The Nature of Political Theory

178 The Nature of Political Theory

century. It does not have a large academic following in comparison to nationalism.
However, this latter point might be somewhat misleading for two reasons. First, its
pedagogical separation from themes such as communitarianism or republicanism is
somewhat artificial. This is a very grey area in contemporary political theory, where
groups, individuals, or movements will often be openly associated with certain cat-
egories, which are vigorously contested by others, all with startling finality. Many
communitarians, for example, have been described as neo-Aristotelians, civic repub-
licans, and even nationalists. Each of these labels generates differing responses,
according to affiliations. Thus, no category should be taken as absolute or imper-
meable. Each of the terms are fluid and contested. The second reason is that
Aristotelianism has permeated many other intellectual positions during the twen-
tieth century. Thus, Hannah Arendt’s work during the 1950s and 1960s has been
seen as articulating a form of neo-Aristotelian theory, although much tempered by
both Kant and Heidegger. Similarly, Hans Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics contains
elements of Aristotelian thought—also tempered by Heidegger. However, neither
of the latter theorists openly proclaimed themselves as systematic neo-Aristotelians.
The present section deals largely with those theorists who more openly avow an
Aristotelian commitment.
Neo-Aristotelianism is, however, still a broad canvas. The first task is to provide
a brief thumbnail sketch of neo-Aristotelianism, as a form of conventionalist theory,
then to indicate a common range of Aristotelian criticisms offered of liberalism,
communitarianism, andnationalism. Thediscussionwillthendistinguishtwostrands
of neo-Aristotelian political theory—positive and negative renderings. The positive
sees a definite ideal or good in Aristotle, which can act as a form of foundation—but
which also takes on board imperfection and difference. The more negative reading
(broadly) emphasizes the contingency of conventions over any notion of an intrinsic
universal good.
The first point concerns the basic idea of neo-Aristotelianism. There are three
broad dimensions to the attraction of neo-Aristotelianism, which can be given differ-
ent weightings. The first highlights Aristotelian immanentism. In this context, theory
is not seen as a construction or justification of a new way of life. It is rather a reflection
on concrete practices, traditions, or pre-existing ways of life. The term ‘ethos’isoften
used as synonymous for a ‘way of life’. An ethos cannot be invented or constructed. It
already exists. A moral ethos is not justified or recommended. It is rather observed in
certain types of human character and conduct. Certain kinds of conduct arise from a
particular type of human character. This character also arises from specific kinds of
social milieu. The good can be observed as a reflection on actual practice. Morality
is therefore immanent in certain types of character and conduct. Consequently, neo-
Aristotelianism has a descriptive, virtually sociological, component to it. Second, the
observance of ways of life requires empirical observation of concrete communities and
ways of life. Community is used here in generic sense. There is nothing immediately
‘ideal’ or ‘perfectionist’ about the term ‘community’. A community is just an existing
way of life. This gives rise to Aristotle’s reputation for both realism and empiricism.
It also connects up with Aristotle’s awareness (for his defenders) of the inevitability