Janusansiktet i Chicago
(2024) STVM25 20241Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- The purpose of this thesis is to analyze how the political theorists Charles Merriam and Leo Strauss understood the relation between past, present and future. In contrast to dominating narratives about ideology, behaviorism and anachronism, this thesis presents a new understanding of how Merriam and Strauss made sense of temporality.
My main argument is that they did so, not by looking away from the need of historical contextualism, but from understanding such epistemology, their research contained two temporalities. They both viewed history as Janus-faced: Present political inquiry made sense in the mirror of past intellectual traditions, and in turn, the mirror made it possible to be reflexive of present problems. This, however, is... (More) - The purpose of this thesis is to analyze how the political theorists Charles Merriam and Leo Strauss understood the relation between past, present and future. In contrast to dominating narratives about ideology, behaviorism and anachronism, this thesis presents a new understanding of how Merriam and Strauss made sense of temporality.
My main argument is that they did so, not by looking away from the need of historical contextualism, but from understanding such epistemology, their research contained two temporalities. They both viewed history as Janus-faced: Present political inquiry made sense in the mirror of past intellectual traditions, and in turn, the mirror made it possible to be reflexive of present problems. This, however, is not to say that their interpretations where identical – only that history had a reflexive and intersubjective function in their understanding of the present.
Drawing on heuristic method of Reinhart Koselleck and empirically focused on Merriams and Strauss comprehension of the American constitution, I develop a new understanding of "presentism" and "classicism" as two historiographical approaches in political theory. Following Strauss classicist remarks on the “true legitimacy” of constitutionalism and Merriams presentist expectations of "democratic progress”, I suggests that temporal pluralism – beyond debates over behaviorism and anachronism – is essential to understand how modern political thought became Janus-faced. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9152921
- author
- Rossheim, Marcus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Merriam, Strauss och historicismens kris inom politisk teori
- course
- STVM25 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Charles Merriam, Leo Strauss, political theory, historicism, presentism, classicism
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9152921
- date added to LUP
- 2024-07-18 14:02:21
- date last changed
- 2024-07-18 14:02:21
@misc{9152921, abstract = {{The purpose of this thesis is to analyze how the political theorists Charles Merriam and Leo Strauss understood the relation between past, present and future. In contrast to dominating narratives about ideology, behaviorism and anachronism, this thesis presents a new understanding of how Merriam and Strauss made sense of temporality. My main argument is that they did so, not by looking away from the need of historical contextualism, but from understanding such epistemology, their research contained two temporalities. They both viewed history as Janus-faced: Present political inquiry made sense in the mirror of past intellectual traditions, and in turn, the mirror made it possible to be reflexive of present problems. This, however, is not to say that their interpretations where identical – only that history had a reflexive and intersubjective function in their understanding of the present. Drawing on heuristic method of Reinhart Koselleck and empirically focused on Merriams and Strauss comprehension of the American constitution, I develop a new understanding of "presentism" and "classicism" as two historiographical approaches in political theory. Following Strauss classicist remarks on the “true legitimacy” of constitutionalism and Merriams presentist expectations of "democratic progress”, I suggests that temporal pluralism – beyond debates over behaviorism and anachronism – is essential to understand how modern political thought became Janus-faced.}}, author = {{Rossheim, Marcus}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{Janusansiktet i Chicago}}, year = {{2024}}, }