empiricalor knowledge-seeking question,“does every government serve merely the interest of the
stronger?”may be changed to,“is it really in the interest of the stronger to have the government
serve only them,”which is anormativeor justice-seeking question, or changed to“what do we
mean when we say that an interest is strong?,”a question that theanalyticalthinker is likely to ask.
Examining differences between these kinds of questions not only encourages students to become
more critical thinkers, it also brings students into the ongoing debate, noted at the outset, over what
is (and should be) the purpose of political inquiry. In answering this question, we can consider what
it is that the political theorist does that sets him or her apart from the philosopher, the theologian, the
historian, or, for that matter, the political scientist. What is the political theorist’s particular way of
looking at his or her world and responding to it? Another advantage of examining political theory
texts in terms of justice-seeking, knowledge-seeking, and critical inquiry is that it provides
opportunityto consider the merits and limitations of each approach,and how each may contribute to
our understanding of justice, freedom, authority, and politics generally. With regard to a justice-
seeking approach, we can raise such questions as: 1) what ails the political philosopher (and us)?;
2) does his or her diagnosis of what is wrong with society or human beings make sense?; 3) is his or
her diagnosis relevant to our situation?; 4) how does he propose to improve the human situation?;
and 5) will his prescription(s) make his world (let alone, ours) better? And more generally,“should
political theory concern itself with establishing standards of human conduct?”If we are skeptical
and even apprehensive (as many studentsare) about apolitical theorist insistence onchallenging the
conventional values of others, then we need to ask ourselves what exactly is it about his or her
“justice-seeking”that we find disturbing, and why? A justice-seeking approach frequently prompts
a thinker to scrutinize conventional values, but does the mere questioning of other people’s values
mean that a justice-seeker is inherently elitist? Put simply, are“justice-seeking”theoristsipso facto
presuming themselves to be superior to us? Are all political questions ultimately reducible to ethical
questions? And if they are, why study politics?
Whereas the justice-seeking approach poses challenging dilemmas regarding the mixing of
morality and politics, a knowledge-seeking approach leads itself to examining the theorist’s
(including Aristotle’s) use of nature and/or history (including Machiavelli’s) as a standard by which
to evaluate human conduct. As such, the knowledge-seeking approach brings to our attention the
“methods”a political theorist employs, and whether their particular“empirical”mode of inquiry is
appropriate for understanding human nature and politics.
Specifically, what model(s) of science does the knowledge-seeking theorist– including
Aristotle, Bentham, or Marx–strive to emulate in his“science of human behavior”in society?
Should (and can) a knowledge-seeking approach in political theory focus exclusively on iden-
tifying predictable and observable patterns of human behavior for the purpose of garnering truths
about, for instance, the origins of government and authority? What difficulties are involved in
making a view of human nature the basis of a political theory?
Conclusion
Critical thinking about justice and the good life was the primary purpose of Socrates’political
theory. His method (elenchus) entailed a relentless questioning of contemporaries, prodding them
to examine (and to reexamine) what exactly they meant when they spoke of things that they pro-
fessed to value such as justice, courage, and piety.^30 Claiming only knowledge of his ignorance,
Socrates referred to himself as the gadfly. He was determined to point out the flaws in the arguments
and reasoning of others and, as a consequence, the purpose of his questioning appears more
negative than positive, characterized less by the conclusions reached than by demonstrating the
difficulties of arriving at satisfactory answers.^31 Nevertheless, if the totality of his mission is merely
to critique or deconstruct conventional political ideas and principles, what Socrates leaves us with is
not the stuff that dreams are made of (much to the dismay of his students, like Plato).
160 Ramona June Grey