From Plato to Nato: our dated ideas

It is often said that political philosophy had become moribund in the 20th century, and was revived only with the publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice . There will be students, I dare say, who wonder what kind of a life is sustained by that dry and weighty tome, and whether it is worth living if 600-odd pages of dense script serve to commend just a few straightforwardly liberal principles. There are also students, though, I know, who draw deep satisfaction from a thorough engagement with Rawls's text. In Andrew Levine's Engaging Political Philosophy , Rawls is viewed against a historical backdrop that helps see the individual student's progress from diffidence to engagement in terms of the book's political significance. "With politics in decline, there is nothing left but to refine old ideals, or at least the one ideal left standing", he writes, although against this downbeat thought we have to set a recognition that because "actually existing liberal democracy falls so far short of its promise, this objective motivates a powerful reforming project". So Rawls's work on fundamental liberal principles cannot be ignored, and it has entered the canon of political philosophy. In Levine's book, it has entered between Mill and Marx.

Levine's perspective is as unfashionable as it is chronologically incorrect, but it yields a hopeful prognosis for political philosophy, casting doubt on the assumption that politics is in decline. He suggests that in retrospect, the present era, with its increasingly urgent and unresolved ecological, social and economic problems, will seem more like a turning point. Political philosophy, he believes, has a lively future ahead. His view that "political philosophy of the past, including the recent past, cannot, as is, serve for an indefinite future" is developed through a scholarly examination of six canonical thinkers - "the great transformations that motivated Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and that continue to give modern political philosophy its shape consisted, mainly, in the rise of the nation-state and atomisation of social life". But the very processes that have brought real-world politics and its philosophical representations to a virtual standstill, he believes, are transforming these conditions. Just as the nation-state form of political organisation is sure to become increasingly undone, so the increasing interdependence of the world's peoples, too, is bound, eventually, to create new social solidarities, challenging the pervasive individualism that has shaped political thinking for so long.

Levine's is the only book under review that falls under the heading "history of political thought", and so is the only candidate for courses that take this approach to political philosophy. It is not intended solely for students, though, and at times is quite demanding. Nevertheless, recommended as supplementary reading, it could help more dedicated students expand their horizons.

For courses on contemporary political philosophy there are three books to choose from. Robert Simon's volume is an edited collection of above-average quality. It is divided into three parts: the first deals with the key concepts of political obligation, liberty, justice, equality and democracy; the second looks at liberalism and its Marxian, feminist and communitarian critics; the third considers contemporary issues for a pluralistic society, looking specifically at race, religion, citizenship and deliberation. The book does not include chapters devoted to the state or to rights; and neither conservativism nor environmentalism are included among the alternatives to liberalism. I also found some of the material in the third part rather US-specific in its frame of reference. Reservations on these points notwithstanding, the coverage is pretty comprehensive, and, for the most part, the contributions are of a high standard, with an eminent line-up of US authors. This book will be a useful resource, although I would hesitate to suggest students buy it as a main textbook.

The book by Dudley Knowles focuses mainly on concepts, not on ideologies or issues of public affairs, but being of comparable size to Simon's, it covers its chosen field in correspondingly more detail. For any course that teaches political philosophy by way of concepts, especially at a more advanced undergraduate level, this will be a valuable book, and one for which I believe there is something of a need. It is helpfully organised so that the reader looking to find out about any aspect of a problem can readily home in on the relevant pages. It covers most of the matters likely to be dealt with in a course on political concepts, although I did regret a few omissions - on rights, for instance. Knowles does not address issues of cultural relativism or disputes about the status of social as opposed to civil and political rights; he also refrains from considering feminist and environmentalist themes. On the whole, though, this book is enjoyable, and I can envisage students finding it rich in ideas without being unduly difficult.

Adam Swift's book also focuses on concepts, but only on four: justice, liberty, equality and community. The book has been worked up from lecture notes and tutorial comments, and bears the traces of its origins. A strength of this is that it is written with students' needs in mind, so their queries and difficulties are often anticipated. One drawback, though, for a potential stand-alone textbook, is that Swift's particular selection of concepts is rather limited; another, bearing also on its billing as a beginners' guide, is that the reader is implicitly assumed to have made a preliminary acquaintance with some of the texts discussed. Nevertheless, the material is generally sound and accessible, and I would recommend it as supplementary reading.

As regards main-course recommendations, especially for student purchase, one cannot escape the fact that Knowles's book is roughly twice the size of Swift's. Like the latter, it has chapters on liberty and justice, but it also covers democracy, rights and political obligation. It does not have separate chapters on community or equality, but it does deal with these to the extent that many teachers will find necessary. It also has a couple of introductory chapters on the nature of political philosophy and its methodology. It is of good quality, and in terms of scope offers just about twice as much as Swift's for just £2 more.

Liz Sperling's book cannot be directly compared with any of the others. It is not a textbook of contemporary political philosophy, but nor does it neatly fit under the heading "history of political thought", even if parts of it do engage with the philosophical tradition. Sperling takes a thematic approach to grapple with a problem that will exercise many teachers of the tradition: namely, how to deal with the virtual exclusion of thought by or for women. This is a complex undertaking, since one often has to read between the lines of the males' pronouncements to highlight the lacunae, inconsistencies and plain prejudices they leave unarticulated. The thematic approach requires of students both a knowledge of the texts and certain interpretive skills, as well as some grasp of the concepts whose construction is to be critically analysed. This is a tall order, and I do not think the book gives students clear enough guidance on how to meet it. This is perhaps because Sperling's avowed interest lies not primarily with the texts or the concepts but with the "causal effects" of political philosophy on women's continued underrepresentation in modern liberal democracies. The complex relations of "causality" between ideas and practice really lie beyond the grasp of political philosophy.

Yet Sperling's motivating thought, that understanding the philosophical past can help empower women to take a greater part in the politics of the future, is surely a sound one. It also introduces a whole dimension that is missing from the scholarly reflections of Levine. Where Levine offers the debatable judgement that "our planet is now a safer place than it once was", one has to consider whether it might not really become safer, and more civil, in proportion to the political influence of women. Levine perceives the need to step outside the intellectual horizon of the nation-state when thinking about politics, democracy and justice today; but if there are ever to be political answers to war, genocide, ecological catastrophe and mass immiseration, this will surely require a civilising influence that has eluded the ideas and practices of the men that have prevailed from Plato to Nato. So, for all that, I have reservations about Sperling's approach to teaching political philosophy as we have inherited it, I do believe it challenges us to find ways of dealing with an issue that is important for the future life not only of political philosophy, but maybe also of the planet and its inhabitants.

Tim Hayward is reader in politics, University of Edinburgh.