The rise of, challenge to and prospects for a Collingwoodian approach to the history of political thought

Abstract

I need to begin by sounding a sceptical note. It makes little sense to speak of a British – still less an English – style of writing the history of political thought, if only because the English language is the principal medium of communication in Australasia and North America, two places in which this kind of history has recently been vigorously practised and very ably discussed. It is certainly possible to say, however, that within these anglophone intellectual communities a particular style has been developed in the course of the present generation which stands in strong contrast with a number of European approaches to the study of political thought, including the current German preoccupation with Begriffsgeschichte and the continuing French passion for post-structuralist and especially deconstructionist methodologies. My focus in the following remarks will accordingly be on this anglophone intellectual community rather than on the idea of national contexts and traditions of thought. It likewise makes little sense to speak of the approach I wish to consider as an approach specifically to the history of political thought. It is true that some of the most interesting contributions to the theoretical debate have been made by practitioners of this particular sub-discipline, as the names of John Dunn, Peter Laslett, John Pocock and James Tully sufficiently attest. But the questions they have raised are questions about how best to set about interpreting any kind of text, and in discussing their views I shall not limit myself – any more than they do themselves – to specifically political examples.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.