My aim throughout this book has been to construct, with reference to the unpublished and published works of Collingwood, a faithful representation of his social and political thought. I have attempted to articulate a theory that is consistent with his many concerns, and that brings together material from disparate sources in order to present a contingently related whole whose parts serve to illuminate each other. Because such an exercise has not been undertaken previously, the emphasis of this study is upon achieving an understanding of Collingwood's complex concerns rather than upon criticizing his conclusions. Criticism is, of course, wholly legitimate, but I leave that work to others who may wish to explore Collingwood's social and political thought further. I have set myself the strictly limited objective of understanding what Collingwood was trying to do, and this has often entailed understanding what many of his contemporaries were doing.

I say nothing here about my methodological predilections, although I am aware that it has become almost obligatory to do so in recent studies in the history of political thought. For those who are interested in my views on methodology, I refer you to my article ‘Conversation and Interpretation’ (New Literary History, 1986), in which I put forward an essentially constructivist view of history, derived from such theorists as Bradley, Oakeshott, Gadamer, and Ricoeur.