print

Political Languages and the Politics of Languages. The Russian Perspective on the Cambridge School

Yanovsky O.S.,

postgraduate student, Department of Political Theory, MGIMO University, olegyanovsky@yahoo.com

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.01.13

Rubric: Reflecting on Matters in Print

For citation:

Yanovsky O.S. Political Languages and the Politics of Languages. The Russian Perspective on the Cambridge School. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 1. P. 170-178. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.01.13

Abstract

The review examines the collections of essays about the Cambridge School of history of political thought. By analysing the methodological approaches of Quentin Skinner and John Pocock, the authors carried out an in-depth exploration of the problem of how political thought can be studied best by putting it inside a relevant context and using historical methods. The authors believe that the methodological approaches of the Cambridge School can successfully be applied in examining Russian history and Russian political thought. Thus, the work also includes a collection of translated essays written by Pocock and Skinner as well as by respected commentators reflecting on the Cambridge School. The book offers a critical perspective on the practical application of the methods discussed, which is laid out in a chapter devoted to a rather new approach of looking at Russian history. It includes a number of works presented by Russian authors who explicate their vision on how the Cambridge school methodologies can be applied in the context of the history of Russian political thought. The reviewed work adopts an imaginative and polemical approach to the scientific piece as a whole. Particularly, its publication serves the crucial purpose of attracting attention towards scientific methods as being appropriate to the current challenges in human sciences. 

Keywords

Cambridge School, J.G.A. Pocock; Quentin Skinner, history of political thought, intellectual history, political language, history of political discourses.

 Full Text 

Bevir M. 2000. The Role of Contexts in Understanding and Explanation. – Human Studies. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 399-402. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005636214102

Butterfield H. 1965. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: W.W. Norton & Company. Dunn J. 1968.The Identity of the History of Ideas. – Philosophy. Vol. 43. No. 164. P. 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100008986

Klosko G. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238804.001.0001

Pocock J. 1962. The Origins of Study of the Past: A Comparative Approach. – Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 209-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500001341

Pocock J. 2006. Foundations and Moments. – Rethinking The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Ed. by A. Brett, J. Tully, H. Hamilton-Bleakley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511618376.004

Pocock J.G.A. 2011. Political Thought and History. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pocock J.G.A. 2016. The Machiavellian Moment. 1st ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Skinner Q. 2002. Visions of Politics. Volume I: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steinberger P. 2009. Analysis and History of Political Thought. – American Political Science Review. Vol. 103. No. 1. P. 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409090030

Tarlton C. 1973. Historicity, Meaning, and Revisionism in the Study of Political Thought. – History and Theory. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 307-328. https://doi.org/10.2307/2504719

Temelini M. 2015. Wittgenstein and the Study of Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kembridzhskaya shkola. Teoriya i praktika intellektual'noj istorii [The Cambridge School. Theory and Practice of Intellectual History]. 2018. Ed. by M. Velizhev, T. Atnashev. Moscow: New Literary Observer. (In Russ.) 

See also: