Abstract
Before moving towards a defence of what this book identifies as the Orrian model over the Nietzschean, emanational understanding of influence in order to respect a plurality of canons, traditions, and histories of political thought, it is necessary to address a key methodological objection to presenting these two meta-theories in the first instance. By examining how a conceptual analysis of the notion of influence could proceed, it should become clear that a relatively straightforward attempt to demystify the neglected notion of influence is inherently linked to a key methodological divide in political theory, namely, between a traditional history of ideas approach and a more contextualist, history of political thought or intellectual history viewpoint in the latter half of the twentieth century. Instead, this conclusion asserts that an appreciation of an Orrian theory of influence affords practitioners in political theory the opportunity to demonstrate a genuine epistemological humility. This is done by defending the Western canon of political theory—whether it be regarded as social construct or not—whilst at the same time demonstrating a respect for rival canons of political literature or histories of political thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See W. B. Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 56 (1955–56), pp. 167–198.
- 2.
K. Ambrose, ‘Influence,’ Studies in Iconography, Vol. 33 (2012), pp. 197–206.
- 3.
Ibid. p. 198.
- 4.
Ibid. p. 202.
- 5.
M. Richter, ‘Conceptual History (Begriffsgeschichte) and Political Theory,’ Political Theory, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1986), pp. 615–616.
- 6.
J. Olsthoorn, ‘Conceptual Analysis,’ in A. Blau (ed.), Methods in Analytical Political Theory (Cambridge, CUP, 2017), p. 153.
- 7.
Ibid. p. 154.
- 8.
T. Ball, ‘Must Political Theory be Historical?’, Contributions to the History of Concepts, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2006), pp. 1–11, p. 11.
- 9.
Ibid. p. 12.
- 10.
Ibid. p. 13.
- 11.
Ibid. p. 14.
- 12.
See B. Dillon, Ruin Lust (London, Tate Gallery Publishing, 2014).
- 13.
G. Duso, ‘Thinking about Politics beyond Modern Concepts,’ CR: The New Centennial Review, Vol. 10, No. 2 (translated by Stephen March), pp. 65–77, p. 75.
- 14.
S. Kierkegaard: ‘Concepts, like individuals, have their histories, and are just as incapable of withstanding the ravages of time as are individuals.’ In Ball, Ibid. p. 7.
- 15.
Ibid. p. 76. Emphasis in original.
- 16.
Ibid. p. 77.
- 17.
A good example of a dead concept, in Western political thought, would be the divine right of kings. John Neville Figgis’s early but near classic work on this concept makes three points. Methodologically, he approaches the subject of the Divine Right of Kings much more sympathetically and with none of the scorn often poured onto what is widely seen as a ridiculous theory of political authority. As a historian, he sought to understand the long and complex circumstances that led to its implementation. As a theory, it argued that ‘Monarchy is a divinely ordained institution’; ‘Hereditary right is indefeasible’; ‘Kings are accountable to God alone’; and ‘non-obedience and passive obedience are enjoined by God’ (J. N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings (Cambridge, CUP, 1907), pp. 5–6). In an age when ‘theology and politics were inextricably mingled … (a)ll men demanded some form of Divine authority for any theory of government’ (ibid. p. 11). So too, it must be noted, did their opponents. The key to understanding Figgis’s claim that the DRK served a need for authority at a time of tension between Popes and emperors (and the ‘political side of the Reformation struggle’ p. 14), is that he saw it to be an ‘expression of a dawning idea of sovereignty’ (ibid.). It served a specific purpose in wrestling political control from the papacy. Moreover, it ‘marks the transition from medieval to modern modes of thought’—the DRK is a ‘bridge’, ‘a child of circumstance’ between two worlds (p. 15).
- 18.
C. Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, tr. George Schwab (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 31.
- 19.
Runciman , Pluralism and the Personality of the State see, for example, pp. 18; 99–101.
- 20.
See F. W. Maitland, The Collected Papers of F. W. Maitland, ed. H. A. L. Fisher, Vol. iii (Cambridge, CUP, 1911), p. 241.
- 21.
P. Laslett (ed.), ‘Introduction,’ to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge, CUP, 1960).
- 22.
M. Orr, Intertextuality, pp. 83–84.
- 23.
Ibid. p. 86.
- 24.
Ibid. pp. 91–93.
- 25.
S. H. Aiken, ‘Women and the Question of Canonicity,’ College English, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Mar. 1986), pp. 288–301, p. 289, emphasis in original.
- 26.
Ibid. p. 293. Emphasis in original.
- 27.
Ibid. p. 294.
- 28.
See B. H. Smith, ‘Contingencies of Value,’ Critical Inquiry, Vol. 10 (1983), pp. 1–35, p. 7.
- 29.
Aiken , ‘Women and the Question of Canonicity,’ p. 298.
- 30.
There seems to be a golden (or not so golden, depending on one’s view) age for these type of texts in the middle decades of the twentieth century. For example, George, H. Sabine’s A History of Political Theory (London, Harrap & Co, 1937); John Plamenatz’s Man and Society (Two Volumes) (London, Longmans, Green & Co, 1963); and Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, History of Political Philosophy (Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1963).
- 31.
A. Little, ‘Contextualising Concepts: The Methodology of Comparative Political Theory,’ The Review of Politics, No. 80 (2018), pp. 87–113, p. 88.
- 32.
L. Jenco, ‘Introduction: Thinking with the Past: Political Thought In and From the “Non-West,”’ European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 4 (2016), pp. 377–381, p. 378.
- 33.
Ibid. p. 379.
- 34.
S. Stuurman, ‘The Canon of the History of Political Thought: Its Critique and a Proposed Alternative,’ History and Theory, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 2000), pp. 147–166.
- 35.
C. Witt, ‘Feminist Interpretations of the Philosophical Canon,’ Signs, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Winter 2006) pp. 537–552.
- 36.
Ibid. pp. 546–548.
- 37.
See P. S. Anderson , ‘Canonicity and Critique: A Feminist Defence of a Post-Kantian Critique,’ Literature and Theology, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1999), pp. 201–210.
- 38.
Stuurman , ‘The Canon of the History of Political Thought’, p. 157.
- 39.
Ibid. Locke, for example, was ‘canonized’ by ‘British historians and political theorists of the nineteenth century who … often regarded themselves as the spiritual inheritors of the political legacy of the Glorious Revolution.’ Locke’s status is as much down to the historical events of 1688 as it is to later, influential interpretations of his Treatises on Government and Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Had the Stuarts remained the dominant political force in England in the late seventeenth century, argues Stuurman, Locke may have been exiled and his works lost in the stream of time.
- 40.
Ibid. p. 165.
- 41.
G. Browning, A History of Political Thought: The Question of Interpretation, 2016.
- 42.
P. Deenan, The Odyssey of Political Theory: A Politics of Departure and Return (Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), p. 3.
- 43.
N. Hassanzadeh, ‘The Canon and Comparative Political Thought,’ Journal of International Political Theory, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2014), pp. 184–202.
- 44.
P. Hellström, ‘The great chain of ideas. The past and future of the history of ideas, or why we should not return to Lovejoy (essay review of Darrin M. McMahon and Samuel Moyn, eds. Rethinking Modern European Intellectual History), Lychnos, 2016 pp. 179–188.
- 45.
Ibid. p. 180.
- 46.
Ibid. p. 183.
- 47.
Ibid. p. 185.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Welburn, D. (2020). Conclusion. In: Canon Controversies in Political Thought. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41361-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41361-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41360-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41361-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)