Concepts as Depth Probes, Concepts as Inquiry Blockers

Concepts shape and guide thought, both fruitfully and unfruitfully. Sometimes concepts lead inquiry to previously unimagined depths. Sometimes, they lead astray, or block thought and prevent inquiry from going anywhere. Sometimes the most penetrating and fruitful of concepts become inquiry blockers. And all concepts, even the most penetrating and fruitful, block as well as probing, depending on the circumstances. What it is that makes some concepts and frameworks serve as depth probes, while others impede inquiry? What is it that makes some concepts and frameworks depth probes under certain conditions, and inquiry blockers under other conditions? The present paper explores the roles concepts, frameworks, and methods play in capturing reality and preventing its capture. It explores the conditions under which concepts that have served as depth-probes may turn into inquiry-blockers. It suggests practical guidelines for becoming aware of the qualities that distinguish depth probing concepts from inquiry blocking concepts, and which distinguish fruitful from degenerating research programs. Finally, by way of illustration, the analytical instruments developed in the paper are applied to three specific examples of conceptual blockage in political science and political theory — problems arising in the study of democracy, power, and totalitarianism