The History of Political Thought: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #692

by Richard Whatmore

Thinking about politics has tended to be historical in nature because of the comparisons and contrasts that can be drawn between past and present. Different periods in politics have used the past differently. At times political thought can be said to have been drawn directly from the study of history; at others, perhaps including our own time, the relationship is more indirect. This Very Short Introduction explores the core concerns and questions in the field of the history of political thought. Richard Whatmore considers the history of political thought as a branch of political philosophy/political science, and examines the approaches of core theorists such as Reinhart Koselleck, Strauss, Michel Foucault, and the so-called Cambridge School of Quentin Skinner and John Pocock. Assessing the current relationship between political history, theory and action, Whatmore concludes with an analysis of its relevance for current politics.

Genres: History, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Academia

137 pages, Paperback

Published November 25, 2021

About the author

Richard Whatmore is professor of modern history and codirector of the Institute of Intellectual History at the University of St Andrews. He is the author of What Is Intellectual History?, Against War and Empire, and Republicanism and the French Revolution.

Reviews

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was different than what I was expecting, based on the title. It was less a history of political thought throughout the ages, and more an introduction to a discipline called "The History of Political Thought" about which I previously knew nothing. It was interesting to think about how current political thinkers have eschewed or espoused "the death of the author" when considering political texts from the past. Does it make sense to look for abstract concepts in texts from the past, or do they need to be evaluated in their historical context? I am looking forward to exploring some of the texts recommended in the "Further reading" section.

[Elsie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an intro to the discipline rather than of the history of political thought generally but I still really enjoyed this. I’ve always been a proponent of NOT understanding/interpreting political philosophy/theory in a ahistorical bubble so this does make me feel a bit more justified ahaha. I would like to learn more about this discipline should I have the time so this book did the job!

[Kelly · Rating 2 out of 5]

What is says on the tin. This book was easy to read and gave an overview of history from empire and globally. I was intrigued by Whatmores description of meritocracy in Chinese politics as well as punishment for political mistakes in Asia. Also intriguing was Foucault and authorship. Thirdly, critiquing dead white men in political philosophy.

[Mariia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book takes us through 8 chapters that summarize the history of political thought : history and politics, definitions of justifications, the history of political thought and Marxism, political philosophers and the history of political thought, the "Cambridge school", Koselleck and conceptual history, Michel Foucalt and governmentality and globality, morality, and the future.

In the first chapter, the book recalls a strong correlation between history and politics through (liberty; hats and elephants).

The second chapter tells us about all about the history of political thought: varieties, what they do, how you do it, how you discover it, etc.

The third chapter talks about Marxism and its origins, his philosophy, his political thoughts, and the difficulty of refuring Marx (comprehensive nature of his critique of capitalism, which blends complex economic analysis with philosophical history) . Also, it compares Marxism and Maoism (while Marxism provides the foundational scientific analysis of capitalism and class struggle, Maoism is an adaptation (and, for some, an expansion) of these theories to the specific conditions of 20th-century China—a predominantly rural, agricultural society).

In the 4th chapter, book links 3 subjects together: politics, history, and philosophy. It tells us about Rawla and history (central figure in modern political philosophy, whose work, particularly A Theory of Justice (1971)); Shklar and Arendt. Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) and Judith Shklar (1928–1992) were prominent 20th-century political theorists and Jewish émigrés from Europe whose work was shaped by the horrors of totalitarianism and exile. We also discover Leo Strauss and Straussianism (school of thought, focusing on the "esoteric" interpretation of classical texts, where hidden meanings are discovered between the lines).

In the 5th stave, there are origins of the study of political thought in Britain, how is it like to study it in Cambridge, it's identity (a prominent intellectual history movement focused on understanding political thought through historical context) and the consequences.

In the 6th chapter, we talk about Koselleck, German catastrophe, and Begriffsgeschichte.

In the 7th chapter, we talk through Foucalt and Epistémè, archaeology, normalization, and biopolitics.

In the last chapter, we talk through the relevance of political thought, global histories of political thought, and its further judgment.


Overall, the book is full of outstanding information. However, at some parts, it was hard to keep being on the track with the book the further I read.

[Anastacia · Rating 2 out of 5]

For starters, I was not expecting the title to be expounded so literally. Rather than being a book about political theory through time, it is about the specific discipline of approaching political theory through a historically-minded lens, and how it interacts (or doesn’t) with views of the past.

That being said, this was not an issue at all, but rather the disjointed way this introduction is written. While I don’t like overly redundant summaries or excessive context, it was definitely missing enough to make it feel like the author was walking in and out of the room while continuously talking. A lot of super quick introductions and rapid fire of different names, authors and their works, with jumps between their main messages without always conveying it properly to an audience unfamiliar with these thinkers.

There were some gems in the book though, especially when the author summarized the relevance of this field in their own words, or made broader insights into the contributions of the thinkers discussed. A favourite insight of mine was describing the history of political theory as an approach to understanding political risk, probabilities and understanding what contexts may make political actions more likely to succeed or fail.

Another gem for me was the constant reminder that we must avoid the trap of perceiving superiority in our philosophies and illusions of novel progress compared to the past. The idea that we are finally “doing something different” and progressing toward improvement can be deceptive, especially when many failed or dangerous ideological projects held the exact same perception of themselves.

tldr: just use some a as transition words man

[R. S. Alamsyah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly a Very Short Introduction, but a decidedly exhaustive one. The title might deceive some readers, as it is not an overview of political thought, but rather an overview of the discipline of the *history* of political thought. Nonetheless, it does the overview excellently.

It goes through some of the greatest intellectual historians of the discipline across the political spectrum - from the right-wing scholarship of Leo Strauss to the leftist readings of Foucault and Althusser. However, the writer does show a bias towards the liberal-leaning side of things, Skinner and Rawls in particular.

His descriptions of Straussian and Marxist historians of political theory lack the attention he gives to the Cambridge school, with certain omissions being puzzling, like the lack of the leftist interpreters of early modern political theory, such as Carole Pateman, Charles Mills, and C.B. Macpherson.

Nonetheless, it serves as a great starting point for anyone who wishes to know the field!

[Josh Friedlander · Rating 2 out of 5]

Went into this thinking it would be an intro to the big ideas of today's politics (what is republicanism, liberalism, socialism etc). And there is a bit of that, but it is mostly something else, an intro to the discipline of studying the history of political texts. A lot of hair-splitting about if we can divine what Locke was thinking when he wrote this sentence, or if there is significance to the number of times Machiavelli used a certain phrase. (This is a real example, and stems from the "esoteric reading" made popular by Leo Strauss and his school.) So there is a lot about the differences between the Cambridge School and Foucault and whoever. Also the expected hand-wringing about if it's ok to write about so many dead white men, or if "global history" might actually be squashing indigenous voices.

A fun fact I learned from this: Montesquieu thought that there could be no universal rules for the right political setup, since every society has a different culture, climate, etc. Rawls, and all other political thinkers who aspire to set such rules, would obviously disagree.

[Ilia · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is fundamentally a survey of a methodology, i.e. the different ways to study political thought historically and the possible benefits of doing so. Whatmore is quite circumspect, and occasionally torturous, on the latter point. But the central idea is sound – that appreciating the context in which political justifications are made protects against fanaticism, demagoguery and triviality. Smart people have thought about these things in the past and understanding how they argued against them is useful when arguing against them today.

[Marco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting thoughts in the final chapter, but otherwise this is an introduction that does not go beyond a surface-level recap of some key schools of the History of Political Thought, rather than presenting a more vivid image of what animates research in the field and what is it for (as is often the case in other VSIs).

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

A reasonably decent introduction to the history of political thought. It gets a bit overwhelming with name dropping when I hoped it would be a little more focused on ideas. As with many VSI, it was nice to get some references for further, advanced reading.

[Marcus Lira · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a brief history of the history of political thought. It gives you the tools you need so you can study the actual history of political thought. Although it's not a life changing book, it does pretty much what it set out to do.

[Sam(antha)]

This was certainly a very brief introduction

[Troy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was a good book which gave me a broad overview of how multiple thinkers view the historical of political thought. 6.5-7/10

[Satya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction.

More an introduction into the discipline 'The History of Political Thought' rather than a History of Political Thought.