印度政治理论的贫乏

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT Pub Date : 1992-01-01 DOI:10.4324/9780203702284-2
B. Parekh
{"title":"印度政治理论的贫乏","authors":"B. Parekh","doi":"10.4324/9780203702284-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I intend to concentrate on post-independence India, and to explore why a free and lively society with a rich tradition of philosophical inquiry has not thrown up much original political theory. The paper falls into three parts. In the first part I outline some of the fascinating problems thrown up by post-independence India, and in the second I show that they remain poorly theorized. In the final part I explore some of the likely explanations of this neglect. In order to avoid misunderstanding, four points of clarification are necessary. First, by Indian political theory I mean works on political theory written by Indian writers irrespective of whether they live in India or outside it, and exclude the works of non-Indian writers on India. Secondly, I am primarily concerned with Indian political theory rather than with Indian political theorists. Although political theory is generally practised by political theorists, it is not their monopoly. Sociologists, historians, economists, philosophers, jurists and others too ask theoretical questions about political life. I will therefore cast my net wider and look at the works of these writers as well. It is my contention that political theory is underdeveloped among not only Indian political theorists but also their cousins in allied disciplines. Thirdly, I define the term political theory in as culturally neutral a manner as possible. For a variety of reasons too complex to discuss here, political theory has a longer history and is more developed in the West than elsewhere. However it is not absent in most other civilizations. Minimally it is concerned to offer a coherent and systematic understanding of political life, and is three-dimensional. It is conceptual in the sense that it defines, analyses and distinguishes concepts, and develops a conceptual framework capable of comprehending political life. It is also explanatory in the sense that it seeks to make sense of political life, and to explain why it is constituted and conducted in a particular manner and how its different parts are related. Finally, it is normative in the sense that it either justifies the way a society is currently constituted, or criticizes and offers a well-considered alternative to it. Since political theory understood in these terms is to be found in most major traditions of thought including the Indian, albeit in different forms and degrees, our definition is not or only minimally open to the charge of ethnocentrism or universalizing its Western form.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":"13 1","pages":"535-560"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The poverty of Indian political theory\",\"authors\":\"B. Parekh\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9780203702284-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper I intend to concentrate on post-independence India, and to explore why a free and lively society with a rich tradition of philosophical inquiry has not thrown up much original political theory. The paper falls into three parts. In the first part I outline some of the fascinating problems thrown up by post-independence India, and in the second I show that they remain poorly theorized. In the final part I explore some of the likely explanations of this neglect. In order to avoid misunderstanding, four points of clarification are necessary. First, by Indian political theory I mean works on political theory written by Indian writers irrespective of whether they live in India or outside it, and exclude the works of non-Indian writers on India. Secondly, I am primarily concerned with Indian political theory rather than with Indian political theorists. Although political theory is generally practised by political theorists, it is not their monopoly. Sociologists, historians, economists, philosophers, jurists and others too ask theoretical questions about political life. I will therefore cast my net wider and look at the works of these writers as well. It is my contention that political theory is underdeveloped among not only Indian political theorists but also their cousins in allied disciplines. Thirdly, I define the term political theory in as culturally neutral a manner as possible. For a variety of reasons too complex to discuss here, political theory has a longer history and is more developed in the West than elsewhere. However it is not absent in most other civilizations. Minimally it is concerned to offer a coherent and systematic understanding of political life, and is three-dimensional. It is conceptual in the sense that it defines, analyses and distinguishes concepts, and develops a conceptual framework capable of comprehending political life. It is also explanatory in the sense that it seeks to make sense of political life, and to explain why it is constituted and conducted in a particular manner and how its different parts are related. Finally, it is normative in the sense that it either justifies the way a society is currently constituted, or criticizes and offers a well-considered alternative to it. Since political theory understood in these terms is to be found in most major traditions of thought including the Indian, albeit in different forms and degrees, our definition is not or only minimally open to the charge of ethnocentrism or universalizing its Western form.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"535-560\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203702284-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203702284-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

在本文中,我打算把重点放在独立后的印度,并探讨为什么一个拥有丰富哲学探究传统的自由而充满活力的社会没有提出多少原创的政治理论。本文分为三个部分。在第一部分中,我概述了印度独立后出现的一些引人入胜的问题,在第二部分中,我表明这些问题的理论化程度仍然很低。在最后一部分,我探讨了这种忽视的一些可能的解释。为了避免误解,有必要澄清四点。首先,我说的印度政治理论是指印度作家写的关于政治理论的著作,不管他们是住在印度还是国外,不包括非印度作家写的关于印度的著作。其次,我主要关注的是印度的政治理论,而不是印度的政治理论家。虽然政治理论通常是由政治理论家实践的,但这并不是他们的专利。社会学家、历史学家、经济学家、哲学家、法学家和其他人也会提出有关政治生活的理论问题。因此,我将把我的网撒得更大一些,也看看这些作家的作品。我的论点是,政治理论不仅在印度政治理论家中不发达,而且在相关学科中也不发达。第三,我尽可能以文化中立的方式定义“政治理论”一词。由于各种原因太过复杂,无法在这里讨论,政治理论在西方比其他地方有更长的历史和更发达。然而,它在大多数其他文明中并不缺席。它最低限度地关注提供对政治生活的连贯和系统的理解,并且是三维的。它是概念性的,因为它定义、分析和区分概念,并发展一个能够理解政治生活的概念框架。它也是解释性的,因为它试图理解政治生活,并解释为什么政治生活是以一种特定的方式构成和进行的,以及它的不同部分是如何联系在一起的。最后,从某种意义上说,它是规范的,它要么证明一个社会目前的构成方式是合理的,要么批评并提供一个经过深思熟虑的替代方案。由于以这些术语理解的政治理论可以在包括印度在内的大多数主要思想传统中找到,尽管形式和程度不同,我们的定义并没有或只是最低限度地接受种族中心主义的指控或将其西方形式普遍化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The poverty of Indian political theory
In this paper I intend to concentrate on post-independence India, and to explore why a free and lively society with a rich tradition of philosophical inquiry has not thrown up much original political theory. The paper falls into three parts. In the first part I outline some of the fascinating problems thrown up by post-independence India, and in the second I show that they remain poorly theorized. In the final part I explore some of the likely explanations of this neglect. In order to avoid misunderstanding, four points of clarification are necessary. First, by Indian political theory I mean works on political theory written by Indian writers irrespective of whether they live in India or outside it, and exclude the works of non-Indian writers on India. Secondly, I am primarily concerned with Indian political theory rather than with Indian political theorists. Although political theory is generally practised by political theorists, it is not their monopoly. Sociologists, historians, economists, philosophers, jurists and others too ask theoretical questions about political life. I will therefore cast my net wider and look at the works of these writers as well. It is my contention that political theory is underdeveloped among not only Indian political theorists but also their cousins in allied disciplines. Thirdly, I define the term political theory in as culturally neutral a manner as possible. For a variety of reasons too complex to discuss here, political theory has a longer history and is more developed in the West than elsewhere. However it is not absent in most other civilizations. Minimally it is concerned to offer a coherent and systematic understanding of political life, and is three-dimensional. It is conceptual in the sense that it defines, analyses and distinguishes concepts, and develops a conceptual framework capable of comprehending political life. It is also explanatory in the sense that it seeks to make sense of political life, and to explain why it is constituted and conducted in a particular manner and how its different parts are related. Finally, it is normative in the sense that it either justifies the way a society is currently constituted, or criticizes and offers a well-considered alternative to it. Since political theory understood in these terms is to be found in most major traditions of thought including the Indian, albeit in different forms and degrees, our definition is not or only minimally open to the charge of ethnocentrism or universalizing its Western form.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: History of Political Thought (HPT) is a quarterly journal which was launched in 1980 to fill a genuine academic need for a forum for work in this multi-disciplinary area. Although a subject central to the study of politics and history, researchers in this field had previously to compete for publication space in journals whose intellectual centres of gravity were located in other disciplines. The journal is devoted exclusively to the historical study of political ideas and associated methodological problems. The primary focus is on research papers, with extensive book reviews and bibliographic surveys also included. All articles are refereed.
期刊最新文献
Hobbes and the Perpetual Person of the State Leo Strauss, The Latin Averroists and the Eternity of the World Humboldt’s Individualism: Theorizing Social Individuality Rousseau, Franklin and Bourgeois Liberalism Machiavelli’s Warning: The Medici, Florence, Rome and New Princes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1