Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T01:07:45.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Classical and Empirical Theories of Democracy: The Missing Historical Dimension?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Iain Hampsher-Monk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is a contribution to the debate between ‘empirical’ and ‘classical’ theories of democracy. It draws attention to a hitherto neglected aspect of that debate, namely the historical process by which a word like ‘democracy’ gains its commendatory overtones. To call a state a democracy was not always to praise it; the argument here is that an understanding of how this came about can clarify some of the issues involved in considering whether or not states are properly to be called democracies. Although the methods used derive from linguistic philosophy, the purpose is to direct attention towards the values and aspirations of historical agents using the term, rather than to a purely conceptual analysis of it.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 241 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A short bibliography of the protagonists can be found at the end of Skinner, Quentin's article ‘Empirical Theorists of Democracy and their Critics’, Political Theory, 1 (1973), 287–306, pp. 304–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Dahl, Robert in Eulau, Heinz et al. , Political Behaviour (Glencoe: Free Press, 1956), p. 87.Google Scholar

3 Duncan, Graeme and Lukes, Steven, ‘The New Democracy’, Political Studies, XI (1963), 156–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The most extensive claim is made by Skinner, , ‘Empirical Theorists of Democracy…’Google Scholar

5 I have in mind the more extreme versions of Skinner's own methodological claims as to the importance of intentionality as a criterion of interpretation, although he has considerably revised his position. See ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory, VIII (1969), 3–53Google Scholar, which represents a position from which much has been conceded.

6 In classical and renaissance political thought election was considered an aristocratic device. In true democracies public positions were to be filled by lot. (Aristotle, , The Politics, 11, xi, 7Google Scholar and Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Movement (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975), Chaps. V and VII).Google Scholar

7 Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962)Google Scholar, and Searle, John R., Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Skinner, , ‘Empirical Theorists…’, p. 298.Google Scholar

9 MacIntyre, A. C., A Short History of Ethics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967), p. 5.Google Scholar

10 Stoppard, Tom, Jumpers (London: Faber, 1974), p. 25.Google Scholar

11 Popper, Karl, The Open Society and its Enemies (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, revised 1966), pp. 91–9.Google Scholar

12 Skinner, , ‘Empirical Theorists…’, p. 298.Google Scholar

13 SirFilmer, Robert, Patriarcha and other Political Works, ed. Laslett, Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949), p. 197.Google Scholar

14 Mandeville, Bernard, The Fable of the Bees, ed. Kaye, F. B. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), Vol. I, p. 17.Google Scholar

15 The infamous ‘two Acts’ (36 Geo. II c 7 & 8) extended the definition of treason and prohibited the act of associating for political discussion in an attempt to suppress the agitation of the reform societies. For an evergreen history see Veitch, George Stead, The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform (London: Constable, 1913).Google Scholar

16 MajorCartwright, John, The Commonwealth in Danger (London, 1795), p. 90.Google Scholar

17 Thelwall, John, The Natural and Constitutional Rights of Britons (London, 1795), p. 47.Google Scholar

18 Ryan, Alan, ‘Two Concepts of Politics and Democracy’ in Fleisher, Martin, ed., Machiavelli and the Nature of Politics (New York: Atheneum, 1972), p. 76.Google Scholar

19 Godwin, W., Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, ed. by Priestley, F. E. L. (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1946), Vol. I, pp. 75–6.Google Scholar

20 Godwin, , Enquiry, II, p. 16Google Scholar; p. 119.

21 Godwin, , Enquiry, I, p. 5Google Scholar; III, p. 140; I, p. 44; II, p. 119.

22 Benn, S. and Peters, R. S., Social Principles and the Democratic State (London: Allen and Unwin, 1959). p. 352.Google Scholar

23 Walker, J. L., ‘A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy’, American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 285–95, p. 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Such a demonstration is of course beyond the scope of this paper but it is important to recognize the scope of Godwin's influence at the time. ‘Tom Paine was considered for the time as a Tom Fool to him, Paley an old woman, Edmund Burke a flashy sophist.’ (Hazlitt, William, The Spirit of the Age (London: Dent, 1969), p. 36.)Google Scholar The high price of Political Justice, did not, as Pitt had confidently predicted, render its influence on the lower classes negligible (he had denied it was possible for a book costing as much as three guineas to be seditious!) Working men's clubs subscribed to buy the expensive volumes and organized readings were held.

25 Dahl, R., ‘Further reflections on “The Elitist Theory of Democracy”’, American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 296–305, p. 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Dahl, R., ‘Power, Pluralism and Democracy’, address to the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 1964.Google Scholar

27 Mill, James, Essay on Government (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1955), passim.Google Scholar

28 Barry, Brian draws attention to this in his Sociologists, Economists and Democracy (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970), pp. 9–11Google Scholar and throughout.

29 As urged by C. B. Macpherson. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer of the Journal for pointing out this aspect of my argument.