The Nature of Political Theory

68 The Nature of Political Theory

that political and moral goods cannot be determined by abstract reasoning. All human
‘goods’ arise from particular historical communities. There is no concept which stands
apart from a social context. Morality is neither invented nor discovered, but inter-
preted as already existent (see, for example, Walzer 1987: 21). We ‘read off’ an existing
tradition of discourse. The community becomes the locus of the good. Unwittingly,
again, this appears to tie all political theory closely to political ideology,neitherhas
any distinguishing marks. They are simply different names for the same communal
discourse.
Not all in the historical domain, however, are as unaware in the ‘use’ of the concept
ideology. In an open and explicit use of ideology to denote both political activ-
ism and political theory, Richard Ashcraft comments that, ‘only an ideologically
grounded approach with respect to current political problems can provide a bridge
between the traditions of political philosophy and the perception of what counts as
“political” phenomena’ (Ashcraft 1975: 20). Political philosophers are, or should be,
considered unequivocal ideologists. In response to the idea that philosophy is some-
thing higher or more saintly than ideology, Ashcraft asks, ‘how is it even possible
for...epistemological presuppositions to stand apart from the very conflict they pro-
pose to “study” and are assumed to transcend’ (Ashcraft 1975: 26). Ashcraft, appears
tobedirectinghisfireatbothhistoriansofpoliticaltheoryandanalyticalphilosophers,
arguing that ‘some of the responsibility for the divorce of traditional political theory
from present concerns of political life rests squarely with those teachers of polit-
ical theory who have encapsulated the meaning of politics within the frozen worlds
of “analysis” or “history”’ (Ashcraft 1975: 19). As Ashcraft continues, for many polit-
ical philosophers, the title ideologist is though ‘the original sin’ (see Ashcraft 1980:
695). Ideology appears to relinquish all claims for universality. For Ashcraft, however,
this universality is well worth losing. He suggests that most theorists in the pastwere
actually concerned about problems in society and were actually, what we now think
of as, ideologists. To make them just philosophers is a modern self-indulgence.
Further, it is worth noting that more contemporary neo-Marxism does not always
take a negative view of ideology (as contrasted to genuine science). It can also take an
immensely positive view of the integration of political theory and ideology. Thus, the
most noted twentieth-century Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, saw proletarian ideology
as an effective tool of political struggle against bourgeois ideology. The hegemony of
political ideas was thus considered of immense importance. Ideas take on a partial
autonomy from the material base. There can, in other words, be an authentic and
useful Marxist ideology, qua political theory. Aspects of this ‘partial autonomy’ view
are reflected in some later twentieth century Marxist writers such as Gramsci. It is
also the predominant view of twentieth century critical theory.
In a more general, late twentieth century scenario, language overall—in both theory
and ideology—has not always been viewed as a transparent conveyor of meaning.
Languages, even the sophisticated languages in political philosophy, cannot gain any
real distance or neutrality from the subject of politics. Ideology and political theory
are both focused on language and language is focused on social action. Speaking can
therefore be considered a way of acting. The study of ideologies and political theories