Political theory and language.

Abstract

The relationship of language to the study and practice of political theory is the subject of the following analysis. Though by no means a "new" or even overlooked topic, it has experienced keen and lively debate. This was especially the case in the 1960s and 1970s, when advocates of political theory's "demise" and/or "rebirth" as a field of inquiry both took recourse in what they deemed to be the "lessons" of language. Today, however, debate has focused on the question of whether or not a more directly linguistic approach to the study and practice of political theory (as is exhibited, for example, in the works of, among others, Habermas, Flathman, and Shapiro) is in fact "political." Increasingly, the position is today that it is not. Some (Baumgold, 1981; Gunnell, 1979) even claim language a threat to theory's properly political foundations (Chapter One). I argue the contrary. Building from both the Wittgensteinian and Habermasian schools of thought (Chapters Two and Three) and, even more importantly, from the linguistic practices of Hobbes and Tocqueville (Chapter Four), study reveals language not only relevant but central to the discipline as even Baumgold and Gunnell understand it. As will be shown below, language's significance is grounded in its value as both a unit for political analysis and as a medium for political participation.