Skip to main content
Log in

A genealogy of political theory: a polemic

  • Article
  • Published:
Contemporary Political Theory Aims and scope

Abstract

Here is a sketch of a genealogy of political theory for the last century. This is a genealogy in Nietzsche’s sense: therefore, neither unhistorical taxonomy, nor a history of political theory as it is written by historians, but a typology in time. Four types of modern political theory are distinguished. These are called, with some justification, positive, normative, third way and sceptical political theory. Seen from the vantage of the twenty-first century, they form an instructive sequence, emerging as a series of reactions to the canonical political theory that was established in the universities in the late nineteenth century. None of the four should be excluded from our conception of what political theory has been, though most of them, when seen genealogically, reveal their defects more clearly than they do when treated purely theoretically. Since this is a sceptical finding, the genealogy is a polemic against the first three types of modern political theory in favour of the last.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adcock, R., Bevir, M. and Stimson, S.C. (Eds.) (2007) Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M.G. (2008) The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G. (1966) Political Theory and Political Science. The American Political Science Review, 60: 869–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (2005) Designing Consensus: John Rawls. In P. Anderson (Ed.) Spectrum. London: Verso, pp. 103–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankersmit, F.R. (1996) Aesthetic Politics: Political Philosophy Beyond Fact and Value. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashford E. and Mulgan, T. (2012) ‘Contractualism’. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/contractualism/

  • Badiou, A. (2005) Metapolitics trans. Jason Barker. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (1990) Political Argument: A Reissue with a New Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (1996) Political Theory: Old and New. In R. E. Goodin and H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, R. (2014) Political Philosophy: What It Is and Why It Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berndtson, E. (1987) The Rise and Fall of American Political Science: Personalities, Quotations, Speculations. International Political Science Review, 8: 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. (2008) What is Genealogy? Journal of the Philosophy of History 2: 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrow, J.A. (1966) Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collini, S., Winch, D. and Burrow, J. (Eds.) (1983) That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling, M. (1963) The Nature and Limits of Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling, M. (2001) Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England, Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J., Honig, B. and Phillips, A. (2009) Overview of Political Theory. In Robert E. Goodin (Ed.) Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–88

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1991) Political Science in the United States. In D. Easton and C. Shelley (Eds.) Divided Knowledge: Across Disciplines, Across Cultures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 37–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2008) Two Lectures. In G. Burchell (Ed.) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978–79, trans. Graham Burchell. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 267–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohock, F.H. (1974) Normative Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W. (2010) Realism in Political Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 9: 385–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuss, R. (1999) Nietzsche and Genealogy. In R. Geuss (Ed.) Morality, Culture and History: Essays on German Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuss, R. (2005) Outside Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuss, R. (2009). Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuss, R. (2014) A World Without Why. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.W. (2003) Political Theory, Political Science and Politics. Political Theory, 30: 577–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P. and Shapiro, I. (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunnell, J.G. (1987) Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B. (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman-Osborn, T.V. (2010) Political Theory as Profession and as Subfield. Political Research Quarterly, 63: 655–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, P. (2005) Liberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. and Johnson, J. (2015) ‘On Attempts to Gerrymander “Positive” and “Normative” Political Theory: Six Theses’. The Good Society, 24(1): 30–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, C. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, M. (2012) Doing Our Own Thinking for Ourselves: On Quentin Skinner’s Genealogical Turn. Journal of the History of Ideas, 73: 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilla, M. (2007) The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchart, O. (2007) Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2013) A Tale of Two Cities; or, Political Philosophy as Lamentation. In D. Miller (Ed.) Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau, H.J. (1955) Reflections on the State of Political Science. The Review of Politics, 17: 431–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2005) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehemas, A. (1985) Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakeshott, M. (1999) On History and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakeshott, M. (2004) What is Political Theory? In M. Oakeshott (Ed.) What is History? And Other Essays. Exeter: Imprint Academic, pp. 391–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2004) Existentialism, Quietism and the Role of Philosophy. In B. Leiter (Ed.) The Future for Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 304–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (2001) In E. Kelly (Ed.), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld, A. (2010) Offensive Political Theory. Perspectives on Politics, 8: 465–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, D. (1984) The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2005) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, A. (2013) Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and Politicians (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2007) A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (2013) Political Political Theory: An Inaugural Lecture. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, J. (2015) An Introduction to Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolin, S. (1969) Political Theory as a Vocation. American Political Science Review, 63: 1062–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (2007) A Leftist Plea for Eurocentrism. In S. Zizek (Ed.) The Universal Exception. London: Verso, pp. 183–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (2014) Event: Philosophy in Transit. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Alexander.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alexander, J. A genealogy of political theory: a polemic. Contemp Polit Theory 18, 402–423 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-018-0275-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-018-0275-7

Keywords

Navigation