State of Political Theory Today: Decline or Resurgence?

Meaning and Role of Theory

This article primarily relies on David Easton, Alfred Cobban and Dante Germino for the first half
of the text to explain how, in different ways, Political Scientists of today have given up on
coming up with new theories and how they have sunk deep roots into status quo and the past,
indulging in positivist work to analyse political behaviour.
The major causes that Easton attributes to the Decline are: (1) Pol. Scientists are obsessed with
the ideas of the past and because of that they (2) do not develop their own theory, merely looking
at current phenomena through the perspectives of yesteryears political theorists. Easton talks of
the dearth of new concepts that need to emerge which can match up to the values of today and
the political scientists must systematise their empirical base and since theorising in this
discipline has been only speculative, this analysis on the basis of acute observation is necessary.
The reading goes on to explain who these historicists are who rely entirely on the past: (1)
Those Pol. Scientists who merely showed how political ideas influenced institutions instead of
showing their influence on current events. (2) The interactionists have looked back and tried to
study the interaction between ideas and instiutions, whereas (3) materialists have looked for the
cultural influences on political ideology and there are (4) those who believe that merely because
certain trends have stood the test of time, they are important enough to deserve acceptance.
Unlike those theorists in the past who raised fundamental questions about their status quo,
todays political scientists have not faced contemporary challenges to churn out new values.
He goes on to elaborate how values cannot be transplanted from one era to another, and even
though there were fascinating events like Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese militarism etc.
emerging in the beginning of the twentieth century, there was no attempt to critically look at old
ideas and be creative to give rise to new ones. He then goes on to criticise modern political
scientists for their lack of engagement with values of the modern day and asks what knowledge
is for, if not to give rise to ideas which keep pace with their time. There must be a link, according
to Easton, between political theory or facts and political goals.
Taking this point forward, he criticises the mere chasing of scientific method today,
discrediting the purpose of that empirical study, and also saying that that empirical study is
flawed in the first place, without having any conceptual framework to work with. This is taken a
step further when he describes a phenomenon in todays time called hyperfactualism. He tells
us how even minute study of political events wont help the discipline unless there is an
engagement with values and an endeavour to evolve a philosophy.
Easton then tells us why conditions in the contemporary world are such that it isnt essential for
there to be a great churning of political ideas at periodical intervals and these thinkers cannot be
produced by order. The three major events which he feels prevent such discourse are: (1) the
burgeoning of state activity, (2) the all-pervasive bureaucracy and (3) growing military powers.
However, then he goes on to dismiss these phenomena to be major factors.
Going further, there is a vivid description of how political science has gone on from being solely
the domain of historians and philosophers to now being that of political scientists themselves,
who can study politics by focussing on empirical study and that political philosophy was killed
by the logical positivists. The writer refers to Tracy, who tells us how ideas have to be reduced to
sensory perceptions and experiences must be radically dissected in order to understand modern
phenomena. Through a Marxist rant about how Marxs materialism created a new perspective of
understanding which was greatly reductionist, the writer then gives us a brief insight as to how
social sciences have been positivised since the beginning of the 20
th
century and the separation
of facts from values was emphasised upon. Weber put his views very succinctly when he said
that it isnt the job of Pol. Science to give a normative idea of norms and ideals, but simply give
recipes for practice.
The second half of this reading talks more about how in the modern age, political science has
become more nuanced, more subtle and how status quo isnt in fact something which is static,
but that there is slow change which isnt too glamorous. He does, however, tell us why the
acceptance of democracy by the West has led to a narrowing of discourse regarding the ideals a
state must stand for. In his words, the Conservatives have reconciled themselves to the standard
institutions and procedures of democracy, and the Left has also understood why totalitarian
power cannot guarantee greater social welfare. He says that social conservatism (keen
advocacy of existing social and political order) is an ideology by itself and the non-existence of
attraction towards change does not mean there is no ideological drive in society. Partridge said
that the energy and vigour in political theorising has been replaced by analytical thoroughness
and sharpness, closeness in argument, which must be welcomed for what it brings to the
discourse.
According to the writer, political theory has changed from philosophising in a speculative way to
being nihilistic. Isaiah Berlin was quoted as saying There is no human activity without general
outlook- scepticism, cynicism, refusal to dabble in abstracts etc. are all varieties of nihilism and
are themselves metaphysical and ethical positions (Read entire Page 141).
The section about the Behaviourist approach is only about how research isnt the be-all and end-
all of studying political science and how as long as there are reasonable means used of
conducting research. It then talks about how that research must be made more reliable and
comparable if there is a standardisation in the discipline about how to conduct its study and
analysis.
The Classical Approach is one which deals with facts in tandem with the experiences and values
attached to them. It talks about the interdependence of these two domains and how one is useless
and futile without the other.
In the final part of the reading, the writer talks about the intellectual purpose of Political theory,
and how even though scientific acumen and specific skills are required, the value of ideologies in
reflecting the deep and profound changes in human history is immense and how their timely
relevance throws further light on the political phenomena and also gives rise to radical change.
According to the writer, human society needs political theory now more than ever before, since
modernity has compelled us to feel at home in a society only when we understand it, due to
immense socio-cultural and technological changes. Political scientists become all the more
important because they discover how human society evolves, chooses to live through time and
Pol. Theory is needed to make sense of the complex social and individual human behaviour
taking place in the current age.