies this lacuna by exploring ways in which philosophical pragmatism, both classic and contemporary, can inform international relations theory and foreign policy practice today.

What are the implications of philosophical pragmatism for international relations theory and foreign policy practice? According to John Ryder, "a foreign policy built on pragmatist principles is neither naive nor dangerous. In fact, it is very much what both the U.S. and the world are currently in need of." Close observers of Barack Obama's foreign policy statements have also raised the possibility of a distinctly pragmatist approach to international relations. Absent from the three dominant theoretical perspectives in the field-realism, idealism and constructivism-is any mention of pragmatism, except in the very limited, instrumentalist sense of choosing appropriate foreign policy tools to achieve proposed policy objectives. The key commitments of any international relations approach in the pragmatist tradition could include a flexible approach to crafting policy ends, theory integrally related to practice, a concern for both the normative and explanatory dimensions of international relations research, and policy means treated as hypotheses for experimental testing. Following the example of classic pragmatists such as John Dewey and neo-pragmatists like Richard Rorty, international relations scholars and foreign policy practitioners would have to forgo grand theories, instead embracing a situationally-specific approach to understanding and addressing emerging global problems. Unfortunately, commentary on the relationship between philosophical pragmatism and international relations has been limited. The authors in Philosophical Pragmatism and International Relations remedies this lacuna by exploring ways in which philosophical pragmatism, both classic and contemporary, can inform international relations theory and foreign policy practice today.

A few years ago, the rhetoric of hope was all the rage, but the faith it expressed has been challenged by recent events and in recent political theory. Despite the regular appeal to hope from politicians, there is a widespread feeling of despair in the modern world: democracy is in retreat, it seems, and authoritarianism threatens both domestically and internationally. As a precondition for political action, the decline of political hope has special urgency in the context of democracy, an idea based on the egalitarian faith in the capacities of ordinary people to collectively manage their common affairs. What, if anything, can offer a foundation for hope in a democratic age? In The Principle of Political Hope, Loren Goldman draws on Immanuel Kant, Ernst Bloch, Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey to offer an account of political hope as a frame for navigating the relationship between subjective aspiration and objective possibility. Considering what political hope is, how it operates, how it has been thought about, and how to think about it in the contemporary world, Goldman's conceptualization of hope rejects grand notions of progress while still maintaining the possibility of a brighter future. This hope, as opposed to optimism, is characterized by uncertainty, haunted by the possibility of failure, and works to overcome despair. It is rooted in political action and democratic experimentation. Through an insightful reading of each thinker, Goldman shows that the anticipatory aspect of political thought allows us to make sense of political acts as prefigurative instead of merely expressive. Participation in voting, electoral politics, protest, aesthetic happenings, and even everyday minor acts of illegality are not merely activities serving instrumental ends-in-view but fleeting enactments of and preparation for a better future. Refreshing and lucid, Goldman reconstructs hope as a necessary condition for social and political engagement, reinvigorating the possibility of utopia in the process.

Ernst Bloch was one of the most significant twentieth-century German thinkers, yet he remains overshadowed by his Frankfurt School contemporaries. Known for his engagement with utopianism and religious thought, Bloch also wrote incisively about ontological questions. In his short masterpiece Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left, Bloch gives a striking account of materialism that traces emancipatory elements of modern thought to medieval Islamic philosophers' encounter with Aristotle. Bloch argues that the great medieval Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) planted the seeds of a radical materialism still relevant for critical theory today. He contrasts Avicenna's and Aquinas's interpretations of Aristotle on form and matter to argue that Avicenna's reading democratizes power and undermines clerical and political authority. Bloch explores Avicenna's world and metaphysics in detail, showing how even his most recondite theoretical concerns prove capable of pointing toward radical social transformation. He blazes an original path through the history of ideas, including Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Spinoza, and Marx as well as lesser-known figures. Here translated into English for the first time, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left is at once a succinct summation of Bloch's own idiosyncratic materialism, a provocative reconstruction of the Western philosophical tradition in light of its exchanges with Islamic thought, and a vital resource for contemporary debates about materialism in critical theory.

Ernst Bloch was one of the most significant twentieth-century German thinkers, yet he remains overshadowed by his Frankfurt School contemporaries. Known for his engagement with utopianism and religious thought, Bloch also wrote incisively about ontological questions. In his short masterpiece Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left, Bloch gives a striking account of materialism that traces emancipatory elements of modern thought to medieval Islamic philosophers' encounter with Aristotle. Bloch argues that the great medieval Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) planted the seeds of a radical materialism still relevant for critical theory today. He contrasts Avicenna's and Aquinas's interpretations of Aristotle on form and matter to argue that Avicenna's reading democratizes power and undermines clerical and political authority. Bloch explores Avicenna's world and metaphysics in detail, showing how even his most recondite theoretical concerns prove capable of pointing toward radical social transformation. He blazes an original path through the history of ideas, including Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Spinoza, and Marx as well as lesser-known figures. Here translated into English for the first time, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left is at once a succinct summation of Bloch's own idiosyncratic materialism, a provocative reconstruction of the Western philosophical tradition in light of its exchanges with Islamic thought, and a vital resource for contemporary debates about materialism in critical theory.