mention any two differences between traditional view of Political Theory and modern view of Political Theory?
Answers
Explanation:
The traditional approaches are mostly legal, institutional, historical, descriptive in nature, while the modern approach is scientific, rational and analytical. ... They compare the functions performed by different institutions. These approaches lack social, economic, cultural, behavioural factors.
Explanation:
Often political theory is seen as a sub-field of political science. Unlike other sub-fields of political science, political theory does not model its approach to knowledge on the natural sciences. Political theorists see their field as among the humanities and as drawing from other humanities, such as the disciplines of ethics, history, linguistics, cultural anthropology, and other relevant fields.
Political philosophy is often seen as a branch of academic philosophy, with especially close and sometimes overlapping relationships to normative moral philosophy and meta-ethics. Aristotle is particularly clear in underscoring his view of the reflexive nature of these relationships.
In comparing political philosophy with political theory, the scope and the broader more all-encompassing nature of political philosophy strikes me as essential. Plato (Republic), Hobbes (Leviathan), and Marx (in the entire body of his work), are but three examples of political philosophers. On the other hand, I would identify Machiavelli, James Madison, and Isaiah Berlin as three on many examples of political theorists.
A work of political philosophy is an attempt to achieve a level of generality which explores and draws conclusions about the nature and relationships between all the major features of government and politics, as well as the context in which political systems operate and are understood. Works of political philosophy are grounded on significant assumptions about meta-physics and epistemology. Such works are also grounded theoretically by the mutually supportive nature of political principles, concepts, and institutions with fundamental moral principles, concepts, and institutions, such as justice, authority, human nature, and legitimacy. (This feature of political philosophy is no less the case in Marx's work than,for example, in the work of Plato.) The broad scope of political philosophy is complemented by its goal of presenting and defending timeless truths or bedrock meaning. (This is also the case with political philosophers, such as Hegel, for whom history, its laws of development and historical revelation and change are of central importance
Of course, political theorists take an abstract approach, and they investigate "the political" at a level of generality unfamiliar to scholars pursuing other sub-fields of political science. Political theory has a focus on somewhat more specific basic or fundamental issues in politics than political philosophy. There is far more attention to the development of mid-level or mid-range theory in approaching such issues than to ground understanding and to defend conclusions about politics in the most basic philosophical sub-fields,such as meta-physics, epistemology, or more recently linguistics and the meaning of meaning.
Machiavelli's concern with the principles and moral dilemmas of political leadership and the preservation and stability of a state led to conclusions in The Prince which are examples of mid-range theory that continue to stimulate examination and debate. Madison's constitutional architecture was prompted by his deeply rooted goal to find institutional solutions under which citizens could be governed peacefully and effectively while, at the same time, prevent these political elites from becoming tyrants. Madison's mid-range theory in achieving this goal is considered by many to be the most original and influential feature of the US Constitution of 1787. Finally, Berlin's profound grasp of history and human nature were the tools he found essential to convincingly envision the possibility of tolerant and humane societies in which core objective moral values could be recognized and serve to guide action, while at the same time never forgetting that moral conflict between individuals, between individual societies, and even value conflict within the mind of each individual is inevitable and unavoidable.