write an essay on the revival of political theory? (500 words)
Answers
Answered by
41
We know that after the Second World War all out efforts were made to base political theory upon the foundation of empirical research and to scrutinize political principles by data and facts. In earlier periods political theory had no separate existence and importance. Political science was made to cohabit with history, economics, and sociology. Serious research and investigation practically had no place in political science.
David Easton writes, “Political theory today is interested primarily in the history of ideas”. This was the exact character of political theory. Also it was inextricably associated with notions of value and general principles. Easton could not accept this position of political theory. He thought that value, principles and history cannot be the sole determiners of political theory.
The classical and modern traditional political scientists did not pay any attention to the development of the theoretical analysis with the help of data. It was the purpose of Easton and many others to rewrite the meaning of political theory and to treat it “as part of empirical science and to reject explicitly. The emerging tendency to identify the term with both metaphysical speculation (abstractions hopelessly removed from empirical observation and control) and the history of political thought”.
Eclipse of Liberalism:
The study of political science mainly based on history or supported by historical data exposes the bare fact that from the 1920s liberal political thought or liberalism was passing through a number of crises. One, the establishment of Bolshevik rule in Russia laid the foundation of Collectivism and curtailment of individual freedom initiative.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In other words after the First World War (1914-1918) a belief gathered momentum that only state sponsored projects and gargantuan type of state activity can be prophylactic device for the removal of numerous miseries from which common people were suffering. This drastically corroded the individual’s freedom.
Again in the 1930s American capitalism experienced an unprecedented crisis and the White House adopted certain measures which went against the liberalism. Easton diagnosed another reason of the “eclipse of liberalism”. In his opinion the problem of contemporary liberalism was its general failure to put its theories to the test of social reality. Scientific methods shall be used to discover social facts about the source of political power.
To sum up, liberalism as well as political theory must be based on rigorous empirical study. If this technique is strictly followed the fragility of liberalism and decline of political theory can be stopped. He has elaborated his conception of the idea of decline of political theory in The Political System.
Historicism and Decline of Political Theory:
According to David Easton the ever-increasing role of historicism is a major cause of the decline of political theory. In his words: “Political theory has been devoted to a form of historical researches that has robbed it of its earlier, constructive role”. What is historicism? It is defined as a belief that history is governed by inexorable laws of change and that human actions are guided by permanent ultimate purposes.
For long period political theory was in one way or other dominated by history and this led political theory to insignificance. Easton has cited the example of Dunning’s work. Dunning believed that political theory was nothing but a historical account of condition and consequences of political ideas. Traditional political, scientists generally built up the principles of political science on the basis of historical facts which they collected from past history.
This approach made political theory completely dependent on history and it lost its own identity. Not only Dunning, other political scientists were also exponents of this concept and among them Sabine is pioneer. He, in his famous work A History of Political Theory, has explained the deep and inseparable relationship between history and political theory.
He has said that political theory is the product of politics and history contains the incidents of politics. Easton is of opinion that because of the excessive dependence of political theory on historical facts and data there is practically no difference between history and political science.
David Easton writes, “Political theory today is interested primarily in the history of ideas”. This was the exact character of political theory. Also it was inextricably associated with notions of value and general principles. Easton could not accept this position of political theory. He thought that value, principles and history cannot be the sole determiners of political theory.
The classical and modern traditional political scientists did not pay any attention to the development of the theoretical analysis with the help of data. It was the purpose of Easton and many others to rewrite the meaning of political theory and to treat it “as part of empirical science and to reject explicitly. The emerging tendency to identify the term with both metaphysical speculation (abstractions hopelessly removed from empirical observation and control) and the history of political thought”.
Eclipse of Liberalism:
The study of political science mainly based on history or supported by historical data exposes the bare fact that from the 1920s liberal political thought or liberalism was passing through a number of crises. One, the establishment of Bolshevik rule in Russia laid the foundation of Collectivism and curtailment of individual freedom initiative.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In other words after the First World War (1914-1918) a belief gathered momentum that only state sponsored projects and gargantuan type of state activity can be prophylactic device for the removal of numerous miseries from which common people were suffering. This drastically corroded the individual’s freedom.
Again in the 1930s American capitalism experienced an unprecedented crisis and the White House adopted certain measures which went against the liberalism. Easton diagnosed another reason of the “eclipse of liberalism”. In his opinion the problem of contemporary liberalism was its general failure to put its theories to the test of social reality. Scientific methods shall be used to discover social facts about the source of political power.
To sum up, liberalism as well as political theory must be based on rigorous empirical study. If this technique is strictly followed the fragility of liberalism and decline of political theory can be stopped. He has elaborated his conception of the idea of decline of political theory in The Political System.
Historicism and Decline of Political Theory:
According to David Easton the ever-increasing role of historicism is a major cause of the decline of political theory. In his words: “Political theory has been devoted to a form of historical researches that has robbed it of its earlier, constructive role”. What is historicism? It is defined as a belief that history is governed by inexorable laws of change and that human actions are guided by permanent ultimate purposes.
For long period political theory was in one way or other dominated by history and this led political theory to insignificance. Easton has cited the example of Dunning’s work. Dunning believed that political theory was nothing but a historical account of condition and consequences of political ideas. Traditional political, scientists generally built up the principles of political science on the basis of historical facts which they collected from past history.
This approach made political theory completely dependent on history and it lost its own identity. Not only Dunning, other political scientists were also exponents of this concept and among them Sabine is pioneer. He, in his famous work A History of Political Theory, has explained the deep and inseparable relationship between history and political theory.
He has said that political theory is the product of politics and history contains the incidents of politics. Easton is of opinion that because of the excessive dependence of political theory on historical facts and data there is practically no difference between history and political science.
HhhAnshul11:
good
Answered by
9
In the 1930s, political theory began studying the history of ideas with the purpose of defending liberal democratic theory in opposition to the totalitarian tenets of communism, fascism and nazism. Lasswell tried to establish a scientific political theory with the
eventual purpose of controlling human behaviour, furthering the aims and direction given by Merriam. Unlike the classical tradition,scientific political theory describes
rather than prescribes. Political theory in the traditional sense was alive in the works of Arendt, Theodore Adorno, Marcuse, and Leo Strauss. Their views diametrically
differed from the broad ideas within American political science for they believed in liberal democracy, science and historical progress. All of them reject political messianism and utopianism in politics. Arendt focussed mainly on the uniqueness and responsibility of the human being, with which she initiates her criticism in behaviouralism. She
contended that the behavioural search for uniformities in human nature has only contributed towards stereotyping the human being.
Strauss reaffirms the importance of classical political theory to remedy the crisis of the modern times. He does not agree with the proposition that all political theory is
ideological in nature mirroring a given socio-economic interest, for most political thinkers are motivated by the possibility of discerning the principles of the right order in social existence. A political philosopher has to be primarily interested in truth. Past philosophies are studied with an eye on coherence and consistency. The authors of the classics in political theory are superior because they were geniuses and measured
in their writings. Strauss scrutinises the methods and purposes of the ‘new’ political science and concludes that it was defective when compared with classical political
theory, particularly that of Aristotle. For Aristotle, a political philosopher or a political scientist has to be impartial, for he possesses a more comprehensive and clearer understanding of human ends. Political science and political philosophy are identical,
because science consisting of theoretical and practical aspects is identical with philosophy. Aristotle’s political science also evaluates political things, defends autonomy
of prudence in practical matters and views political action as essentially ethical.
These premises Behaviouralism denies, for it separates political philosophy from political science and substitutes the distinction between theoretical and practical
sciences. It perceives applied sciences to be derived from theoretical sciences, but not in the same manner as the classical tradition visualises. Behaviouralism like positivism is disastrous, for it denies knowledge regarding ultimate principles. Their
bankruptcy is evident, for they seem helpless, unable to distinguish the right from the wrong, the just from the unjust in view of the rise of totalitarianism. Strauss counters Easton’s charge of historicism by alleging that the new science is responsible for the decline in political theory, for it pointed to and abetted the general political crisis of
the West because of its overall neglect of normative issues.
Vogelin regards political science and political theory as inseparable and that one is not possible without the other. Political theory is not ideology, utopia or scientific
methodology, but an experiential science of the right order in both the individual and society. It has to dissect critically and empirically the problem of order.
Theory is not just any opining about human existence in society, it rather is an attempt
at formulating the meaning of existence by explicating the content of a definitive class of experiences. Its argument is not arbitrary, but derives its validity from the aggregate of experiences to which it must permanently refer for empirical control.
eventual purpose of controlling human behaviour, furthering the aims and direction given by Merriam. Unlike the classical tradition,scientific political theory describes
rather than prescribes. Political theory in the traditional sense was alive in the works of Arendt, Theodore Adorno, Marcuse, and Leo Strauss. Their views diametrically
differed from the broad ideas within American political science for they believed in liberal democracy, science and historical progress. All of them reject political messianism and utopianism in politics. Arendt focussed mainly on the uniqueness and responsibility of the human being, with which she initiates her criticism in behaviouralism. She
contended that the behavioural search for uniformities in human nature has only contributed towards stereotyping the human being.
Strauss reaffirms the importance of classical political theory to remedy the crisis of the modern times. He does not agree with the proposition that all political theory is
ideological in nature mirroring a given socio-economic interest, for most political thinkers are motivated by the possibility of discerning the principles of the right order in social existence. A political philosopher has to be primarily interested in truth. Past philosophies are studied with an eye on coherence and consistency. The authors of the classics in political theory are superior because they were geniuses and measured
in their writings. Strauss scrutinises the methods and purposes of the ‘new’ political science and concludes that it was defective when compared with classical political
theory, particularly that of Aristotle. For Aristotle, a political philosopher or a political scientist has to be impartial, for he possesses a more comprehensive and clearer understanding of human ends. Political science and political philosophy are identical,
because science consisting of theoretical and practical aspects is identical with philosophy. Aristotle’s political science also evaluates political things, defends autonomy
of prudence in practical matters and views political action as essentially ethical.
These premises Behaviouralism denies, for it separates political philosophy from political science and substitutes the distinction between theoretical and practical
sciences. It perceives applied sciences to be derived from theoretical sciences, but not in the same manner as the classical tradition visualises. Behaviouralism like positivism is disastrous, for it denies knowledge regarding ultimate principles. Their
bankruptcy is evident, for they seem helpless, unable to distinguish the right from the wrong, the just from the unjust in view of the rise of totalitarianism. Strauss counters Easton’s charge of historicism by alleging that the new science is responsible for the decline in political theory, for it pointed to and abetted the general political crisis of
the West because of its overall neglect of normative issues.
Vogelin regards political science and political theory as inseparable and that one is not possible without the other. Political theory is not ideology, utopia or scientific
methodology, but an experiential science of the right order in both the individual and society. It has to dissect critically and empirically the problem of order.
Theory is not just any opining about human existence in society, it rather is an attempt
at formulating the meaning of existence by explicating the content of a definitive class of experiences. Its argument is not arbitrary, but derives its validity from the aggregate of experiences to which it must permanently refer for empirical control.
Similar questions