What methodological difficulties might we encounter when studying socialist political thought?
Within this essay, aspects of studying socialist political thought will be used to explain some of the methodological difficulties through Sassoon’s and Parekh’s ideas of socialism and studying socialist political thought. Methodological difficulties can be defined in many different ways; it could be defined as the problems of processes or ways in which the study of socialism is portrayed. I will aim to explain the first methodological difficulty which is through their definitions, the second methodological difficulty is that the methods of finding out information can be biased due to their background and era, the last methodological difficulty is the approaches both authors take in studying socialist political thought such as a historical approach by Sassoon. Overall, when studying socialist political thought, these methodological difficulties may be encountered, which allows us to have a greater understanding of socialism.
The first methodological difficulty may be portrayed through the definition of socialism by both authors. Sassoon is a revisionist and follows the historical approach. Sassoon defines socialism with two separate strategies that are discordant with one another. The first is “essentialist” which is known to be a strategy that proceeds in conventional Weberian fashion, it involves the difficulty of its definition and “Once the concept is constructed, it can be used historically to assess concrete political organization, their activists and thinkers and measure the extent to which they fit their ideal type, why and when they diverge from each other, and account for exceptional behavior”. This definition of socialism is “broadly accepted and widely used”. However, this first definition of socialism has a methodological difficulty to studying socialist political thought as even though it can be historically used, it does not enable for changes in history to occur which makes it harder to add and incorporate new features into it. The second strategy of socialism is the “historical”. The methodological difficulty in the second strategy of socialism is that it only looks at what has happened and draws the immediate conclusion that “whatever happened had to happen”. This leads to not having an exact definition of socialism, as past events have happened out of the control of socialists, hence, these socialists will act in a way that is desirable to themselves, their thinking and their organization. This is the historical approach that Sassoon follows through which is significant to studying his socialist political thought. His definitions of socialism are of a narrow scope which is favorable in the sense that it is easier to follow, but it can also cause misperceptions due to his use of a historical approach to his revisionist interpretation which is why it can be seen as a methodological difficulty.
Parekh states that socialism began as a revolt against capitalism, but Parekh’s view in the definition of socialism can have some blurred lines as he gives various ideas to the definition of socialism. Thus, this is a methodological difficulty in studying socialist political thought, as it is difficult to distinguish his exact belief of what socialism means. He begins by saying that “each political doctrine defines itself and is defined by others in a manner that suits their respective interests”. In this sense he gives a broad scope to defining socialism, by allowing all thinkers to have their opinion of what socialism means to them, whether its to do with “equality, justice, decentralization of power and protection of minorities”, however, Parekh then defines socialism as an “attempt to present a specific conception of man and society”, how man must be individually, in order to fit into and present his talents in society even though Parekh believes that socialism holds “a powerful collectivist element”. This idea of man and society is demonstrated as integral in studying socialist political thought by Parekh when understanding socialism. He also defines socialism through different thinkers on their views of “conception of man, the nature of knowledge and its relation to action, the division labor and the nature of rationality, the nature of state, marriage, and family”. This is the reason that within Parekh’s text, a broad definition of socialism had been created, hence this disenabled and blurred the readers understanding of Parekh’s lens on the definition of socialism, therefore, Parekh’s method of exploring various views and definitions of socialism is a limitation and a methodological difficulty in studying socialist political thought as it makes it harder to understand what he is trying to convey to the reader. Parekh's and Sassoon’s definitions of socialism are inherently different, but it can be said that all thinkers could have a different view of what socialism means depending on what they believe in or the era they are present in.
The second methodological difficulty is that methods of finding out information can be biased due to their background and era. In the twenty first century, methodological difficulties when studying socialist political thought are different, in comparison to the kind of methodological difficulties that can be seen in the authors era within their text and time of writing. The aims and goals pursued by people have changed since the the era in which Sassoon’s and Parekh’s text are based on, in terms of an economic outlook. Even though they may have written these texts at a later time (Sassoon in 2000 and Parekh in 1975), it was the mind-set of people in that era of socialism from the eighteenth century that have changed. In the sense that, in order to survive and make a living, work was their only choice. This thought process has been changed through globalisation and this has altered the way people have thought as it took place during the industrial revolution. Hence, in this generation of the twenty first century, people do have the mind-set to work and to survive, however, it is not their only means in life, as one’s happiness and choice of what they want to do with their life is considered more satisfactory than taking a job, just to simply earn money. Moreover, the change or eras the years these texts were written in allows us to conclude there is a bias to what the authors are saying which is why there may not be agreements with the authors views on certain aspects of their socialism. Their depiction of socialism has been shaped by their background. For example, Sassoon has been educated in Milan, America, London and Paris. This shows that his opinions and ideas may vary due to his broad sense of knowledge having been educated around the world. Parekh’s background around 1975 showed that he was teaching at the London School of Economics and the University of Glasgow which may have influenced his thoughts on the way socialism had to be portrayed. Therefore, the difficulty is that the study of socialist political thought would be challenging now due to the change of era, how people think, and how people are working for more than just capital. Another difficulty in relation the first difficulty, is that the readings or interviews such authors take can be biased as their “methods” in studying socialist political thought are shaped by their backgrounds.
The last methodological difficulty is the approaches both authors take in studying socialist political thought, particularly the historical approach by Sassoon. Sassoon follows a “revisionist interpretation”, it is the idea that traditional or historically held beliefs are no longer accepted about specific past events. Sassoon claims that when studying socialist political thought, that they change “the bits that no longer fit, and insert the new ones”. This allows socialism to progress as new ideas are shaping the way people think, thus, new books are then written which fits the perspectives people have in that era. However, even though Sassoon states that “new meanings” are created when studying socialist political thought, in the twenty first century, socialist political thought cannot be studied in the way as it used to be, therefore, by socialists saying that they are adding “new meanings” to socialism each time a new idea has been found, is problematic, especially from the historical approach that Sassoon takes. This allows us to question why he does this, as, when in order to study about socialist political thought in the twenty first century we need to look at contemporary examples rather than old examples of socialist ideas which is the methodological difficulty to studying socialist political thought.
In conclusion, these three points allow us to interpret socialism is various ways, especially by looking at the different perceptions of authors: Parekh and Sassoon, but also other thinkers on their views of socialism in order to draw our own conclusions when studying socialist political thought. Particularly, their definitions of socialism as this frames their entire argument. Such methodological difficulties portray the flaws to which the study of socialism may present and how we can learn from these methodological difficulties when grappling with certain ideas of socialism in order to challenge these views as we study this field of political thought.