The Nature of Political Theory: An Analytical Approach
Subject Areas : پژوهش سیاست نظری
javad heydari
1
*
,
Omid Shafiei Ghahfarokhi
2
1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Governance, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Political Science, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Political Theory, Thomas Nagel, Personal and Impersonal Standpoints, Internal Conflict.,
Abstract :
The Nature of Political Theory: An Analytical Approach
Javad Heydari*
Omid Shafiei Ghahfarokhi**
This article examines the nature of political theory, the difficulties in defining it, and the central problem of this field. The central question is whether a comprehensive and distinctive framework for political theory can be formulated. The hypothesis is that defining political theory around an organizing question frees us from the constraints of concept-centric, institution-centric, and problem-centric approaches, and enables an understanding of the origins of political theory’s core issues. The authors distinguish between the concepts of political studies and elucidate the descriptive and normative dimensions of political theory, evaluating the three aforementioned approaches. Drawing on Thomas Nagel’s perspective, they propose the organizing question — “How should we live?” — as a comprehensive and distinctive framework for political theory. The article then analyzes the tension between the personal and impersonal standpoints within each individual, which constitutes the fundamental source of political theory’s problems. Accordingly, the fundamental challenge is not merely institutional inadequacies, but rather the absence of a model capable of reconciling this inner conflict.
Keywords: Political Theory, Thomas Nagel, Personal and Impersonal Standpoints, Internal Conflict.
- Introduction and Statement of the Problem
Political theory, as a foundational branch of political thought,
despite its antiquity and historical richness, has always faced a definitional challenge in delineating its boundaries and nature. The dispersion of defining approaches—from a focus on abstract concepts (such as justice and power) and concrete institutions (such as the state) to an emphasis on problem-oriented lists or historical traditions—has not only blurred the boundary between this field and adjacent disciplines such as political philosophy and the social sciences, but has also generated deep disagreements regarding its relationship to normative questions (what ought to be) and descriptive questions (what is). The absence of a “unifying principle” capable of situating this apparent fragmentation within a coherent framework constitutes the principal problem confronting contemporary political theorizing. Identifying this gap, the present article poses the central question: is it possible, by relying on a fundamental “organizing question,” to offer a definition of political theory that is at once comprehensive (encompassing all legitimate concerns of the field) and exclusive (distinguishing it from other domains of knowledge), thereby overcoming the aforementioned challenges? The article’s hypothesis is that defining political theory around the question “How should we live?”—inspired by Thomas Nagel’s framework—can perform such a function and, moreover, make it possible to understand the internal and anthropological source of the enduring problems of this field, namely the conflict between the personal and impersonal perspectives within each individual.
- Theoretical Foundations and Literature Review
Political theory has two interrelated dimensions: a descriptive dimension (explaining the political world as it is) and a normative dimension (prescribing the political world as it ought to be). The distinction between “empirical claims” and “normative claims” in the analysis of political controversies (such as the legalization of physician-assisted suicide or the provision of a basic income) is crucial. The existing Persian-language literature has also addressed these issues: some, through comparative analysis of normativist, scientistic, interpretivist, and hybrid approaches, have emphasized the necessity of a multidimensional approach (Mosleh, 2019). Others, by examining the distinction between political theory and political science, have stressed the diagnostic and critical role of theory in guiding practical politics toward human ends (Shakeri, 2016). Other studies have dealt with the transformation of foundational concepts such as security and power (Shakeri, 2006), the relationship between truth and power in different intellectual paradigms (Khorramshad & Nozari, 2018), the intertwined nature of explanatory and normative dimensions (Taghilou, 2017), the impact of anthropological assumptions on the formation of theories (Shojaeian, 2017), and the nature of theory in Islamic political philosophy (Soltani et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the innovation of the present article lies in offering an integrative framework centered on an “organizing question,” explaining the source of theoretical conflicts in intra-human duality, and providing a criterion for evaluating political theories based on their ability to balance competing demands.
- Analysis and Critique of Classical Approaches to Defining Political Theory
This article examines and critiques three categories of classical approaches:
Conceptual approaches: These approaches define political theory around abstract and normative concepts such as justice (Rawls), the ends of life (Berlin), the relationship between the collective and the individual (Blackburn), public affairs (Bevir), or power and legitimacy (Williams and Goodwin). The major problem with these approaches is excessive limitation; for example, an exclusive focus on “justice” may neglect the issue of “legitimacy,” emphasized by realists, or cosmopolitan concerns.
Institutional approaches: In this view, the focus is on tangible institutions such as the state, government, and their objectives (Swift, Nozick, Plamenatz, Miller, Pettit). The fundamental flaw here is that the boundary between this approach and the conceptual approach is unclear (for instance, analyzing the “state” inevitably involves the concept of “legitimacy”), and it becomes trapped in ambiguity between descriptive and normative analysis.
Problem-oriented and interpretive approaches: These approaches define political theory based on a list of key problems (justice, the duties of the state, normative ranking of states of affairs—Cohen; adding specific institutions—Waldron; or agreement, orientation, reconciliation, and a realistic utopia—Rawls) or on the interpretation of values and shared understandings (Pettit, Walzer, Dworkin). There is also a tradition-centered approach that defines the field based on historically formed works and thinkers. The main flaw of these approaches is excessive breadth and the lack of a foundational justification. The selection of problems or thinkers often appears arbitrary, and the question of the “unifying principle” behind these long lists remains unanswered. As Nietzsche put it, “only that which has no history can be defined”; therefore, relying solely on historical tradition is insufficient for defining a field.
- The Proposed Solution: Definition through an “Organizing Question”
To remedy the shortcomings of the above approaches, this article, inspired by Thomas Nagel, proposes defining political theory around an “organizing question”: “How should we live?” This four-part question (we / how / should / live) has the following advantages:
Exclusivity (differentiation): This question clearly distinguishes political theory from moral philosophy (which asks “How should I live?”) and from the social sciences (which examine “How do we live?”). Political theory is collective and normative.
Comprehensiveness: The question is broad enough to encompass all traditional topics (justice, the state, legitimacy) as well as new and radical approaches (anarchism, feminism, and communitarianism, religious and non-Western perspectives). Every political theory is an answer to this fundamental question.
Interpretive flexibility: Each component of the question allows for diverse interpretations. “We” may refer to a nation, humanity, or a specific community. “Should” may be grounded in morality or rationality. “How we live” includes all forms of collective life, from a powerful state to autonomous communities.
Coherence-building: This question explains the unifying principle behind the seemingly disparate activities of political theory and provides a credible basis for delineating the boundaries of the field.
Practical relevance: The main question naturally leads to the justificatory question “Why should we live this way?” which shapes a large part of political theory’s arguments (such as Nozick’s justification of the minimal state).
- Deep Analysis of the Problem: The Conflict between Personal and Impersonal Perspectives
Drawing on Nagel’s philosophy, the article goes a step further by analyzing the internal source of the complex problems of political theory. According to Nagel, the fundamental problem is not merely the design of just institutions, but an intrinsic conflict within each individual between two perspectives:
The impersonal (objective) perspective: This perspective is universal and impartial. From this viewpoint, the interests of all human beings matter equally, and principles such as equality and global justice emerge. Political institutions, in their ideal form, embody the demands of this perspective.
The personal (subjective) perspective: This perspective is particular and position-dependent. From this viewpoint, an individual’s specific attachments, interests, and concerns—those of oneself, one’s family, and one’s close relations—are central.
Nagel argues that all hard problems of political theory (such as the conflict between liberty and equality, individual and society, justice and efficiency) are rooted in this internal conflict. Political institutions are constantly striving to externalize the demands of the impersonal perspective, but their success is always constrained by the natural resistance of the personal perspective. Therefore, the central challenge of political theory is to find a model that can establish a fair and sustainable balance between these two aspects of human existence without making unreasonable demands on individuals. This analysis shows that the problem is not merely the inadequacy of external institutions, but the absence of a convincing theoretical model for reconciling this internal duality.
- Conclusion
This article has shown that defining political theory around the
“organizing question” “How should we live?” can offer a comprehensive, exclusive, and flexible solution to the problem of definitional indeterminacy in this field. This framework avoids the limitations of conceptual, institutional, and problem-oriented approaches and provides theoretical coherence to the discipline. Moreover, by linking this framework to Nagel’s analysis of the conflict between dual perspectives, the article reveals the depth of the problem and argues that resolving the dilemmas of political theory depends on directly confronting this fundamental anthropological conflict. Every political theory can be evaluated according to the extent of its success in offering a balanced answer to the organizing question, taking into account the unavoidable tension between the personal and impersonal perspectives. Consequently, this approach not only provides an illuminating definition, but also offers a powerful analytical tool for critiquing and evaluating existing political theories and guiding future research.
References
Ackerly, B. & Bajpai, R. (2017) “Comparative Political Thought”, In: Blau, A. (Ed.). Analytical political theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162576
Berlin, I. (1998) The proper study of mankind: An anthology of essays. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
---------- (2006) Political ideas in the romantic age: Their rise and influence on modern thought. Chatto & Windus.
Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2010) Encyclopedia of political theory. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958660
Blackburn, S. (2005) The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001
Cohen, G. A. (2011) On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1086/293126
Dworkin, R. (2011) Justice for hedgehogs. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vkt
Floyd, J. (2017) Is political philosophy impossible?: Thoughts and behavior in normative political theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.15826/csp.2018.2.4.055.
Goodwin, B. (2014) Using political ideas. Wiley.
Gunnell, G. (1993) The descent of political theory: The genealogy of an American vocation. University of Chicago Press.
Halperin and Heath (2025) Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198820628.001.0001.
Held, D. (1991) Political theory today. Polity.
Khorramshad, Mohammad Bagher & Mohammad Ismail Nouzari (2018) "Analyzing the Conceptual Evolution of Political Philosophy Based on the Two Components of Truth and Power in the Thought of Strauss, Arendt, and Foucault". Theoretical Politics Research (Pazhohesh-e Siyasat-e Nazari), No. 24, Fall & Winter, pp. 249-290. (in Persian).
Knowles, D. (2001) Political philosophy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203187883.
Kymlicka, W. (2001) Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198782742.001.0001
Leopold, D., & Stears, M. (Eds.) (2008) Political theory: Methods and approaches. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230082.001.0001.
Matravers, M. (2015) “Twentieth-century political philosophy”. In D. Moran (Ed.), The Routledge companion to twentieth century philosophy. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879368
McKinnon, C. et al (2019) Issues in Political Theory. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198784067.001.0001
Miller, D. (2003) Political philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
McAfee, N. & Howard, K. B. (2023) “Feminist political philosophy”, In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/.
Mosleh, Pagueh (2019). "An Inquiry into Four Contemporary Approaches to 'Political Theory'". Contemporary Political Essays (Jostar-ha-ye Siyasi-e Moaser), 10(2), Summer, pp. 81-106.
DOI: 10.30465/cps.2019.4347 (in Persian).
Nagel, T. (1986) The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
----------- (1991) Equality and Partiality. Oxford University Press.
---------- (2005) “The Problem of Global Justice”, Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp 113-147.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x
Nietzsche, F. (2011) On the genealogy of morality. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139014977.
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
Pettit, P. (1991) Contemporary political theory. Prentice Hall.
---------- (1997) Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/0198296428.001.0001.
Plamenatz, J. (1960) “The use of political theory”. Political Studies, 8 (1) (37-47). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1960.tb01124.x.
Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v.
---------- (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv31xf5v0.
Scanlon, T. M. (2003) The difficulty of tolerance. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615153.
Schumaker, P. (2008) From Ideologies to Public Philosophies. Wiley-Blackwell.
Shakeri, Seyed Reza (2006) "Power as Security; A Re-reading of Modern Political Theory". Strategic Studies Quarterly (Faslname-ye Motale’at-e Rahbordi), 9(4), No. 34, Winter, pp. 737-757. DOI: 20.1001.1.17350727.1385.9.34.2.5 (in Persian).
----------------------- (2016) "The Importance of Political Theory in Relation to Political Science: Review and Critique of the Book 'Understanding Political Theories'". Critical Review of Texts and Programs in Humanities (Pazhoheshname-ye Enteghadi-ye Motoon va Barname-ha-ye Olum-e Ensani), 16(4), Mehr & Aban, pp. 97-115. (in Persian).
Shojaian, Mohammad (2023) "Human Felicity and Political Theory in the Quran". Journal of Politics (Faslname-ye Siyasat), 53(3), Fall, pp. 499-518. DOI: 10.22059/JPQ.2024.322485.1007788 (in Persian).
--- (2017). "Political Theory and the Implications of Human Nature". Journal of Politics (Faslname-ye Siyasat), 47(4), Winter, pp. 929-948. DOI: 10.22059/JPQ.2017.200942.1006743 (in Persian).
Smith, A. (2005) The Wealth of Nations. Penguin Classics.
Soltani, Is’haq, et al. (2020) "The Nature of Theory in Political Philosophy from the Perspective of Allameh Tabatabai". Contemporary Political Essays (Jostar-ha-ye Siyasi-e Moaser), 11(1), Spring, pp. 53-79. DOI: 10.30465/cps.2020.28592.2393 (in Persian).
Strauss, L. (1988) What is political philosophy? and other studies. University of Chicago Press.
Swift, A. (2014) Political philosophy: A beginners’ guide for students and politicians. Polity.
Taghiloo, Faramarz (2017) "A Meta-Theoretical Analysis of the Relationship between Explanatory and Normative Dimensions in Political Theory". Journal of Politics (Faslname-ye Siyasat), 47(3), Fall, pp. 571-592.
DOI: 10.22059/JPQ.2017.139830.1006690 (in Persian).
Vincent, A. (2004) The nature of political theory. Oxford University Press.
Walton & et al (2021) Introducing Political Philosophy: A Policy-Driven Approach. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22471
Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books.
White, S. K., & Moon, J. D. (Eds.). (2004) What is political theory?. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215425.
Williams, B. (2005) In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument. Princeton University Press.
DOI: 10.1515/9781400826735.
Wolin, S. (1960) Politics and vision: Political philosophy from the classic problems of the Greeks to the contemporary problems of the "organization man". Allen & Unwin.
* Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Governance, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
j.heydari@shahed.ac.ir
0009-0007-6973-815X
** Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Political Science, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.
shafiei@isu.ac.ir
0000-0003-1380-5978
تقیلو، فرامرز (1396) «تحلیلی فرانظری از نسبت بعد تبیینی و هنجاری در نظریۀ سیاسی»، فصلنامه سیاست، دورۀ چهل¬وهفتم، شمارۀ 3، پاییز، صص 571-592.
doi:10.22059/JPQ.2017.139830.1006690.
خرمشاد، محمدباقر و محمداسماعیل نوذری (1397) «واکاوی تحول مفهومی فلسفه سیاسی بر اساس دو مؤلفه حقیقت و قدرت در اندیشه اشتراوس، آرنت و فوکو»، پژوهش سیاست نظری، شماره بیستوچهارم، پاییز و زمستان، صص 249-290.
سلطانی، اسحاق و دیگران (1399) «ماهیت نظریه در فلسفه سیاسی از منظر علامه طباطبایی»، جستارهای سیاسی معاصر، سال یازدهم، شماره اول، بهار، صص 53-79.
doi:10.30465/cps.2020.28592.2393.
شاکری، سید رضا (1385) «قدرت بهمثابه امنیت؛ بازخوانی نظریه سیاسی مدرن»، فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی، سال نهم، شماره چهارم، شماره مسلسل 34، زمستان، صص 737-757.
doi: 20.1001.1.17350727.1385.9.34.2.5.
------------- (1395) «اهمیت نظریه سیاسی در نسبت با علم سیاست: بررسی و نقد کتاب فهم نظریههای سیاسی»، پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی، سال شانزدهم، شماره چهارم، مهر و آبان، صص 97-115.
شجاعیان، محمد (1402) «سعادت بشر و نظریه سیاسی در قرآن»، فصلنامه سیاست، دورۀ پنجاهوسوم، شمارۀ 3، پاییز، صص 499-518.
doi:10.22059/JPQ. 2024.322485.1007788.
-------------- (1396) «نظریۀ سیاسی و استلزامات ماهیت بشر»، فصلنامه سیاست، دورۀ چهلوهفتم، شمارۀ 4، زمستان، صص 929-948.
doi:10.22059/JPQ.2017.200942.1006743.
مصلح، پگاه (1398) «کاوشی در چهار رویکرد معاصر به «نظریۀ سیاسی»»، جستارهای سیاسی معاصر، سال دهم، شماره دوم، تابستان، صص 81-106.
doi: 10.30465/cps.2019.4347.
Ackerly, B. & Bajpai, R. (2017) “Comparative Political Thought”, In: Blau, A. (Ed.). Analytical political theory. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162576.
Berlin, I. (1998) The proper study of mankind: An anthology of essays. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
---------- (2006) Political ideas in the romantic age: Their rise and influence on modern thought. Chatto & Windus.
Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2010) Encyclopedia of political theory. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958660.
Blackburn, S. (2005) The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001.
Cohen, G. A. (2011) On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1086/293126.
Dworkin, R. (2011) Justice for hedgehogs. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vkt.
Floyd, J. (2017) Is political philosophy impossible?: Thoughts and behavior in normative political theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.15826/csp.2018.2.4.055.
Goodwin, B. (2014) Using political ideas. Wiley.
Gunnell, G. (1993) The descent of political theory: The genealogy of an American vocation. University of Chicago Press.
Methods and Practical Skills: Political Research (2025) Halperin and Heath Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198820628.001.0001.
Held, D. (1991) Political theory today. Polity.
Knowles, D. (2001) Political philosophy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203187883.
Kymlicka, W. (2001) Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198782742.001.0001.
Leopold, D., & Stears, M. (Eds.) (2008) Political theory: Methods and approaches. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230082.001.0001.
Matravers, M. (2015) “Twentieth-century political philosophy”. In D. Moran (Ed.), The Routledge companion to twentieth century philosophy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879368.
McKinnon, C. et al (2019) Issues in Political Theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198784067.001.0001.
Miller, D. (2003) Political philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
McAfee, N. & Howard, K. B. (2023) “Feminist political philosophy”, In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/..
Nagel, T. (1986) The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
---------- (1991) Equality and Partiality. Oxford University Press.
---------- (2005) “The Problem of Global Justice”, Philosophy & Public Affairs.
Vol. 33, No. 2, pp 113-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x Nietzsche, F. (2011) On the genealogy of morality. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139014977.
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
Pettit, P. (1991) Contemporary political theory. Prentice Hall.
---------- (1997) Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/0198296428.001.0001.
Plamenatz, J. (1960) “The use of political theory”. Political Studies, 8 (1) (37-47). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1960.tb01124.x.
Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v.
---------- (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv31xf5v0.
Scanlon, T. M. (2003) The difficulty of tolerance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615153.
Schumaker, P. (2008) From Ideologies to Public Philosophies. Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, A. (2005) The Wealth of Nations. Penguin Classics.
Strauss, L. (1988) What is political philosophy? and other studies. University of Chicago Press.
Swift, A. (2014) Political philosophy: A beginners’ guide for students and politicians. Polity.
Vincent, A. (2004) The nature of political theory. Oxford University Press. Walton & et al (2021) Introducing Political Philosophy: A Policy-Driven Approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22471.
Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books.
White, S. K., & Moon, J. D. (Eds.). (2004) What is political theory?. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215425.
Williams, B. (2005) In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument. Princeton University Press.
DOI: 10.1515/9781400826735.
Wolin, S. (1960) Politics and vision: Political philosophy from the classic problems of the Greeks to the contemporary problems of the "organization man". Allen & Unwin. .