An Eclectic Subject 11the text. The reasons are that, first, and quite minimally, I have already covered this
area fairly comprehensively in another book (Vincent 1995). Second, and far more
importantly, there is something immediately theoretically problematic in raising the
issue of political theory as synonymous with political ideology. Undoubtedly, political
ideology is a dimension of political theory, considered at the broadest, most generic
level. However, their relationship remains both deeply complex and philosophically
unresolved. Many political theorists would, admittedly, be completely untroubled by
the use of political ideology, as either closely tied to or conceptually synonymous with
political theory. However, for many other twentieth-century political theorists—as
I will argue—this synonymity or conceptual tie remains profoundly troubling, if not
irksome. This deep unease with the label ‘ideology’ can be seen quite starkly in their
judgements of ideology asopposedto political theory. Thus, although ideology will
appear at points, and will be discussed as a facet of political theory, substantive dis-
cussion of ideology is largely avoided. I should emphasize, though, that this omission
is not because I personally consider that ideology should not be discussed under
the rubric theory, but rather that, in critically reconstructing the broad contours of
political theory in the twentieth century, ideology remains problematic.
Further, the present book does not deny the importance, interest, and pedagogic
value of more standard conceptualist, historical, or ‘grand theoretical’ introductions
to theory. However, it does make a plea for a more ecumenical, reflective, tolerant,
or open demeanour, namely that there just may be different, but still quite legit-
imate answers to the question ‘what is political theory?’ Acceptance of this view
would involve a supplementation of standard analytical conceptualist (or historical)
approaches with some reflection on the more general nature of theory itself. Thus,
the student being introduced to political theory should minimally be made aware of
the contestable internal dimensions of the discipline and to its complex genealogy
during the twentieth century. This latter point needs to be underscored. This is not a
book simply about political theory in general. Conversely, it is about political theory,
predominantly in the twentieth century, in the Anglo-American and European con-
texts. The book, uniquely, aims to chart and analyse this very peculiar practice. The
underlying motif is to work with the grain of theories and to map out their internal
structures. The focus of the book is therefore limited, for pedagogic reasons, mainly
to political theory in the twentieth century. It is also written from the standpoint
of someone educated in predominantly-occidental modes of political theory; that
is, within a distinctly-Anglo-American perspective. This is not a ‘politically correct’
apologia—rather, it just indicates the range of ideas to be dealt with. The ideas dealt
with relate to a complex political and intellectual tradition and this book largely shares
the preoccupations of that tradition. However, it is also important to emphasize that
this tradition is still polyvocal.
The way the book is constructed follows, as mentioned, a rough chronology,
although it should not be thought of as progressive. There are continuous over-
laps and interweavings between phases. As indicated, the structure of the book is
built around the idea of foundations. Foundations are taken to be deeply contested,
not only in terms of substantive normative foundations, but also in terms of the