INTERPRETATION AND THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY: APOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY

In: American political science review, Band 76, Heft 2, S. 317-327

Abstract

RECENT CHALLENGES TO TRADITIONAL APPROACHES AND PURPOSES FOR STUDYING THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS CONSTITUTION AS BOTH SUBJECT MATTER AND SUBFIELD OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. METHODOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS ADVOCATING WHAT IS CHARACTERIZED AS A MORE TRULY HISTORICAL MODE OF INQUIRY FOR UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL IDEAS AND RECOVERING TEXTUAL MEANING HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY POPULAR. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE HERMENEUTICAL CLAIMS ABOUT HISTORICITY, SUCH AS THAT ADVANCED BY QUENTIN SKINNER, TO THE ACTUAL PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION IS PROBLEMATICAL. SUCH CLAIMS ARE MORE A DEFENSE OF A CERTAIN FORM OF HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION THAN A METHOD OF INTERPRETATION, AND THE IMPHEATIONS OF THIS FORM FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORY REQUIRE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.