The Ethics of Interpretation in Political Theory and Intellectual History

Abstract

Scholars studying classic political texts face an important decision: Should these texts be read as artifacts of history or as sources for still-valid insights about politics today? Competing historical and “presentist” approaches to political thought do not have a methodological dispute—that is, a disagreement about the most effective scholarly means to an agreed-upon end. They instead have an ethical dispute about the respective value of competing activities that aim at different purposes. This article examines six ethical arguments, drawn primarily from the work of Quentin Skinner, in favor of the historical approach. It concludes that while both intellectual history and presentist theory are ethically justifiable, the best justification of the former enterprise is that it can help us achieve the purposes of the latter.

Teaching political theory: a pluralistic approach

“…Although I appreciate contextual scholarship in the history of political thought, I am, in the words of Michael Frazer, "a presentist," somebody who reads and teaches intellectual history to better contribute to ongoing political debates (Frazer 2019). In Chapter 3, for instance, I discuss how teaching Machiavelli alongside Han Feizi illuminates a realist strand in political thinking that flows beneath both the Italian Renaissance and the Warring States period.…”

The value of genealogies for political philosophy

“…This view is not uncontroversial. For instance, Michael Frazer (Frazer 2019) has recently argued that Skinner's historicist approach to historywhich is certainly evident in his genealogy of the statehas some serious ethical shortcomingsmany of which are concerned with his particular approach to history, which we won't examine in detail here. The important part of Frazer's argument for our purposes is the argument that when such intellectual history 'intersects with our current concerns', it does so only 'in a negative way', by 'criticizing everything and defending nothing except autonomy itself' (Frazer 2019, 93).…”

Gender Stereotypes in Historical Biographical Novels for Children and Young Adults

“…

There is a fine line between literature and history that has hardly ever been clearly defined. This is arguably because historical and literary narration share important common characteristics, such as the art of rhetoric, the interpretational approach to reality (rather than its precise depiction), authors' effort to evoke their readers' emotions and to support political and moral systems (Barraclough 1958;Frazer 2019), their innovative treatments of the past, etc. (Barthes 1987: 33-38;Jenkins 1997;Ricoeur Biographical novels for children constitute an interesting case, as authors employ their creative imagination while combining history and factual descriptions to invite young readers to become part of a distant reality rich in social, anthropological and historical significance.

…”