The History of Political Science Author(s): James Farr Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 32, No.

4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 1175-1195 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Stable 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 you may 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 support@jstor.org.

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

Science of TheHistory Political

of Farr,University Minnesota James its its scienceis onceagainrediscovering pastandretelling history. Political an havebrought endto an erawhenourdisciseveral works In thelastfewyears addresses brief presidential to were historical reflections limited therather pline's reto literature Political ScienceAssociation, theevenbriefer of theAmerican contribrief and journals, tothenever in articles professional prefaced viewsthat from thought, of of enterprise thehistory political to moregeneral butions that in works thehisthe to Indeedfrom late-1950s themid-1980s, Platoto Pareto. Somitand out sheer rarity (amongthem, of sciencestand by their tory political Kress,1973,andKarl, 1974). As theau1967;and,morenarrowly, Tanenhaus, its out had of pointed in 1967,this taken toll:"MostAmerithors one suchwork and evolution are unfamiliar theorigins early with canpolitical scientists largely 1967,p. 2). (SomitandTanenhaus, not (though exceptionally) were scientists rather political Bycontrast, earlier in For in self-understanding. thosewriting the disciplinary historical their more of a this centuries, was perhaps consequence and twentieth latenineteenth early of in aboutthescope and methods political their beingmorehistorical general officially science.This was theview,at any rate,of FrancisLieber,the first him a granted States, position Sciencein theUnited Professor Political of named Pollock's by ColumbiaCollege in 1857. This was also a messageof Frederick of to 1890 Introduction theHistory theScienceofPolitics,as well as of J.R. Political Science Political Sciencehas no fruit; without "History Seeley'smotto: later knowsno root" (1896, p. 3). While CharlesMerriam without History in of wouldbrooknoneof thishistoricism thestudy politics(at least once he A. William Dunning), methods histeacher of the deserted comparative-historical sciencewerenonetheon of hismajestic pronouncements thediscipline political of terms whenin 1925 he spokeof NewAspects Politics less cast in historical of from "the recent thinking" (1925, ch. 3). In the history political emerging his H. Robert Murray prefaced pastin mind, sameyear,and witha less recent that with observation the Plato to thePresent from of History PoliticalScience into a of stretching was controversy ourdaywithout pedigree there not"a single reflections The 1930sallowedfor pedagogical thedistant ages" (1925, Preface). Colleges ofa historical byAnnaHaddowon PoliticalScienceinAmerican kind and Universities, 1636-1900 (1939). in revolution theearly1950swere salvosofthebehavioral Eventheopening science.In ThePolitical of of narratives thehistory political fired competing by theory forgeneralsystems program David Easton's(1953) behavioral System,
and of of their discipline. . . . An adequate history thefieldhas yetto be written; and . the available literature . . affordsat best a fragmentary partial account"

1176

James Farr

on of (modeled themethodological assumptions thenatural followed on sciences) of theheelsof his diagnosis the"malaise" of political science"since theCivil War" and his historical sketchof "the declineof modern politicaltheory" (pp. 38, 233-65). Three years later, Bernard Crickrepaid visit theUnited his to a on of Statesby writing dissertation thehistory American science political laterto becomeTheAmerican Scienceof Politics:Its Originsand Conditions (1959). A principal theme his was that behavioralist of the aspirations "scito ence" wereneither norpolitically new innocent muchworth nor holding."By scorning and Cricknoted conclusion, in history philosophy," "theidea of a science of politics"showeditself be but "a caricature American to of liberaldemocracy"(p. 227). Scornful, liberal,or not, politicalscience in the 1960s, 1970s,andearly1980srarely its recalled (or anyother) history. Now, almostsuddenly, sciencehas (re)captured attentions of political the In historians andoutof thediscipline. each of thelastfour in yearsat leastone work beenpublished thehistory political has on major of science:in 1983,Stefan Collini,Donald Winch,and John ThatNoble Science of Politics:A Burrow, Intellectual Studyin Nineteenth-Century History;in 1984, David Ricci, The and Tragedy PoliticalScience: Politics,Scholarship, Democracy;in 1985, of with assistance Edward Harpham, the of Raymond J. Seidelman, Disenchanted Realists:PoliticalScienceand theAmerican Crisis,1884-1984; in 1986, AndrewC. Janos, and Paradigms: Theories Changein Social Politics Changing of Science. Otherworkscontinue be published to (amongthem,Finifter, 1983; and Weisberg, 1986; Anckar Berndtson, 1987). or The reasons causesfor veritable this renaissance notaltogether are clear, include needofa newgeneration scholars the though listofthem any might of to understand crisesthat to the continue besetpolitical revoluscience,therecent tionin historiography breaking at last uponpolitical science,andtheincreasing historical of self-awareness the othersocial sciences.As but one sign of the of latter, consider emergence continuing the or like viability journals theHistory the and ofSociology, History Anthropology, theJournal theHistory the of of of of Behavioral Sciences(thecatholicity whosetitle failsto concealthehegemony ofpsychology and Eveneconomics-as dismal ahistorical ever-has as within). theHistory Political to of of consciences several of Economy salvethehistorical its members. it of Perhaps is onlya matter timebefore politicalscience,too, comesto havea journal to dedicated itshistory. of Forthepresent, can takestock.It is thepurpose thisessayto review we works thehistory poin of andcritically assessthefour above-mentioned recent liticalscience.These works forward different demarcate different intents, peridifferent lessons-so muchso that ods, coverdifferent episodes,andremember deserve belowwillreceive and treatment. they separate Despitethedifferences, of of scihowever, something a composite-anddiscomforting-image political from them.In conclusion maybriefly we draw ence,pastandpresent, emerges

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

1177

outthis imageinorder underscore relevance andneedfor to of the more histories of political science. will Some preliminary our observations helpus situate four works, provide a thematic for of structure critical analysis them, and remember some of their of moreimportant predecessors. conclusion theseobservations, One evident in is sorts which maystate advance, that we very different ofcontributionsthe to of history political scienceare possibleand inevitable because different histoof rians willbe party different to judgments about doing history, nature the the of of a of politics,and themethods science.Writing history political science,in is a short, very much partisan activity. At its simplest, history politicalscience-like a history any scia of of of ence-will be a history theories. slightest The reveals the scrutiny, however, entails.In thefirst theories complexities such a history that covera instance, of or widerange substantive methodological never stand topics;they alone;and is to than there more their Theories are history mere chronological arrangement. organized andbylarger in intellectual whosetransformations complexes provide for life therelevant scripts them. these and transFurthermore, complexes their accounts.Paradigms formations open to different are (Kuhn, 1962), research programs (Lakatos,1978), and/or research traditions (Laudan, 1977)-to take vied the of influential accounts-haverecently for partisanship various histhree of torians science,whosechoicesin any case reflect some deep-seated philoabout of sophical commitments thenature science(Agassi, 1963). Furthermore, within thesecomplexes-however are they conceived-theories bestunderare or and stoodas solutions attempted solutions problems, these to are problems in as turn situations rethat bestunderstood beinglocatedin yetbroader problem flect their environments. Thus, as Karl Popper(1972) once pointed out, "The of be not of but history scienceshould treated as a history theories, as a history ofproblem-situations their modifications" 177). and (p. in sciencemust scientific, they be must theories political and By definition, of of be aboutpolitics.No reader thisessayneedbe reminded thecontinuing in scienceoverdeciding whether agoniesand antipathies generated political poand litical scienceis a "science" in anysenseoftheterm justwhowillgetwhat, 'the of when,and how by determining content "the political."Nevertheless, in are if someineliminably partisan judgments theseconnections essential only todetermine of to the from relevant episodes thehistory, distinguish "scientific" of or the"extra-scientific" activities pastpolitical the scientists, to distinguish of of history political sciencefrom history related the activities, including, say, or moregenerally. Also in thebalance sociology, economics, political thought of of mention figmayhangthenomination a founder-orat leastan honorable uresin a distant the is line If past-if, ofcourse, historian intothat ofbusiness.

1178

James Farr

one bypolitical science, means onlythemore-or-less of empirical study practical did-then Aristotle politics-as Murray (1925) traditionally first. one If figures of meansthehistorically inductive study realpolitik, Machiavelli then deserves thehonor. one meansthededuction thecharacter themodern If of of state from of thefirst principles motion, then Hobbesplaysthepart.Ifone meanstheNewto to tonian Humeandother inspiration "reducepolitics a science,"then figures oftheScottish deserve initial mention Farr,1988). IfbypoEnlightenment (see litical one with Schooldevoted studya science, meansan academic discipline to ingthecausalnexus politics-as SomitandTanenhaus of (1967) did-then John W. Burgess as and before SchoolofPolitical the Scifigures founder; everything in encefounded Columbia at University 1880willbe "prehistory." the of Of course, "science"- theseFounders-these Dead Heads, as one of mystudents onceputit-may be questioned. Skeptics maywellthink perthat formance differed from or normative promise, that,say,certain commitments subverted their scientific quest.Such skeptics, accordingly, woulddatetheoriginsofpolitical scienceinthemore recent past,saywith Merriam, Lasswell,the behavioral or revolution, theriseof positive political science(as Rikersuggests inFinifter, as 1983,p. 47). Some might evenarguethat ofyetthere beenno has to science speakof. Ironically, is an old claimthat this scien"genuine" political in tific science havebeeneagertopressfor wellovera century reformerspolitical B. now.John Stuart Mill did; so too didWilliam Munro whenin 1928 he spoke of "thebackwardness what in maybe calledthepurescienceofpolitics"(1928, p. 1). Similar sentiments beenheard have more as will recently, readers remember.This has at leastone intriguing Since there historiographical consequence. is no genuine can of political science,there be no history it. One hopesfora future past. of no Facingtheprospect having genuinely scientific to remember, past the historian political of find in sciencemight consolation twoways.He orshemight and be satisfied, wisely to identify that science"nominally, is, as a so, "political sciencein nameonly.Accordingly, or shewillprove be relatively he to generous in telling talesof thosewho,on their the ownreckoning forwhatever and reaas their theories and methods contributions "politicalscito sons, identified here ence." The historian relaxescontemporary standards "science" in order of to identify or hersubject his and the matter; he or she follows historiographical ruleof thumb: wewherever hearor readof "political is science,"there enough political scienceto tellitshistory. The historian political focusnotso muchon poof science,second,might litical not science,butonpoliticalscience.Thiswillentail onlysaying what sort of politics sciencestudies whatsortofpolitics but political political scienceenbloodless of gagesin. Foron painof writing the utterly history, historian political sciencewillwant tellthestories political to of scientists oftheactivities and in which wereengaged.Scienceitself a of of they comprises number activities,

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

1179

are of identifiable politithem other activities a more readily course, beyond but is predominant there thehistorically mayvary, cal sort.Whiletheseactivities democratic citizens. that activiOne couldeveninsist political one of educating of represent those publicvisibility, tiessuchas thisone, or evenothers greater and of sciencehas rested should the activities identity political uponwhich very againrest. of what choicesa historian political sciencemakesinorder tell to No matter will Whatever they else and hisor herstory, other historians complain criticize. of sciencedo notmerely record past,and whenthey the do, historians political it of to overmatters fact.Ourdiscussion criticize another, is seldomsimply one to someoftheextrafactual by we themes which can this has point tried establish the and of historians political of understand accomplishments criticisms different historians reveal themes precisely are thoseaboutwhich their science,andthese or Whether abouttheories scienceorpolitics foundor most partisan judgments. of such may ersor episodesworthy remembrance, partisan judgments well and from another. forexample, one historian if willdivideone historian So, usually as clear identity of failsto makeperfectly thepolitical opposedto thescientific arguably did, if onlyin his 1925 book), science(as CharlesMerriam political of incur wrath another the of historian political science-like Berthen might he that harnard science,at leastin America, Crick(1959). Crickthought political beliefs a distinctly of sortandthat a writing liberal political boredsomedefinite to scientific criteria simply recapitulated scienceaccording history political of He that beliefs. argued those liberal [of quiteplainly "theclassification thedevelto is the of of science]according methodology itself expression opment political characteristic American of political thought" substantive political beliefs, some (1959, p. xv). observation to Merriam's (1925) influendirectly Charles responded Crick's of linesofdevelopment thestudy political of of tialperiodization "thechief processes" (p. 132). 1. 2. 3. 4. and downto 1850. method, The a priori deductive and 1850- 1900. method, The historical comparative toward 1900-. The present measurement, observation, survey, tendency of of The beginnings thepsychological treatment politics.

in we order, have a bare dawn,25 years,50 temporal Proceeding reverse of for and flags thehistorian (Thismaywellsendup warning years, 22 centuries. in to that espiedfluttering insignia Crick political political science, addition those in recent see there. other For periodizations, Easton,1985,andBerndtson AncMerriam intended point karandBerndtson, 1987). Buttheimportant hereis that whenperiodizing history political of sciencein to be scientific relevant and the this he of way.In doingso, though, too was beingcritical thosewhowouldperiof and odize thehistory political sciencedifferently, he was usingthishistory

i i8o

JamesFarr

methscientists wereinsufficiently who those political very explicitly criticize to in practice. psychological their odologicaland insufficiently In purposes. Merriam's History, sum,can be usedto servecontemporary in sciencewith to his case, itwas usedtounderwrite ownprogram provide political in In case itwas psychology. Easton's a methodological foundation experimental In theory. Crick'scase it was used to criticize usedto clearthedeckforsystems of politicalscience. In Somit and Tanthe politicalassumptions American assessitsthen state the in present enhaus's case itwas usedtohelpthediscipline histhat Indeedit is hardto imagine ascendancy. latter daysof behavioralism's will notservethisor that But heretoo is judgment purpose. contemporary tory and for criticism. andpartisanship theopportunity future 2 workwith their The authors ThatNoble Science of Politicsintroduce of of (tactfully unnamed) historians pocriticisms previous of somemethodological not is and litical science.Theirfirst toohumorous tooimportant to quotein full. to No future of sciencewill wanthis or herhistory fittheir historian political lampoon.
of life familiar of simplifying complexity theintellectual of the way Thereis an unfortunately is favoured whensupposedly unified story, that particularly one thepastintoa conveniently drawn of especially, perhaps, discipline a tracing history a modemacademicdiscipline, the as in history from whatare now regarded thesocial sciences.In essenceit consists writing of or theoretical consensus thediscipline, possiblysome polemical backwards. The present taken definitive, thepastis then as and consensus shouldbe, is in effect version whatthat of in manifested it. Pastauthors inducted are as reconstituted a teleology leading to andfully up as by or and as intothecanonofthediscipline precursors forebears, passedin review though a the medals-and sometimes campaign, reprimands-at endofa successful general distributing must havebeen the corollary ifmedalscanbe distributed campaign that with useful the implied dulyestablished. listof canonical The conclusion thediscipline and brought a satisfactory to his summarising eachwearing labelconveniently a in order, precursors, arrayed chronological of in As histo"official then the "contribution," becomes history thediscipline question. with in ries" in recently rivalteamsof great predecessors be assembled may established republics, a of but to and thisway,ostensibly proclaim honour tradition surprising antiquity, in factto for (1983, p. 4) in protagonists thestruggle power. legitimate claimsofthecurrent the

an No reader ThatNobleScienceofPoliticswill find "official history" of of is its intellectual history between covers.Whathe or she willfind a first-rate for will set standards thehistosciencethat British nineteenth-century political be of for however, preriography thesocialsciences sometime.He or shemust, a alien" subjectmatter forgo and anyhopes of paredto encounter "curiously that sciencehas beand political the mapping defending "nebulousprovince" come(pp. 3, 365). have chosen"a subjectwhichno longerapCollini,Winch,and Burrow to related and mapsof knowledge" whichis "onlyindirectly pearson modern has as of science what twentieth the century cometoknow thediscipline political

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

I 181

and thoseenlightened (p. 3). Withglancesback at David Hume,AdamSmith, of whofirst the language the"scienceofpolitics"in Scotsmen popularized very of studies nineteenthin the offer series selective a theeighteenth century, authors figure, Scottish Enlightenment with century political sciencebeginning thelater of science"to with formal the introduction "political DugaldStewart ending and Alongthewayin thesyllabus Cambridge theclosingyearsof thecentury. at of more than nominal invocation theterm "poandoften by their connected little to maketheir appearance, be and litical science"-several greater lesserfigures David Ricardo, James Sir among them ThomasMalthus, treated somelength, at B. James John and Thomas Macaulay, Stuart Bagehot, Mill,Walter Mackintosh, WilliamStubbs,Sir HenrySumner Sir Maine, E. A. Freeman, JohnSeeley, W. HenrySidgLeslie, WilliamCunningham, J. Ashley, James Bryce,Cliffe Graham a hostof walk-ons. Marshall, Wallas,and wick,Alfred an and to Each of theelevenchapters (plusprologue epilogue)brings light history. Each chapter stretch intellectual of important episodeof thisneglected situations, problems, and contextual analysis.Theories, displays close textual to life,evenifthey allegedto be "curiously are alien." The come andscientists of neither "conduct an the authors thewords thepastanimate past,and they let an of of version scienceon thehistory political inquisition" impose infallible nor . science,fortheyconfessto being "agnosticon fundamental. . epistemoif logical problems"(p. 7). In short, "politicalscience" was a good enough for a boastor aspiration century itis goodenough history today. ago, its ThomasBabington ThatNoble Science of Politicsborrows titlefrom of encomium 1829 to "thatNoble Science of PoliMacaulay'sextravagant of of is to tics . . . which, all sciences, themost important thewelfare nations,the whichof all sciences,mosttendsto expandand invigorate mind,-which from of and and draws and part philosophy literature, nutriment ornament every and to nutriment ornament all" (p. 128). Et cetera,et dispenses,in return, Adams's onlyby John headypraise,outdone cetera,et cetera.This is pretty an scienceofpolitics"delivered somewhat sermonizing about"thedivine earlier are ocean away.Now Collini,Winch,and Burrow nottakenin by Macaulay's Whig'spolitics, visionof thatnoblescience.Theysharenoneof thatfamous for Whilethey generally are or sympathetic historiography,penchant progress. of sciMacaulayandtheother political (in thehistorians' specialsort way)with for or to never alloW himorthem be abovecriticism this entists discuss, they they Mill rest, Stuart And let their of never John that despite foible intellection. they of was to the "How utter Mill'sfailure implement program of denials inquisition: suchcriticism issuing Book VI" of theLogic (p. 151). One couldwellimagine Mill's proin a narrative subsequent of evensuccess,in dealingwith progress, of here.The of But gram with program others. nothing thesorthappens or the re(p. abouttheir being "anti-Whig" 5) thatnothing authors so partisan are and is like motely "progress" espied.Eventhewords"tradition" "continuity" and are and"development" usedsparingly suspiciously.

II82

James Farr

the have allegedto offer neither "comprehensive a Consequently, authors survey" a "continuous nor narrative" 3). Thereis morethana little (p. underin statement this,at leastin that bookoffers mostcomprehensive the the survey to date, and theessaysoverlapin enoughwaysto at least intimate significant of continuities. Therewas a certain steadiness thecategories concepts and of British nineteenth-century political that life allowed sciencetoenjoya relative its if stability, notsomeprogress. Also, as thechapter subtitles themselves suggest, of theories method dominate each chapter, they and establish narrative continuity. (Indeedreaders presumed knowquitea bitabout substantive are to the political theories thepolitical of In scientists under discussion). thisstory scipolitical or ence proves be an intellectual to toward practice, theaspiration one, whose in theories foundations contested andbetween and were methodological generations. in never "overly neatpatterns" 280), thehistory poof Thus,although (p. of litical scienceis thehistory thecompetition between philosophic the method, of the historical the and the method reflective method, comparative method, of analysis. The categories induction versus deduction often are heard.Forthose scientists raisedon a dietof scope-and-method the contemporary political texts, richvarieties subtle and of defenses induction deduction and makeforfascinatingreading-fora change. this Furthermore-and toocouldhavebeenbetter articulated a theme as of narrative had In continuity-the methodological debates their political bearings. the of in particular, travails representative werefelt political science. democracy Atonepoint theseventh in on chapter, "theappealoftheComparative Method," theauthors as or intimate muchin general terms: the "Demonstrating denying of possibility successful populargovernment of course,been one of the had, most important practical spurs thedevelopment a scienceofpolitics to of from at leastthemiddle thecentury" 237). of (p. of and of are The method politics thepolitics method hardly distinguishable whenturning particular to readers reare episodes,as well. Thus,forexample, of of minded "thepolitical character political because"it was, above economy" of that role all, itscommanding in thediscussion publicaffairs madepolitical a worth for" economy prizeso clearly fighting (ppr 261, 274-75). The comto parative method, takeanother example, begannotas a meremethodological in exercise classification less "remorseless (much cataloguing," 243) butas an p. to on framework essentially lines adjunct a developmental Aryan-racialist that had the naturally itsuses in theEmpire. yetagain,consider methodological Or, plea by JamesBrycefor "Facts, Facts, Facts." American politicalscientists the of future fourth of might remember words this president theAPSA as an epigraphin thePoliticalSystem whereit becamea convenient of target Easton's and (1953) assaulton "hyperfactualism" "crudeempiricism" 63-78). In (pp. thestory Collini,Winch,and Burrow, by however, Bryce's"energetic empiricism" is presented onlyas a methodological not but position also as a political

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

II83

to and ignorance so-in one of thebestlinesof the one that was enlisted fight supporters" 240). (p. safefordemocracy's book-"to makeAmerica Collini, In theend,whatdid itcometo andwhatdoes itmeanto us today? in are the question:"It is Winch,and Burrow forthcoming answering former of the tempting conclude for to that overa century category a 'scienceofpolitics' readyto be filled thelatest by window, had been as empty a dress-maker's as is to the waveoffashion" 376). One is also tempted saythat dressmaker still (p. hint they onlyremotely at inbusiness. theauthors notthemselves this; But do say sciprovince" political of they inhabit "nebulous the what sort practices think of at anything all aboutcontemporary ence in ourcentury. Indeed,they hardly say withthepast. The "curiously alien" subject scienceor itsconnection political is curious alien. and of matter ThatNobleScienceof-Politics allowedto remain is something honest aboutthishistoriographical Whilethere refreshingly In how if short. anycase, one wonders posture, wonders itdoes notsellitself one scientists taketheir who seriously discipline toencourage political contemporary will yearn see to that to readthisimportant book-assuming,as is likely, they and the connections between andpresent, evensomehopesfor future. past some will a scientists catalog assuredly notfind long-lost Well,contemporary political or or be forthwith. of ready-made might resumed problems theories datawhich adverfind considerably alienthan less predecessors Theymight, however, their in of continue today not many which methodological disputes, tised, onlyintheir to theirbroaderattachment but when considering virtually same terms, the beyond. Thisconnects and points pastandpresent, perhaps democratic politics. observed, political science"cosciencehasrecently As one historian political of The logical conclusion of democracy. incidedwiththe growth representative it of scienceas we understand is deseemsto be that development political the of in and on democracy" (Berndtson Anckar pendent thefuture representative seemstogivepolitical sciencea particuBerndtson, 1987,p. 98). If,evenif,this as in context-which, we shallsee below,Ricci larly fragile identity thepresent us the and Seidelman bothintimate-then century provides perhaps nineteenth but for not with materials reflection becauseof itsnoblepretensions, becauseof to the itsvery"shortcomings" 376). Arewe doomed repeat past?If so, letit (p. now and old, orfailed notbe becausewe forgot thoseaspirations a century more failures. to learnfrom their 3 of inform verydifferent Two purposes the enterprise Politicsand Parain of Andrew Janos out(1) C. sets In the digms. tracing change theories change, of of an however "to write intellectual sketchy, theevolution modern history, to order the and among political science"and(2) "to takestock, clarify, tocreate theories" 4). The first purpose hopesto enlighten (p. recent cropof competing The aboutits recent"trialsand tribulations." secondhopes to thediscipline

II84

James Farr

"in benefit politicalscientists organizing empirical research in comparing and in political phenomena Western, non-Western, Communist and societies, within a single,unified intellectual construct" 4). Since thebook ends on a very (p. "cautious"note-that "insteadof formulating another yet general theory, we loci seem to be content withdiscerning of indeterminacy larger in cycles of but change"(pp. 153-54)-one cannot concludethatthesecondpurpose has notbeen fully in realized,sinceno unified intellectual construct factemerges. IndeedJanos's penultimate hints something shyof despair:"social line at just in scientists robust structures theknowledge they that in create maybe standing quicksand" 154). (p. As ourcenter gravity of its sinks, bookdeserves due. Itis, inthespirit the of a thesecondpurpose, helpful bibliographical essayforadvanced students all (of in of theories political of ages) interested an overview (mostly recent) change.It shouldproveespecially aidworthy thosestudents for who, like Janoshimself, to havea particular theoretical problem whowant assessor to introduce and that in Janos his problem broader intellectual terms. Originally, planned bookas "the to the of to introductiona larger study designed compare politics Eastern Europe in thepre-Communist Communist and periods"(p. vii). of The first purpose Politicsand Paradigms-to write intellectual an hisof science-concernsus here.Unlike and tory modern political Collini,Winch, an that Janos Burrow, designs unabashedly disciplinary history leads up to and to on of tries inform present. focuses the He as very selectively theories change, as opposedto thediscipline a wholeor to themethodological of "political idea his science" itself. arounda much he And, mostimportant, organizes history narrative or stronger morescientific and device-namely,paradigms, rather in some25 yearsago byThomas paradigm shifts, thesensegivento thisnotion of it Kuhn.Whilethis feature thebookis a presumptive last strength,is infact its weakness. central in The antipositivist model of scientific changethatKuhn sketched the in 1962 ironically thepositivist in Revolutions Structure Scientific of (published and so discussion so much Encyclopedia Unified of Science)has prompted much himself makesshort work criticism onescarcely that needstoglossitatall. Janos failsorchoosesnotto ofitinhisintroduction conclusion and and,intheprocess, like "inmention terms "normal key science,""exemplars," "puzzle-solving," or revolutions." relativistic The features not are commensurability,""scientific aboutany cross-paradigm nounderscored, especiallyKuhn'sown skepticism Janossays that tionsof theoretical and progress. Trimming simplifying, then, two are broadrelationships between or more paradigms "constructs identifying with somebasic assumptions the general categories, together concerning nature ofa larger and universe" 1). Theoretically, (p. paradigms organize research, psyinto It and chologically sociologically, bindresearchers a community. is in they of that theseareshelved thenature things paradigms discover anomalies, though

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

II85

and mount lead to crisis."In theseanomalies possible.Butovertime whenever may collapse"(p. 2), oritmayissueina newparatheend,thediscipline simply mentions one. is with speaking, incompatible theformer Janos that, strictly digm of exampleof all this.He goes on to acas thehistory physics thearchetypal in maywellbe justified questioning "Kuhn'scritics that knowledge, he must, as "the sequenceof of relevance the model. Still," he continues, the universal apseemto be eminently shift of and events suggests theconcept a paradigm he to them, theexperiof plicableto theexperience thesocialsciences,andwithin inquiry" 3). (p. enceof political aboutthe ownmisgivings Kuhn's judgment. sanguine Thisis a surprisingly warring schools interminably social sciencesbeing"pre-paradigmatic"-their or set to inability shareexemplars a common of puzzles-are of thought, their that"overtheyears, readers assured are Instead, citedbutnotheededbyJanos. among acceptance gainedquickandwidespread concept however, paradigm the of (p. students social scienceandthehumanities" 157, n. 6). This is at bestan is false. And thebasis forthejudgment never simply at overstatement;worst, of citation exhaustive with madeclear.Indeedin comparison therichandnearly Janos of of about theories political onlycitestheStructure Scienchange, works and 1980) to Revolutions itself three essaysin an editedvolume(Gutting, tific other essay his claims.Butalmost (unmentioned) every support historiographical in (for numerous others beginnings political very volume-nottomention inthat science alone, see Landau, 1972; Moon, 1975; Ball, 1976; and Bernstein, Kuhn'sideas, especially thesocial for transform 1978)-reject or qualitatively in to cannot. . . expect find Kuhn's M. "sociologists sciences. D. Kingsaysthat of 1980, p. 115); Mark change"(Gutting, worka ready-made theory scientific to that ought be ban'paradigm' the judgment "theterm Blaugoffers summary "it himself that declares literature" 137); andtheeditor (p. economic ishedfrom on applications of be wouldalmostsurely a good idea to declarea moratorium and of Kuhnto themethodology history thesocialsciences"(p. 18). one werein principle irreproachable, might Eveniftheidea of a paradigm in Politicsand judgments historiographical stillquestion someof theparticular "classical" paradigm. of for the Consider, starters, identity thefirst Paradigms. human to the attempt master of and on It turns theconcept innovation especially of in terms is whether suchmastery further explained thematerial environment, This is socialequilibrium. paradigm or of individual self-interestinterms overall and itsprincipal thereafter in protagonists founded the 1760s by AdamSmith, Karl Marx,Auof century: masters thenineteenth includeall thesociological and Emile Durkheim, Max Weber.The neoSpencer, gusteComte,Herbert its to to classicalvariant theparadigm-developed extend implications nonof V. I. Lenin,Talcott in Thorstein Western Veblen, societies-foundchampions Walt Seymour including Rostow, and of recent scholars, Parsons, a host relatively Moore, Lucien Pye,Barrington Karl Martin SamuelHuntington, Deutsch, Lipset,

II86

James Farr

in and Reinhard Bendix(to whomthebook is dedicated). Then,sometime the midto late1960s,the"classicalparadigm" couldno longer explain newanomain in lousdevelopments-in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe.A newparaon tooka moreglobalpurchase political we digmemerged, aretold,one which changeandemphasized cultural postindustrial, wellas material, and as factors. Perry Anderson, ThedaSkocpol,Daniel Bell, Morris Janowitz, Immanuel Wallerstein, AndreGunder Frank, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Seweryn Bialer,Kenneth and Jowett, Jurgen Habermas-to begina muchlonger list-came to and conto this tinue articulate newparadigm. One couldbe forgiven thinking thesevarious for that theorists facedsuch in significantly different problems such radically different situations they that in do notform coherent two much less paradigms Kuhn's sense.Janos's wholes-, two "paradigms" appearto be heuristic devices-holdingtanks, really-fora in sweeping diversity theories overlap various of that waysandthat, without tycouldbe sorted very into sets pological violation, different andintoa fargreater number them of than two. of Janosis right: On thematter datesand changesin general, something in a happened thelate 1960s whichinfluenced wide rangeof (liberal,conserand thinkers. he does hint an important And at for explanation vative, Marxist) do a of He changesin theories change(even if they notcomprise paradigm). that of socialscienceandof suggests, rightly, "thedominant position neo-liberal thetheory modernization of withtheso-calledclassicalparadigm] [associated of came to an abrupt in thelate 1960s under impact developments end the that worldof established social science,"especially"the shattered complacent the riseof radicalsentiment during Vietnam the era" (p. 70). Politicalscienceindeedoften its becauseofnewpolitical external to changes theories developments Janos could and perhaps shouldhave made itstheories theacademy and itself. of and on of evenmore this itsbearing thehistory modern political science, espeto of ciallygivenhis knowledgeable sensitivity thepolitical leanings different finalnotice:if and of merits theories theorists political change.But one thing of true,notKuhnian.Kuhn'ssketch scientific change-in generaland, especase he cially,in theparticular studies provides-depends upondevelopments In to internal thescientific community. theend, then,we shouldlook beyond for for narrative-totellthe paradigms a narrative-and especially a political of science. history political 4 an IfKuhndoes notprovide appropriate for narrative framework thehistory ofpolitical he science, nonetheless playsa significant in one ofitsepisodes. part was Indeedso suggestive he in the1960sthat seemedcapableof performing he of virtually task,atleastinthehands hismany any taskmasters. Whenhe was not PoliticalTheoryand praisePoliticalScience, he was beingused to condemn

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

II87

Theory. David In PoliticalScienceand praisePolitical beingused to condemn a of episode,Kuhnplayed part-alongRicci's(1984) telling thiscontradictory a Science,theshift policy to the sidetheCounterculture, Caucusfor NewPolitical who "co-opted"him-in thedisciscientists political and studies, mainstream when that during "decadeofdisillusionment" theuniversities pline's development lost liberalism mostof its vitality, behavdemonstrations, explodedin student beand sighedthelastgasp of "Popperism," thecrisisof democracy ioralism camea crisisinthediscipline. of is sociology knowlline story that inequal parts Ifthisseemsa sweeping and democratic theory, drama,thenit is a plotby design. edge, methodology, political story "American of of The Tragedy PoliticalSciencetellsa dramatic formed transformed and as discipline" 3), sociologically (p. science an academic fixated the on methodologically university, the within modern as a profession and dedicated underto "Templeof Science" (p. 54), politically theoretically But broodsoverthis the and standing transmitting valuesof democracy. trouble withits devotion to of pursuit scienceconflicts story becausethediscipline's that scientists discover things deny Timeandagain,political politics. democratic of and the theory, particularly rationality informedness of keytenets democratic of and inquiry therefinementscienCommitmentvalue-free to citizens. ordinary intoindispensable democratic tific also the techniques proscribe scope of study of pressures The organizational respect. and values,suchas patriotism mutual the between scienceand democracy, perpetuate conflict university themodern of works risk of safe by particularly counseling scienceattheexpense publishing is the between disIndeedso persistent theconflict to andrelevance democracy. and of techniques attachtwo"good ends" ("the acceptance scientific cipline's in his device.He to ment democratic ideals," p. 24) that itRicci finds narrative reminiscent tragedy, of scienceto a literary the analogizes predicament political the protagonist, discipline's or of Oedipus,Antigone, BillyBudd. "As a tragic on insistence studying is locatedin a stubborn politics collective shortcoming in inquiry thatmodecannotinsurethehealthof a scientifically, though even democratic society"(p. 25). and each of itsepiscienceis a stage,then, of The wholehistory political The Kuhnepisodeis onlyone, or rather ofone, and part sodesplaystotragedy. Ricci bea in mediares. After general chapter, introductory itbeginsthestory about"the observations withsomegeneral sociological proper ginshis history whentheuniversities in century locus of higher education" thelate nineteenth associacreated and whenthelearned professional disciplines colleges replaced of 3 the In culture. chapter we witness birth withmiddle-class tionsconsistent the of at theturn thecentury, as an academic though science discipline political and the of up "contradictions" itsdevelopment to 1930reflect intellectual politisciencehadforged which to commitmentsliberalism political predisciplinary cal telos. was there a tragic as early 1825. Fromthebeginning, as then,

I i88

James Farr

was devoted theprinciples practices democratic to and of BecauseAmerica so overwhelmingly the sciencewas virtually downinadvance, anydiscoveries laid and liberalism, endfor political thediscipline makewouldeither for end or-and herewas the might engender support that from the of danger-detract existing support revealing existence bad citizenship enby and moreofthesame. couraging (p. 70)

4 6 Chapters through ("The New Viewof ScienceandPolitics,""The Behavioral Persuasion," and "The Decade of Disillusionment") makeup thehistorical centerpiece thebook.Theyspanandperiodize of "themidcentury liberal two matrix" from 1930 to about1975. The subsequent chapters moreanaare lytical, especially eighth themethodological the on debates overnomothetic laws which and In attended community powerstudies critical "the theory. discussing loss of wisdom" (pp. 236ff.),the seventh chapter anticipates essentially the moral of which shares book'stitle, which the but also reflections thelastchapter, asks "can something done?" Each chapter be keepsup an energetic pace just short breathtaking. of Debatesovermethodology democratic and theory sustain thetragic scientists narrative in theuniversity. set Scoresof political makeapmost them of rather brief-from Francis W. LieberandJohn Burgess pearances, to Woodrow Wilsonand CharlesMerriam Robert to Dahl and WilliamRiker. Ironically-ifonlybecause theywerenotacademicpoliticalscientists-John of receive most the sustained attention all. So influential DeweyandKarlPopper does Ricci find on that their reflections scienceand democracy he evenhas two ideologies emerge from them, namely, Deweyism Popperism. and Theoverall framework Ricci'sthoughtful ambitious for and history Ameriof can political the one: theconnection American of scienceseemsabsolutely right in sciencewith American which thenature thebeastmeans of political politics, liberalism representative and democracy. Moreover, history the helpsserveconmoral political on loss and reflections thediscipline's ofandhopesfor temporary In recovering wisdom democratic and service. passing review many in so events, and The Scienceamassesa bibliographic of theories, theorists, Tragedy Political treasure. footnotes historians American of The alonewillassistpracticing political science,especially thosewho will wantto chase downthisor that theorist, thisor that crisis. disciplinary for willjoin thischase. Some might, example, Doubtless,some skeptics of or Whilenota political scithe challenge treatment Popper, rather Popperism. in the does seemtofit story entist, Popper quitewell.He was influential thepostfor a World WarII period, and especially hisbookswhich espoused liberal scientific calledthese bookshis "warwork.") However, his "open society." (Popper behavioral scion influence political methodological especially political science, and do it. less clear,andRicci'sdiscussion footnotes notestablish ence,is much bona fideswere articulated tenets and their Whenbehavioralist philosophical of wereleftsomewhat (and often, course,they vague),they frequently emphaand notions verification, of sized positivistic operationalization, psychological

HISTORY OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE

I89

hypotheses abouthuman behavior. Popper But intended doctrine falsificahis of tionto refute supplement not verification; operationalization emphasized imthe of a portance redefining concepts, taskthat Popper thought relatively was minor forthegrowth knowledge; themethod situational of and of analysiswas forwarded displaceifnotreplace to No psychology. wonder boasted "killing he of positivism" (1976, p. 88). If,as Ricciclaims,"Popperism" be further can creditedwithproviding accumulationist "building-block" an or conception the of of growth science(p. 141), a "straight-line" of knowledge 142), and a view (p. call forpiecemeal research opposedto piecemealsocial engineering), (as then Popper was no Popperist. Giventhis, Popperism seemsto fit story the rather too to. well,as if it wererequired Suspicions alongthisscoreare notallayedwith transitions thiskind:"And so,forourstory continue of to it smoothly, was necshift Popperism to take place. It did, conveniently, essarythata large-scale in whatcame to be called 'the end of ideology'movement" 126; empha(p. sis added). The veryidea of tragedy also seemsmorethana trifle strained. Whileit makesfora rhetorically title and promises dramatic a charged narrative device, is there no realfallof thecollective a protagonist (political science)from great height. Andthough cries"crisis,"political each generation sciencehas notsufa of fered prolonged much agony historical self-revelation, less self-destruction, of characteristic an Oedipusor an Antigone. Less grandly, is notclear that it science mustfail tragically achievescienceand servedemocracy. to political Ricci himself hints thisand never at moreso thanwhenhe asks in conclusion, "Can something done?" He is notwildly be aboutthediscipline a as optimistic or whole,sincethere "nothing verylittle"it can do (eventhough adds, is he rather that in virtue theoverallshapeof thediscisurprisingly, "thereis great who teachin universities pline,"p. 308). But as individual scientists political and colleges,we can be morehistorical 311); we can encourage reflection (p. intotheadmittedly "realmof morals"(p. 304); and we can "search intangible outwisdom renewed via to a dedication continuinggreat conversation embodied in great books,newandold" (p. 315). Ricci is wise notto makeoverly muchof theseproposals.But we might aboutthem. as notice final one thing to Although aretendered contributions they other than "TempleofScience,"they revive remember the do something and the of and in meaning "science" in theeighteenth nineteenth centuries thoseintellectual practices called"moralscience"and"political explicitly science"(ofthe sortCollini,Winch, and Burrow discussed).One stepback might helpus take twostepsforward. thissuggests onlythat might learnfrom But not we the yet in less past,butthat doingso we aredoingnothing and nothing morethanwhat sciencehas always in ritual of political done,namely, engaging that disciplinary "science" (and perhaps"democracy," reconceptualizing too). In this timehonored we continue hopeto avoidtragedy, suffer to not it. way

II90

James Farr 5

Theprospects this of hopecoming goodaccount to maywelldepend upona Thiswouldbe an enchanted world American future beyond liberalism. new for politicalscientists, profession realists a of heretofore disenchanted withtheir very ownprograms liberal for reform. Giventhepast,thefuture onlylook can bright. Consider notaltogether the optimistic closing paragraph Disenchanted of Realists, lastofourfour the recent histories political of science.
Historically, politicalscienceprofessionalism onlyobscured has fundamental conflicts and choicesin American citizens objectsof study clients a as or of publiclife,forit has treated The delusions American of benign political paternalism. democratic political sciencehavealand a waysexcluded feared future beyond liberalism. Until political scientists realizethat their democratic cannot realizedthrough barren be a politics professionalism, intellectual will life if remain cleavedfrom genuine heretofore the subterranean democratic dreams American of citizens. science has Political this even history confirmed separation, as ithas tried bridge to it. Modempolitical science must are into bridge ifdelusions tobe transformed newdemocratic it, realities. (p. 241)

is No inductive The of fallacy committed toputitmildly. future politihere, cal sciencemust different, itspast-or at leaston Raymond be since Seidelman of andEdwardHarpham's telling a good partof itspast-reveals a "tradition" with of marked generational by cyclesofoptimism theprospects realistic politisour of cal reform and popular turning in thefaceof therealities statepolitics of indifference. intractabilitythese"raw slabs of reality" 85) seemsto The (p. "third a havefinally done in thistradition-this tradition," century venerless ablethan other traditions, institutionalist theradical the two the and democraticthatit intended replace. Untilthe "eclipse of unity," to roughly contempowho werepartof this raneouswiththepostbehavioral politicalscientists era, third tradition "blendedscholarship political and a advocacy, scienceof politics to witha science'for'politics"(p. 3). In particular, sought "mold a new they forms democratic of Statewith what American they [saw] as native legitimacy" from and overcome each generation (p. 8). But disenchantment disillusionment if 1884to 1984,until can nowspeakof theveritable, notquiteapocalyptic, we "end of thethird tradition" 7). Whatever scientific its contem(ch. aspirations, at scienceis at present porary political largely apolitical, least in thatwe now of of witness "theincreasing insulation political sciencefrom realities polithe in and America"(p. xix). tics,power protest twentieth century out Seidelman Harpham and this the spread story oversevenchapters, cenof are Each ofthesefive the tralfive which historical. chapters presents theories in of scientists thethird andactivities twoleading tradition. Ward Lester political Wilsonrepresent impulses toward scienceofpolitical andWoodrow the a reform in thelate nineteenth Arthur and out century. Bentley CharlesBeardbring the tendencies Progressive of scientists. Charles Merriam and muckraking political

HISTORY OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE

II9I

his finest pupilHaroldLasswell end up disillusioned withthe reformist New Deal. V. 0. Key and David Truman forge transition the from reformism beto havioralism. Theodore Lowi andWalter Dean Burnham preside overtheeclipse of unity thethird of tradition bring to itsend. Each of thesethinkers and us is treated somelength, themanner Collini,Winch, in of at andBurrow. Their politicaltheories dominate analysis,at the expenseof their the methodological ones, whenthesetwocan be separated. course,often Of they cannot sepabe rated.As in thecase of Charles Beard,"questions scientific of method wereof direct political relevance" 83). Indeed,third-tradition (p. thinkers a "culheld tural of definition thescientific ideal. Notonlya method study, of socialscience [was] moreimportant a peculiarly as American disposition political to thought and practice"(p. 8). So it is thisstoryof politicalscience as a "peculiarly American disposition" is toldin Disenchanted that Realists.Whileeach of the tenpolitical scientists receives respectful treatment, is no romance there whatsoever.Their"impossible contradictions tensions"(p. 3) are kepteverin and view,and in theend,they chastised having are for "fortoo longthought about anddefined lookedfor in and reform all thewrong places" (p. 229). Not sinceBernard Crick'sAmerican ScienceofPoliticshas thehistory of in or sciencebeenso critical intent execution. we haveerred,"the "If political authors at acknowledge theoutset,"we hope it is on the side of provocation rather pedantry" xix). Surely, hopehas beenfulfilled. than this (p. Readerswill in notfind pedantry thesepages; the book is lively,intelligent, thoughtand will of provoking throughout. Alternatively, readers feelthesting provocamany no whether consider themselves "acritical"behavioralists who tion, matter they of accept"thegivenness American democracy" (pp. 16, 185); neoconservatives who would reverse Woodrow Wilson and breathe Prussian back intothe air rebelsof the stripe once or stillin that"curious American state;left-leaning known theCaucusfora New Political as Scimodeofprofessionalized dissent" reformers thenearly of extinct "phantom" or ence; or liberal variety 200), (p. if Lowi (whowrites generous unrepentant a to likeTheodore foreword thebook). Realistsmakessome historiographical Provocations aside, Disenchanted or choicesandpartisan that judgments arenotabovequestion criticism, particuto those attendant thevery idea ofa "third tradition." book,on painof The larly a of "sanity,"does not claim to offer "complete"history politicalscience of other than"a selectedinterpretation (p. xix); indeedit forswears anything who as those[political scientists] builtthediscipline a scienceof democracy"" the of scienreformers (p. 2). Yet,frequently, study someliberal among political tistsgives way, and understandably to moresweepingstatements about so, would American scienceas such. (And how manypoliticalscientists political disavow of theirs a scienceofdemocracy?) as the Furthermore, strategy dissectingpairsofheavies eachgeneration evident for has merits. itseemsto imply But of couldprobably than greater conformityself-conception anygenerational study

1192

James Farr

choicesofthe10 political scientists, repreas withstand. Evenso, theparticular of sentatives political science,are instinctively good ones, and no one, I quite figures covsuspect, wouldchallenge them, evenifthey wouldliketo see other eredas well,or as substitutes. for Butother figures couldmaterially affect story. his foreword, exthe In in the Realistsof "an important inample,Lowi protests neglect Disenchanted tellectual Right,sometimes called neo-conservatism" xvii). Samuel Hunt(p. allowthat ington does appear thelastchapter, in where Seidelman Harpham and withinfluence "neo-conservatives effectively have mixed academicresearch overan enlightened and elite" (p. 237). Whatever else corporate governmental one maywant sayaboutthis(andone sensesthat authors to the haveplenty more to say aboutit), it does notsustain "our subject,"namely, "theincreasing inof the of in sulation political sciencefrom realities politics, powerand protest America"(p. xix). In short, demise thethird of tradition or twentieth century the of in theexhaustion liberal reform political scienceis notthedemiseofpolitical of or reform such.Neoconservative as political advocacy theexhaustion political or the once worn liberals. by scientists, others, havesimply assumed mantle sort not different of example.Wouldthestory be materially Or takea very in if Dahl wereheadlined thepenultimate At influenced Robert chapter? one his to state that "whatever contributionthediscipline, Dahl did point authors the era tradition the little the during behavioral to movethethird beyond logicfound so in theworkof Key and Truman" 159). Perhaps "during behavioral the (p. of with workers' all era." Butwhat Dahl's concern expressed along, democracy socialist earlier later? and Did he or his evenmoreexplicit democratic leanings its tradition the thenmovethethird beyond logic? Did he movebeyond third of different aboutthehistory American Does thistellus something tradition? sciencein themidtwentieth political century? aboutthe10 political as Thisraisesa more scientists, repgeneral question scienceas a whole. of resentatives the"third tradition," leavingaside political and The pairof behavioralists-Key Truman-seemto be at odds oversometo citizensor elites,not onlybetween as as thing fundamental whether trust self: Key turning coat to trust themselves each withhis former but citizens; seem and antistatism Beard'santicapitalism elites.Bentley's Truman, striking of of and or third hardly supportive definitive theliberal tradition, more theradiwhichtracesits paternity to ThomasPaine. And the back cal secondtradition of Lester of Ward,is not "strange populism thefounder American sociology," buthe is occasionally withWoodrow out onlydrastically of character Wilson, which thevery is as described theauthors a "radicaldemocrat," description by Atthis thequestion does notseemto to given thesecondtradition 38). (p. point, one: do a be merely typological Intowhich"tradition" these10, orother, politithe tradition exists or scientists Rather, seemstobe whether third fit? it cal really to everexisted.WhileDisenchanted Realistsdoes notfallvictim themostevi-

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

1193

(see 1969; Gunnell, withtheidea of a tradition Skinner, dentmyths associated or the 1979), it does notsucceedin establishing boundaries datesor champions with three the so-called; the especially third. associated traditions, out the and If it wereto turn that beginning theend of theso-calledthird of muchwouldhangon it as werebutliterary events a book, nothing tradition of Realists. of scienceor the -power Disenchanted regards history political the of political frame much thepoliticalidentity American of Liberal reform helped helped and real failures whichits perceived science,and thedisillusionment, cenof of sciencesincethelatenineteenth bring is part thehistory political on, Ifliberalism, capitalism, like more reproves "traditions" notwithstanding. tury, in and havefeared, silient thefaceofthefuture somehavesuggested others than politicalscience.As it will require shotof optimism presently absentfrom a about-we do and note-and in facthelpto bring Seidelman Harpham rightly sciencediscipline" xix),the (p. needmore"self-examination within political the of its sciof can rekindling which find air,ifnotitsheat,in thehistory political ence itself. 6 to of come to an end. Inattention thehistory political sciencehas clearly in of discussed science to here,political Thanks goodpart theauthors theworks in in Britain America thenineteenth twentieth and centuries once again has and attention. Stubecomean objectworthy serious and of historiographical critical to in of find dents political sciencewill doubtless things criticize theseworks, in to someof thosethings, particular narrative the deandI havetried suggest But criticisms tragedy, traditions. theinevitable and vicesoffered paradigms, by in sciencearelucky find suchdiversity thesehistoof to aside,students political in moraltheorist like and rians:in critics likeSeidelman Harpham; a reflective histoof theories like Janos;in intellectual Ricci; in a chronicler significant Anddespite differlike and their very many Winch, Burrow. riographers Collini, of imageof politicalscience,past and present, ences,something a composite efforts. from their collective emerges from very the however datethat, we to beginning, Political scienceappears it be even be a diverse pluralistic and enterprise, though cannot said to display crisis itstheories methin crisis after and theoretical It genuine progress. sustains around espeinvolved with political the crisesoftheworld it, ods, anditis fully and to and Politically scientifically, ciallythoseattendant liberalism democracy. or and an scienceharbors alienpast,a tragic disenchanted present, an political of similar unknown future. Other recent historians political sciencehavedrawn are that apconclusions. David Easton(1985) has observed "there nowso many to research thatpoliticalscienceseemsto have lost its purproaches political of too science Gunnell has noteda "dispersion" political pose" (p. 143). John and drawnan equallyanomicconclusion."Archaeological analysistendsto

1194

James Farr

produce sinceit demonstrates inevitability mortality the skepticism, the of and demiseof thepresent. intothepastof American Digging political scienceis no exception" Finifter, (in 1983,pp. 5, 38). Thisis nota comforting imageofpolitical and that science, for reasonsome political scientists resist or seekto reinterpret eventry changeit. will it it or to Butto do thisis to engagein thesamegeneral enterprise. is, writing hisThat a of tory political science,albeita different willproveto be themostapproone, priate response from thosewhowishto see something prevail else overthisdiscomforting imageofourdiscipline. digging continue. themeantime The will In we shouldall agree thatthe varioushistorians politicalsciencediscussed of abovehaveraised tried answer and to somebroader questions arewellworth that raising trying answer: and to How haveothers written howshouldwe write and about history political the of science? if we from What, anything, might learn the political scienceofthenineteenth or century earlier? Whatis therelation, any, if between science's political less-remote itspresent past, and state, itsfuture prospects? Whatis or should scientific be aboutpolitical science?Whatis or should be politicalaboutpoliticalscience?The identity politicalsciencedepends of upontheanswers giveto thesequestions, sinceouranswers we and ineluctably willinvolve judgments aboutthehistory ourdiscipline, can see in concluof we sionhowouridentity depends uponhowwe understand history. our submitted July 21 Manuscript 1987 Final manuscript received April1988 4
REFERENCES Agassi,Joseph. 1963.Towards historiographyscience, an of and History Theory, Beiheft 2:1-117. eds. of Anckar, Dag, andErkki science:Selected Berndtson, 1987.Theevolution political case studies. International PoliticalScienceReview, 5- 103. 8: Ball, Terence. 1976.From to paradigms research Toward post-Kuhnian programs: a political science. American Journal PoliticalScience,20:151-77. of Bernstein, Richard 1978. Therestructuring J. ofsocial andpoliticaltheory. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press. Collini,Stefan, Donald Winch,and John Burrow. 1983. Thatnoblescienceofpolitics:A study in nineteenth-century intellectual history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crick,Bernard. 1959. TheAmerican scienceofpolitics:Its origins conditions. and Berkeley: University California of Press. Easton,David. 1953. Thepoliticalsystem: inquiry thestateofpoliticalscience.New York: An into Knopf(2nded. 1971). . 1985.Political scienceintheUnited States: Pastandpresent. International Political Science Review, 6:133-52. Farr, 1988.Political James. science theenlightenment and ofenthusiasm. American Political Science Review, 82:51-69. Finifter, W., ed. 1983. Political Ada science:Thestateofthediscipline. Washington, American DC: Political ScienceAssociation.

HISTORY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

1195

MA: Winthrop. Cambridge, Tradition interpretation. and G. Gunnell, John 1979. Politicaltheory: Kuhn's and and Applications appraisalsofThomas Gary, ed., 1980.Paradigms revolutions: Gutting, of Dame Press. Dame: University Notre of philosophy science.Notre 1636-1900. New collegesand universities, Haddow,Anna. 1939. Politicalsciencein American Century. York:Appleton, theories changeinthesocial sciences. of and Changing Andrew 1986.Politics paradigms: C. Janos, Press. University Stanford: Stanford of of and thestudy politics.Chicago:University Chicago Karl,Barry.1974. CharlesE. Merriam Press. F. legacyofArthur Kress,Paul F. 1973. Social scienceand theidea ofprocess: The ambiguous of University IllinoisPress. Bentley. Urbana: of Chicago:University ChicagoPress revolutions. of Kuhn,Thomas.1962. Thestructure scientific (2nded. 1970). Cambridge Cambridge: programmes. of research Lakatos,Imre.1978. The methodology scientific Press. University and Landau,Martin.1972. Politicaltheory politicalscience.New York:Macmillan. of Press. University California Berkeley: and itsproblems. Laudan,Larry.1977. Progress EdinUtilitarian andpolitics. logic Thomas 1829.Mill'sEssayonGovernment: Babington. Macaulay, logicandpolitics. 97. Rees,eds. 1978. Utilitarian LivelyandJohn Review, Rpt.inJack burgh Press. Oxford: Clarendon of E. Charles 1925. Newaspectsofpolitics.Chicago:University ChicagoPress. Merriam, A of In inquiry: synthesis opposedperspectives. Fred Moon,J.Donald. 1975. The logicofpolitical Greenstein NelsonPolsby,eds., Handbookofpoliticalscience. Vol. 1. Reading,MA: and Addison-Wesley. revised. American PoliticalScience B. and William 1928. Physics politics-an old analogy Munro, 22:1-11. Review, H. of Robert 1925. The history politicalsciencefromPlato to thepresent.New York: Murray, Appleton. 1890. An introduction thehistory thescienceofpolitics.London. to of Pollock,Frederick. Press. Oxford: Oxford Karl. 1972. Objective University knowledge. Popper, quest.LaSalle, IL: OpenCourt. . 1976. Unended Press. of Ricci,David. 1984. Thetragedy politicalscience.New Haven:Yale University R. to Seeley,John 1896. Introduction politicalscience.London. realists: of withthe assistance EdwardJ. Harpham.1985. Disenchanted Raymond, Seidelman, of Politicalscience and theAmerican crisis, 1884-1984. Albany:State University New YorkPress. and Theory, in of Skinner, Quentin.1969. Meaningand understanding thehistory ideas. History 8:3-53. politicalscience:From of 1967. Thedevelopment American Tanenhaus. Albert, Joseph and Somit, Boston:Allynand Bacon. to Burgess behavioralism. Herbert ed. 1986. Politicalscience:Thescienceofpolitics.New York:Agathon. F., Weisberg,