by Michael A. Smith, Professor of Political Science, Emporia State University
“So,” asked my friend, “have you gotten rid of theory yet?”
I don’t think he was prepared for my emphatic, “No!”
My friend is a political scientist at another university. He happened to be passing through town, so we had a quick visit in my office before heading out for dinner and more conversation.
My friend’s question is a logical one. Across the country, political science programs not already specializing in theory have eliminated it entirely, presumably so they can specialize further in other fields such as quantitative research methods, or comply with budget cuts. Theory just does not seem to fit with the other subfields in political science, and if students wish to study this, they may be better off taking political philosophy courses from a philosophy department. Then again, most students in our discipline today may never encounter theory. Many seem perfectly happy not to study it at all. For a small program like mine to eliminate theory would see a reasonable step, a chance to realign resources with our discipline’s heavy emphasis on empirical research methods and our university’s focus on career readiness.
I remain strongly opposed.
My passion for political philosophy started as an undergraduate at Reed College. I transferred there expecting to cover empirical topics in American politics such as campaigns and elections, Presidential decision making, and federalism. I was mystified about why this traditional, liberal arts college curriculum required me to study Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It did not take me long to figure it out. My first course with Peter Steinberger left such a profound impression, it still guides the way I teach theory today. In small classes, we read the original text (or English translations, if necessary) of political philosophers in the western canon– Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Kant, Locke, and so forth. Classes were taught seminar-style, with the professor reading quotes from the assigned readings, making provocative comments, and questioning us about our answers. We quickly learned a name for this approach– the Socratic method.
Theory taught me not just how to study, but why we study. Also known as normative theory, political philosophy consists not in observations or measurements about politics, but rather, in values and questions. What kind of politics do we want, why, how do we get there, and what are the alternatives? It was at Reed where I learned that there is no such thing as a values-neutral study of politics. Better to tease out the values that lie behind our own questions, as well as those of others, then examine them. In the Western tradition, the entire project is often traced back to Socrates, whose questions and answers exposed false claims regardless of the social status of those making them.
Today, I teach theory courses in this same style at a regional state university in rural Kansas. In one, I even use a reader edited by Steinberger himself. I see no reason why such teaching should be limited to private liberal arts colleges, and I do my level best to make sure it is not. Enrollment in these courses is modest, but the students who take one often come back to take other courses in the sequence. Once you’ve had a taste of theory, it is hard to go back.
The current climate in higher education forces us to show what practical, career-related skills we are teaching. Though it may be dismissed at first blush, theory is surprisingly easy to justify on these grounds. The skills taught in theory include reading difficult texts, writing about them, wrestling with translation issues, discussing open-ended questions that lack singular answers, and the Socratic method itself. Each one is a core skill needed for law school. In certain regions and critical areas of law, there is currently a serious shortage of lawyers. Law school admissions are bound to grow, and the study of theory makes the perfect complement to constitutional law as part of a successful pre-law curriculum.
Which theorists should we read? My favorite is Hannah Arendt, a German Jewish philosopher who barely escaped the Holocaust. She is best known for her study of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann during his 1960 trial in Jerusalem. Arendt also wrote The Origins of Totalitarianism, which traced the rise of Nazi Germany starting well before World War I. In this book, Arendt documents the creation of stateless persons, devoid of any legal status or rights. Just recently, I have noticed many online memes quoting Arendt. While the quotes are often accurate, they are devoid of context– just one more reason why we still need to study theory.
I also have a favorite essay, What is Enlightenment by Immanual Kant, which he originally wrote as a contest entry. Kant considers enlightenment not as a time period, but as a choice. By that, Kant means the choice not to let others do your thinking for you. He wrote, “Sapere Aude! ‘Have courage to use your own understanding!’–that is the motto of enlightenment.” Another theorist, Michel Foucault, celebrated this essay’s 200th anniversary with his own, fascinating response.
Obviously, I am a passionate advocate for theory. Yet in order to preserve theory within our discipline, things must change. As for why theory fell wayside in so many U.S. departments, I blame the phenomenon known as siloing. Too often, where theory is still taught, it is treated as a standalone subfield with little discourse or relevance with the rest of the discipline. As I told my friend, theory properly considered should be the very soul of our discipline. How can one be a serious scholar of American politics without reading Madison, Hamilton, Lincoln, and King? When defining and contrasting monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy, where better to start than Aristotle? How better to begin encountering other cultures than by studying the theories that have both reflected and shaped them – Confucianism and Maoism in China, for example?
Perhaps my friend was right to ask his question. In today’s political science, it is getting harder and harder to justify political theory as its own, separate silo. I do not defend this, either. Instead of tossing it out entirely, we should return theory to its proper place – the normative heart and soul that reminds us why we are asking these questions in the first place.
About the Author
Michael A. Smith is a Professor of Political Science at Emporia State University. He has authored or co-authored five books, the most recent of which is Reform and Reaction: The Arc of Modern Kansas Politics (co-edited with H. Edward Flentje, Kansas 2024). He has other academic publications as well, and also writes newspaper columns carried throughout Kansas as part of the Insight Kansas group and blogs for the MPSA. Michael appears occasionally on television and radio in Kansas and western Missouri to discuss state and national politics. He was an expert witness for the plantiff in the Bednasek v Kobach case, decided together with Fish v Kobach by the federal district court for Kansas in 2018. Michael teaches courses in American politics, state and local government, and political philosophy. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in 2000. Follow Michael on X (formerly known as Twitter).