How Should We Categorize Approaches to the History of Political Thought

Bibliographic Data

ID10437562
AuthorsAdrian Blau (0000-0002-3682-5472, Ministry of Economy, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume83
Issue1
Pages91-114
Publication date2020-12-21
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Review of Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0034-6705 • E-ISSN: 1748-6858
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0034670520000704
OpenAlexW3117243987
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited23

This paper proposes a new framework for categorizing approaches to the history of political thought. Previous categorizations exclude much research; political theory, if included, is often caricatured. And previous categorizations are one-dimensional, presenting different approaches as alternatives. My framework is two-dimensional, distinguishing six kinds of end (two empirical, four theoretical) and six kinds of means. Importantly, these choices are not alternatives: studies may have more than one end and typically use several means. Studies with different ends often use some of the same means. And all studies straddle the supposed empirical/theoretical “divide.” Quentin Skinner himself expertly combines empirical and theoretical analysis—yet the latter is often overlooked, not least because of Skinner's own methodological pronouncements. This highlights a curious disjuncture in methodological writings, between what they say we do, and what we should do. What we should do is much broader than existing categorizations imply

Categorization · Empirical research · Epistemology · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Straddle · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Historical Economic and Social Studies · Law · Philosophy · Political Theory and Influence · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access