ABSTRACT
As Michael Freeden notes in his contribution, many political theorists address compromise within an ethical framework. This is true of most of the chapters in this book as well. Freeden, by contrast, argues that our first responsibility as social scientists is to understand what the raw material of thinking politically consists of. Thus, the aim of his chapter is to supply an interpretative theory of compromise that seeks to understand compromise as a widespread political practice. In other words, he analyzes what actually happens in the political thinking behind compromise. Among his important conclusions are that compromise is not about coming to terms with others, nor is it about sacrifice or meeting in the middle. Moreover, Freeden makes the important point that much political language sits uneasily with the idea of compromise—for example, the language of rights, sovereignty, authority, and finality.
