Abstract

This dissertation addresses the problem of technocracy as it relates to political theory. The goal of this work is to better understand the relationship between political theory, as a professional activity, and political action in present day democracy. Opposed to democracy is the concept of technocracy. Technocracy is understood as a complex social and philosophical framework that underwrites the role of the intellectual as a political authority. There are a variety of technocracies that are discussed in the first chapter. In classical thought, Plato adumbrates the virtues of a polity ruled by philosopher-kings. Modern technocracy typically is based on the purported power and insight of empirical science. ;The second chapter argues that the very complexity of the modern divsion of intellectual labor places limits upon the the capacities of any authoritative knowledge or discourse. Within an increasing array and diversity of professional and other public discourses, it becomes ever more unlikely that political philosophy can play the role of guardianship that it classically sought. ;Contemporary political thought is typified by a widespread opposition to what this study terms technocracy. The oppositional perspectives are discussed in the third through the fifth chapters. These perspectives include postmodernism, critical theory, and traditional political philosophy. In these literatures we find a broad range of criticism that identifies domination with technocracy, in some form. However, this study argues that there exists in the literature a common tendency to reduce politics and power to the discursive dimension. The critics commonly fail to recognize the complexity of the relationship between intellectual activity and power. The concluding section poses the problem of the distinctive contribution; if political theory cannot provide a technique of authoritative political judgement, what can it be now? It is urged that political theory can, as history, provide for the retention of cultural memory that might broadly inform, but not dominate, public discussion