Abstract
Political theorists disagree about whether ‘politics' and ‘the political’ should be defined narrowly or broadly. Defenders of broad conceptions argue that narrow definitions exclude phenomena that ought to be included and lead us to misunderstand the relationship between different forces in society. Defenders of narrow conceptions argue that broad definitions collapse the distinction between the social and the political, and deprive politics of any distinctive identity. I shall argue that neither of these arguments is successful and that disputes over whether we should adopt a narrow or a broad view of politics are, for the most part, merely verbal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
