The Anatomy of Political Theory: A Typology Based on Narrative Structure

Abstract

The riot of approaches, paradigms, theories and principles propounded by political theorists has become, as Isaiah Berlin memorably observed, a scandal that seems to call the status of the entire sub-discipline into question. What seems troubling is not only the deep differences between theories, but the cognitive gaps that often render discussion and argument amongst theorists unilluminating.

This paper argues that political theory is less chaotic than it may initially appear, and that its fragmentation is correspondingly less scandalous than is sometimes argued; not only can the various theories be exhaustively and illuminatingly classified into four basic categories, but the sub-discipline's shifting center of gravity can also be correspondingly tracked over time. A common denominator of all theories is that they tell a story of how politics has been and should be practiced: they all rely on a narrative of politics. This paper adapts Northrop Frye's system of classification from the Anatomy of Criticism to twentieth century political theories, analyzing their narrative structures in terms of two criteria: the structure they attribute to our moral universe (monist or pluralist) and the type of political change they suggest can best reconcile us to it (progressive or conservative). The interaction of these criteria produces four basic categories of political theory: (1) romantic (monist-progressive), (2) ironic (monist-conservative), (3) comic (pluralist-progressive), and (4) tragic (pluralist-conservative). This essay argues that the center of gravity in political theory today is romantic, but that it is shadowed by parasitic ironic critiques and confronted by a growing challenge from tragic theories. Moreover, the cognitive gaps are concentrated in arguments across these categories (rather than within them). Finally, the question of dominance will be determined by which category develops (through internal argument) the most attractive and insightful account of our moral life, rather than according to any particular line of argument across categories.

The result of this analysis is an intuitively appealing typology that captures both where and why political theories diverge foundationally, and correspondingly where cognitive gaps arise, and finally why their presence does not undermine the importance of political theory or the possibility of progress within it.