Political Theory

H16 - The Methodology of Political Theory

Date: Jun 14 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 391

Chair/Président/Présidente : Eric Adamo (McMaster University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Rebecca Kingston (University of Toronto)

Towards an Ethnographic Sensibility: the Archival Turn in Political Theory and its Ethical Implications: Olivier Ruchet (Université Paris 2)
Abstract: The use of archival material is becoming increasingly prevalent in contemporary political theory, especially in studies on important academic figures of the XXth century – recent work on Rawls (Hawi, 2016; Forrester, 2019), Foucault (Elden, 2021; Behrent, 2023), Arendt (Hill, 2021), or Habermas (Verovsek, forthcoming), for instance, heavily draw on unpublished material to offer renewed perspectives on the political theories examined. Picking up on the trend, Alexander Livingstone launched a seminar series on “The Archival turn in political theory” at Cornell in 2021. Archival research was also instrumental in my own study of Sheldon Wolin’s political thought (Ruchet, 2023). Most existing reflections on the role of archives in political science research, however, tend to concentrate on comparative politics or political behavior (Skemer, 1991; Frisch at al., 2012; Lee, 2014; Sobotić, 2021) and very little exists concerning political theory (see Hazareesingh & Nabulsi, 2008). This contribution aims to participate in filling that gap. It asks what the different methods used by the authors of these texts are, what different sets of practices drawing on archives can induce, and what the results have been in the different texts cited. Attention to the archive seems to proceed from a different kind of reflexivity (Zacka speaks of an ‘ethnographic sensibility’) which I explore in the paper. Finally, the presentation addresses the ethics of archival research in political theory.

Practical Past(s): Koselleck, White and the Politics of History: Sophie Marcotte Chénard (Carleton University)
Abstract: In an essay on history, Michael Oakeshott distinguishes between the “historical” and the “practical” past. The former is a specific mode of intellectual engagement, exclusively concerned with the past and regulated by specific methodological procedures. The latter, also referred to as the “living past”, can include artefacts, reports of experiences, stories of past human circumstances, and is mostly praised for its usefulness. While the “practical” past can teach by example and contribute to our self-understanding, it is not, in Oakeshott’s view, history. By enlisting the past for a specific cause, we run the risk of reducing and simplifying history as it happened (Oakeshott, 1983). Hayden White and Reinhart Koselleck, two major figures in contemporary theory of history, both take issue with the notion of an independent historical past that should be preserved from contamination by practical considerations. Despite major differences in their respective projects, White and Koselleck expand the realm of the theory of historiography to include existential attitudes toward the past, the political role of traditions, and a consideration for the moral dimension of historical knowledge (Paul, 2011). I argue that Koselleck and White provide resources to elaborate a vision of a “practical past” that does not stand in contradiction with the “historical past”, but rather leads to interrogate the very distinction between the two modes of understanding. While there are risks involved in moving from “was” to “ought” (Blau, 2021), both Koselleck and White develop a politically relevant conception of history that is normative without being explicitly prescriptive. As I show in the paper, their respective projects also bring to light the potentially damaging effects of a strictly scientific concern with the past and the importance of poetic imagination within the historical discipline. Ultimately, rehabilitating the concept of a 'practical past' allows to reconsider the relationship between political theory and history.