Politics and The Political in the “Berkeley School” of Political Theory

• Published in: PS, political science & politics political science & politics, 2017-07, Vol.50 (3), p.801-802
• Main Author: Strong, Tracy B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 18th century; Democracy; Demonstrations & protests; Epistemological doctrines; Essays; Frost, Robert (1874-1963); Language; Political philosophy; Political Science; Political systems; Political theory; Politics; Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712-1778); Symposium: The “Berkeley School” of Political Theory: A Discussion of its Beginnings, its Development, and the Disagreements over Calling it a “School”; The Profession; United States History; Vision; Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1889-1951)
• ISSN: 1049-0965; 1537-5935
• DOI: 10.1017/S1049096517000634

First is what I once referred to as "Berkeley metaphysics" (I think I stole the term from Stephen Thomas). The concern with politics started from a reaction against the dulling gentleness of Eisenhower Era organizationalism through the rise of the civil rights movements to the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. [...]there is a strong sense that the availability of the full meanings of "politics"--although not of "the political"--has changed over time, and not always for the good. [...]the impact of ordinary language philosophy, of meaning what one said--whether or not more or less informed by Austin and or Wittgenstein--is strong, if most often quietly so. (Malice was perhaps aforethought as Sheldon had negative things to say about Rousseau in Politics and Vision.) His two-page response was a detailed account of the political system in Geneva in the eighteenth century, pointing out where the author was right, what had not been taken into account, and where s/he was possibly off target. [...]moral and political languages can and should be, to some degree, differentiated from one another. [...]because political language is the central medium of shared experience (i.e., the basis of what Wolin called "epic theory"), if two groups do not share the same concepts (i.e., do not use them in the same way), they then most likely would have difficulty in fully understanding one another.