Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:14:26.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Myth of the Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John G. Gunnell
John G. Gunnell*
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leo Strauss's epic rendition of the history of Western political philosophy has been a principal factor in the establishment and perpetuation of the myth of the tradition or the belief that the conventional series of classic works from Plato to Nietzsche represents the development of modern political ideas and constitutes the core of an inherited pattern of thought which, in turn, provides the basic context for interpreting particular texts. Much of the scholarly commentary on the history of political philosophy has been directed toward a critique of contemporary political thought and action, and the idea of the tradition has served as a vehicle for this historical etiology. In Strauss's argument, the concept of the tradition plays a strategic rhetorical function, but the myth of the tradition in its various forms has become a pervasive regulative assumption in both teaching and research.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 122 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Skinner, Quentin, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas, ” History and Theory, 8 (1969), 3–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action, ” Political Theory, 2 (August 1974), 277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For critical discussions of Skinner's arguments and further analysis of these problems, see Ashcraft, Richard, “On the Problem of Methodology and the Nature of Political Theory, ” Political Theory, 3 (February 1975), 5–25Google Scholar; Parekh, Bhiku and Berki, R. N., “The History of Political Ideas: A Critique of Q. Skinner's Methodology, ” Journal of History of Ideas, 34 (1973), 163–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leslie, Margaret, “In Defense of Anachronism, ” Political Studies, 4 (1970), 433–47Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, Language, and Time (New York: Atheneum, 1971)Google Scholar; Schochet, Gordon, “Quentin Skinner's Method, ” Political Theory, 2 (August 1974), 261–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarlton, Charles, “Historicity, Meaning and Revisionism in the Study of Political Thought, ” History and Theory, 12 (1973), 307–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Despite the importance of the issues raised, these studies, for the most part, do not explore the intentions of the historian of political theory, and they assume that his endeavor can be comprehended and evaluated as a species of intellectual history. For a discussion of these problems as well as an analysis of other secondary literature on the history of political theory, see Gunnell, John G., Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation (Cambridge: Winthrop, 1978)Google Scholar.

2 Strauss, Leo, The City and Man (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), p. 1Google Scholar.

3 Strauss, Leo, The City and Man pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 3.

5 Strauss, Leo, “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time,” in The Post-Behavioral Era, ed. Graham, George J. Jr. and Carey, George W. (New York: David McKay, 1972), p. 242Google Scholar.

6 Strauss, Leo, “Relativism, ” in Relativism and the Study of Man, ed. Shoeck, Helmut and Wiggins, James W. (Princeton: D. Van Nostiand, 1961), p. 140Google Scholar.

7 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

8 “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time, ” pp. 217–18.

9 “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time, ” p. 217.

10 Strauss, Leo, On Tyranny (Glencoe: Free Press, 1963), pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

11 “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time, ” p. 218; The City and Man, p. 2.

12 Strauss, Leo, What is Political Philosophy? (Glencoe: Free Press, 1959), pp. 11–12Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., pp. 12–13, 17.

14 Strauss, Leo, “Introduction, ” in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Strauss, Leo and Cropsey, Joseph (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963), p. 2Google Scholar; Strauss, Leo, Socrates and Aristophanes (New York: Basic Books, 1960), p. 3Google Scholar.

15 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 18.

16 Natural Right and History, pp. 2–3, 5; Strauss, Leo, “Social Science and Humanism, ” in The State of the Social Sciences, ed. White, Leonard D. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 422Google Scholar.

17 Natural Right and History, p. 4.

18 What is Political Philosophy?, pp. 25–26, 57.

19 Natural Right and History, pp. 18–19.

20 ”Social Science and Humanism, ” p. 418.

21 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 20.

22 Strauss, Leo, “Epilogue, ” in Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, ed. Storing, Herbert J. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. 307Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., p. 307.

24 Ibid., pp. 322–26.

25 Strauss, Leo, “Epilogue, ” pp. 319, 326Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., p. 327.

27 On Tyranny, p. 22.

28 ”Epilogue, ”p. 327.

29 Natural Right and History, p. 7.

30 The City and Man, pp. 7–8.

31 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 56.

32 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 57.

33 Ibid., p. 59.

34 The City and Man, p. 11.

35 Ibid., p. 8.

36 City and Man, p. 9.

37 Ibid., p. 9.

38 On Tyranny, p. 24; What is Political Philosophy?, p. 67.

39 On Tyranny, p. 24.

40 Ibid., p. 24.

41 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 66; Strauss, Leo, “On a New Interpretation of Plato's Political Philosophy,” Social Research, 13 (1946), 332Google Scholar.

42 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 77.

43 ”Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time, ” p. 218.

44 ”Introduction, ” p. 2.

45 The City and Man, p. 10; “Epilogue, ” p. 313.

46 What is Political Philosophy?, pp. 68, 69.

47 City and Man, p. 9.

48 ”Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time, ” pp. 217–18.

49 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 172.

50 Ibid., p. 74.

51 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 27.

52 Ibid., p. 28.

53 ”Social Science and Humanism, ” p. 417.

54 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 75.

55 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 75.

56 The City and Man, p. 12.

57 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 40.

58 Ibid., p. 40.

59 On Tyranny, p. 23.

60 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 40.

61 On Tyranny, pp. 110–11.

62 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 41; Strauss, Leo, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe: Free Press, 1958), pp. 9, 13Google Scholar.

63 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 43.

64 Thoughts on Machiavelli, p. 12.

65 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 43.

66 Ibid., p. 41.

67 Ibid., p. 47.

68 Ibid., p. 172; Strauss, Leo, Spinoza's Critique of Religion (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), p. 338Google Scholar.

69 What is Political Philosophy?, pp. 47–48.

70 Ibid., p. 49.

71 What is Political Philosophy?, p. 50.

72 Ibid., p. 51.

73 ”Relativism, ” p. 515; What is Political Philosophy?, pp. 54–55; Spinoza's Critique of Religion, p. 12.

74 Strauss, Leo, Liberalism, Ancient and Modern (New York: Basic Books, 1968), p. viiiGoogle Scholar; Strauss, Leo, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Glencoe: Free Press, 1952), p. 37Google Scholar.

75 Persecution and the Art of Writing, p. 21.

76 Cf. Pocock, , Politics, Language, and Time, pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

77 See, for example, Voegelin, Eric, The New Science of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952)Google Scholar and Science, Politics, and Gnosticism (Chicago: Regnery, 1968)Google Scholar; Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958)Google Scholar, and Between Past and Future (New York: Viking, 1968)Google Scholar.

78 On Tyranny, p. 25.

79 On Tyranny, p. 27.

80 Strauss, Leo, “Farabi's Plato,” in Louis Ginsberg Jubilee Volume (New York: The American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945), pp. 376–77Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.