10 The Nature of Political Theorycontest, and skate over the surface of politics. Politics becomes a much more elusive
quarry. Politics is therefore neither an unmediatedtabula rasa, nor a way of being that
can be studied on an unproblematic empirical level and then simply be addressed by
theory. The nature of political theory is therefore taken to be both internally complex
and deeply contested. This contestation over what it is about and what it ought to do,
relates to certain foundational debates. Finally, the way political theory has largely
been articulated in the twentieth century has been standardly within a particular aca-
demic frame. Unlike political ideology, its main practitioners can be located within
this unique academic professional setting. Thus, in analysing twentieth-century
theory, I understand it predominantly as aself-conscious disciplinary practice.
Pattern of the Book
The present book can be read on two distinct levels. There are systematic concise
expositions of distinct movements and arguments that have characterized the various
phases of political theory during the twentieth century. These can be read independ-
ently by students of politics as individual studies. However, there is also a deeper
argument, which moves through the whole text, focusing on the theme of founda-
tionalism. This theme is closely linked to the contention that we should rethink the
way in which we configure, examine, and teach political theory. Thus, the deeper argu-
ment aims, through a close examination of political theory in the twentieth century,
to challenge the current ways in which we practise and think about political theory.
Consequently, the book should not be read as a history of political theory in
the twentieth century. This would involve a much more detailed and bulky text
with a great deal more scholarly apparatus. More importantly, it would also invoke
a particularviewof the way political theory should be considered, analyzed, and
studied. In this sense, a history of political theory would not actually perform the
task that I have set myself. The present discussion is rather about thewaystheory has
been conceived and practised in the twentieth century; it is not an overtly historical
or even methodological enterprise—although it has historical and methodological
components. There is a chronological dimension to the way the discussion is laid
out. However, this is incidental rather than substantively significant. Further, it is
also important to realize that in examining the way theory has been practised, I am
offering a selective interpretation. Consequently, there is a lot that is missed out.
Most readers will have a favourite theorist who does not appear in the discussion.
Any attempt at such a broad interpretive sweep will inevitably miss aspects of the
theoretical landscape. The study is not therefore intended to focus on the micro-
level of theoretical output, but, rather to offer a broad-brush interpretation of key
dimensions of the way theory has been conceived. It should therefore be seen as an
interpretationof the nature of political theory in the twentieth century.
In terms of the actual substance of the text, the most significant omission is the
bulk of twentieth-century political ideology. Ideology is discussed at times—however,
for various reasons, I do not include substantive discussion of political ideologies in