Most of us who use a Socratic method in our political theory courses aim not merely to familiarize
our students with canonical texts, but to engage them in a“search for standards.”And when we
think about political theory as a search for standards, it is the normative approach that comes to
mind. Questions such as“what makes a just individual or a society just?”distinguish this approach,
which is often associated withclassicalpolitical theory. Although we may disagree on what
specific theorists have to offer, we routinely draw upon the classical works of political theory,
beginning with Plato’sRepublic, for the purpose of providing students with greater insights into
what is“truly”political, which inevitably requires a discussion of justice and other fundamental
values. Studying classical political philosophy–as we remind students–enables us not only to
understand the ideas and ideals associated with the Greekpolis, but, more importantly, sets before
us criteria by which to judge political choices in terms of standards of right and wrong, justice,
and injustice.
Not everyone, however, shares this view of the strengths of the classical tradition. There are those
theorists who believe that they have found a better approach. Political theory in their opinion can
move forward only if it draws upon the tools of scientific inquiry, which means uncovering the
underlying causes of political behavior: why and for what purpose(s), for instance, do rulers and
ruled claim that their constitutions align with principles of justice. For thesemoderntheorists, who
trace their lineage back to Aristotle, only by formulating scientific hypotheses based on the facts of
human nature can political theory advance our knowledge. Or they prefer an historical approach to
the study of political thought seeking to explain when and why a particular idea (or ideal) of justice
appears, how it changes over time, and why (or whether) it continues to influence the present. Still
another group of political theorists prefers a critical or analytic approach that involves dissecting,
but not necessarily improving upon, the theories of others.
Today, political thinkers, Laslett proclaims,“do not preach.”On the contrary, they (and we) are
“plain, honest men (and women) who tidy upmuddles”in our thinking,“and have no axe to grind.”^1
Those who agree with Laslett attributecontemporarypolitical theory’s contribution to normative
inquiry–and perhaps its maturity–to the rise of twentieth-century analytical philosophy and
twenty-first-century postmodernism. And, indeed, is this not the approach we practice, and our
graduate and undergraduate students are encouraged to emulate? Instead of engaging in meta-
physical speculation or entirely trusting that history and science can guide knowledge of human
nature and society, students are taught to critically analyze the claims of canonical theorists–
including other contemporary thinkers, while paying close attention to how the use (and abuse) of
language influences an understanding of politics and values.
Notwithstanding major disagreements advocates of these approaches to theorizing and studying
canonical texts have with each other, they all agree on the shortcomings of“classical”political
theory and its stress on justice-seeking, which, they complain, not only teaches us little about
politics, but will defeat the ends that the theorist, like Plato, hopes to achieve. For even if we could
agree on what a truly“just”society would look like, there still remains the question of what we are
frankie
(Frankie)
#1