We’ll be ending this year at the City Politics Blog on a high note with Lola Chaumont’s excellent analysis of how history and political theory relate to each other for IP1032: Introduction to Political Theory.
Although they both seek a certain understanding of humanity, history and political theory are verydifferent disciplines. While history tries to make sense of the past and the present by using facts,political theory — and more broadly politics, conceptualises frameworks in order to improve theway humans coexist. Indeed, in their definitions themselves, they are very different; politicaltheory tries to understand how politics should be, whereas history seeks to understand politicsbut also almost every aspect of human experience was. Therefore, a question is raised as why ishistory such an important feature of political theory? In order to answer this, this essay will firstlyexamine ideology and its relationship to history, secondly focus on how political theory can drawon history methods, and finally look at Marx’s materialist method.
An ideology can be defined as a particular set of ‘beliefs or principles especially one on which apolitical system, party, or organization is based’ (Cambridge Dictionary). Indeed, ideologies tendto be considered as ‘the truth’ by those who strongly believe in them, and they are usually usedby interest groups to justify their actions and/or assure hegemony. As theory and ideology can beconfused with one another, I would like to underline that theory bases itself on facts and ideologybases itself on theory. For example, we would call liberalism an ideology, as it is a set of ideasbased on concepts such as liberty, whereas we would talk about feminism as a theory as it ismore of a set of social and political movements fighting for the equality of sexes which includdifferent ideologies such as black feminism or liberal feminism. A theory seems to focus on abroader theme by using facts and ideologies.
However, though ideologies’ core basis are not facts, they do shape society events — so facts,and its history. Indeed, ‘good’ ideology usually expands to the point that it — or its leaders —governs a certain group of people; and for the sake of my argument, I will say talk about ideologyas governing a state. When an ideology governs a state (after winning an election for example),what follows is usually a system that organizes and educate people, ‘motivating them to developcertain attitudes, adopt certain world views, and seek, through collective action, certainobjectives’ (Rabie, 2013: p. 128). Therefore, ideology eventually influences human relationshipsand ‘the course of change in society’, thus history. Furthermore, as ideology influences change insociety and history, one could argue that it could also cause the downfall and end of history.Drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Hegel, Francis Fukuyama tries to demonstratethat the ascendance of Western liberal democracy marks the ‘final form of humangovernment’ (1989: p. 2). As Cold War ends, liberal democracy expands globally and affirms itselfas the ‘right’ political system in most countries, resulting in the end of ‘mankind’s ideologicalevolution’, thus the end of history. The article having been written in 1989, we could think that thepassing of time contradicted Fukuyama’s theory; however, even though communism and fascism— which used to be the major challenges to Western liberal democracy — still stand in somestates (e.g. China and its Communist Party dominates the socialist government), up to this day,liberal democracy is ruling over the world, and as Fukuyama predicted, the end of history.However, the end of history does not mean ‘the end of international conflict per se’ (1989, p: 16)nor the end of historical events, but the end of any progression towards an alternative ideologicalsystem. This shows that the impact of political theory and ideology on history is considerable, andthe other way round.
As important as the impact on each other is not the only worth mentioning matter. Indeed, we will now see how ideology and history can make use of each other. Ideologies are often seen as pregiven, more or less fixed, and we don’t necessarily have the idea to look at how they were constructed over time, nor the context of their creation and evolution. However, by using a historical approach and deconstructing those ideologies, we could have a much greater understanding of them in terms of ‘opposition, discontinuities and contradictions’ rather than in terms of ‘cohesion and continuity’ (Stråth, 2006). And the other way round, historians could use ideological conceptual frameworks as they influence change in society, in order to understand better a historical event. For instance, if a historian were to look at social revolutions in 1968, understanding different the different ideologies opposed conceptually may help them make sense of these events better.
In the same way that ideologies and history can make use of each other, by looking more generally, history methods can be very useful to political theory, making history an important feature of political theory methodologically. Although political theory does not need to be historical (Leopold and Stears, 2008: p. 149), it can definitely benefit from it. Indeed, by using a historical approach — meaning using primary sources, looking at the past etc —, political theorists may find more evidence to back up their hypothesis and the claims that go with it.
Furthermore, a large extent of ‘universal theories’ (that apply to all cultures and all times) are based on the 20th century political experiences and developments; the concerns of actual politicians and people at that time were used and turned into those ‘universal truths’. These were written based on history, and historical methods as political theorists used primary evidence in order to conceptualize frameworks. Social movements for instance, created a new variable of politics and were eventually conceptualized (e.g. the creation of WUNC: essentially, the worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment of social movements). A conceptual framework of social movement would assume a regularity of those. However, social movements have a history, and ‘regularities in social movements, then, depended heavily on their historical contexts’ (Tilly, 2009). If a political theorist were to ignore the history of social movements, thus not using historical methods, their claims would probably be false, as they are constantly evolving and changing, much like society.
I have until now discussed history and political theory as separated disciplines; however history as a concept has been theorized, and it is important to underline it, as it is a part of why history is considered a feature of political theory at all. A prime example of a political theorist whose thinking was deeply rooted in history — and human development — is Karl Marx. Although his way of thinking took basis from Hegel, I will focus on Marx’s theories, and more specifically what is called the ‘materialist’ method. Historical materialism is the idea that the shipping of all form of historical and social developments are driven by materialistic conditions rather than ideals or consciousness. It was first coined in The German Ideology (1968), in which he also develops the idea that history is defined by conflict (idea shared with Hegel). The idea of history being defined by conflict — which is an essential concept of political theory (as conflict an enormous consequence of politics) — illustrates very well the importance of history as a feature of political theory.
In conclusion, the question of why is history such an important feature of political theory is complex, as they have both very different views on the world, though they both try to make sense of society. Firstly, as we have seen in this essay, history is essential to understand better ideologies, a primary subject of political theory, as it influences society, thus history. Secondly, using ideology conceptual frameworks to makes sense of the past is also very useful, and sometimes even necessary. Thirdly, I have demonstrated that using history and its methods in political theory is primordial, as society and history constantly evolves, and theories sometimes prove to be wrong over time. Finally, we have looked at the conception of history itself which is important for both political theory and history, as having basic principles to understand the world is better. However, as much as history is an important feature of political theory, ‘political theory, much like political science, need not to be historical’ (Leopold and Stears, 2008: p. 148).
Bibliography
• Rabi,e M. (2013) ‘Ideology and History’. In: Global Economic and Cultural Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137365330_8
• Fukuyama, F. (1989). ‘The End of History?’. The National Interest, (16), 3-18. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184
• Stråth, B. (2006) ‘Ideology and history’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(1), pp. 23–42. doi: 10.1080/13569310500395859.
• Leopold, D. and Stears, M. (2008) ‘Political Theory and History’. In: Political Theory: Methods and Approaches. Oxford University Press, Washington, pp. 128-150. https:// ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/city/reader.action?docID=415667&ppg=161
• Tilly, C. (2009) ‘Why and How History Matters’. In: The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Edited by Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199270439.003.0022
• Marx, K., Engels, F., and Arthur, C. J., (1968). ‘Chapter I: A Critique of The German Ideology’. In: The German ideology. Progress Publishers, Moscow.