Reply to comment

Sorry, I assumed you concurred with Berlin's 'Political Judgement' speech. Thanks for the reference, by the way, I found it an interesting read.

My points have been in response to his position which certainly regards good 'political judgement' as something that can be ahistorically measured, is independent of ethical orientation or aim, and effectively synonymous with 'what works'. So whatever purpose the person has if they are successful in achieving it and it can be shown that they used their own judgement in that process then they have demonstrated good political judgement. According to Berlin political judgement is also a rather mysterious skill or 'art' that can't be taught. I think these days what he describes would now at least be partly covered by theories of 'emotional intelligence' and strategic gaming techniques.

I doubt Berlin (1957) would accept that his account of what constitutes (and how you measure) good political judgement is contingent and subject to change. He is also unlikely to accept that the dominant mode of reflection of those practicing (or attempting to practice) 'good' political judgement are also contingent and subject to change.

I think the fact that there has been growing valorisation of practical knowledge (which includes, I think, 'political judgement') relative to expert knowledge across many domains in the last few decades I think is an interesting phenomenon in itself that would be worth investigating.