A working definition of political theory (and five main tasks)

In this post I articulate a working definition of 'political theory.'  I aim at capturing the distinctive practice that covers an extremely wide variety of thinkers throughout history and across cultures and civilizations who practiced their craft in competing ways in very heterogeneous circumstances.* I do so, in part, by piggy-backing on existing definitions of 'politics' (and 'theory'). The post was prompted by my desire to offer some such working definition at the start of my course on the history of political theory next week (see description here).

I call it a 'working definition' because it is provisional and is not meant to offer necessary and sufficient conditions that cover each and every case. It is meant to recognize that the concept is contested.  Speaking of contested, the working definition is not meant to distinguish sociologically political theorists from political philosophers (recall my post, itself a response to Jacob T. Levy's famous piece); in fact, it is meant to cover some of the central activities of both groups. Okay, with that out of the way, let me start.

Politics is the practice or site (or institution(s), etc.) where power is, or could be, exercised in decision-making over collective ends.

This is a fairly broad understanding of politics because it suggests that politics is pretty much intrinsic to all groups (so not just states and governments, but also churches, clubs, corporations, families, classrooms, unions, etc.) It is broad, in another sense, because politics so understood is not restricted to humans. That's deliberate because I want to do justice to the recurring temptation to treat human politics in light of the politics found in our animal relatives (bees, bonobos, horses, and sheep show up regularly in the history of political thought) or the other way around (and to allow that Martians or Angels could also have politics).

While I do not mean to be exhaustive let me offer brief working definitions of 'power' and 'decision-making:'

• Power is a means (or cause) to achieve ends (or aims).
• Decision-making involves: (i) aims; (ii) means; (iii) some procedure/norm/practice.

So, on this conception, in politics, power allows one to settle or influence questions/issues related to the aims, means, and manner of decision-making.* It is also inherently teleological--it is inherently (even if often tacitly/latently) oriented toward some aim or another. The exercise of power may well require considerable organization, triggering, or communication, but when it is so exercised it is directed. So, this conception of power, which is just a cause among many, allows one to distinguish among various background and enabling conditions and power as such. Of course, the content and nature of power varies hugely (from material goods to beliefs,** money, faith, numbers, bullets, swords, technology, love, etc.). 

A background assumption here on the nature of political decision-making is that there is always some scarcity that requires some prioritizing (which is reflected in the aims,  means, procedure, etc.). Otherwise, the conception is deliberately vague in order to allow a wide variety of practices (voting, coercion, rational deliberation, networked distribution, marketing, revelation, habit, etc.) to be understood as parts of and contributing to collective decision-makings.

Theory is an abstract or conceptual entity that has or may have systematic relations among its principles, components, and inferential basis.

This is meant to be inclusive and so to make room for self-consciously scientific treatises as well as narratives/epics/dialogues/revelation. What matters is not the way theory is presented, but rather if there is an underlying account that abstracts away from mere contingent description and offers ways to project beyond a moment in time and place. 

Importantly, maxims and proverbs are not themselves theory. But if they are or could be collected together, they may form the basis of theory. A policy brief or (to give a historical example) advice to the prince are not themselves theoretical, but they may presuppose theory or point the way to one.

So, Political Theory is an abstract (and potentially systematic) account of the ways (or means), conditions of, and constraints on which power(s) is or could be exercised for (its) collective ends.

While the phrase 'political theory' is derived historically from the book-title of Aristotle's Politics (Πολιτικά) which can be translated as "affairs of the cities," one finds political theory in many cultures, ages, and disciplinary environments (including, but not limited to, Ancient Egypt and Ugarit [recall], the Hebrew Bible [recall], classical China [recall]  etc.). While one cannot rule out some intercourse among major civilizations far apart and the preservation of insights through historical apocalypses, my present understanding entails that at least until the last few centuries there are historically distinct traditions of political theory.

So understood Political theory has at least three main distinct roles:

• (1) Normative guidance
  •    This ranges from utopian projects to reform the whole of society and ideal theory to focused policy advice.
• (2) Explanation
  • This can be offered in terms of (a) causes, (b) statistical regularities; (c) process tracing; (d) functional explanation  (etc.)
  • Or can be done in terms of making something intelligible by way of (a) rational/historical reconstruction; (b) sympathetic interpretation, etc.
• (3) A tool in empirical research
  
  • Theory tells you what data and phenomena to pay attention to
  • Helps one turn data into evidence

Since Max Weber and John Neville Keynes (see here for defense of that claim)+ the first (1) and latter two (2-3) tend to be separated with the latter two finding their home in the social sciences, socio-biology, network theory, while the first is often treated as distinctly philosophical or (if allowed in a social science faculty) housed in a separate political theory chair. Obviously, in practice 1-3 can be mingled in all kinds of ways as illustrated by the history of political theory. For example, normative political theory (1) often presupposes commitments about, say, the causal structure of the world (2), which may be the product of (3). But we may also be focused on some area of study (3) because of some normatively salient background theory (1), in order to generate an explanation (2), etc.

This intermingling is no surprise because of the nature of (political) power. Because power is inherently teleological, that is, when exercised directed at some aim(s), it is impossible to completely ignore human ends in political science--these ends are just what is taken to be valuable. Of course, on many conceptions of doing empirical research and offering explanations, the researcher should set aside his/her own commitments (but recall **) when describing/explaining or studying these values.++

There are two more distinct roles that political theory can take on, and these can, often, be intermingled with the first three:

• (4) Unmasking the status quo
  • This can involve genealogy, ideology critique, etc.
• (5) Clarification of (contested) concepts
  • By way of conceptual analysis (what is 'democracy;' 'freedom;' 'justice;' 'equality', etc.)
    

I treat unmasking projects (4) as distinct from (1) because while these often are informed by a deep (and morally informed) sense of outrage or indignation, they tend to be suspicious of morality (as it is theorized) and to be disinclined to present themselves in theoretically rich, normative terms. Rather, they aim to cast the ruling orthodoxies or even quite tacit habits of thought/behavior in a new, troubling light that remove their self-evidence. In so doing such projects can draw on or offer new (2) explanations of political phenomena (even point to the presence of politics/power where it was previously unnoticed) or (3) stimulate new empirical research on various phenomena. 

Finally, conceptual clarification is in some sense the least ambitious way in which political theory can manifest itself. For conceptual clarification is not sufficient for a political theory.*** (A political theory is more than its clarified concepts.) But while there are many forms of constructive (and destructive!) ambiguity in political practice, conceptual clarity is an important virtue (with evolving standards, etc.) when comparing political theories and, in many traditions, articulating one. If somebody objects that this (5) is really a method (and then one of many [see, for example, Blau's fine collection)], fair enough. Theory can be messy like that.

 

*There is an interesting connection here between instrumental rationality -- the means are apt to the given ends -- and power (a means to one's ends).

**Note that if beliefs or knowledge can be power then political theory can be a source of power. There is, thus, always a reflexive possibility lurking in the practice of articulating political theory.

+That is, Weber and J.N. Keynes were working at the intersections of political sociology, political science, political economy, and political theory. 

++For the sake of brevity, I am conflating desired end-states and the values that may inform the worth of those end-states.

***I have defended the idea that analysis is  normative, but that is by no means the consensus view.

Comments

[Adrian Blau]

There's a *lot* I like here, but I think it commits a fallacy of composition: you assume that was is true of theory in general thus applies to political theory. But the way a social scientist understands a theory is not the same as "political theory". Your definition of political theory includes all of political science, and so it does not seem to be a *useful* definition, even though it is a plausible and legitimate way of thinking about political theory.

[Eric Schliesser]

There is no fallacy of composition here. Rather, I self-consciously reject the overly narrow understanding of *both* some normative/analytic political philosophers *as well as* certain (unreflective) hyper-inductive social scientists.