Quentin Skinner's revised historical contextualism: a critique

Abstract

Since the late 1960s Quentin Skinner has defended a highly influential form of linguistic contextualism for the history of ideas, originally devised in opposition to established methodological orthodoxies like the `great text' tradition and a mainly Marxist epiphenomenalism. In 2002, he published Regarding Method, a collection of his revised methodological essays that provides a uniquely systematic expression of his contextualist philosophy of history. Skinner's most arresting theoretical contention in that work remains his well-known claim that past works of political theory cannot be read as contributions to `perennial' debates but must instead be understood as particularistic, ideological speech acts. In this article I argue that he fails to justify these claims and that there is actually nothing wrong at all with (where appropriate) treating past works of political theory as engaged in perennial philosophical debates. Not only do Skinner's arguments not support the form of contextualism he defends, their flaws are actually akin to those he identified in his critique of previous methodological orthodoxies.

Extended Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas

“…Skinner writes that scholars who read texts out of context and who ignore what their authors were doing cannot "in principle" adequately understand these texts. 83 "In principle" is too strong, 84 but I agree that reading texts out of their contexts and ignoring what authors were doing may lead to misunderstandings. My point is merely that the same can happen through not reading some parts of some texts philosophically.…”

System, Order, and History as a Conceptual Repository in International Law

“…82 The context might enlarge and enrich our knowledge of a particular text, but if the focus is on the 'abstract philosophical statement,' what becomes important is to establish whether the arguments are justified. 83 Take the paradigmatic case of Hobbes's Leviathan. Garber remarks that if one reads the end of Part IV, chapters which, according to Garber, are usually skipped by those interested in Hobbes's political thought, readers will find Hobbes writing against Aristotelian metaphysics, adducing that they serve to support an evil political system -the Catholic Church -undermining legitimate rulers.…”

The history of international thought and International Relations theory: from context to interpretation

“…Theorists can and continue to reflect upon, agree with, dispute, adopt, modify, mobilise and simply reflect upon ideas generated by thinkers that preceded them, sometimes by centuries, as Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle's thought, Thomas Hobbes did with Thucydides' or Collingwood himself did with Hobbes' Leviathan. 39 These debates between thinkers of different periods of history occur because later thinkers believe that past thinkers have ideas and theories related to their own ideas and theories. Yet, contextualists would have us believe not only that these engagements are ill-advised but also that because these thinkers -thinkers such as Aquinas or Hobbes or Collingwood -did not interpret past texts in the right historicist spirit with the aid of modern historical method, their interpretations must be wrong and worthless, certainly in historical terms and, if Skinner is taken literally, also in theoretical and practical terms.…”