The historical approach, tested against the claim that political theory is the study of classical philosophers

Introduction

The question quotes the claim that political theory is the study of classical philosophers and their works, and asks for a discussion of the historical approach with reference to it. The statement is partly right, since the historical approach does draw on classic texts, but it is too narrow as a description of political theory.

The statement examined

What is right in it. Political theory does give a central place to the classics. A classic of political theory has, in spite of its local setting, the qualities of a great literary work: it deals with perennial problems of life and society and belongs to humankind and not to a single culture or age, which is why the study of classical texts is an important part of the discipline. Strauss held that classical theory, above all Aristotle's, remedies the weakness of a political science indifferent to values, and that the great authors are superior because of their genius and care. The syllabus itself prescribes reading on history and the interpretation of texts.

What is wrong with it. (1) It confuses one approach with the whole subject: the course recognises three conceptions, the historical, the normative and the empirical. (2) Political theory is not only commentary on classics: it explains and evaluates current institutions, behaviour and concepts, and it responds to the challenges of each age. Contemporary political theory arose largely as a critique of the classical traditions and their Enlightenment categories. (3) A purely historical reading risks historicism, the tendency to trace the origin and effect of values without examining their merit, which Easton named among the causes of decline. (4) Classical philosophers wrote about the problems of their own times; to understand them is to understand the situations they addressed, and the present has different problems.

The historical approach

The historical approach builds political theory out of the resources of history. Its leading exponent, Sabine, held that the question what is political theory? is best answered descriptively, by showing how theory has responded to historical events and situations: each historical situation sets a problem and theory is the solution devised for it, so theory is situation-dependent and deferential to tradition. Cobban likewise maintained that the traditional mode, steeped in a sense of history, is the right way to treat the problems of political theory. The syllabus lists it as one of the three approaches of Unit II alongside the normative and the empirical. Its method is the reading of past theory in its setting: the works of earlier thinkers are studied as solutions to the problems their own situations set, and the syllabus prescribes for this unit a reading on history and the interpretation of texts.

What it contributes. (1) The past acts as a guide and warns us against exaggerating our originality. (2) It shows that thought can be otherwise than the fashionable and the dominant, and it reveals the sources of ideas. (3) It makes us aware of the failings of earlier generations and joins them to present wisdom. (4) It feeds the normative vision: knowing where our values and expectations came from lets us interrogate and assess them.

Its limits. Each situation is unique and brings new challenges, so the worth of the past can become redundant and even a hindrance, and the approach is always tied to ideas of earlier ages; its suggestive value remains but its theoretical function recedes. An exclusive reliance on history also led to what Easton called historicism, the habit of tracing the origin and social impact of values without asking whether they are sound; this was one of the reasons given for the decline of political theory. Easton laid this charge on Dunning, McIlwain and Sabine, arguing that a theory concerned only with historical forms had lost its constructive role.

Assessment

The statement can be accepted only as a description of one strand: the historical approach reads classical works in their context, to draw guidance from them and to understand the origin of our values, but it cannot be the whole of political theory. The right balance treats the classics as a resource that informs, but does not replace, normative reasoning and empirical analysis.

Conclusion

Political theory is not just the study of classical philosophers, although the historical approach rightly values them. History supplies perspective, humility and a critical grasp of where concepts come from; normative and empirical enquiry supply the means to judge and to test. A mature political theory uses all three.