Human Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 395–411 | Cite as

The Role of Contexts in Understanding and Explanation

  • Mark Bevir
Article

Abstract

In considering the Cambridge School of intellectual history, we should distinguish Skinner's conventionalism from Pocock's contextualism whilst recognising that both of them argue that the study of a text's linguistic context is at least necessary and perhaps sufficient to ensure understanding. This paper suggests that although "study the linguistic context of an utterance" is a valuable heuristic maxim, it is not a prerequisite of understanding that one does so. Hence, we might shift our attention from the role of linguistic contexts in understanding a text, to the role of ideational contexts in our explanations of meanings or beliefs. The explanatory role of contexts can be unpacked in terms of traditions and dilemmas. Here the paper also considers how this approach differs from that of the Cambridge School.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayer, A.J (1936). Language, Truth, and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar
  2. Bevir, M. (1994). Are There Perennial Problems in Political Theory? Political Studies 42: 662-675.Google Scholar
  3. Bevir, M. (1997). Mind and Method in the History of Ideas. History and Theory 36: 167-189.Google Scholar
  4. Bevir, M. (1999). The Logic of the History of Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collingwood, R.G. (1940). An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dreyfus, H. (1980). Holism and Hermeneutics. Review of Metaphysics 34: 3-23.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  9. Gunnell, J. (1979). Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Gunnell, J. (1982). Interpretation and the History of Political Theory: Apology and Epistemology. American Political Science Review 76: 317-327.Google Scholar
  11. Hegel, G.W.F. (1956). The Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree, intro. C. Friedrich. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pocock, J.G.A. (1962) The History of Political Thought: A Methodological Enquiry. In P. Laslett & W. Runciman (Eds.), Philosophy, Politics and Society, second series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Pocock, J.G.A. (1972). Languages and Their Implications. In Politics, Language, and Time. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  15. Pocock, J.G.A. (1985). State of the Art. In Virtue, Commerce, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Quine, W.V.O. (1961) Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Skinner, Q. (1988a). Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. In J. Tully (Ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Skinner, Q. (1988b). Motives, Intentions, and the Interpretation of Texts. In J. Tully (Ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Skinner, Q. (1988c). Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought. In J. Tully (Ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Skinner, Q. (1988d). A Reply to My Critics. In J. Tully (Ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Bevir
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaBerkelyUSA

Personalised recommendations