Sunday, April 12, 2009

An Argument Against Political Theory

Whigwham:

In the Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between the contemplative (or scientific) reason and the calculative (or deliberative) reason. The former is concerned with necessary, eternal, and invariable truths, the latter with contingent and variable truths. He then identifies the 5 primary intellectual virtues and situates them in their proper places within this division of reason. He discusses practical wisdom (prudence) which, of course, is situated in the calculative/deliberative reason, because it concerns actions towards human goods which are variable and contingent. He then discusses the relationship between practical wisdom and political science. He says that they are the same "state of mind" but their essence is not the same--because they are concerned with different ends. Practical wisdom with the good of an individual man and political science (or political wisdom, as Aristotle puts it) with the good of the city. But because it is concerned with activity towards goods, political science must be a virtue associated with the calculative/deliberative reason.

So the argument against "political theory" is that it is an empty set. For to "theorize" is to belong to contemplative/scientific reason--to think in terms of necessary truths and their conclusions. But this is not the kind of knowledge that pertains to things political. First, things political necessarily entail action. Yet the contemplative/scientific reason does not pertain to action. Also, things political pertain to contingent human goods. Again, this is not the purview of contemplative/scientific reason. So the notion that one can come up with some political "theory" is contrary to the entire nature, domain, and ends of politics.

But, we all know that good political theory is not an attempt to come up with some grand theory of everything political. In reality, when done well, it looks a lot like Aristotle's political wisdom. Thus, I think the problem is just with the nomenclature. Why the insistence on "theory"?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

From Peter Euben, _The Tragedy of Political Theory_:

"There is another way to tell this story having to do with the original Greek meaning of "theory." Originally a theoros was either an ambassador sent to observe the sacred festivals of a foreign city or an envoy to Apollo's oracle of Delphi. As ambassadors, theorists were spectators (theatai) whose distance from the action provided a view partially hidden from those taking part in the spectacle. Whereas the participants are bound to the particular, like an actor whose enacting of a part precludes the knowledge of the whole available to the audience, the theorist, like an audience, is able to compare and judge with an impartiality denied the actors. (Theoreo literally means both being a member of an audience and comparing or judging.)"