Introduction to Political Theory PDF

**DEFINING POLITICAL THEORY** (Politics as Science, Philosophy and Theory) = The study of politics is usually seen to encompass two, and some would say three, distinct **subdivisions**. On the one hand, there is what is called **political science** and, on the other, **political theory and politic...

**DEFINING POLITICAL THEORY** (Politics as Science, Philosophy and Theory) = The study of politics is usually seen to encompass two, and some would say three, distinct **subdivisions**. On the one hand, there is what is called **political science** and, on the other, **political theory and political philosophy** -- terms that are often used interchangeably but between which distinctions are sometimes drawn. **Political theory and political philosoph**y may overlap, but a difference of emphasis can nevertheless be identified. [Anything from a plan to a piece of abstract knowledge can be described as a] **'theory'**. In academic discourse, however, a theory is an [explanatory proposition, an idea or set of ideas that in some way seeks to impose order or meaning on phenomena]. As such, all enquiry proceeds through the construction of theories, sometimes thought of as **hypotheses** -- that is, [explanatory propositions waiting to be tested]. The term **'political philosophy'** can be used loosely to cover [any abstract thought about politics, law or society] -- philosophy being, in general terms, the [search for wisdom and understanding]. However, philosophy has also been seen more specifically as a [second-order discipline,] in contrast to **first-order disciplines** which deal with [empirical subjects]. In other words, philosophy is [not so much concerned with revealing truth in the manner of science,] as with asking secondary questions about how knowledge is acquired and how understanding is expressed. **Political Theory in Transition**\ = **Western political thought** has gone through various phases of development since its inception in classical or ancient times. However, [since its revival in the **1970s**, following a period during which an almost unquestioned faith in science] was often taken to imply that [normative theorizing is meaningless,] political theory has been reshaped in a number of ways. = In the first place, **modern political theory** tends to place a [greater emphasis] than did earlier manifestations [on the role of **history and culture** in] structuring political understanding. This implies, for instance, that what, say, Plato, Rousseau, or Marx wrote may tell us more about the societies in which they lived than it does about supposedly timeless political and moral issues. = Second, political theory has become [increasingly diffuse and fragmented in character.] from the early modern period onwards, political thought acquired an unmistakably [liberal character], to such an extent that liberalism and political theory came to be virtually coextensive. however, [since the 1960s, a range of rival political traditions have emerged as critiques of, or alternatives to, liberal theory,] examples including radical feminism, communitarianism, green politics and multiculturalism. \[Hindi na applicable sa modern society and traditional theories\] = Third, [**conventional political theory** has been challenged by the emergence of an **'anti-foundationalist' critique**] that [questions the rationalism] that lay at its heart. [Most clearly linked to **postmodernism**, but also associated, albeit in different ways, with **traditions** such as **feminism, critical theory and postcolonialism**], anti-foundationalism [emphasizes the contingent nature of all principles, doctrines and theories, based on the belief that **there is no moral and rational high point from which they can be judged**]. **Uses and Abuses of Political Concepts** In its simplest sense, a **concept** is a [general idea about something], [usually expressed in a single word or a short phrase.] A concept is more than a proper noun or the name of a thing. There is, for example, a difference between talking about a cat (a particular and unique cat) and having a general concept of a 'cat'. The concept of a cat is not a 'thing' but an 'idea', an idea composed of the various attributes that give a cat its distinctive character -- 'a furry mammal', 'small', 'domesticated', 'catches mice', and so on. Concepts are therefore ['general' in the sense that they can refer to a number of objects, indeed to any object that complies with the general idea itself]. [Concept formation is an essential step in the process of **reasoning**.] Concepts are the tools with which we think, criticize, argue, explain and analyze. **Normative and Descriptive Concepts** = The [**first problem** encountered with **political concepts** is that they are often, and some would argue always, difficult to disentangle from the moral and philosophical views of those who advance them.] This is explicitly acknowledged in the case of **prescriptive or normative concepts,** usually [categorized as **'values'**]. Values refer to [moral principles or ideals]: that which should, ought to or must be brought about. Examples of **political values** include ['justice', 'liberty', 'human rights', 'equality' and 'toleration']. = By contrast, another range of concepts, usually termed **descriptive or positive concepts**, are supposedly [more securely anchored in that they refer to **'facts'** which have an objective and demonstrable existence]: they [refer to what is.] Concepts such as ['power', 'authority', 'order' and 'law'] are categorized in this sense as descriptive rather than normative. [As facts can be proved to be **either true or false,** descriptive concepts are often portrayed as **neutral or value-free**]. **Words and things** This [occurs when concepts are treated as though they have a concrete existence separate from], and, in some senses, [holding sway over, the human beings who use them. I]n short, [words are treated as things, rather than as devices for understanding things]. **HUMAN NATURE, THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY** **Human nature** = refers to the [essential and immutable character] of all human beings. = highlights what is [innate and 'natural' about human life], as opposed to what human beings have gained from education or through social experience. = This does not, however, mean that those who believe that human behaviour is shaped more by society than by unchanging and inborn characteristics have abandoned the idea of human nature altogether. Indeed, this very assertion is based on clear assumptions about innate human qualities, in this case, the capacity to be shaped or moulded by external factors. = A limited number of political thinkers have, nevertheless, [openly rejected the idea of human nature]. For instance, the **French existentialist philosopher**, **Jean-Paul Sartre** (1905--80), argued that [there was no such thing as a given 'human nature' determining how people act or behave.] In Sartre's view, **existence comes before essence**, meaning that [human beings enjoy the freedom to define themselves through their own actions and deeds], in which case the [assertion of any concept of human nature is an affront to that freedom]. = Most political thinkers are clearly aware that [human beings are complex, multi-faceted creatures, made up of biological, physical, psychological, intellectual, social and perhaps spiritual elements.] The [concept of human nature does not conceal or overlook this complexity so much as attempt to impose order on it by designating certain features as 'natural' or 'essential']. It would seem [reasonable that if such a thing as a human core exists it should be manifest in human behaviour]. **Human nature should therefore be reflected in behavioural patterns that are regular and distinctively human**. **Nature Versus Nurture** The most recurrent, and perhaps **most fundamental, debate about human nature** relates to what factors or forces shape it. Is the [essential core of human nature fixed or given], fashioned by '**nature'**, or is it [moulded or structured by the influence of social experience] or '**nurture'**? ' '**Nature'**, in this case, stands for [biological or genetic factors,] suggesting that there is an [established and unchanging human core]. The political significance of such a belief is considerable. In the first place, it [implies that political and social theories should be constructed on the basis of a pre-established concept of human nature.] Quite simply, **human beings do not reflect society, society reflects human nature.** Secondly, it suggests that [the roots of political understanding lie in the natural sciences in general, and in biology in particular]. [**Political arguments should therefore be constructed on the basis of biological theories**, giving such arguments a 'scientific' character.] Without doubt, the [biological theory that has had greatest impact on political and social thought] has been the **theory of natural selection**, developed by the **British scientist Charles Darwin (1809--82)** in **On the Origin of Species (\[1859\] 1986).** Darwin's **goal** was to [explain the almost infinite variety of species which have existed on earth]. He suggested that [each species develops through a series of random genetic mutations, some of which fit the species to survive and prosper, while other, less fortunate species become extinct.] Although Darwin appears to have recognized that his theories had radical political implications, he chose not to develop them himself. In marked contrast, [other theories of human nature place greater emphasis on '**nurture'**,] the [influence of the social environment or experience on the human character]. Clearly, such views play down the importance of fixed and unchanging biological factors, [emphasizing the malleable quality of human nature, or what has been called its '**plasticity'**]. The significance of such theories is to [shift political understanding away from biology and towards sociology.] Political behaviour tells us less about an immutable human essence than it does about the structure of society. [When human nature is 'given', the possibility of progress and social advancement is clearly limited; however, if human nature is 'plastic', the opportunities confronting human beings immediately expand and perhaps become infinite.] Evils such as poverty, social conflict, political oppression and gender inequality can be overcome precisely because their origins are social and therefore capable of being changed. **Intellect versus Instinct** The **second debate** centres on the **role of rationality in human life.** This does not, however, come down to a choice between rationalism and irrationalism. The real issue is the [degree to which the reasoning mind influences human conduct], suggesting a [distinction between those who emphasize **thinking, analysis and rational calculation**, and those who highlight the role of **impulse, instincts or other non-rational drives**]. Faith in the power of human reason reached its high point during the **Enlightenment**, the so-called **Age of Reason**, in the **seventeenth and eighteenth centuries**. During that period, [philosophers and political thinkers turned away from religious dogmas and faith, and instead based their ideas on **rationalism**], the [belief that the workings of the physical and social world can be explained by the exercise of reason alone]. In this view, **human beings are essentially rational creatures, guided by intellect and a process of argument, analysis and debate**. Such an idea was expressed with particular clarity in the [**dualism** advanced by the **French philosopher**, **René Descartes**] (1596--1650). **The Individual** The term 'the individual' is so widely used in everyday language that its implications and political significance are often ignored. In the most obvious sense, an **individual** is a [single human being]. Nevertheless, the concept suggests rather more. First of all, it implies that the **single human being is an independent and meaningful entity, possessing an identity in himself or herself**. In other words, to talk of people as individuals is to suggest that [they are autonomous creatures, acting according to personal choice rather than as members of a social group or collective body]. Second, **individuals are not merely independent; they are also distinct, even unique.** This is what is implied, for example, by the term 'individuality', which refers to [what is particular and original about each and every human being.] [To see society as a collection of individuals is therefore to understand human beings in personal terms and to judge them according to their particular qualities, such as character, personality, talents, skills and so on.] **Each individual has a 'personal' identity**. Third, **to understand human beings as individuals is usually to believe in universalism, to accept that human beings everywhere share certain fundamental characteristics**. In that sense, [individuals are not defined by social background, race, religion, gender or any other 'accident of birth', but by **what they share with people everywhere**: their **moral worth, their personal identity and their uniqueness**.] **Individualism** Individualism does not simply imply a belief in the existence of individuals. Rather, it refers to a **belief in the primacy of the individual over any social group or collective body**, suggesting that the [individual is central to any political theory or social explanation]. However, individualism does not have a clear political character. Although it has often been linked to the classical liberal tradition, and ideas such as limited government and the free market, it has also been used to justify state intervention and has, at times, been embraced by socialists. **Society** = However resilient and independent individuals may be, human existence outside society is unthinkable. Human beings are not isolated **Robinson Crusoes**, able to live in complete and permanent isolation -- even the skills and knowledge which enabled Robinson Crusoe to survive were acquired through education and social interaction before his shipwreck. However, the concept of society is often little better understood than that of the individual. In its most general sense, '**society'** denotes a **collection of people occupying the same territorial area**. [Not just any group of people, however, constitutes a society.] = Societies are [characterized by regular patterns of social interaction, suggesting the existence of some kind of social 'structure'.] Moreover, '[social' relationships involve mutual awareness and at least some measure of cooperation]. Warring tribes, for example, do not constitute a 'society', even though they may live in close proximity to one another and interact on a regular basis. On the other hand, the [internationalization of tourism and of economic life, and the spread of transnational cultural and intellectual exchange], has created the idea of an emerging '**world society'**. Nevertheless, the [cooperative interaction that defines 'social' behaviour need not necessarily be reinforced by a common identity or sense of loyalty]. This is what distinguishes 'society' from the [stronger notion of '**community'**, which requires at least a measure of affinity or social solidarity, an identification with the community].