Abstract

Modern social science supposedly eschews any notion of purposefulness when assessing social phenomenon. There may be causes and effects, and in the case of individual actors or groups of actors there are certainly intentions. But the Aristotelian notion of teleology, that things which social scientists study have some sort of predetermined goal, seems decidedly unscientific to modern minds. It may seem strange to hear mention of such an archaic term. Few writers nowadays refer explicitly to teleogy when analyzing the state, or anything else for that matter. The term is derived from the Greek telos and logos and refers simultaneously to a belief that a particular phenomenon under study has a purpose and the attempt to explain how the characteristics of the phenomenon in question lead to fulfillment of that purpose. Yet, conservative political philosophers have used teleogy to great effect. They often assume that the State and its actors are self-interested and self-aggrandizing. Many in this cynical age see such a premise as self-evident and regard as naive any more generous-minded deviation from it. Nonetheless, this premise posits a fundamental tendency in the State which makes certain courses of action, in this case a tyrannical government, more likely than others, and hence makes certain types of events, such as a switch to debt finance, more dangerous than others. There are, however, many other frameworks of the State and they are usually linked with a teleology of some sort. Writers who are not so conservative use teleology as well, just a different one, namely that the natural end of the state and humanity is to do good, not evil, or to help others, not themselves. This paper will review the theoretical debate about statecraft. The argument will be made that despite some strong advantages of other approaches, the grand theoretical and teleological way of analyzing policy has been fraught with difficulty