On Nannerl O.

Keohane's "Philosophy, Theory, Ideology"

Author(s): Mostafa Rejai
Source: Political Theory , Nov., 1976, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov., 1976), pp. 509-511
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/191136

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Political Theory

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:35:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMUNICATIONS [5091

areas of agreement between them are, in fact, the very opposite of the
ones that Andrew suggests.

-Peter Stern
New School for Social Research

On Nannerl 0. Keohane 's "Philosophy, Theory, Ideology " (Volume 4, No

1, February 1976)

Nannerl 0. Keohane's "Philosophy, Theory, Ideology: An Attempt at

Clarification" is a contribution of continuing relevance in the literature of
political thought. Bold and erudite though Keohane's treatment is, it
betrays some oversights the addressing of which might shed additional
light on the problems she raises.
Although Keohane makes mention of "others" who have written on the
subject, with the exception of a single reference to Hanna F. Pitkin she
does not indicate who these "others" are or what contributions they have
made. One might note that over twenty years ago Thomas P. Jenkin (The
Study of Political Theory, New York, 1955) briefly but cogently treated
the tripartite distinctions between theory, philosophy, ideology. The issues
have also been addressed by Arnold Brecht (Political Theory, Princeton,
1959) and Andrew Hacker (Political Theory, New York, 1961), among
others.
A synthesis of the contribution of these scholars (Keohane's included)
will crystallize the distinctions at hand and will help in clarification of
some additional problems.
Political theory is a set of interrelated propositions, abstractions, or
generalizations about that aspect of reality which is distinctively political.
(Although a definition of "political" may seem in order here, not only is it
not necessary to the task at hand, it may actually deflect attention from
it.) Political theory is a mental image, a summary sketch, a symbolic
representation of what the political order is about. As such, it is
expository, analytical, explanatory. It seeks to give order, coherence, and
''meaning" to political reality.
Political philosophy, by contrast seeks final and complete explanation
of man and the universe. It is, to use Michael Oakeshott's felicitous
description, "the link between politics and eternity." More precisely,
according to Oakeshott, what distinguishes political philosophy is that it
seeks to relate "political life, and the values and purposes pertaining to it,

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:35:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[5101 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1976

to the entire conception of the world that belongs to a civilization"

("Introduction" to Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford, 1960, pp. ix, x). As such,
political philosophy asks final questions, and it seeks final answers. It
wants to know the highest good, the best state, the ultimate criterion of
justice.
Political ideology consists of a system of beliefs that is held as a matter
of emotional commitment and habitual reinforcement. Ideological beliefs
characteristically involve elements of distortion or myth; they are
value-laden and embody programs of action. Political ideologies form the
bases of social movements, a quality that sharply distinguishes them from
political philosophy and political theory as well as from personal ideology.
The foregoing distinctions yield a series of advantages. First, they make
possible a clear statement about the convergences and divergences of
political theory, political philosophy, political ideology. Specifically, the
three converge along the following points: (1) all three involve varying
levels of intellectualization, generalization, abstraction; (2) all three
involve simplification of the universe of discourse with which they deal.
Beyond this, divergences become more significant.
Specifically, political theory refers to dispassionate analysis and
understanding of political life. Political philosophy embodies value
assumptions about the nature of the ultimate good. Political ideology is
emotional, programmatic, and mass in character.
Second, the foregoing distinctions make possible a clear statement
concerning the significance of the three concepts. In this context, political
philosophy serves to delineate the goals for a society; it establishes a set of
ideals against which reality may be measured. The importance of political
ideology lies in the fact that no political system can long endure without a
body of supporting beliefs; ideology holds a society together by generating
social solidarity and individual identity. Political theory provides the
analyst with an abstract statement of the perimeters of his intellectual
activity; it provides the scholar with the necessary apparatus for
approaching his work.
Third, the foregoing distinctions treat political philosophy as a type of
intellectualization or abstraction without assuming a preemptive posture
by subsuming theory and ideology under it. Keohane seems undecided on
the issue. Thus on the one hand she treats political theory, political
philosophy, and political ideology as "three central terms in political
philosophy" (p. 81)-a statement that is self-contradictory or tautological
depending on the way one looks at it. On the other hand she states that

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:35:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMUNICATIONS [5111

"ideology, theory and philosophy are not ranked variants of the same
enterprise" (p. 82)-a statement that suggests differentiation.
Fourth, Keohane writes, "One of the most difficult and important
questions we ask (or ought to ask) is how the ideology of a philosopher or
theorist relates to his work" (p. 83). In order to get at this issue, it is
necessary to distinguish between political ideology as concept and political
ideology as ideology. The analysis of ideology as a generic concept (in
terms of its nature, function, and types, for example) constitutes an
intellectual activity of a quite different order than the analysis of ideology
as ideology (conservatism, liberalism, or socialism, for example). Similarly,
it is unwarranted to confuse someone's (e.g., Marx's) analysis of the
ideology concept with his own ideology (e.g., Marxism). It is of course
true that one's analysis of the concept of ideology may be "ideologically"
conditioned-as indeed Marx's was-but these questions are analytically
distinct.
Finally, and in a sense most importantly, the foregoing distinctions
permit the application of "political theory" to a broad spectrum of
intellectual activity in postwar political science as a whole. There is no
sense ignoring or denying the fact that, say, systems theory, functional
theory, development theory, conflict theory, decision theory, organization
theory, and elite theory are in fact political theories, as defined above. To
adopt a dismissive posture, as Keohane seems to do, is to be, once again,
preemptive-perhaps even exclusivistic-about one's "field," at a time
when we need to broaden our horizons to envisage political science in its
wholeness and totality. Indeed, we need to embark on a sustained effort at
"bridge-building," an endeavor that William T. Bluhm, for example, has
pursued with gratifying results (see Theories of the Political System,
Englewood Cliffs, 1965; Ideologies and Attitudes, Englewood Cliffs,
1974).

-Mostafa Rejai
Miami University, Ohio

This content downloaded from

65.88.89.49 on Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:35:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms