farr history of political science

8/3/2019 Farr History of Political Science

1/22

The History of Political ScienceAuthor(s): James FarrSource: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 1175-1195Published by: Midwest Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111205 .

Accessed: 14/06/2011 15:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2111205?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2111205?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa


2/22

TheHistoryfPoliticalcienceJames arr,UniversityfMinnesota

Politicalciencesonceagain ediscoveringtspast ndretellingtshistory.In the astfewyears everalworks avebroughtnendto an erawhen urdisci-pline's istoricaleflectionsere imitedothe atherrief residentialddressesof theAmericanolitical cienceAssociation,othe venbrieferiteraturee-views hat refacedrticlesnprofessionalournals,nd othenever riefontri-butionso thatmoregeneral nterprisefthehistoryf political hought,romPlato o Pareto.ndeedfrom he ate-1950sothemid-1980s,worksnthehis-tory fpoliticalcience tand utbytheir heer arityamong hem, omit ndTanenhaus,967;and,morenarrowly,ress,1973, ndKarl,1974).Asthe u-thorsfonesuchwork ointedut n 1967, his adtakents oll: MostAmeri-canpoliticalcientistsre argely nfamiliar ith he rigins ndearly volutionoftheir iscipline. . . . An adequate history f thefieldhasyet o be written;ndthe available literature . . affords t best a fragmentarynd partial account"(Somit ndTanenhaus, 967,p. 2).By contrast,arlieroliticalcientists ere atherthoughot xceptionally)more istoricalntheir isciplinaryelf-understanding.orthosewritingn thelatenineteenthnd early wentiethenturies,hiswasperhaps consequenceftheir eingmorehistoricalngeneral bout he copeandmethodsfpoliticalscience.This was the view,at anyrate,of FrancisLieber, he firstfficiallynamed rofessorfPolitical cience n theUnited tates, position rantedimby ColumbiaCollege n 1857.This was also a message fFrederick ollock's1890 ntroductiono theHistory f theScienceof Politics, s wellas ofJ.R.Seeley'smotto:Historywithoutolitical ciencehasnofruit;olitical ciencewithout istory nowsno root" (1896, p. 3). WhileCharlesMerriamaterwouldbrooknoneof thishistoricismnthestudy fpoliticsat leastoncehedesertedhe omparative-historicalethodsfhisteacherWilliamA. Dunning),hismajestic ronouncementsnthedisciplinefpoliticalciencewerenonethe-lesscast nhistoricalermswhen n 1925 he spokeof NewAspects fPoliticsemergingrom therecent istoryfpolitical hinking"1925, ch. 3). In thesameyear, nd with less recent ast nmind,RobertH. Murray refaced isHistory fPolitical cience rom lato to thePresentwith heobservationhatthere as not a single ontroversyf ourdaywithoutpedigreetretchingntothedistantges" (1925,Preface). he 1930s llowed or edagogical eflectionsof a historical ind yAnnaHaddow n Political cience nAmerican ollegesandUniversities,636-1900 (1939).Even he peningalvosofthe ehavioralevolutionnthe arly 950swerefired ycompetingarrativesf thehistoryfpolitical cience. n ThePoliticalSystem, avid Easton's 1953) behavioral rogramorgeneral ystemsheory


3/22

1176 James arr(modeled nthemethodologicalssumptionsfthenaturalciences) ollowed ntheheelsofhisdiagnosis fthe"malaise"ofpolitical cience since theCivilWar" and his historicalketch f "the declineof modern olitical heory"(pp.38, 233-65). Threeyears ater, ernard rick epaid is visit o theUnitedStatesbywriting dissertationn thehistoryfAmerican olitical ciencelater obecomeTheAmericancience of Politics: ts Origins ndConditions(1959). A principalheme f hiswas that hebehavioralistspirationso "sci-ence" wereneitherew norpoliticallynnocent ormuchworth olding. Byscorningistoryndphilosophy,"ricknoted nconclusion, the dea of a sci-ence ofpolitics" howedtselfo be but "a caricaturefAmericaniberal e-mocracy" p. 227). Scornful,iberal, r not, political cience n the 1960s,1970s, ndearly 980srarely ecalledts or any ther) istory.Now,almost uddenly, olitical ciencehas (re)capturedheattentionsfhistoriansnandoutof thediscipline.neach of the astfour ears t eastonemajorwork asbeenpublishedn thehistoryfpolitical cience:n1983,StefanCollini,Donald Winch, ndJohn urrow, hatNobleScience of Politics:AStudynNineteenth-Centuryntellectual istory;n 1984, David Ricci, TheTragedy fPoliticalScience:Politics, cholarship,ndDemocracy; n 1985,Raymondeidelman,with he ssistance fEdwardJ.Harpham, isenchantedRealists:Political cience ndtheAmerican risis,1884-1984; in 1986,An-drewC. Janos, olitics ndParadigms: hanging heories fChange nSocialScience.Otherworks ontinueo be publishedamongthem, inifter, 983;Weisberg,986; AnckarndBerndtson,987).The reasons rcausesfor his eritable enaissancerenot ltogetherlear,thoughny ist fthemmightnclude heneedofa newgenerationfscholars ounderstandhecrises hat ontinueobesetpolitical cience, herecent evolu-tion nhistoriographyt astbreaking ponpolitical cience, nd the ncreasinghistoricalelf-awarenessf the other ocial sciences.As butone signof thelatter,onsider he mergencercontinuingiabilityf ournalsike heHistoryofSociology,heHistory fAnthropology,nd theJournalftheHistory ftheBehavioral ciences the atholicityfwhose itle ails oconceal hehegemonyofpsychologyithin). ven conomics-as dismal ndahistoricals ever-hastheHistory fPolitical conomyo salvethehistoricalonsciencesf several fitsmembers. erhapst is only matter ftimebefore olitical cience, oo,comes ohave journal edicatedo tshistory.For thepresent, e can take tock. t s thepurpose fthis ssay oreviewandcriticallyssess thefour bove-mentionedecentworks nthehistoryfpo-litical cience.These works orward ifferentntents,emarcate ifferenteri-ods,cover ifferentpisodes, ndrememberifferentessons-so much o thatthey eserve ndbelowwillreceive eparatereatment.espite hedifferences,however,omethingf a composite-anddiscomforting-imagefpoliticalci-ence, pastandpresent,merges rom hem. nconclusionwemaybrieflyraw


4/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 1177out his mage n order ounderscorehe elevancefandneedformorehistoriesof political cience.

Some preliminarybservationsillhelpus situate urfourworks, rovidea thematictructureor ritical nalysis fthem, nd rememberomeoftheirmore mportantredecessors. ne evident onclusion f these observations,whichwe may tatenadvance,s that ery ifferentorts fcontributionso thehistory f political cience re possible nd inevitable ecause differentisto-rianswillbe party o differentudgmentsbout hedoing fhistory,henature fpolitics, ndthemethodsf science.Writing historyfpolitical cience, nshort,s verymuch partisanctivity.At its simplest, historyfpolitical cience-like a historyf any sci-ence-will be a historyftheories. heslightestcrutiny,owever,eveals hecomplexitieshat uch a historyntails. n the firstnstance,heoriesoverwiderange fsubstantivermethodologicalopics; hey ever tand lone; andtheresmore otheir istoryhanmere hronologicalrrangement.heories reorganizedn andby argerntellectualomplexeswhose ransformationsrovidetherelevantife criptsor hem. urthermore,hese omplexesnd their rans-formationsre opento differentccounts.ParadigmsKuhn, 1962), researchprogramsLakatos,1978), and/or esearch raditionsLaudan, 1977)-to takethreenfluentialccounts-haverecentlyiedfor he artisanshipfvarious is-torians f science,whose choices n anycase reflectomedeep-seated hilo-sophical ommitmentsbout henature f scienceAgassi, 1963). Furthermore,within hese omplexes-howeverheyre conceived-theoriesrebestunder-stood s solutionsrattemptedolutions oproblems,ndthese roblemsre nturn estunderstoods being ocated nyetbroader roblemituationshat e-flect heir nvironments.hus,as KarlPopper 1972) oncepointed ut,"Thehistoryfscience hould e treated ot s a historyftheories,ut s a historyofproblem-situationsndtheirmodifications"p. 177).By definition,heoriesnpoliticalciencemust e scientific,ndtheymustbe aboutpolitics.No reader fthis ssayneedbe remindedfthecontinuingagonies ndantipathieseneratednpolitical cience verdecidingwhethero-litical cience s a "science" nany enseofthe erm nd ustwhowillgetwhat,when, ndhowbydeterminingthecontentf "thepolitical."Nevertheless,some neliminablyartisanudgmentsnthese onnectionsreessentialfonlytodetermineelevantpisodes fthehistory,odistinguishhe scientific"romthe"extra-scientific"ctivitiesfpast political cientists,r todistinguishhehistoryfpolitical cience romhehistoryf relatedctivities,ncluding,ay,sociology, conomics, rpolitical hought oregenerally. lso inthebalancemayhang henominationf a founder-or t east nhonorablementionffig-ures na distantast-if, ofcourse, hehistorians into hatineofbusiness.f


5/22

1178 James arrbypolitical cience, nemeans nly hemore-or-lessmpiricaltudyfpracticalpolitics-as Murray1925) traditionallyid-then Aristotleiguresirst.fonemeans hehistoricallynductivetudy frealpolitik,henMachiavelli eservesthehonor. fonemeans hededuction f the haracterfthemoderntate romthefirstrinciplesfmotion, henHobbesplays hepart. f one means heNew-toniannspirationo"reduce oliticso a science," henHume ndother iguresof the cottishnlightenmenteserve nitialmentionsee Farr, 988).Ifbypo-litical cience, nemeans n academic iscipline ith Schooldevotedostudy-ing he ausalnexus fpolitics-as Somit ndTanenhaus1967)did-then JohnW.Burgess iguress founder;ndeverythingefore he choolofPolitical ci-encefoundedt ColumbiaUniversityn1880willbe "prehistory."Ofcourse, he science"-fthese ounders-these ead Heads,as one ofmy tudentsnce put t-may be questioned. kepticsmaywell think hat er-formance ifferedrom romise, rthat, ay,certain ormativeommitmentssubvertedheir cientificuest. Suchskeptics, ccordingly,oulddatetheori-gins fpolitical cience nthemore ecent ast, aywithMerriam,asswell, hebehavioral evolution,r theriseofpositive olitical cience as Riker uggestsinFinifter,983,p. 47). Somemight ven rgue hat s ofyet here as beenno"genuine" oliticalcience ospeak f. ronically,his s an oldclaim hat cien-tificeformersnpoliticalciencehavebeen ager opress orwellover centurynow.John tuartMilldid;so too didWilliam . Munrowhenn1928 hespokeof "thebackwardnessnwhatmaybe calledthepure cience fpolitics" 1928,p. 1). Similar entimentsavebeenheardmore ecently,s readerswillremem-ber.Thishas at leastoneintriguingistoriographicalonsequence. ince thereis nogenuine olitical cience, hereanbe nohistoryf t.Onehopesfor fu-ture ast.Facing heprospectfhaving ogenuinelycientificast oremember,hehistorianfpolitical ciencemightindonsolationntwoways.He orshemightbe satisfied,ndwisely o,to dentifypolitical cience"nominally,hats,as ascience nname nly.Accordingly,e orshewillprove oberelativelyenerousintelling he alesofthosewho,on their wnreckoningnd forwhateverea-sons,identifiedheir heories nd methods s contributionso "political ci-ence." Thehistorian ere elaxes ontemporarytandardsf"science" norderto dentifyis orher ubjectmatter;ndheorshefollows hehistoriographicalrule f thumb: herever e- ear rreadof"political cience,"theres enoughpolitical cience o tell tshistory.

The historianf political cience, econd,mightocusnot o much n po-litical cience, ut npolitical cience.Thiswill ntail ot nly ayingwhat ortofpolitics oliticalcience tudies utwhat ort fpolitics olitical cience n-gages n. Foronpainofwritingtterlyloodless istory,hehistorianfpoliti-cal sciencewillwant otell he tories fpoliticalcientistsndofthe ctivitiesinwhich heywere ngaged. cience tselfomprises numberfactivities,f


6/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 1179course, utbeyondhemreother ctivitiesf a more eadilydentifiableoliti-cal sort.Whilethese ctivitiesmayvary, heres thehistoricallyredominantone of educatingemocraticitizens. necouldeven nsist hat olitical ctivi-ties suchas this ne,orevenothers f greater ublicvisibility,epresenthoseactivitiesponwhich hevery dentityf political ciencehas restedndshouldagainrest.No matter hat hoices historianfpoliticalciencemakesn order o tellhis orher tory,ther istorians illcomplain ndcriticize.Whateverlse theydo,historiansfpolitical ciencedo notmerely ecord hepast, ndwhen heycriticize neanother,t s seldom implyvermattersf fact.Our discussion othis oint astried o establishomeofthe xtrafactualhemesy whichwe canunderstandhe ccomplishmentsndcriticismsfdifferentistoriansfpoliticalscience, ndthese hemes repreciselyhose boutwhich istorianseveal heirmost artisanudgments.Whetherbout heories r science rpolitics rfound-ersorepisodesworthyfremembrance,uchpartisanudgments aywellandusuallywilldivide ne historianrom nother.o, for xample,fonehistorianfails o makeperfectlylear hepolitical s opposed othe cientificdentityfpolitical cience as CharlesMerriam rguably id, f only n his 1925 book),then emightncur hewrath f another istorianfpoliticalcience-like Ber-nardCrick 1959). Crick houghthat oliticalcience, t east nAmerica, ar-bored omedefiniteolitical eliefs f a distinctlyiberal ort nd thatwritinghistory f political cience ccordingo scientificriteria imply ecapitulatedthose iberal eliefs.He argued uite lainlyhat the lassificationof he evel-opmentfpoliticalcience] ccordingomethodologys itselfhe xpressionfsome ubstantiveolitical eliefs, haracteristicf American olitical hought"(1959,p. xv).Crick's bservationesponded irectlyo CharlesMerriam's1925) influen-tialperiodizationf "the hief ines fdevelopmentfthe tudyfpolitical ro-cesses" (p. 132).1. Thea priorinddeductivemethod,own o 1850.2. Thehistoricalndcomparative ethod, 850- 1900.3. Thepresentendencyowardbservation,urvey, easurement,900-.4. Thebeginningsf thepsychologicalreatmentfpolitics.

Proceedingn reverseemporalrder,we have a baredawn,25 years, 0years,nd22 centuries.Thismaywell endup warninglags or hehistorianfpolitical cience,n additionothose oliticalnsigniahat rick spiedflutteringthere. orother ecent eriodizations,eeEaston,1985,and BerndtsonnAnc-kar ndBerndtson,987).Butthe mportantoint eresthatMerriamntendedtobe scientificnd relevant henperiodizinghehistoryfpolitical cience nthisway. ndoing o, though, e too wasbeing ritical fthosewhowouldperi-odize thehistoryfpolitical ciencedifferently,nd he was using hishistory


7/22

i i8o James Farrvery xplicitlyo criticizehose olitical cientists howere nsufficientlyeth-odological nd nsufficientlysychologicalntheir ractice.

History,n sum, an be usedto serve ontemporaryurposes.n Merriam'scase, twas usedtounderwriteisownprogramoprovide oliticalciencewitha methodologicaloundationnexperimentalsychology.n Easton's ase itwasusedtoclear hedeckfor ystemsheory.n Crick's ase it wasusedto criticizethe political ssumptionsf American olitical cience. In Somitand Tan-enhaus's ase itwasusedtohelp hedisciplinessess ts hen resenttate n thelatter aysofbehavioralism'sscendancy.ndeed t s hard o imagine hat is-torywill not erve his r that ontemporaryurpose. uthere oo s udgmentandpartisanshipndthe pportunityor utureriticism.2

The authors f ThatNoble Science of Politics ntroduceheirworkwithsomemethodologicalriticismsfprevioustactfullynnamed) istoriansfpo-litical cience.Their irsts too humorousndtoo mportantot oquote n full.No future istorianf political ciencewillwanthis or herhistoryo fit heirlampoon.There s anunfortunatelyamiliar ayofsimplifyinghe omplexityfthe ntellectualife fthepast nto convenientlynified tory, nethat s particularlyavoured hen upposedlytracing hehistoryf a modem cademicdiscipline, specially, erhaps, discipline rawnfromwhat re nowregardeds the ocial sciences. n essence t consists nwriting istorybackwards. he presentheoreticalonsensus fthediscipline,rpossibly ome polemicalversion f what hat onsensus hould e, is in effectaken s definitive,ndthepast s thenreconstituteds a teleologyeading ptoandfullymanifestedn t.Pastauthorsre nductedinto he anon fthediscipline s precursorsr forebears,ndpassed n reviews though ygeneral istributingedals-and sometimeseprimands-athe nd f successfulampaign,with he sefulmplied orollaryhatfmedals an be distributedhe ampaignmust avebeenbroughto a satisfactoryonclusion ndthediscipline uly stablished. helistofcanonicalprecursors,rrayedn chronologicalrder,ach wearing labelconvenientlyummarisingis"contribution,"hen ecomes hehistoryfthedisciplinenquestion.As with official isto-ries" inrecentlystablished epublics,ival eams fgreat redecessors aybe assemblednthisway, stensiblyoproclaimndhonour traditionfsurprisingntiquity,ut nfact olegitimatehe laims fthe urrentrotagonistsn the truggleor ower. (1983, p. 4)No reader f ThatNobleScienceofPoliticswill find n "official istory"betweentscovers.Whatheorshe willfind s a first-ratentellectualistoryfnineteenth-centuryritish olitical cience hatwill setstandardsor hehisto-

riographyfthe ocial sciences or ome ime.He or shemust, owever,epre-pared o encounter "curiouslylien"subjectmatterndforgo ny hopesofmappingnddefendinghe"nebulous rovince" hat olitical ciencehas be-come pp. 3, 365).Collini,Winch, ndBurrow ave chosen a subjectwhichno longer p-pearsonmodernmapsofknowledge"ndwhich s "only ndirectlyelated owhat he wentiethenturyascome o know sthe isciplinefpoliticalcience


8/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE I 181(p. 3). Withglancesback at David Hume,AdamSmith, nd those nlightenedScotsmen hofirst opularizedhevery anguage fthe scienceof politics" nthe ighteenthentury,he uthorsffer series f elective tudiesnnineteenth-centuryolitical cience eginning ith he ater cottish nlightenmentigure,DugaldStewartnd ndingwith he ormalntroductionf "political cience"tothe yllabus t Cambridgen the losingyears f the entury. long heway-andoften onnected y ittlemore han heir ominalnvocationfthe erm po-litical cience"-severalgreaternd esser igures ake heir ppearance,o betreatedt some ength,mong hem homasMalthus, avidRicardo, irJamesMackintosh,homasB. Macaulay, ames ndJohntuartMill,Walter agehot,William tubbs, ir Henry umnerMaine,E. A. Freeman, irJohn eeley,JamesBryce,Cliffe eslie,WilliamCunningham, . J. Ashley,Henry idg-wick,AlfredMarshall, rahamWallas, nda host fwalk-ons.Each of the leven haptersplus prologuendepilogue)bringso ight nimportantpisodeofthisneglected tretchf ntellectualistory. achchapterdisplays lose textualnd contextualnalysis.Theories, roblems,ituations,and scientistsometo ife, ven ftheyrealleged o be "curiouslylien." Theauthorsetthewords fthepast nimate hepast, ndthey eitherconduct ninquisition" or mpose n nfallible ersion fscience n thehistoryfpoliticalscience,forthey onfess o being "agnostic n fundamental. . epistemo-logical problems" p. 7). In short,f "political cience" was a good enoughboast raspiration centurygo, it sgoodenough orhistoryoday.ThatNoble Science ofPoliticsborrowsts title rom homas BabingtonMacaulay'sextravagantncomium f 1829 to "thatNoble Scienceof Poli-tics . . which, f ll sciences,s themostmportantothewelfarefnations,-which f all sciences,most ends o expand nd invigoratehemind,-whichdrawsnutrimentndornamentromvery art fphilosophynd iterature,nddispenses,n return, utrimentnd ornamento all" (p. 128). Et cetera,etcetera, t cetera.This is pretty eadypraise,outdone nlybyJohnAdams'ssomewhatarlierermonizingbout thedivine cience fpolitics" eliverednocean away.Now Collini,Winch, nd Burrowre not akennbyMacaulay'svisionof thatnoble science.Theysharenoneofthat amousWhig'spolitics,historiography,rpenchantorprogress.While hey regenerallyympathetic(inthehistorians'pecial ort fway)withMacaulay ndthe ther oliticalci-entistshey iscuss, hey ever lloW im rthemobeabove riticismor his rthat oible f ntellection.ndthey everetJohn tuartMillrest, espite heirdenials f nquisition:How utter asMill'sfailureo mplementhe rogramfBook VI" of theLogic p. 151).One could well magineuchcriticismssuingin a narrativefsubsequent rogress,ven uccess, ndealingwithMill'spro-gram r with heprogramf others. ut nothingfthe orthappens ere.Theauthors re so partisanbouttheir eing"anti-Whig" p. 5) thatnothinge-motelyike"progress"s espied.Even thewords tradition"nd"continuity"and"development"re usedsparinglyndsuspiciously.


9/22

II82 James arrConsequently,he uthors avealleged o offer either "comprehensivesurvey" or "continuous arrative"p. 3). There s more han little nder-

statementnthis, t east nthat hebookoffershemost omprehensiveurveytodate,and theessaysoverlapnenoughwaysto at least ntimateignificantcontinuities.herewas a certain teadiness fthecategoriesndconcepts fnineteenth-centuryritisholiticalife hat llowed ts cience oenjoy relativestability,fnot omeprogress. lso,as the hapterubtitleshemselvesuggest,theoriesfmethod ominateachchapter,ndthey stablish arrativeontinu-ity. Indeed eaders represumedo know uite bit bout he ubstantiveoliti-caltheoriesfthe oliticalcientistsnder iscussion).nthis tory oliticalci-enceproves o be an intellectualractice,rthe spirationowardne, whosemethodologicalheoriesnd foundations ere ontestednandbetween enera-tions. hus, lthoughevern"overly eatpatterns"p. 280), thehistoryfpo-litical cience s thehistoryfthe ompetitionetween hephilosophicmethod,thehistoricalmethod, he comparative ethod,nd the method f reflectiveanalysis. hecategoriesf nductionersus eductionreoften eard. orthosecontemporaryolitical cientistsaised n a diet fscope-and-methodexts,herichvarietiesndsubtle efensesf nductionnd deductionmakefor ascinat-ingreading-for change.Furthermore-andhis oocouldhavebeenbetterrticulateds a theme fnarrativeontinuity-the ethodologicalebates adtheir olitical earings.nparticular,he ravails frepresentativeemocracy ere eltnpoliticalcience.Atonepointnthe eventhhapter,n"the ppeal ftheComparative ethod,"the uthorsntimates much ngeneral erms: Demonstratingrdenyinghepossibilityf successful opulargovernmentad,ofcourse,been one of themostmportantracticalpurs othedevelopmentfa science fpolitics rom tleast hemiddle f the entury"p. 237).Themethod fpoliticsndthepolitics f methodrehardly istinguishablewhen urningoparticularpisodes, s well.Thus,for xample, eadersre re-mindedf"thepolitical haracterfpolitical conomy" ecause"itwas,aboveall, itscommandingole nthediscussion fpublic ffairshatmadepoliticaleconomy prize o clearlyworth ightingor" ppr 261, 274-75). The com-parativemethod,o take notherxample, egannot s a meremethodologicalexercisenclassificationmuchess "remorselessataloguing," . 243)but s anadjunct o a developmentalrameworkn essentially ryan-racialistines thatnaturallyad tsuses ntheEmpire.Or, yet gain, onsider hemethodological

plea by JamesBrycefor"Facts,Facts,Facts." American olitical cientistsmight ememberhewords fthis utureourthresidentftheAPSA as anepi-graphnthe Political ystemwhere tbecamea convenientarget f Easton's(1953) assault n "hyperfactualism"nd "crude mpiricism"pp. 63-78). Inthe tory y Collini,Winch, ndBurrow, owever, ryce's energetic mpiri-cism" is presentedotonly s a methodologicalosition ut lso as a political


10/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE II83one thatwas enlistedofightgnorancend so-in one of thebest inesof thebook-"to makeAmerica afefor emocracy'supporters"p. 240).

Inthe nd,what id tcometo andwhat oes tmean ous today? ollini,Winch, nd Burrow re forthcomingn answeringheformer uestion: It istemptingo conclude hat or ver centuryhe ategoryfa 'science fpolitics'had been as empty s a dress-maker'sindow, eady o be filled y the atestwaveoffashion"p. 376). One is also temptedo saythat hedressmakers stillinbusiness. ut he uthors o not hemselvesaythis; hey nly emotelyint twhat ort fpracticeshey hinknhabithe nebulous rovince" fpoliticalci-ence nourcentury.ndeed, hey ay hardlynythingtall about ontemporarypolitical cience rits connection ith hepast.The "curiouslylien" subjectmatterfThatNobleScienceof-Politicss allowed o remain urious ndalien.Whiletheres somethingefreshinglyonest bout hishistoriographicalposture,newondersf tdoes not ell tself hort.nany ase,onewonders owtoencourage ontemporaryoliticalcientists ho ake heir isciplineeriouslytoreadthis mportantook-assuming, s is likely,hat heywillyearn oseesome onnectionsetween ast ndpresent,ndeven omehopesfor hefuture.Well, ontemporaryoliticalcientistsssuredly illnot ind long-lostatalogofready-maderoblemsrtheoriesrdatawhichmight e resumed orthwith.Theymight, owever,indheir redecessorsonsiderablyess alien han dver-tised, ot nlyntheirmethodologicalisputes,many fwhich ontinueodaynvirtuallyhe same terms, ut when consideringheir roader ttachmentodemocraticolitics. his connects ast ndpresent,nd perhaps oints eyond.As one historianfpoliticalciencehasrecentlybserved, olitical cience co-incidedwith he growthf representativeemocracy. he logical conclusionseems obe that hedevelopmentfpolitical cience s we understandt s de-pendentn thefuturefrepresentativeemocracy"Berndtsonn Anckar ndBerndtson,987,p. 98). If,even f, his eems ogivepolitical cience particu-larly ragiledentityn thepresentontext-which,s we shall eebelow,RicciandSeidelman oth ntimate-thenerhapshenineteenthentury rovides swithmaterialsor eflectionotbecauseof tsnoblepretensions,utbecauseofitsvery shortcomings"p. 376). Arewedoomed orepeathepast? fso, let tnotbe becausewe forgothose spirationsow centuryndmore ld,or failedto earn rom heir ailures.

3Two purposesnformheverydifferentnterprisef Politics nd Para-digms.ntracinghe hangentheoriesfchange,Andrew . Janos ets ut 1)"to write n intellectualistory,oweverketchy,f theevolution f modernpolitical cience" nd 2) "totake tock, oclarify,nd ocreate rdermongherecent ropofcompetingheories"p. 4). Thefirsturpose opestoenlightenthedisciplinebout tsrecent trials ndtribulations." he secondhopesto


11/22

II84 James arrbenefit olitical cientistsin organizingmpirical esearch ndincomparingpolitical henomenanWestern, on-Western,nd Communistocieties,withina single,unifiedntellectualonstruct"p. 4). Since the book ends on a very"cautious" note-that "instead fformulatinget nother eneral heory, eseem to be contentwithdiscerningoci of indeterminacyn larger ycles ofchange" pp. 153-54)-one cannot utconclude hat he secondpurpose asnotbeen fully ealized, inceno unifiedntellectualonstructnfact merges.IndeedJanos's enultimateine hints t somethingust shyof despair: socialscientistsreate obust tructuresn theknowledgehat heymaybe standingnquicksand" p. 154).Asour enterfgravityinks, he ookdeservestsdue. t s, nthe pirit fthe econd urpose, helpful ibliographicalssayfor dvanced tudentsofallages) nterestednanoverview f mostly ecent)heories fpolitical hange. tshouldprove specially idworthyor hose tudents ho, ikeJanoshimself,have particularheoreticalroblem ndwhowant oassessor to ntroducehatproblemnbroaderntellectualerms. riginally,anos lanned isbook s "theintroductionoa larger tudy esignedocomparehepolitics fEastern uropeinthepre-Communistnd Communisteriods" p. vii).The first urpose fPolitics nd Paradigms-to write n intellectualis-toryfmodernoliticalcience-concerns shere.Unlike ollini,Winch, ndBurrow, anos esigns nunabashedlyisciplinaryistoryhat eadsuptoandtries o nformhepresent. e focuses ery electivelyntheoriesfchange, sopposed o thedisciplines a wholeortothemethodologicaldeaof"politicalscience" tself.And,most mportant,e organizes ishistoryround muchstrongernd morescientific arrativeevice-namely, paradigms, r ratherparadigmhifts,nthe ensegiven o thisnotion ome25 years go byThomasKuhn.While his astfeaturefthe ook sa presumptivetrength,t s infact tscentral eakness.

The antipositivistodelof scientifichangethatKuhn sketchedn theStructurefScientificevolutionspublishedn1962 ronicallyn thepositivistEncyclopedia fUnifiedcience)haspromptedo much iscussionndso muchcriticismhat nescarcely eeds ogloss t t all. Janos imself akes hort orkof t n his ntroductionndconclusionnd, nthe rocess, ails rchoosesnot omentioney ermsike "normalcience," exemplars," puzzle-solving,"in-commensurability,"r "scientificevolutions." he relativisticeaturesrenotunderscored,speciallyKuhn's wnskepticismbout ny cross-paradigmo-tions ftheoreticalrogress. rimmingnd simplifying,hen,Janos aysthatparadigmsre"constructsdentifyingroad elationshipsetweenwoormoregeneral ategories,ogether ith omebasicassumptionsoncerninghenatureofa largerniverse"p. 1). Theoretically,aradigmsrganize esearch,ndpsy-chologicallyndsociologically,hey ind esearchersnto community.t s inthenature fthingshat aradigmsiscovernomalies, houghhese re shelved


12/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE II85wheneverossible.Butover ime hese nomaliesmountnd ead to crisis. Inthe nd, he isciplinemay imply ollapse" p. 2), or tmay ssue n a newpara-digm hat, trictlypeaking,s incompatible ith he ormerne. Janosmentionsthehistoryfphysics s the rchetypalxample fall this.He goes on to ac-knowledge,s hemust, hat Kuhn's riticsmaywellbe ustifiedn questioningthe universal elevance f the model. Still,"he continues,the sequenceofevents e suggests ndthe oncept f a paradigmhift eem o beeminentlyp-plicable o the xperiencefthe ocial sciences, ndwithin hem, o the xperi-enceofpoliticalnquiry"p. 3).This s a surprisinglyanguineudgment. uhn's wnmisgivingsbout hesocial sciencesbeing"pre-paradigmatic"-theirnterminablyarring choolsof thought,heirnabilityoshare xemplarsr a common et ofpuzzles-arecited utnotheeded yJanos. nstead, eaders reassured hat over heyears,however,heparadigmoncept ained uick nd widespreadcceptancemongstudentsfsocial science nd thehumanities"p. 157,n. 6). This s at best noverstatement;t worst, imply alse.And thebasisfor he udgments nevermade lear. ndeed n comparison ith he ich ndnearly xhaustiveitationfworksbout heoriesfpolitical hange,Janos nly ites he tructurefScien-tific evolutionstselfndthree ssays n an edited olumeGutting,980)tosupportishistoriographicallaims.But lmostverytherunmentioned)ssayinthat ery olume-notto mention umerousthersfor eginningsnpoliticalsciencealone, see Landau, 1972; Moon, 1975; Ball, 1976; and Bernstein,1978)-reject orqualitativelyransformuhn's deas, especially or he ocialsciences.M. D. King ays hat sociologistsannot . . expect o findnKuhn'swork ready-madeheoryfscientifichange" Gutting, 980,p. 115);MarkBlaugoffershe ummaryudgmenthat thetermparadigm' ught o beban-ished rom conomiciterature"p. 137);andthe ditor imselfeclares hat itwould lmost urely e a good deato declare moratoriumnapplicationsfKuhn o themethodologyndhistoryf the ocial sciences" p. 18).Even fthe deaofa paradigm ere nprinciplerreproachable,nemightstill uestionomeof theparticularistoriographicaludgmentsn Politics ndParadigms. onsider, or tarters,he dentityfthefirstclassical"paradigm.Itturns nthe oncept f nnovationndespeciallyhehumanttempto masterthematerialnvironment,hetheruchmasterys furtherxplainedntermsfindividualelf-interestr n terms foverall ocial quilibrium.hisparadigmsfoundednthe1760sbyAdamSmith, nd tsprincipal rotagonistshereafterinclude ll the ociologicalmastersf thenineteenthentury: arlMarx,Au-gusteComte,Herbertpencer, mileDurkheim,ndMax Weber.The neo-classicalvariant f theparadigm-developedoextendts mplicationsonon-Westernocieties-found hampionsnThorstein eblen,V. I. Lenin,TalcottParsons,nd host frelativelyecentcholars,ncluding altRostow, eymourMartin ipset, amuelHuntington,arlDeutsch, ucien ye,Barringtonoore,


13/22

II86 James arrand Reinhard endix to whom hebook s dedicated). hen, ometimenthemid o ate 1960s, he classicalparadigm" ouldno onger xplain ew noma-lousdevelopments-in atinAmerica,nAfrica,nEastern urope.Anewpara-digm merged, e aretold, ne which ook more lobalpurchasenpoliticalchange nd emphasizedulturalnd postindustrial,s wellas material, actors.Perry nderson, hedaSkocpol,Daniel Bell,MorrisJanowitz,mmanuelWal-lerstein, ndreGunder rank, bigniew rzezinski, eweryn ialer,KennethJowett,ndJurgen abermas-to begin much onger ist-came to and con-tinue oarticulatehisnewparadigm.One couldbe forgivenor hinkinghat hesevarious heoristsaced uchsignificantlyifferentroblemsn such radically ifferentituationshat heydo notform wo oherent holes-, uch essparadigmsn Kuhn's ense.Janos'stwo "paradigms" ppear o be heuristic evices-holding anks, eally-for asweeping iversityf theories hat verlapnvariousways nd that,withouty-pological iolation,ouldbe sortednto ery ifferentets nd nto far reaternumber f them han wo.On thematterf dates andchangesngeneral, anos s right: omethinghappenednthe ate 1960swhichnfluenced wide range f (liberal, onser-vative, ndMarxist)hinkers. nd he does hint tan importantxplanationorchanges ntheories fchange even fthey o notcomprise paradigm).Hesuggests, ightly,hat thedominantositionfneo-liberalocial cience ndofthetheoryf modernizationassociatedwith he so-called lassicalparadigm]cameto an abrupt nd nthe ate 1960s under he mpact fdevelopmentshatshatteredhecomplacent orld festablishedocialscience," especially therise of radical entimenturing heVietnam ra" (p. 70). Political cience n-deedoftenhangests heories ecause fnewpolitical evelopmentsxternaloits theories nd the cademytself.Janos ould andperhapshouldhave madeevenmore fthis nd tsbearingnthehistoryfmodernolitical cience, spe-ciallygivenhisknowledgeableensitivityo thepolitical eanings fdifferenttheoriesndtheoristsfpolitical hange.But one thingmerits inalnotice: ftrue,not Kuhnian.Kuhn's ketch f scientifichange-in general nd, espe-cially, ntheparticularase studies eprovides-depends pon developmentsinternalo the scientificommunity.n theend, then,we should ookbeyondparadigmsor narrative-and specially or political arrative-to ell thehistoryfpolitical cience.

4If Kuhndoes not rovidenappropriatearrativerameworkor hehistoryofpolitical cience, e nonethelesslays significantartnone of ts pisodes.Indeed o suggestive asheinthe1960sthat e seemed apableofperformingvirtuallyny ask, t east nthehands fhismany askmasters. henhewas notbeingusedto condemn oliticalTheory ndpraisePolitical cience,he was


14/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE II87beingusedto condemn olitical cienceand praisePolitical heory. n DavidRicci's 1984) tellingf this ontradictorypisode,Kuhnplayed part-along-side heCounterculture,heCaucusfor NewPolitical cience, he hiftopolicystudies,nd mainstreamolitical cientists ho"co-opted"him-in thedisci-pline's evelopmenturinghat decadeofdisillusionment"hen he niversitiesexplodednstudent emonstrations,iberalismostmost fits vitality,ehav-ioralismighed he ast gasp of "Popperism,"nd thecrisis f democracy e-camea crisis n thediscipline.Ifthis eems sweeping toryine hats in equal parts ociology fknowl-edge,methodology,emocraticheory,nddrama, hen t s a plotby design.The TragedyfPolitical ciencetells dramatictory f "American oliticalscience s an academic iscipline"p. 3), sociologicallyormedndtransformedas a profession ithinhe modern niversity,ethodologicallyixated n the"Templeof Science" (p. 54), politicallyndtheoreticallyedicated o under-standingnd transmittinghevaluesofdemocracy.uttrouble roods ver hisstory ecausethe discipline's ursuitf scienceconflicts ith ts devotion odemocraticolitics. ime ndagain,politicalcientistsiscover hingshat enykey enetsf democraticheory,articularlyhe ationalitynd nformednessfordinaryitizens. ommitmentovalue-freenquiryndthe efinementfscien-tificechniqueslsoproscribehe copeofstudynto ndispensableemocraticvalues, uchas patriotismnd mutual espect. he organizationalressures fthemodern niversityerpetuatehe conflict etween cience nddemocracy,particularlyycounselingafe cience tthe xpense fpublishingorks friskandrelevanceodemocracy.ndeed o persistents the onflict etween hedis-cipline'swo "good ends" ("the acceptancef scientificechniquesnd attach-mentodemocraticdeals,"p. 24) thatn t Riccifinds isnarrativeevice.Heanalogizes hepredicamentfpoliticalcience oa literaryragedy,eminiscentof Oedipus,Antigone,r BillyBudd. "As a tragic rotagonist,hediscipline'scollectivehortcomings located n a stubbornnsistencen studying oliticsscientifically,venthough nquiryn thatmodecannot nsure he health f ademocraticociety" p. 25).Thewholehistoryfpolitical cience s a stage, hen, nd eachof tsepi-sodesplays otragedy.he Kuhn pisode s only ne,orratherart fone,anditbegins he torynmediares.After generalntroductoryhapter, iccibe-ginshishistory roperwith omegeneral ociological bservationsbout thelocus of higher ducation"nthe ate nineteenthentury hen heuniversitiesreplacedolleges nd when he earned isciplinesreated rofessionalssocia-tions onsistent ithmiddle-classulture.n chapter we witness hebirthfpoliticalcience s an academic isciplinet the urn f the entury,houghhe"contradictions"f tsdevelopmentpto1930reflecthe ntellectualndpoliti-calcommitmentso iberalism hich redisciplinaryoliticalciencehadforgedas early s 1825.From hebeginning,hen, herewasa tragic elos.


15/22

I i88 James arrBecauseAmericawas sooverwhelminglyevoted o the rinciplesndpracticesfdemocraticliberalism,he ndfor oliticalciencewasvirtuallyaiddown nadvance, nd nydiscoveriesthedisciplinemightmakewould itherngenderupportor hat nd or-and herewas thedanger-detract romxisting upport y revealinghe xistence f badcitizenshipnden-couragingmore fthe ame. (p. 70)Chapters through ("The NewViewofScience nd Politics," The Be-havioral ersuasion," nd "The Decade of Disillusionment") akeup thehis-torical enterpiecef thebook. They pan ndperiodize themidcenturyiberalmatrix" rom 930 to about1975.The subsequentwochapters re more na-lytical, specially he ighth n themethodologicalebates vernomotheticawswhich ttendedommunityower tudies nd criticalheory.ndiscussing theloss of wisdom" pp.236ff.), he seventh hapter nticipates he essentiallymoral eflectionsfthe ast hapter, hich hares hebook's itle, utwhich lsoasks "can somethinge done?"Each chapter eepsup an energetic ace ustshort f breathtaking.ebatesovermethodologynd democraticheoryustainthe ragic arrativeet ntheuniversity.coresofpolitical cientists ake p-pearances,most fthem ather rief-from rancis ieber ndJohnW.BurgesstoWoodrowWilson ndCharlesMerriam oRobert ahl and WilliamRiker.Ironically-ifonlybecause theywerenot academicpolitical cientists-John

Dewey ndKarlPopper eceive hemost ustainedttentionfall. So influentialdoes Riccifind heir eflectionsn science nddemocracyhat e evenhas twoideologies merge rom hem, amely, eweyism nd Popperism.Theoverall rameworkor icci's houghtfulnd mbitious istoryfAmeri-canpolitical cience eems bsolutelyhe ightne:the onnectionfAmericanpolitical ciencewithAmericanolitics,whichnthenature f thebeastmeansliberalismndrepresentativeemocracy. oreover,hehistory elps erve on-temporaryoral ndpolitical eflectionsnthe iscipline'soss of andhopesforrecovering isdom nddemocraticervice.npassing n review o many vents,theories,ndtheorists,heTragedy fPolitical cience masses bibliographictreasure.he footnoteslonewill ssist racticingistoriansfAmericanoliti-cal science, specially hosewho will want ochase down his r that heorist,this r that isciplinaryrisis.Doubtless, omeskepticswill oin this hase. Somemight, or xample,challengehe reatmentfPopper,rratheropperism.Whilenot politicalci-entist, opper oesseem o fit he tory uitewell. Hewas nfluentialnthe ost-WorldWar I period, specially or isbookswhich spoused liberal nd cien-tific open society." Popper alledthese ookshis "warwork.") However, ismethodologicalnfluencenpoliticalcience, specially ehavioraloliticalci-ence, smuchessclear, ndRicci'sdiscussionndfootnoteso not stablisht.Whenbehavioralistenets nd their hilosophicalona fideswerearticulated(and often, fcourse, heywere eft omewhatague),they requentlympha-sizedpositivisticotions fverification,perationalization,ndpsychological


16/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE I I89hypothesesbouthuman ehavior. utPopper ntended is doctrine ffalsifica-tion orefute ot upplementerification;perationalizationmphasizedhe m-portancefredefiningoncepts, task hat opper hought as relatively inorfor he growthfknowledge;ndthe method f situationalnalysiswas for-warded odisplacefnotreplace sychology.o wonder e boasted f "killingpositivism"1976, p. 88). If, as Ricciclaims, Popperism" anbe furtherred-itedwithprovidingn accumulationistr "building-block"onceptionf thegrowthfsciencep. 141),a "straight-line"iewofknowledgep. 142), and acall forpiecemeal esearchas opposed opiecemeal ocialengineering),henPopperwas noPopperist. iven his, opperismeems o fit he tory atheroowell,as if t wererequiredo. Suspicions longthis core renot llayedwithtransitionsf thiskind: Andso, forour toryo continuemoothly,twas nec-essary hat large-scalehift o Popperismakeplace. It did, conveniently,in what ametobe called the end of ideology'movement"p. 126; empha-sis added).The very dea oftragedylso seemsmore han trifle trained.While tmakes or rhetoricallyhargeditle ndpromises dramatic arrativeevice,theres norealfallof the ollective rotagonistpolitical cience)from greatheight. ndthough ach generationries crisis,"political ciencehas not uf-fered prolongedgony fhistoricalelf-revelation,uch essself-destruction,characteristicf an Oedipusor an Antigone. ess grandly,t is notclear thatpolitical cience must ailtragicallyo achieve cienceand servedemocracy.Ricci himself ints t this nd nevermore o thanwhenhe asks nconclusion,"Can somethingedone?"He is notwildly ptimisticbout hedisciplines awhole, ince there s "nothingrvery ittle" t can do (even though e adds,ratherurprisingly,hat there s great irtuen theoverall hapeofthedisci-pline," p. 308). But as individual olitical cientists hoteach nuniversitiesandcolleges,we can be morehistoricalp. 311); we can encourage eflectioninto he dmittedlyntangiblerealm f morals" p. 304); andwe can "searchoutwisdom ia renewededicationocontinuinggreat onversationmbodiedingreat ooks,new ndold" (p. 315).Ricciis wise nottomakeoverlymuch ftheseproposals.Butwe mightnotice nefinalhingbout hem.Althoughheyretendereds contributionsosomethingther han he Temple fScience,"they o revivendrememberhemeaningf"science"inthe ighteenthndnineteenthenturiesnthose ntel-lectual racticesxplicitlyalled"moral cience" nd"political cience" ofthesortCollini,Winch, ndBurrow iscussed).One stepbackmight elpus taketwo tepsforward. ut this uggests otonly hatwemight et earnfromhepast,but hatndoing o we aredoingnothingessandnothing ore hanwhatpoliticalciencehasalways one,namely, ngagingn that isciplinaryitual freconceptualizingscience" (and perhaps democracy," oo). In this time-honored aywe continueohope oavoid ragedy,ot uffert.


17/22

II90 James arr5

The prospectsfthis ope oming o good accountmaywelldepend ponfuture eyond iberalism.hiswouldbe an enchanted ewworld orAmericanpolitical cientists, professionf realists eretoforeisenchanted ith heirvery wnprogramsor iberal eform. iven hepast, hefuturean only ookbright. onsider henot ltogetherptimisticlosing aragraphfDisenchantedRealists, he astof ourfour ecent istoriesfpolitical cience.Historically,olitical cienceprofessionalismas onlyobscured undamentalonflictsndchoices n American ublic ife,for t has treated itizens s objects fstudy r clients f abenign olitical aternalism.he democraticelusions f American olitical ciencehave l-ways xcluded ndfeared futureeyondiberalism. ntil olitical cientistsealize hat heirdemocraticolitics annot e realized hroughbarren rofessionalism,ntellectualifewillremain leavedfrom hegenuinefheretoforeubterraneanemocratic reams fAmericancitizens. oliticalcience istoryasconfirmedhis eparation,ven s ithastried obridget.Modempoliticalciencemust ridget, fdelusions re o betransformednto ewdemocraticrealities. (p. 241)No inductiveallacyscommittedere, oput tmildly. he futurefpoliti-cal sciencemust e different,ince tspast-or at eastonRaymondeidelman

andEdwardHarpham's elling fa good part f tspast-revealsa "tradition"marked y generationalycles foptimism ith heprospects f realistic oliti-cal reformurningour nthefaceoftherealitiesfstate olitics ndpopularindifference.he intractabilityfthese raw slabsofreality" p. 85) seemstohavefinally one n this radition-thisthirdradition," centuryessvener-ablethan he ther wo raditions,he nstitutionalistnd he adical emocratic-that t intended o replace.Until he "eclipseof unity," oughlyontempo-raneouswith hepostbehavioralra, political cientists howerepartofthisthird raditionblended cholarshipndpolitical dvocacy, science fpoliticswith science for'politics" p. 3). In particular,hey ought o "molda newStatewithwhat hey saw]as nativeAmericanorms fdemocraticegitimacy"(p. 8). Butdisenchantmentnd disillusionmentvercome achgenerationrom1884 to 1984,untilwe cannowspeakoftheveritable,fnot uite pocalyptic,"endof the hird radition"ch. 7). Whateverts cientificspirations,ontem-porary olitical cience s atpresentargely political, t least nthatwe nowwitness the ncreasingnsulationfpolitical cience romherealitiesfpoli-tics,power ndprotestntwentiethenturymerica"p. xix).Seidelman ndHarpham pread his toryutover even hapters,he en-tral ive f which rehistorical. achofthese ive hapters resentshe heoriesand ctivitiesftwo eading oliticalcientistsnthe hirdradition.esterWardandWoodrowWilson epresenthe mpulsesoward science fpolitical eforminthe ate nineteenthentury. rthurentleynd CharlesBeardbring utthemuckrakingendenciesfProgressiveolitical cientists. harlesMerriam nd


18/22


19/22

1192 James arrwithstand.ven o, theparticularhoices fthe10politicalcientists,s repre-sentativesfpolitical cience, re nstinctivelyuitegood ones, and no one, Isuspect,would hallenge hem, ven ftheywould iketo see other iguresov-ered s well,or as substitutes.But other iguresouldmateriallyffecthe tory.n his foreword,or x-ample,LowiprotestsheneglectnDisenchantedealists f"an importantn-tellectual ight, ometimes alled neo-conservatism"p. xvii). Samuel Hunt-ington oes appear n the ast hapter, here eidelman ndHarpham llowthat"neo-conservativesave effectively ixed academicresearchwith nfluenceover n enlightenedorporatendgovernmentallite" p. 237). Whateverlseonemaywant osay bout hisandone senses hat he uthors aveplentymoretosay about t), t does not ustain oursubject,"namely,the ncreasingn-sulation fpolitical ciencefrom herealities fpolitics, ower nd protestntwentiethentury merica" p. xix). n short, hedemise fthe hirdraditionrthe xhaustionf iberal eformnpoliticalcience s not hedemise fpoliticaladvocacy rthe xhaustionfpolitical eforms such.Neoconservativeoliticalscientists,rothers, ave imply ssumed hemantlence worn y iberals.Ortake very ifferentort fexample.Would he tory otbemateriallyinfluencedf Robert ahl wereheadlinedn thepenultimatehapter? t onepoint he uthorstate hat whateveriscontributiono thediscipline, ahl didlittle uringhebehavioralrato move he hirdraditioneyondhe ogicfoundinthework fKey andTruman"p. 159). Perhaps o "during hebehavioralera." Butwhat fDahl's concernwithworkers' emocracyxpressedll along,or his evenmore xplicit emocraticocialisteanings arlier nd ater? id hethenmovethethird raditioneyondts ogic?Did he movebeyond he thirdtradition?oes this ell us somethingifferentbout hehistoryfAmericanpoliticalcience n themidtwentiethentury?Thisraises more eneral uestionbout he10politicalcientists,s rep-resentativesfthe"thirdradition,"eaving sidepolitical cience s a whole.Thepairofbehavioralists-Keynd Truman-seemto be at odds over ome-thing s fundamentals whethero trust itizens r elites,notonlybetweenthemselves ut eachwithhis formerelf:Key turningoat to trust itizens;Truman, lites.Bentley's trikingntistatismndBeard'santicapitalismeemhardly upportiver definitivefthe iberal hirdradition,nd more fthe adi-cal second raditionhich races tspaternityack to ThomasPaine. And the"strange opulismf thefounderfAmericanociology," esterWard, s notonlydrasticallyutofcharacter ithWoodrowWilson,buthe is occasionallydescribedythe uthorss a "radicaldemocrat," hich s thevery escriptiongiven o the econd raditionp. 38). Atthis oint,he uestion oes not eem obemerely typologicalne: ntowhich tradition"o these10,orother, oliti-cal scientistsit? ather,t eems obe whetherhe hirdraditioneally xists rever xisted.WhileDisenchanted ealistsdoes notfallvictim o themost vi-


20/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 1193dentmyths ssociatedwith he deaofa traditionsee Skinner, 969; Gunnell,1979), t does not ucceed n establishingheboundariesr datesor championsassociatedwith he hree o-called;raditions,speciallyhe hird.If it were o turn ut that hebeginningndthe nd of the o-called hirdtraditionerebut iteraryvents fa book, nothingmuchwouldhangon it asregards hehistoryf political cienceorthe powerf Disenchanted ealists.Liberal eform elped ramemuch fthepoliticaldentityf American oliticalscience, nd the disillusionment,hich ts perceivednd real failures elpedbring n,is part fthehistoryf political cience ince he atenineteenthen-tury,traditions"otwithstanding.f iberalism,ike apitalism, rovesmore e-silientnthe aceofthefuturehan omehave uggestedndothers avefeared,itwill require shotof optimism resentlybsent rom olitical cience.AsSeidelmanndHarpham ightlyote-and in facthelptobring bout-we doneedmore self-examinationithinhe oliticalcience iscipline"p. xix),therekindlingfwhich anfind ts ir, fnot tsheat, nthehistoryfpolitical ci-ence tself.

6Inattentionothehistoryfpolitical ciencehas clearly ome to an end.

Thanksngoodpart o the uthors f theworks iscussed ere, olitical cienceinBritain nd Americanthenineteenthnd twentiethenturies asonceagainbecome n objectworthyf serious istoriographicalndcritical ttention.tu-dents fpolitical ciencewill doubtless ind hingsocriticizentheseworks,and havetried osuggestomeof those hings,nparticularhenarrativee-vicesofferedyparadigms,ragedy,ndtraditions.utthe nevitableriticismsaside, tudentsfpoliticalcience re ucky ofind uchdiversitynthesehisto-rians: n criticsikeSeidelman ndHarpham;na reflective oral heoristikeRicci; in a chroniclerf significantheories ikeJanos; n intellectualisto-riographersikeCollini,Winch,ndBurrow. nddespiteheir erymany iffer-ences, somethingfa compositemageofpolitical cience,pastandpresent,emergesrom heir ollectivefforts.Political cience ppears rom hevery eginning,owever e date hat, obe a diverse nd pluralisticnterprise,venthoughtcannot e saidtodisplaygenuineheoreticalrogress.tsustainsrisis fterrisis n ts heoriesndmeth-ods,and t sfullynvolved ith hepoliticalrises ftheworld roundt, spe-cially hose ttendanto iberalismnddemocracy. oliticallyndscientifically,politicalcienceharbors n alienpast, tragic rdisenchantedresent,nd anunknownuture. ther ecent istoriansfpolitical ciencehavedrawn imilarconclusions. avid Easton 1985)has observed hat thererenow omany p-proachesopolitical esearch hat olitical cience eemsto have ost tspur-pose" (p. 143). John unnell oo has noted "dispersion"fpolitical cienceand drawn n equallyanomicconclusion. Archaeological nalysis ends o


21/22

1194 James arrproducekepticism,ince tdemonstrateshe nevitabilityfmortalitynd thedemise f thepresent. iggingnto hepastofAmericanolitical cience s noexception"inFinifter,983,pp. 5, 38).This s not comfortingmage fpoliticalcience, ndfor hat eason omepolitical cientists ill resist t orseek toreinterprettoreventry ochange t.Butto do this s toengagenthe amegeneralnterprise.hat s,writinghis-tory fpoliticalcience, lbeit differentne,willprove obe themost ppro-priate esponse romhosewhowish osee somethinglseprevail ver his is-comfortingmage fourdiscipline. hedigging illcontinue.nthemeantimewe should ll agreethat he varioushistoriansf political ciencediscussedabovehaveraised ndtried o answeromebroaderuestions hatrewellworthraising ndtryingo answer: owhaveotherswrittennd howshouldwewriteabout hehistoryfpoliticalcience?What,f nything, ight e earn romhepolitical cience fthenineteenthenturyrearlier?What sthe elation,f ny,betweenoliticalcience'sess-remoteast, tspresenttate, nd tsfutureros-pects?What s or should e scientificboutpoliticalcience?What s orshouldbe political boutpolitical cience?The identityf political ciencedependsupon he nswerswegivetothese uestions,nd sinceouranswersneluctablywill nvolveudgmentsbout hehistoryfourdiscipline, e canseeinconclu-sionhowour dentityepends ponhowweunderstandurhistory.Manuscriptubmitted1July 987Finalmanuscripteceived April 988

REFERENCESAgassi,Joseph. 963. Towards nhistoriographyfscience,HistoryndTheory, eiheft:1-117.Anckar, ag, andErkki erndtson,ds. 1987. The evolutionfpoliticalcience: elected ase stud-

ies. Internationalolitical cienceReview, : 5- 103.Ball,Terence. 976.From aradigmsoresearchrograms:oward post-Kuhnianolitical cience.American ournal fPolitical cience,20:151-77.Bernstein, ichard . 1978. Therestructuringf ocial andpolitical heory.hiladelphia: niversityofPennsylvaniaress.Collini, tefan, onaldWinch, ndJohn urrow. 983. Thatnoble cienceofpolitics:A studynnineteenth-centuryntellectualistory.ambridge: ambridge niversityress.Crick,Bernard. 959. TheAmericancience fpolitics: tsoriginsndconditions.erkeley: ni-versityfCalifornia ress.Easton,David. 1953. Thepolitical ystem: n nquirynto he tate fpolitical cience.New York:Knopf 2nd ed. 1971).. 1985.Political ciencentheUnited tates: ast ndpresent.nternationalolitical cienceReview, :133-52.Farr, ames. 988.Political cience nd he nlightenmentf nthusiasm.merican olitical cienceReview, 2:51-69.Finifter,da W., ed. 1983. Political cience:The tate f he iscipline.Washington,C: AmericanPolitical cienceAssociation.


22/22

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 1195Gunnell, ohn . 1979.Political heory: raditionnd interpretation.ambridge, A: Winthrop.Gutting,ary, d., 1980. Paradigmsnd revolutions:pplicationsnd appraisals fThomas uhn'sphilosophyf cience.Notre ame: Universityf Notre ame Press.Haddow,Anna. 1939. Political cience n American olleges nd universities,636-1900. NewYork:Appleton, entury.Janos, ndrew . 1986. Politics ndparadigms: hangingheories f hangen the ocial sciences.Stanford:tanford niversityress.Karl, Barry. 974. CharlesE. Merriam nd the tudy fpolitics.Chicago:Universityf ChicagoPress.Kress,PaulF. 1973. Social science nd the dea ofprocess:The ambiguous egacyofArthur .Bentley. rbana:Universityf llinois ress.Kuhn,Thomas. 1962.The structuref cientificevolutions.hicago:Universityf ChicagoPress(2nd ed. 1970).Lakatos, mre.1978. Themethodologyf scientificesearch rogrammes.ambridge: ambridgeUniversityress.Landau,Martin. 972. Political heorynd political cience.New York:Macmillan.Laudan,Larry. 977. Progress nd tsproblems. erkeley: niversityf California ress.Macaulay, homas abington.829.Mill'sEssay nGovernment:tilitarianogic ndpolitics. din-burgh eview,7. Rpt. nJack ively ndJohn ees,eds. 1978.Utilitarianogic ndpolitics.Oxford: larendonress.Merriam,harles . 1925.New spects fpolitics.Chicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.Moon,J.Donald. 1975. The ogicofpoliticalnquiry: synthesisfopposed erspectives.nFredGreensteinnd NelsonPolsby, ds., Handbook fpolitical cience. Vol. 1. Reading,MA:

Addison-Wesley.Munro,William . 1928.Physicsndpolitics-an oldanalogy evised.American olitical cienceReview, 2:1-11.Murray, obertH. 1925. Thehistoryf political cience rom lato to thepresent.New York:Appleton.Pollock, rederick.890. An ntroductionothehistoryfthe cience fpolitics. ondon.Popper, arl. 1972.Objective nowledge. xford: xford niversityress.. 1976. Unendeduest.LaSalle, IL: OpenCourt.Ricci,David. 1984.Thetragedy fpolitical cience.New Haven:YaleUniversityress.Seeley,John . 1896. ntroductionopolitical cience.London.Seidelman,Raymond,with heassistance f EdwardJ.Harpham. 985. Disenchanted ealists:Political science and the American risis,1884-1984. Albany:StateUniversityf NewYorkPress.Skinner, uentin. 969.Meaning nd understandingn thehistory f ideas. Historynd Theory,8:3-53.Somit,Albert, nd Joseph anenhaus. 967. The developmentfAmerican olitical cience:FromBurgess obehavioralism.oston:Allyn nd Bacon.Weisberg, erbert ., ed. 1986. Political cience:Thescience fpolitics.NewYork:Agathon.

farr history of political science

Documents