Contemporary Confusion of Political Philosophy and Political Ideology

In the previous chapter I offered criticism of a value-free political science. In the present chapter I examine critically the work of some contemporary political theorists who do not deny that political theory is normative, but who fail to make an adequate distinction between political philosophy and political ideology, or who simply equate the two modes of political thought. Over the past few decades much attention has been given to the methodology of the history of political thought. Important contributors to this project are Quentin Skinner and Richard Ashcraft, who, in their different ways, have stressed the significance of historical and contextual interpretation of texts of political thought. They argue that all political thought is relative to historical or other contexts, and, as a consequence, deny the distinction between political philosophy and political ideology. Perhaps the most significant debate in contemporary political philosophy is that between liberalism and communitarianism. Among a number of key communitarian challenges to liberalism is the argument that there can be no neutral, or universal, or absolute justification for political principles. A clear example of this communitarian challenge is provided by Michael Walzer, who argues that the task of political philosophy is the interpretation of the shared beliefs of particular communities. Again, this argument renders all political thought relative to particular contexts, and so renders vulnerable any attempt to distinguish political philosophy and political ideology. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.