ABSTRACT
Politics is a practical activity. The study of politics – political inquiry, which may take the form of political science, political history, or political philosophy – can also be practical in the sense of aiming to make a difference in the world of political affairs. But must that study be practical? Let us grant that the arguments of political scientists, historians, and philosophers are often practical either by intention or by contamination. The question I want to consider is whether, setting aside such contingencies, the study of politics can be purely theoretical – that is, theoretical in aiming to understand and explain the objects it studies without also being practical in the sense wanting to alter or preserve them. Michael Oakeshott is one of the few political theorists who defends the separation of political theory from its subject, politics. The activity of theorizing politics can be detached from the intentions or motives of political agents – those who are engaged in making political decisions and arguments (and political theorists, when they trade reflection for advocacy and action are political agents). It is, moreover, distinctively theoretical to the degree that it achieves such detachment. In particular, to theorize politics is to try to understand political decisions and arguments in terms of their presuppositions (Oakeshott 1975, 131). On this view, a space for theorizing that is distinct from doing is opened up because it is possible to say something about a political decision or argument that is not already expressed in it. Oakeshott therefore rejects the common view that ‘pure’ theorizing – thinking that aims at understanding rather than at action – is conceptually impossible, however impure it may be in the hands of particular theorists, who may be doing a number of things besides theorizing in the sense defined.
