As the Planet Lost Its Orbit: The Myth of the Death of Political Philosophy by Steven Ray Shadbolt Orr A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Political Science Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2020 Steven Ray Shadbolt Orr ii Abstract The death of political philosophy is a label to a variety of debates in the mid-twentieth century. Those debates, however, only have the appearance of a singular, cohesive argument about the state of the art. Upon closer investigation, despite the fact that its interlocutors used similar language in their proclamations and protestations, its participants were not referring to the same discipline — let alone the same ‘death’ thereof. The 1971 publication of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice is widely credited as having renewed political philosophy, either reversing a steady decline in the tradition that had begun as far back as Machiavelli or altogether reviving a project that seemed untenable in post-war anglophone scholarship. Yet what was revived by Rawls’ defense of modern liberalism is significantly different than the discipline that came before, solidifying an academic conception of political philosophy that was suitable for institutionalization in liberal democracies. While the importance of A Theory of Justice in Western political thought is undeniable, it does not automatically follow that it resolved all of the many deaths of political philosophy that had been articulated over the preceding decades. This dissertation is primarily a contribution to the disciplinary history of political philosophy as a sub-field of anglophone political science. As such, it is an investigation into the death of political philosophy as both a series of debates and as a theoretical concept in its own right. Although those debates are largely understood as a resolved matter and widely considered to be irrelevant to contemporary political philosophy, this project shows otherwise. Instead the death of political philosophy should be understood as a key moment in the development of the academic discipline as distinct from political iii philosophy properly understood. While this does not uniquely emerge in the twentieth century, academic political philosophy does take on a new life in post-war anglophone institutions. Investigating the death thesis provides insight into contemporary assumptions about the shape, scope, and limitations of the discipline — and its implications for the practice of political philosophy. To that end, this project is also a critique of the contemporary discipline that has the appearance of an ossified body of knowledge which seems to be divorced from the active enterprise of political philosophy and pedagogy — albeit a hopeful critique that offers possible avenues for growth and renewal. iv Dedication For Doreen, Eve, Don, and Herb. v Acknowledgements While acknowledgements always run the risk of falling into a laundry list, this project was made lighter work thanks to the hands of a great many people and I would be negligent were I not to attempt an accounting of that help. It can be fairly assumed that the best parts of this work are the result of many others’ guidance and that any errors therein have arisen through my failure to listen to the same. To my family, I owe more than I will be able to express. Despite the 4500 km between us for the vast portion of this project, the many years of my doctoral studies have been made lighter because of them. Their love and support from afar kept me afloat when I did not feel like swimming. Thank you, Mom and Dad. My successes here are a direct result of the much harder task you had in raising me. And to my brother, Scott, thank you for proudly telling people that I was a doctor long before I ever finished this project: you encouraged me to get this done to ensure that you were not a liar. Carleton’s Department of Political Science has a fantastic cast of characters who felt more a community than coworkers. The countless hours spent with them were fruitful for the development of my work and, more importantly, maintaining my sanity. I have certainly leaned on the administrative staff throughout my program and am immensely grateful for their assistance — particularly Brookes Fee, whose open office door I took advantage of probably far more than I should have. Sophie Marcotte-Chénard came to Carleton late in my PhD, but her friendship and advice were of immeasurable value in crossing the finish line. So too with John Ryan for enduring numerous conversations about my work when he should have been doing his own. I have had a fantastic committee keeping an eye on me throughout this project – and they rose to the challenge of a video conference defence. Thank you, Farhang Rajaee, Waller Newell, and, especially, my supervisor, Marc Hanvelt. I hope that I will be half as good an advisor to others as Marc has been to me. While I have more laudatory things to say about him, I will restrain myself lest he force me to revise them. Without Wes Lord’s friendship and generous advice on SQLite and the structure of my database, I would still be wandering around the desert trying to make sense of an absurdly designed Excel table. My thanks also extend to Hannah and the entire Wyile family for their support. I hope never to believe myself to have outgrown the need for mentors from earlier in my career, as Brad Bryan and Janni Aragon have continued to develop me as a scholar and a thinker. To Milo Morris: I believe this is your first dissertation acknowledgement — which is quite the accomplishment at nearly-four years old, but you were a delight exactly when I needed a pick-me-up. Adam, Alli, Dave, Leonard, Missie, Nicole, and Thomas, despite being not quite as adorable, have likewise been of immeasurable support. And, finally, to Colleen: it is strange to think that I did not know you when this project started, because I have leaned on you a great deal as it comes to an end. Thank you for the confidence, the joy, and everything in between. I am lucky that you joined me on this journey, and I am excited to see what adventures are waiting for us after this. Ottawa, Ontario April 2020 vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii List of Appendices ............................................................................................................. ix INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ......................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE: Mythmaking ........................................................................................ 17 1.1 The Manyness of 20th Century Political Philosophy .............................................. 22 1.2 Ronald Beiner .......................................................................................................... 29 1.3 The Exemplars ......................................................................................................... 37 1.4 The Catalogue Genre ............................................................................................... 41 1.5 Neither Death nor Revival ....................................................................................... 48 1.6 Sheldon Wolin ......................................................................................................... 57 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER TWO: The Many Deaths of Political Philosophy .......................................... 66 2.1 Peter Laslett ............................................................................................................. 66 2.2 Leo Strauss .............................................................................................................. 80 2.3 Alfred Cobban ......................................................................................................... 89 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 100 CHAPTER THREE: A Curious Revival ........................................................................ 108 3.1 Re-Viewing Responses to A Theory of Justice ..................................................... 114 3.2 End of Ideology-ists............................................................................................... 124 3.3 Isaiah Berlin ........................................................................................................... 128 3.4 Strauss Revisited.................................................................................................... 137 3.5 Cobban Revisited ................................................................................................... 145 3.6 Laslett Revisited ...................................................................................................