Contributions to the History of Concepts

Contributions to the History of Concepts has much to celebrate. On one hand, issue number 3 inaugurates the journal’s second volume; its second year of existence. The reception of volume one could not have been better. We have received enthusiastic feedback from readers all over the world. Contributions has published authors from many different countries and from diverse academic milieus and traditions. The international reception of conceptual history has been on the rise for decades and Contributions is both a consequence of and an agent in this process. Our celebration, however, is not without sorrow. On February 3, 2006, Reinhart Koselleck passed away. One of the most influential historians and theoreticians of the last fifty years, Koselleck was simply the most important author in the field of conceptual history and, at the same time, an active promoter of its international reception.

It is said in some quarters that political theory need not, and perhaps should not, be a “historical” enterprise. It should be concerned with discovering and articulating timeless truths or addressing “perennial problems.” Or it should be an ahistorical “analytical” study in which one aims to answer important questions definitively and once and for all. The author argues that these and other attempts to de-historicize political theory are misguided and that, indeed, political theory is inescapably historical in several senses of that term. Firstly, works of political theory are written in particular places and times by authors attempting to address particular questions. Secondly, these works are received and read by audiences in other times. And thirdly, the meanings of these works are interpreted by readers through the medium of one or another interpretive framework, which is itself historically datable. All these considerations point to the conclusion that political theory is necessarily “historical.”

Departing from Mario Turchetti's study on the concept of tyranny and tyrannicide, the author sets out to explore its specific use in the political discourse in the eighteenth century. Originally, as in the works of Plato and Montesquieu, tyranny was used in reference to degenerate forms of government. Tyranny and tyrannicide gained additional significance with its inclusion in the virulent discourse during the radicalization of the French Revolution. Based on the myth of Brutus and other classical sources, anti-tyrannical rhetoric in the form revolutionary literature and propaganda spurted political activism. As the figure of the king became the main obstacle to liberty and the foundation of a new republic, tyranny and tyrannicide became key concepts in the revolutionary movements.

This article is a progress report on the Dutch national conceptual history project. The project places emphasis on interdisciplinarity, the resort to the widest possible range of sources, and the prospect of international comparison. The initiative, started by a group of Dutch scholars in the 1990s, has so far focused on the concepts of liberty, fatherland, and citizenship, all of which have had a prominent role in a specifically Dutch political discourse.

This article considers the extent to which Locke's defense of a right of resistance in Two Treatises was formulated in close engagement with contemporary concerns regarding the requirements of effective political authority. Though Locke deals with the issue of “sovereignty” discreetly, differentiating between the theory and problem of sovereignty, the article contends that his theory nonetheless assumes a significance that is often overlooked in modern commentaries. Using Filmer's attack on consent theory as a benchmark, Locke identifies weaknesses in the idea that political order requires a single and indefeasible locus of authority, and argues that his theory is neither morally nor practically sustainable. Similarly, Locke rests a large part of his defense of conditional government on an explanation of how this arrangement of authority can withstand the “sovereignty” criticisms leveled by Filmer. Locke's attention to the problem of sovereignty reflects how influential the critique of popular sovereignty theory, developed by Bodin and others, was at that time. Thusly, the notion of hierarchical authority promoted by these writers represented a formidable obstacle to limited government that Locke was obliged to address.

This article traces the main methodological and substantial similarities between Reinhart Koselleck's notion of Begriffsgeschichte and J. G. A. Pocock's approach to the history of political thought. Both approaches are responses to the shift in the unit of analysis in the study of human historical consciousness. Rather than focusing on ideas, Koselleck and Pocock concentrate on how language articulated heightened awareness of historical change. Concepts and paradigms reflect in varying manners the intensity of historical sedimentation. The more sedimentation, less space there is for innovation, and political action tends to be conservative. Conversely, unstable concepts or obsolete paradigms, reflect historical change and space for linguistic innovation.

Among the many subjects you have worked on throughout your career, we would like to concentrate on those related to the methodology of intellectual history, especially conceptual history. We will then go on to make you a few questions about your recent work on memory and identity.

The 9th Annual International Conceptual History Conference - Crossroads: Writing Conceptual History beyond the Nation-State. August 24-26, 2006, in Uppsala, Sweden. Registration will open in the afternoon of Wednesday, August 23.

Recent and Upcoming Publications

Research Projects and Networks