On Texts in Political Theory

I went to a wonderful talk last night on the state and future of political theory by Arlene Saxonhouse. After she gave a history (from the 50s forward) of political theory's moves and its relationship to political science as a whole, she turned to Strauss, Arendt and Shklar as examples of thinkers who primarily focused on something besides disciplinary debates, and who looked to great texts in order to confront the real-world problems that they faced. (She picked up Plato's metaphor in The Republic and said that the texts were the stars at which these thinkers gazed.)

She cautioned against "using" texts--making texts into a perspective on a certain questions. She suggested that, instead, texts should be a resource with which we grapple when thinking about contemporary issues. She emphasized thinking about questions over getting answers, implying that the problem with someone like Rawls is that he offers all of the answers, instead of examining the questions in all of their complexity. She said that her interaction with texts is a leap of faith, that she doesn't know in advance that they will make her think more deeply, but trusts that they will.

Her talk brought up an important point (without really suggesting an answer): on the one hand, she pointed to the way in which the political theory canon develops, and its expansion to include literature and films. On the other hand, she cautioned against seeing everything as a text, or the democratization of the canon, where all resources are viewed as equal.