Why Do We Need Political Theory? PDF

# WHY DO WE NEED POLITICAL THEORY? ## Introduction What are theories meant to do? What are functions of theory? Doctors in modern Western medicine perform functions in our society, but are they necessary? Analogously, is political theory necessary? Can ideologies or cosmologies replace political t...

# WHY DO WE NEED POLITICAL THEORY? ## Introduction What are theories meant to do? What are functions of theory? Doctors in modern Western medicine perform functions in our society, but are they necessary? Analogously, is political theory necessary? Can ideologies or cosmologies replace political theory? The answer to these questions lies in the big questions of human existence and collective life. Natural-scientific theories and the social sciences provide answers to these questions, but this was not always the case. Religions, cosmologies and philosophy provided answers in the past. Political philosophy performed both explanatory and normative functions. This text proposes that political theory performs three key functions: * **Explanatory** — Explains at the most general level possible. * **Evaluative** — Tells us what to do. * **Speculative** — Speculates about our current and future condition. These functions are no different from those performed by cosmologies and ideologies. However, political theory is distinct from both. It also has a unique role under modern conditions. It's not just alive, but it needs to flourish. ## THE BIG QUESTIONS OF HUMAN LIFE Consider the following abstract but significant questions: * What is there/going on in the world? (Understanding) * Why are things there/going on in the world? (Explanation) * Will something that is currently going on continue to go on in the future? (Prediction) * Is that which is there/going on good or bad, right or wrong? (Ethics) * What am I to do? What is to be done? (Normative) * Who am I? Who are we? (Metaphysical self-knowledge) Human life is impossible without answers to these questions. Humans can only live in a society if they have some understanding of the nature of the society. For example, in a hierarchical society a person must understand their own social status and the status of others. ## POLITICAL THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION Crucial to understanding a hierarchical society is understanding one's own rank and the social standing of others. A person from the lower orders knows that they must deferentially to a superior. Analogously, the permanence of privilege is understood. There are, however, different answers to the questions of human existence. A functioning egalitarian society requires understanding one's society. In a hierarchical society a person must show deference to a superior because they are inferior. These understandings are part of common sense and crucial to the functioning of a society. However, with a functioning egalitarian society members of that society have a fairly common understanding of what is right and wrong, good and bad in that society. To have an understanding of one's society doesn't necessarily mean these answers are available. As reflective creatures, we learn to raise questions, and these questions are reformulated as answers to the big questions when we learn to raise them. But when do we learn to raise questions? There are several reasons. * **Alienation** — When an individual or group is alienated from the rest of the community, it leads to a crisis of mutual understanding, which in turn leads to questions about who one truly is and where one belongs. * **Entry of the Stranger** — The arrival of a stranger whose actions are opaque may provoke curiosity and internal dissonance which leads to questions about how one should relate to the stranger and others like them. * **Unpredictable Changes in the Natural World** — unpredictable changes in the natural world, such as disease, flood, earthquake, and natural disaster, may lead human beings to seek re-familiarization with what has become unfamiliar. In the face of change, human beings seek to re-familiarize themselves with the world and their place within it. This is accomplished through cosmologies. ## COSMOLOGIES AND POLITICAL THEORY Cosmologies help us tell a story about ourselves and our relations to others and nature, and they make sense of the existing chaos. By making sense of something that is out of control, meaningless, or discordant, they lend it meaning, make it harmonious, and bring it under some semblance of control. Cosmologies frequently extend and challenge our common sense. The world that we experience with our senses is real, but our senses can be deceiving. Some cosmologies offer negative answers to questions such as: Is the world of senses illusory? Is there life after death? ## THE EMERGENCE OF WESTERN MODERNITY Ancient cosmologies tended to see questions about human existence and the natural world as questions about one unified universe. The distinction between the human and natural world was not significant. Identity was not self-defining but was defined in relation to the universe, including nature, and ethics frequently pertained to the whole universe, including both the natural and human worlds. There was no distinction between science and philosophy and certainly no clear lines were drawn between a philosophy of the natural and the human world. The idea that there is one unified universe might seem over-simplistic. But it is true of several European cosmologies, including Aristotelian sciences, and it is not too far off the mark to claim that elements of these cosmologies are present in virtually every pre-modern cosmology, including several world religions. In the Western world, before the rise of modern science, many believed that the universe is a meaningful whole signifying something higher than humans, such as a purpose, a goal, or a final cause. This meant that everything existed was moving towards fulfillment of that cause. This was the great design or pattern in the world. Some cosmologies believed that this design part of the intention of a transcendent god, and this pattern could be learned by revelation, by the grace of God, or by pure reason. ## EXPLAINING HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN NATURE Around the 15th century, a change began to occur in the intellectual climate of several Western societies. For many of these societies, nature no longer appeared meaningful. It expressed neither an idea nor the intention of some transhuman subject. Aristotelian physics was challenged by a new perspective. For example, fire does not move upwards because this is its purpose. Similarly, water does not flow downwards to serve this purpose. This perspective meant that nature was composed of discrete things that had no inherent meaning or purpose. Nature's functions, as if they were pre-ordained, were not related to each other by virtue of an overall design. For example, a ball moves because one hits it with one's foot, not because it is destined to fit into some larger cosmic pattern. This meant that it is not a part of a pre-ordained bigger picture, but rather a result of contingent reasons. To understand how this happens one cannot rely on cosmologies that talk of deeper significance. Instead, one must observe what an entity is like and how it happens to relate to other entities. If they happen to relate regularly, then this is what constitutes causation. There are no "final" causes at work, and explanation is nothing but the recording of these patterns of regularity. By recording regularities one can explain not only why something occurred, but also why it's likely to occur in the future. New sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology were not just telling stories about nature, but explaining and predicting it. Before the birth of modern empirical sciences, philosophy was the only form of rational inquiry that tried to answer the major questions of the universe. This speculative mode of inquiry, which used the a priori method of reasoning, was expected to answer all of the questions regarding both the natural and human worlds. The birth of modern natural science transformed the traditional role of philosophy. Reason alone could not arrive at knowledge of the natural world. It could not answer questions about the nature and activity of the physical world, and it couldn't explain or predict what goes on within it. It also became clear to philosophers that the natural world was not just a product of reason, but a partnership between reason and the human senses. This collaboration between reason and the senses became known as the "partnership" or the "joint authorship." This new understanding of the world meant that philosophy took on a subsidiary role to science, "a handmaiden of science" to quote John Locke, to understand human behavior. ## UNDERSTANDING HUMANS The notion of humanity was also transformed in the 15th century. The universe began to be segmented into at least two worlds: the non-human natural world and the world of humans. While there are fundamental differences between the two, there are also connections between them. ## THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN WORLDS One difference between the human and non-human worlds is that the natural world exists independently of human beings, while the human world does not. The force of gravity is not contingent on whether or not we exist, and the movement of planets continues even in the absence of humans. The human world, however, is largely constituted by and is dependent on human action. The human world is both action-dependent and concept-dependent. The human world does not just make sense of itself, but it is constituted by concepts. Consider an act such as raising one's arm. This is different from the phrase "the upward movement of the arm." "The upward movement of the arm" is a purely physical description. However, raising one's arm is an intentional act that involves the concept of an arm and knowing what it means to raise one's arm. The concept is constitutive of the physical movement of the hand going upwards. The act of raising one's arm can mean different things in different settings. For example, in the classroom, raising one's arm may mean the student wishes to ask a question or offer a comment, in a board meeting it may signify the act of voting on an issue, and in a game of cricket it may signal a bye or a request to substitute a player. In each of these settings, the concept of questioning, voting, or signalling a bye is constitutive of the physical movement of the arm and involves an enrichment of the idea of raising one's arm.. ## POLITICAL THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION All human actions, practices, and situations are constituted by concepts. To understand them means to understand these concepts. Understanding the human world is grasping the complicated structure of concepts that partly constitute it. Understanding the natural world does not require grasping a complex structure of concepts. This is the first qualitative difference between empirical social sciences and natural sciences. The term “empirical” has an entirely different connotation in the human sciences. While the natural world cannot be apprehended without concepts, the human world is not merely constituted by them but is dependent on them. The natural world exists independently of the concepts we have of them. What is true of human sciences in general is also true of social and political studies. The state is not just a collection of material things and movements. To describe it materially is absurd. The state is a form of public power, relatively independent of the ruler and the ruled, that is embodied an apparatus that has a virtual monopoly of violence in a community or territory. This apparatus functions to reproduce the conditions of existence and perpetuation of that community. The state is based on a complex structure of concepts that include power, ruling, the distinction between ruler and ruled, monopoly, violence, and community itself. For example, to understand the death of John F. Kennedy one must consider his identity, his experience as president, his political motives, and the violence that led to his death. ## UNDERSTANDING HUMANS Social sciences and natural sciences answer different questions. Social sciences are concerned with understanding, explaining, and predicting human behavior. Natural sciences are concerned with understanding, explaining, and predicting the behavior of the non-human natural world. ## WHY DO WE NEED POLITICAL THEORY? What then is the proper role of social and political theory? Social theory and political theory have the following functions: * **Interpretive** — All social sciences rely on understanding the conceptual frameworks of human phenomena. * **Explanatory** — Some social phenomena are too large-scale to be grasped by specific empirical enquiry, such as the rise of capitalism — this requires a degree of speculation that is independent of empirical inquiry. * **Normative** — It makes no sense to ask ethical questions about the natural world. However, such questions are at the heart of the human world. For example, the explanation of a human action is the reason why it was done. This brings about the question of whether the reason for the action is a good one. Justifying an action, therefore, implicitly invokes the concept of good or bad, right or wrong, and every human action is driven by a conception of the good life. ## TYPES OF POLITICAL THEORIES Here is a fuller explanation of the three main types of political theory: * **Explanatory** — Explains how social and economic formations come into existence, such as the emergence of capitalism. * **Normative** — Examines how political decisions should be made based on ethical principles such as the right to work and a guaranteed minimum income. * **Contemplative** — A more profound and philosophical exploration of humanity's condition, such as the question of what it means to be human and what role political entities play in our changing world. ## HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT AND POLITICAL THEORY Political theory should take the history of political thought into account. History helps us understand the context and origin of these ideas. By understanding the historical origins of an idea, we gain a better grasp of the complex reasons for and against it. ## READING LIST * **Arendt, Hannah.** *The Human Condition*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. * **Cohen, G.A.** *Karl Marx’s Theory of History*. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. * **MacIntyre, Alisdair.** “The Indispensability of Political Theory.” In *The Nature of Political Theory*. Edited by David Miller and Larry Siedentop, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. * **Parekh, Bhikhu.** “Political Theory: Traditions In Political Philosophy.” In *A New Handbook of Political Science*. Edited by Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingenmann, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. * **Plamenatz, John.** “The Use of Political Theory”. In *Political Philosophy*. Edited by A. Quinton, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. * **Taylor, Charles.** “Philosophy and its History.” In *Philosophy in History*. Edited by Richard Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. * **Taylor, Charles.** *Philosophical Papers I*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985a. * **Taylor, Charles.** *Philosophical Papers II*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985b. * **Weber, Max.** *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1930. ## POINTS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Charles Taylor has called humans “self-interpretating animals.” Gadamer says that interpretation is the distinctively human mode of being. What sense can you make of these statements in the light of what you have read in this chapter? 2. There is a widespread belief that all evaluations are subjective. Good and bad, right and wrong, are relative to each individual, or at least to every society. This makes normative political theory impossible. Discuss. 3. If cosmologies can explain, understand, evaluate and give effective answers to questions about who we are, then modern political theory is redundant. Discuss. 4. Deep down, political theories are ideologies. Therefore, political theory is an intellectual passion of the elite. Discuss.