Why Do So Many Scholars Try and Fail to Draw Contemporary Insights from the History of Political Thought?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Some scholars try to draw contemporary insights from the history of political thought. Why do so many of them fail? One reason is that our “methodological” literature gives little practical guidance about doing research on the history of political thought, including on this issue. One practical lesson offered in this paper is that when drawing contemporary insights from the history of political thought, we should think not only like historians of political thought but also like political theorists, or philosophers, or suchlike. This challenges Quentin Skinner’s view, although fortunately not his practice. A second reason is mentality: too many scholars seem to think that it is easy to use the history of political thought to draw contemporary insights. Fear is a virtue: we should worry about the robustness of our insights. Humility and intellectual flexibility are also virtues, as is the willingness to spend time engaging rigorously and accurately with the contemporary literature or issues. This challenges some of John Dunn’s practices.
Original languageEnglish
JournalScienza & Politica
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 15 Jun 2023

Keywords

  • contextualism
  • history of political thought
  • John Dunn
  • presentism
  • Quentin Skinner

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why Do So Many Scholars Try and Fail to Draw Contemporary Insights from the History of Political Thought?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this