Visions of Politics, Volume I: Regarding Method

Visions of Politics #1

by Quentin Skinner

The first of three volumes of essays by Quentin Skinner, one of the world's leading intellectual historians. This collection includes some of his most important philosophical and methodological statements written over the past four decades, each carefully revised for publication in this form. In a series of seminal essays Professor Skinner sets forth the intellectual principles that inform his work. Writing as a practising historian, he considers the theoretical difficulties inherent in the pursuit of knowledge and interpretation, and elucidates the methodology which finds its expression in his two successive volumes. All of Professor Skinner's work is characterised by philosophical power, limpid clarity, and elegance of exposition; these essays, many of which are now recognised classics, provide a fascinating and convenient digest of the development of his thought. Professor Skinner has been awarded the Balzan Prize Life Time Achievement Award for Political Thought, History and Theory. Full details of this award can be found at

Genres: Philosophy, History, Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, Academic, School

225 pages, Paperback

First published September 25, 1998

About the author

Educated at Caius College, Cambridge, where he was elected to a Fellowship upon obtaining a double-starred first in History, Quentin Skinner accepted, however, a teaching Fellowship at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he taught until 2008, except for four years in the 1970s spent at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1978 he was appointed to the chair of Political Science at Cambridge University, and subsequently regarded as one of the two principal members (along with J.G.A. Pocock) of the influential 'Cambridge School' of the history of political thought, best known for its attention to the 'languages' of political thought.

Skinner's primary interest in the 1970s and 1980s was the modern idea of the state, which resulted in two of his most highly regarded works, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume I: The Renaissance and The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume II: The Age of Reformation.

Reviews

[Theo · Rating 4 out of 5]

who knew all you needed for a strong history of ideas was a good understanding of speech act theory. actually really interesting and quite compelling way to think about history of ideas/intellectual history more as intervening in the world rather than in a separate “world of letters”. love skinner’s style too, captivating and sometimes facetious. he really loves wittgenstein and austin probably /s

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Skinner applies some of the insights of Wittgenstein and J.L. Austen to the study of history. He seeks how to demonstrate that intellectual historians need to ask what a particular author was DOING by what they said and in what they were saying. This is speech-act theory applied at the level of the text.

He closes the book with some helpful essays about morality and social change, the way that words change and how studying such change can help illuminate the history of an idea or word.

This book is worth your time, especially if you care about the history of ideas and being a skilled historian.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good. Skinner is a top thinker and historian.

[haryii · Rating 5 out of 5]

the book that introduced me to intellectual history

[Samuel Weiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following the speech-act theory of JL Austin, Skinner argues that the meaning of an utterance is only one component in understanding it. A full understanding requires understanding what the author is doing by saying what they are saying. In the jargon of speech-act theory, understanding the illocutionary force of the utterance. In particular, all acts of communication should be understood as interventions for a partiular position in a particular debate. Therefore, understanding a text requires determining what debate it was intended to be an intervention in and what position it is taking in that debate. This means that one cannot simply read the text in question over-and-over; rather, one must place the text in a particular context and tradition. More succintly, it helps to know the question that the text is trying to answer. This seems a good way to approach intellectual history.

However, I disagree with Skinner on the following point. He writes that "To demand from the history of thought a solution to our immediate probelsm is to committ not merely a methodological fallacy but something like a moral error. But to learn from the past- and we cannot otherwise learn at all- the distinction between what is necessary and what is contingently our local arrangements is to learn one of the keys to self-awareness itself". I don't agree with this, and I don't believe that the methodology sketched above forecloses what Andrew Murray calls historically informed political thought. That is, political theory that deaws on historical texts in order to bring critical insights and persepective to contemporary problems. For example, as Teresa Bejan argues, debates about religious toleration during the Reformation may have something to tell us about contemporary debates regarding free speech and cancel culture (though, as Bejan notes, it is important to consider that there are points of disanalogy as well as analogy between then and now). Moreover, as Waldron notes on his book on Locke, Skinner's approach seems to reduce intellectual history to mere antiquarianism- it regards the philosophy of Christian Wolff as equally important as that of Kant. This is clearly wrong- some writers do deserve canonical status, not (merely) because they are better than others at revealing the contigency of our local arrangements, but also because they have useful insights for contemporary debates.

Skinner's argument is quite technical, and draws on literary theory as well as the philosophy of language developed by Austin and the later Wittgenstein, areas which I know little about,

[Phallus · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of academic, poser, pedantic bullshit — an easy concept cloaked in unnecessary elaborate robes. At the heart of Skinner’s argument lies a critique of two common historiographical fallacies: anachronism and doctrinalism. He warns against reading past thinkers as if they were addressing contemporary problems or as if they were contributors to a continuous “great conversation” about political ideas. Instead, he urges historians to reconstruct the illocutionary force—the intended speech acts—of a given text within its original discursive and political circumstances.

Drawing heavily on speech-act theory, Skinner emphasizes that political writings are performative: when Hobbes or Machiavelli wrote, they were not merely describing political concepts but seeking to do something with words—persuade, justify, refute, or redefine. Thus, interpretation requires understanding what an author could mean and intend to accomplish within the language and conventions available at the time.

[Sherry · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, is probably the most important one in this book.

[Yukinosita Yukino · Rating 5 out of 5]

Skinner at his (philosophical) best

[Vip Vinyaratn]

A Must-Read...T_T