On the Problem of Methodology and the Nature of Political Theory

Abstract

T IS PERHAPS AN UNWONTED PARODY of Hegel aphorism about the owl of Minerva taking flight at dusk that the decline o political theory should be accompanied by a heightened interest in hom political theory should be studied. Having laid the tradition of substantive political philosophy to rest, we now find ourselves preoccupied with the problem of how to go about digging amongst the dusky remnants of the past. Methodological issues dominate the current literature of political science, since it is generally agreed that 'grand' political theory in the manner of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, or Locke no longer springs forth from the heads of twentieth-century thinkers. Of course, I do not mean to imply that previous political philosophers were unconcerned with problems of methodology. They devoted considerable attention to the subject, and some of their recorded insights invariably find their way into any serious contemporary discussion of methodology. Nor do I mean to deny the importance of the question itself; that is, how and why we should make the effort to understand the 'classic' works of political theory. Nevertheless, in their treatment of those works, contributors to the current controversy have greatly overemphasized the problem of 'understanding' to the exclusion of other purposes underlying thle activity of theorizing. The effect of this upon our