The importance of dynamic tension in political theory

I’m sometimes asked by students in my political theory classes, “Professor, you’ve taught us about all sorts of different political theories, but what are your political beliefs?” To which my response is — invariably, and I hope tantalizingly — “How much time do you have?”

For the answer is complicated. I have been reading, thinking and teaching political theory for many decades now, a journey that has taken me down many rabbit holes of political thought. Over that time, I have positioned myself at various points on the political-theoretical landscape, having variously described myself as a Marxist, a nationalist, a Catholic, a progressive conservative, a social democrat, a … well, you get the point.

It wasn’t a linear path, but rather a series of travels along a variety of intellectual pathways punctuated by extended stops at certain theoretical waystations. So, given all that, how would I describe my current political-theoretical commitments — my basic political convictions?

I see myself as occupying a space at the intersection of three great thinkers — Aquinas, Gramsci and Burke — who provide the foundational pillars upon which my current political thinking rests. And while I acknowledge that their views are in many ways contradictory, I simultaneously embrace the idea that each offers a vital piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding the challenges and possibilities of political life.

First and foremost, there is Saint Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century Christian theologian who provides a foundational framework for considering human flourishing. Aquinas believed that humans possess a natural inclination towards certain goods, such as reason, friendship and participation in a just society. These natural inclinations, when pursued in a harmonious and balanced way, lead to a state of well-being that Aquinas termed eudaimonia or “happiness.” Further, Aquinas emphasized the concept of the common good, which refers to the shared well-being of a society. Just laws and institutions, according to Aquinas, play a crucial role in creating the conditions necessary for individuals to pursue their own well-being within the context of the common good.

Secondly, and in contrast to Aquinas’s focus on natural law and human flourishing, Antonio Gramsci, a mid-20th-century Marxist philosopher, directs our attention to the role of power dynamics and economic structures in shaping political life. Gramsci argued that the dominant class in any society wields cultural and ideological hegemony, shaping the way people understand the world and their place within it. This cultural hegemony, Gramsci believed, serves to maintain the existing power structures and inequalities. For Gramsci, achieving a more just society requires a “war of position” — a gradual transformation of cultural norms and institutions that ultimately challenges the dominance of the ruling class. His emphasis on the interplay between power and ideology serves as a vital counterpoint to Aquinas’s focus on natural law, reminding us that political realities are shaped by historical and material forces — and that any political theory worthy of the name must take this into account.

Finally, Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Anglo-Irish statesman, brings a more cautious and pragmatic perspective to the table. Burke championed the importance of tradition and the wisdom embedded within historical institutions and customs. He believed that abrupt and radical changes, while alluring to many of a progressive bent, more often than not have unintended consequences that ultimately undermine the pursuit of a just society. Burke also emphasized the need to consider the interests of not only the living, but also the dead (those whose traditions shape our present) and those yet to be born (who will inherit the consequences of our actions). This emphasis on historical continuity and the potential pitfalls of radical change serves as a valuable counterpoint to Gramsci’s call for revolutionary transformation, reminding us of the importance of thinking of change as the unfolding of tradition rather than as radical rupture with it.

This brings us to the heart of the matter: the importance of dynamic tension in political thought. The human condition, and the challenges of governance, are not well-served by ideological purity. Instead, a more fruitful approach involves bringing diverse thinkers into conversation with one another, even when their views are — or appear to be — appear contradictory.

By holding these contrasting perspectives in conversation, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the challenges we face as political thinkers. Aquinas provides a framework for human flourishing, Gramsci reminds us of the power dynamics that shape our lives and Burke cautions against the dangers of radical reform.

This approach offers several benefits for students of political theory — a category that includes all of us. To begin with, it encourages viewpoint multiplicity. Moving beyond the comfort of a single ideology allows for a more 360-degree view of the human condition. We can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives, leading to a more robust and nuanced understanding of political realities.

As importantly, an approach to political thinking predicated on an embrace of dynamic tension also fosters intellectual humility. Recognizing the limitations of any single viewpoint encourages a healthy skepticism towards grand pronouncements and ideological purity. It reminds us that complex problems rarely have easy solutions.

Beyond that, such an approach encourages a focus on the fundamental questions of political thought: What constitutes human flourishing? How do we create a society that promotes such flourishing? What institutions and mechanisms are necessary to create and sustain such a society?

Finally, by acknowledging the role of power in shaping political outcomes, this method equips all students of politics — both in and beyond classrooms like mine — to engage in critically informed citizenship. Those who embrace this approach learn to recognize the potentially destructive effects of power structures and to advocate for policies that promote genuine human flourishing for all, even as they hold this noble impulse in dialectical tension with the reality that, as the poet Robert Burns put it, “the best-laid schemes of mice and men go oft awry.”

This may sound like a messy and perhaps contradictory way to approach political theory. But the reality is that the world itself is messy and contradictory. By grappling with diverse perspectives and embracing dynamic tension, we gain a richer and less polarized — and polarizing — understanding of the challenges of governance and the pursuit of a just and equitable society. After decades of studying political theory, it is my conclusion that only through such an ongoing conversation across multiple viewpoints can we ever hope to shape a political future that fosters human flourishing for all.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. Follow him @aalatham.