Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:27:20.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Political Science

from PART II - THE DISCIPLINES IN WESTERN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA SINCE ABOUT 1880

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
James Farr
Edited by
Theodore M. Porter  and
Dorothy Ross
Theodore M. Porter
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Dorothy Ross
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access

Summary

The idea that politics is, or can be, the subject of science is an ancient one that reaches back to Aristotle. Early modern expressions of the idea can be found in Machiavelli and Hobbes, as well as in Enlightenment thinkers from Hume to the American Founders. “Science” was understood as the systematic knowledge of first principles, whether prudential or philosophical, and “politics” as the public life of a city-state, kingdom, or republic. This old science of politics became remote in time and worldview during the nineteenth century with the flourishing of the democratic state and the empirical natural sciences. In 1835, Tocqueville foresaw the consequences in Democracy in America.:“A new political science is needed for a world itself quite new.”

The democratization of politics and the scientization of knowledge are two forces of modernity that explain the formation and transformation of the social sciences in general. But these forces are particularly crucial for understanding a “new” political science, given their conscious problematization by those who have styled themselves “political scientists.” Political scientists were unique among the emergent social disciplines in using “science” in their chosen name, and they made the politics of a democratic age their principal inquiry and fundamental problem. Like Tocqueville, they displayed considerable ambivalence about democracy and what they should do about its shape and progress. Democracy needed to be explained and understood. But it also needed to be educated, because citizens wanted improvement, administrators needed training, and officials required statecraft. To satisfy democracy’s needs and their own competing goals, political scientists looked to natural science as a model — either to emulate or against which to pattern their own methodologies and cultural authority.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of Science , pp. 306 - 328
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, Somit and Joseph, Joseph, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Eehavioralism (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967), chap. 5.Google Scholar
Andrews, William G., ed., International Handbook of Political Science (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958)Google Scholar
Ball, Terence, “American Political Science in Its Postwar Political Context,” in Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Barker, Ernest, “The Discredited State,” Political Quarterly, 2 (1915).Google Scholar
Beiner, Ronald, ed., Theories of Citizenship (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995)Google Scholar
Bentley, Arthur F., The Process of Government (1908), ed. Odegard, Peter H. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
Bernard, Crick, The American Science of Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959)Google Scholar
Bernard, R. Berelson, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and William, N. McPhee, Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954).Google Scholar
Bluntschli, Johann K., The Theory of the State, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895).Google Scholar
Bryce, James, “The Relations of Political Science to History and Practice,” APSR, 3 (1909).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth (1893), 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1922).Google Scholar
Burgess, John W., Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, vol. 1 (Boston: Ginn, 1891).Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960)Google Scholar
Catlin, E. G. George, The Science and Methods of Politics (New York: Knopf, 1927).Google Scholar
Ceaser, James W., Liberal Democracy and Political Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald, and Burrow, John, That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth Century Intellectual History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Beverly B., “Support for Academic Women in Political Science, 1890–1945,” Women andPolitics, 6 (1986).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: An Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest,” APSR, 55 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), chaps. 3-5.Google Scholar
Danziger, Kurt, Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language (London: Sage, 1997).Google Scholar
de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (1835), ed. Mayer, J. P. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966).Google Scholar
Deborah Ellis, Ellen, “The Pluralist State,” APSR, 14 (1920).Google Scholar
Dietz, Mary G. and Farr, James, “‘Politics Would Undoubtedly Unwoman Her’: Gender, Suffrage, and the Origins of American Political Science,” in Gender and American Social Science: The Formative Years, ed. Silverberg, Helene (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Easton, David, ”The New Revolution in Political Science,” APSR, 63 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953), 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), chaps. 4-5, 10.Google Scholar
Elliott, William Y., “The Possibility of a Science of Politics,” in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book, ed. Rice, Stuart (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931).Google Scholar
Elliott, William Y., The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1928).Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, “Skill Revolution and the Consultative Commonwealth,” APSR, 67 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics (New York: Random House, 1963).Google Scholar
Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James, “From Modern Republic to Administrative State: American Political Science in the United States,” in Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science, ed. Easton, David, Gunnell, John G., and Stein, Michael B. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Favre, Pierre, Naissance de Id Science Politique en France, 1870–1914 (Paris: Fayard, 1989)Google Scholar
Fisher, Donald, Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences: Rockefeller Philanthropy and theUnited States Social Science Research Council (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furner, Mary O., Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865–1905 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1975).Google Scholar
Goodnow, Frank J., “The Work of the American Political Science Association,” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1 (1904).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodnow, Frank J., Municipal Problems (New York: Macmillan, 1897).Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G., The Descent of Political Theory: The Geneahgy of an AmericanVocation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Haddow, Anna, Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900 (New York: Appleton-Century, 1939)Google Scholar
Harpham, Edward J., Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1084 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985)Google Scholar
Haskell, Thomas L., The Emergence of Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth Century Crisis of Authority (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977)Google Scholar
Hayward, Jack, “Cultural and Contextual Constraints upon the Development of Political Science in Great Britain,” in The Development of Political Science, ed. Easton, David, Gunnell, John G., and Graziano, Luigi (London: Routledge, 1991).Google Scholar
Hirst, Paul Q., The Pluralist Theory of the State (London: Routledge, 1989).Google Scholar
James, Farr, Dryzek, John S., and Leonard, Stephen T., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
Jones Ford, Henry, The Natural History of the State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1915).Google Scholar
Karl, Barry S., Charles E. Merriam and the Study of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974).Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D., “Propaganda,” in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. Seligman, E. R. A. (New York: Macmillan, 1934), vol. 12.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D., “The Developing Science of Democracy,” in The Future of Government in the United States, ed. White, Leonard D. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D., “The Theory of Political Propaganda,” APSR, 21 (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D., Propaganda Technique in the World War (New York: Knopf, 1927).Google Scholar
Lawrence Lowell, A. “The Physiology of Politics,” APSR, 4 (1910).Google Scholar
Lieber, Francis, Civil Liberty and Self-Government (1853), 3rd ed. (Philadelipha: J. B. Lippincott, 1901).Google Scholar
Manicas, Peter T., A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987).Google Scholar
Martin Lipset, SeymourPolitical Man (Garden City, N.Y.: Dobleday, 1959).Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E., New Aspects of Politics (1925, 1931), 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen R., ed., The Economic Approach to Politics: A Critical Reassessment of the Theory of Rational Action (New York: Harper Collins, 1991)Google Scholar
Munro, William B., The Invisible Government (New York: Macmillan, 1927).Google Scholar
Munro, , “Physics and Politics – An Old Analogy Revisited,” APSR, 22 (1927).Google Scholar
Parker Follett, Mary, The New State: Group Organization the Solution of Popular Government (New York: Longmans, 1920).Google Scholar
Pendleton Herring, E. “On the Study of Government,” APSR, 47 (1953).Google Scholar
Purcell, Edward A., The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1973)Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modem Italy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar
Ricci, David M., The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian and Green, Donald P., Pathologies of Rational Choice: A Critique of Applications in Political Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Shaw, Albert, “Presidential Address,” American Political Science Review (APSR), 1 (1906).Google Scholar
Shephard, Walter J., “Democracy in Transition,” APSR, 29 (1935).Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., “Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach,” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin, ed., The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M., “Still Blowing in the Wind: The American Quest for a Democratic, Scientific Political Science,” Daedalus, 126 (1997).Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo, “Epilogue,” in Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, ed. Storing, Herbert J. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962).Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E., Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter, Sozialwissenschaften und Staat: Frankreich, Italien, Deutschland, 1870–1980 (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1990)Google Scholar
Wahlke, John, “Pre-Behavioralism in Political Science,” APSR, 73 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallas, Graham, Human Nature in Politics (1908), 3rd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1920).Google Scholar
White, Leonard D., “Political Science, Mid-Century,” Journal of Politics, 12 (1951)Google Scholar
Willoughby, Westel W., “The American Political Science Association,” Political Science Quarterly, 19 (1904).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Francis G., “The Pragmatic Electorate,” APSR, 24 (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow, “The Law and the Facts,” APSR, 5 (1911).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow, An Old Master and Other Political Essays (New York: Scribner’s, 1893).Google Scholar
Wilson, , “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly, (1887).Google Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S., “Political Theory as a Vocation,” APSR, 63 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×