INTERPRETING EXPERIENCE

Abstract

Political scientists are predisposed to view the American constitution as the product of pragmatic politics. In part, this interpretation has been inspired by the founders themselves, who frequently spoke of the importance of political experience in framing the constitution. Yet the framers held a different definition of experience from our own. By “experience” they meant not only the practical participation in immediate events, but also the theoretical knowledge gained from the study of history, philosophy, and science. This article examines their changing concept of experience. Relying primarily on the debates in the federal and state ratifying conventions, it reviews the intellectual conflicts that took place between Federalists and Antifederalists concerning the roles of historical, philosophical, and scientific theories in the creation of the constitution. The contradictions that resulted within constitutional theory, and the importance of these contradictions for later politics are discussed.