Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:03:45.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Without Laslett to the lost worlds: Quentin Skinner's early methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2021

Takuya Furuta Open the ORCID record for Takuya Furuta [Opens in a new window]
Takuya Furuta*
Affiliation:
Hiroshima University: Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima7390046, Japan
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to suggest that the emergence of the so-called Cambridge School of history of political thought can best be understood in terms of two competing visions of the relationship between history and social science, focusing on Peter Laslett and Quentin Skinner. Although Laslett is often distinguished as a founder of the Cambridge School, this paper suggests an alternative view by emphasizing the theoretical discontinuity between Laslett and Skinner rather than their continuity. Laslett, a practitioner of Karl Manheim's ideas, promoted the idea of a comprehensive scientific social history, within which intellectual history was located. This paper argues that Skinner broke with Laslett's idea. For Skinner, (1) Laslett was a positivist who applied the natural scientific model to intellectual history; (2) Laslett's positivism was actually ‘contextualism’; and (3) the alternative to Laslett's contextualism was the history of ideology. Skinner's early methodology was, in part, a rhetorical redescription of ‘ideology’, which opposed both Mannheim and Laslett. As such, this paper focuses on the discursive disconnection between Laslett and Skinner, thus providing a clue to construct a platform for facilitating a further discussion of the history of ideas and the social sciences.

Keywords

Methodology of history of political thoughtQuentin Skinnerthe Cambridge School
Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 144 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Adcock, R and Bevir, M (2007) The remaking of political theory. In Adcock, R, Bevir, M and Stimson, SC (eds), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 209–233.Google Scholar
Alexander, J (2016) The Cambridge School., c. 1875–c. 1975. History of Political Thought 37, 360–386.Google Scholar
Bevir, M (2011) The contextual approach. In Klosko, G (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Boucher, D (1985) Texts in Context Revisionist Methods for Studying the History of Ideas. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Braudel, F (1980) On History. Sarah Matthews (trans). London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
Brooke, J (1964) Namier and namierism. History and Theory 3, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdick, A, Drucker, J, Lunenfeld, P, Presner, T and Jeffrey, S (2012) Digital Humanities. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burke, P (2015) The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School 1929–2014, 2nd Edn., Cambridge: Polity [1990].Google Scholar
Colley, L (1989) Namier. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Collingwood, RG (1946) The Idea of History. Knox, TM (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cuttica, C (2012) Sir Robert Filmer (1588–1653) and the Patriotic Monarch: Patriarchalism in Seventeenth-Century Political Thought. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bolla, P, Jones, E, Nulty, P, Recchia, G and Rega, J (2020) The idea of liberty, 1600–1800: a distributional concept analysis. Journal of the History of Ideas 81, 381–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilthey, W (1976) Ideas about a descriptive and analytical psychology. In Rickman, HP (ed. and trans), Dilthey Selected Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–97.Google Scholar
Douglas, HE (2009) Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science 76, 444–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J (1996) The History of Political Thought and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, J and Wrigley, T (2005) Thomas Peter Ruffell Laslett 1915–2001. Proceedings of the British Academy 130, 109–129.Google Scholar
Easton, D (1951) The decline of modern political theory. The Journal of Politics 13, 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukumoto, K (2015) Atarashii kawabukuro no furui sake [Old wine put into the new bottle]. Revaiasan 56, 139–141.Google Scholar
Goldie, M (2006) The context of the foundations. In Brett, A and Tully, J, with Hamilton-Bleakley, H (eds), Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, CG (1942) The function of general laws in history. The Journal of Philosophy 39, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshiro, H (2015) Rekisi Kara Riron o Sōzō Suru Hōhō: Shakai Kagaku to Rekishi Gaku o Tōgō Suru [How to Create Theory From History: Integrating Social Science and History]. Tokyo: Keisō shobō.Google Scholar
Inuzuka, H (2019) Ken'burijji gakuha igo no seiji shisō shi hōhō ron [Methodologies of history of political thought after the Cambridge School]. Shisō 1143, 5–22.Google Scholar
James, S (2019) J. G. A. Pocock and the idea of the ‘Cambridge School’ in the history of political thought. History of European Ideas 45, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin'no, T, Nishiyama, T and Hasegawa, R (2016) Shohyō: rekisi kara riron o sōzō suru hōhō. Gakushūin shigaku 54, 71–83.Google Scholar
King, G, Keohane, RO and Verba, S (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohno, M (2014) ‘Seiji riron’ to seiji gaku: kihan bunseki no hōhō no tameni [‘Political theory’ and political science: for the methodology of normative analysis]. In Inoue, A and Tamura, T (eds), Seiji Riron Towa Nani ka [What is Political Theory?] Tokyo: Fūkōsha, pp. 151–182.Google Scholar
Koikkalainen, P (2005) The Life of Political Philosophy After its Death: History of an Argument Concerning the Possibility of a Theoretical Approach to Politics. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lapland, Lapland.Google Scholar
Koikkalainen, P (2009) Peter Laslett and the contested concept of political philosophy. History of Political Thought 30, 336–359.Google Scholar
Koikkalainen, P (2011) Contextualist dilemmas: methodology of the history of political theory in two stages. History of European Ideas 37, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kume, I (2013) Genin o Suiron Suru [Causal Inference and Political Analysis]. Tokyo: Yūhikaku.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1948) Sir Robert Filmer: the man versus the Whig myth. The William and Mary Quarterly 5, 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslett, P (1949) Introduction. In Laslett P (ed.), Robert Filmer, Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1956a) Introduction. In Laslett, P (ed.), Philosophy, Politics and Society: First Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. vii-xv.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1956b) The face to face society. In Laslett, P (ed.), Philosophy, Politics and Society: First Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 157–184.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1960) Introduction. In Laslett P (ed.), John Locke, Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–120.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1962a) Namier and After. The Guardian (July 6, 1962), p. 6.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1962b) Rational beyond Reason. The Guardian (September 14, 1962), p. 4.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1962c) Understanding ourselves in time. In Mitchison, N (ed.), What the Human Race is up to. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd London, pp. 326–336.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1964a) The Myth of Revolution. The Guardian (February 14, 1964), p. 8.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1964b) Hannah Arendt Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. General, 1938–1976, n.d. – Laslett, Peter – 1961–1967 (Series: Correspondence File, 1938–1976, n.d.) 19 November 1964, 008315.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1964c) Market society and political theory. The Historical Journal 7, 150–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslett, P (1965) The history of population and social structure. International Social Science Journal 17, 582–593.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1968) History and social sciences. In Sills, DL (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 17 vols. New York: Macmillan, vol. 6, pp. 434–440.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1973) High and Practical. The Guardian (May 31 1973), p. 15.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1975) Modest Progress. The Guardian (August 7, 1975), p. 9.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1979) Karl Mannheim in 1939: a student's recollection. Revue Européenne des sciences sociales 17, 223–226.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (1989) Storia e sociologia storica: la ricerca sociale e i suoi doveri civili (intervista). Passato e presente 20–21, 123–142.Google Scholar
Laslett, P (2005) The World We Have Lost: Further Explored. London: Routledge [1965].Google Scholar
Laslett, P and Cummings, PW (1967) Political philosophy, history of. In Edwards, P (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 8 vols. New York: Macmillan, vol. 6, pp. 370–387.Google Scholar
Laslett, P and Runciman, WG (1962) Introduction. In Laslett, P and Runciman, WG (eds), Philosophy, Politics and Society: Second Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. vii–x.Google Scholar
Laslett, P and Runciman, WG (1967) Introduction. In Laslett, P and Runciman, WG (eds), Philosophy, Politics and Society: Third Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Laslett, P, Runciman, WG and Skinner, Q (1972) Introduction. In Laslett, P, Runciman, WG and Skinner, Q (eds), Philosophy, Politics and Society: Fourth Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Little, D (1991) Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Longhurst, B (1989) Karl Mannheim and the Contemporary Sociology of Knowledge. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, K (1954) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. Wirth, L and Shils, E (trans), New York: Harcourt, Brace [1929/1936].Google Scholar
Muscolino, S (2012) Una filosofia politica sulle orme di Wittgenstein? Il contributo di Quentin Skinner. Rivista di Storia delle Idee 1, 30–45.Google Scholar
Namier, L (1955) Personalities and Powers. London: H. Hamilton.Google Scholar
Namier, L (1961) England in the Age of the American Revolution, 2nd Edn. London: Macmillan [1930].Google Scholar
Neurath, O (1931) Soziologie im physikalismus. Erkenntnis 2, 393–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obelkevich, J (2000) New developments in history in the 1950s and 1960s (witness seminar). Contemporary British History 14, 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortolano, G (2009) The Two Cultures Controversy: Science, Literature and Cultural Politics in Postwar Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palonen, K (2003) Quentin Skinner: History, Politics, Rhetoric. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Pocock, JGA (2006a) Foundations and moments. In Brett, A and Tully, J, with Hamilton-Bleakley, H (eds), Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, JGA (2006b) Present at the creation: with Laslett to the lost worlds. International Journal of Public Affairs 2, 7–17.Google Scholar
Rasuretto [Laslett], P (1986) Nihon no dokusha e [To the Japanese readers]. In Kawakita, M, Yamamoto, T and Sashi, A (trans), Warera Ushinaishi Sekai [The World We Have Lost]. Tokyo: Sanrei shobō, pp. iii–vi.Google Scholar
Rasuretto [Laslett], P (1992) Yōroppa no dentō teki kazoku to setai [The traditional European household]. Sakata, T and Okuda, N (trans), Tokyo: Riburopōto. (This work was not published as an English book.)Google Scholar
Runciman, WG (1969) Social Science and Political Theory, 2nd Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1963].Google Scholar
Runciman, WG (1989) Confessions of a Reluctant Theorist: Selected Essays of W. G. Runciman. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Sartori, A (2016) Intellectual history and global history. In Whatmore, R and Young, B (eds), A Companion to Intellectual History. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 201–212.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1966a) The ideological context of Hobbes's political thought. The Historical Journal 9, 286–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q (1966b) The limits of historical explanations. Philosophy (London, England) 41, 199–215.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1973) The empirical theorists of democracy and their critics: a plague on both their houses. Political Theory 1, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q (1974) The Role of History. The Cambridge Review (March 1974), pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1975) Hermeneutics and the role of history. New Literary History 7, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q (1978a) The Flight from Positivism. The New York Review (15 June, 1978), pp. 26–28.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1978b) The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1988 [1969]) Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. In Tully, J (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 29–78.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1988 [1972]) ‘Social meaning’ and the explanation of social action. In Tully, J (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 79–96.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1988 [1974]) Some problems in the analysis of political thought and action. In Tully, J (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 97–118.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1990) Introduction: the return of grand theory. In Skinner, Q (ed.), The Return of Grand Theory in Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (1997) Sir Geoffrey Elton and the practice of history. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 7, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q (2002a) Visions of Politics I: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (2002b) Quentin Skinner on encountering the past (interview). Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought 6, 34–63.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (2002c) Quentin Skinner (interview). In Pallares-Burke, ML (ed.), The New History: Confessions and Conversations. Cambridge: Polity, 212–240.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (2007a) Intellectual history, liberty and republicanism: an interview with Quentin Skinner (interview). Contributions to the History of Concepts 3, 103–123.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (2007b) Neither text, nor context: an interview with Quentin Skinner (interview). Groniek: Historisch Tijdschrift 174, 117–133.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q (2008) Interview of Quentin Skinner [Video file] (interview), Available at http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/197060 (accessed 30 April 2021)Google Scholar
Skodo, A (2014) Idealism, the sociology of knowledge and revisionist history of political thought: Peter Laslett's reappraisal of Whig historiography. History of Political Thought 35, 538–564.Google Scholar
Skodo, A (2016) The Afterlife of Idealism: The Impact of New Idealism on British Historical and Political Thought, 1945–1980. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, T (2011) Logic, language and legitimation in the history of ideas: a brief view and survey of Bevir and Skinner. Intellectual History Review 21, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunahara, Y, Hieda, T and Tago, A (2015) Seiji Gaku no dai Ippo [Introduction to Political Science]. Tokyo: Yūhikaku.Google Scholar
Thomas, K (1966) The Tools and the Job. Times Literary Supplement (7 April, 1966), pp. 275–276.Google Scholar
Tominaga, K (1984) Gendai no Shakai Kagakusha [Contemporary Social Scientists]. Tokyo: Kōdansha.Google Scholar
Tsutsumibayashi, K (1999) Ken'burijji paradaimu no hihanteki keisho (1) [A dialogic critique of the Cambridge School methodology (1)]. Hōgaku Kenkyū (Keio University) 72/11, 41–102.Google Scholar
Tully, J (1988) The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner's analysis of politics. In Tully, J (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 7–25.Google Scholar
Winch, P (1958) The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Yasutake, M (2014) Seiji riron to seiji shisō shi: J. G. A. Pōkokku to ‘ken’ burijji gakuha’ [Political theory and history of political thought: J. G. A. Pocock and the ‘Cambridge School’]. In Inoue, A and Tamura, T (eds), Seiji Riron Towa Nani ka [What is Political Theory?] Tokyo: Fūkōsha, pp. 183–216.Google Scholar