PANEL 9 /// METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
CONVENOR: LEONARDO MENEZES
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected]
All disciplines tend to be chaotic, to some extent, in their development (Abbott, 2001) and political philosophy is certainly no exception. However, the variety of methodological approaches and debates explored in recent years are also a symptom of its richness and growing maturity. Political philosophers have started to interrogate the methodology they use to develop normative prescriptions, which include, among others, contractualism, reflective equilibrium, positive political theory, and thought experiment.
In this context, debates revolving around methodological concerns about justification in political philosophy — namely the ideal/non-ideal theory debate (O’Neill, Stemplowska, Valentini), the moralism/realism debate (Williams, Geuss, Sleat & Rossi), the facts/principles debate (Cohen, Miller, Ronzoni), and the practice dependence/independence debate (James, Sangiovanni) — have reframed the Rawlsian consensus. Yet, driving this ‘methodological turn’ in political philosophy has also been a frustration with the subject’s perceived lack of influence on real- world politics. For instance, some voiced the concern that the dominant – Rawlsian – paradigm in the discipline was somehow too detached from reality to guide political action. From this perspective, much of the current work in political philosophy is defective because it is of little (possibly no) practical help.
But methodological questions are equally central to many other debates in political philosophy, including debates about feminism, experimental methods, the relation between political philosophy and empirical disciplines, ethnographic approaches to political theory, ethics of public policy, and comparative political theory.
In this panel, we seek to focus greater attention on what kinds of problems in political theory might require researchers to use a particular method, the basic principles behind the method being proposed, and an analysis of how to apply it. Whether these are analytical, empirical, interpretive and/or critical, our main purpose is to shed light on the diverse methods that political philosophers could employ and refine in order to better frame their theoretical and normative models. We welcome paper proposals on any topic related to these and other methodological debates.
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected]
All disciplines tend to be chaotic, to some extent, in their development (Abbott, 2001) and political philosophy is certainly no exception. However, the variety of methodological approaches and debates explored in recent years are also a symptom of its richness and growing maturity. Political philosophers have started to interrogate the methodology they use to develop normative prescriptions, which include, among others, contractualism, reflective equilibrium, positive political theory, and thought experiment.
In this context, debates revolving around methodological concerns about justification in political philosophy — namely the ideal/non-ideal theory debate (O’Neill, Stemplowska, Valentini), the moralism/realism debate (Williams, Geuss, Sleat & Rossi), the facts/principles debate (Cohen, Miller, Ronzoni), and the practice dependence/independence debate (James, Sangiovanni) — have reframed the Rawlsian consensus. Yet, driving this ‘methodological turn’ in political philosophy has also been a frustration with the subject’s perceived lack of influence on real- world politics. For instance, some voiced the concern that the dominant – Rawlsian – paradigm in the discipline was somehow too detached from reality to guide political action. From this perspective, much of the current work in political philosophy is defective because it is of little (possibly no) practical help.
But methodological questions are equally central to many other debates in political philosophy, including debates about feminism, experimental methods, the relation between political philosophy and empirical disciplines, ethnographic approaches to political theory, ethics of public policy, and comparative political theory.
In this panel, we seek to focus greater attention on what kinds of problems in political theory might require researchers to use a particular method, the basic principles behind the method being proposed, and an analysis of how to apply it. Whether these are analytical, empirical, interpretive and/or critical, our main purpose is to shed light on the diverse methods that political philosophers could employ and refine in order to better frame their theoretical and normative models. We welcome paper proposals on any topic related to these and other methodological debates.
