Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:48:11.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis and History of Political Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

PETER J. STEINBERGER
PETER J. STEINBERGER*
Affiliation:
Reed College
*
Peter J. Steinberger is the Robert H. and Blanche Day Ellis Professor of Political Science and Humanities and Dean of the Faculty, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Criticisms of Quentin Skinner's approach to the study of the history of political thought have generally failed to directly address the philosophical presuppositions on which Skinner himself relies. Those presuppositions involve, primarily, theories of language associated most closely with Austin, Searle, and Grice. An investigation of the uses that Skinner makes of philosophical pragmatics raises serious doubts about a number of his central claims. Moreover, those philosophical resources actually point toward a decidedly non-Skinnerian approach that focuses not primarily on discovering or reconstructing historical circumstances, but on uncovering and explicating structures of argumentation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 135 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. 1975. How To Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent, and Harnish, Robert M.. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baumgold, Deborah. 1981. “Political Commentary on the History of Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 75: 4 (December), 928–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, Mark. 1997. “Mind and Method in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory 36 (May): 167–89.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark. 1999. The Logic of the History of Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brett, Annabel, and Tully, James. 2006. Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condren, Conal. 1985. The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts: An Essay on Political Theory, its Inheritance and the History of Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, John. 1968. “The Identity of the History of Ideas.” Philosophy 43 (April): 85–104.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1997. [Untitled review.] Journal of Philosophy 94 (February): 94–97.Google Scholar
Gert, Bernard. 2008. [Untitled review.] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (July 24).Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton-Bleakley, Holly. 2006. “Linguistic Philosophy and the Foundations.” In Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, ed. Brett, Annabel and Tully, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1980 [1651]. Leviathan. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Leslie, Margaret. 1970. “In Defense of Anachronism.” Political Studies 18 (December): 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minogue, K. R. 1981. “Method in Intellectual History: Quentin Skinner's Foundations.” Philosophy 56 (October): 533–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, Lotte, Richards, Judith, and Graham, John. 1979. “Intentions and Conventions: A Critique of Quentin Skinner's Method for the Study of the History of Ideas.” Political Studies 27 (March): 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakeshott, Michael. 1962. Rationalism in Politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Parekh, Bhikhu, and Berki, R. N.. 1973. “This History of Political Ideas: A Critique of Q. Skinner's Methodology.” Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (April–June): 163–84.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1966. “‘The Onely Politician’: Machiavelli, Harrington and Felix Raab.” Historical Studies: Australia and New Zealand 12: 265–96.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1973. Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 2006. “Foundations and Moments.” In Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, ed. Brett, Annabel and Tully, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richter, Melvin. 1990. “Reconstructing the History of Political Languages: Pocock, Skinner and the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe.” History and Theory 29 (February): 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. “On Denoting.” Mind 14 (October): 479–93.Google Scholar
Sabine, George. 1973. A History of Political Theory. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Schochet, Gordon. 1974. “Quentin Skinner's Method.” Political Theory 2 (August): 261–76.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1975. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In Language, Mind and Knowledge, ed. Gunderson, K.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1974. “Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action.” Political Theory 2 (August): 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics: Volume 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2006. “Surveying the Foundations: A Retrospect and Reassessment.” Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, ed. Brett, Annabel and Tully, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steinberger, Peter J. 2004. The Idea of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964. “Intention and Convention in Speech Acts.” Philosophical Review 73 (October): 439–460.Google Scholar
Tarlton, Charles. 1973. “Historicity, Meaning and Revisionism in the Study of Political Thought.” History and Theory 12 (3): 307–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urmson, J. O. 1956. Philosophical Analysis: Its Development between the Two World Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1955 [1922]. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wootton, David. 1992. Untitled review. Nous 26 (September): 377–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.