Book contents
- Political Science and the Problem of Social Order
- Political Science and the Problem of Social Order
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 The Problem of Social Order and the History of Political Science
- 2 Plurality and Unity
- 3 Processing Community
- 4 Bringing Community Back In
- 5 Conflict and Consensus
- 6 Support for the System
- 7 Questioning Consensus
- 8 Power and Participation
- 9 The Problem of Social Order and the Future of Political Science
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 March 2022
Book contents
- Political Science and the Problem of Social Order
- Political Science and the Problem of Social Order
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 The Problem of Social Order and the History of Political Science
- 2 Plurality and Unity
- 3 Processing Community
- 4 Bringing Community Back In
- 5 Conflict and Consensus
- 6 Support for the System
- 7 Questioning Consensus
- 8 Power and Participation
- 9 The Problem of Social Order and the Future of Political Science
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Political Science and the Problem of Social Order , pp. 178 - 192Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M., Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert, Bevir, Mark, Stimson, Shannon C., eds., Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Alexander, Jeffrey C., Theoretical Logic in Sociology, Volume 1: Positivism, Presuppositions, and Current Controversies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Alexander, Jeffrey C., Theoretical Logic in Sociology, Volume 4: The Modern Reconstruction of Classical Thought – Talcott Parsons (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Alexander, Jeffrey C., “Contradictions in the Societal Community: The Promise and Disappointments of Parsons’ Concept,” in Fox, R., Lidz, V., Bershady, H., eds., After Parsons: A Theory of Social Action for the Twenty-First Century (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005), pp. 93–110.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., “Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics,” in Almond, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James S., eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 3–64.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel, A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990).Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah, “The Concept of History,” in Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (London: Penguin, 1993), pp. 41–90.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, “Elite Consensus and Democracy,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 24, no. 3, 1962, pp. 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967).Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S., “The Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review, vol. 56, no. 4, 1962, pp. 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S., “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review, vol. 57, no. 3, 1963, pp. 632–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S., Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S., “Power and Its Two Faces Revisited: A Reply to Geoffrey Debnam,” American Political Science Review, vol. 69, no. 3, 1975, pp. 900–904.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence, “An Ambivalent Alliance: Political Science and American Democracy,” in Farr, James, Dryzek, John S., Leonard, Stephen T., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 41–65.Google Scholar
Bang, Henrik, “David Easton’s Postmodern Images,” Political Theory, vol. 26, no. 3, 1998, pp. 281–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baratz, Morton S., “Corporate Giants and the Power Structure,” The Western Political Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 2, 1956, pp. 406–415.Google Scholar
Barnard, Frederick M., and Vernon, Richard A., “Pluralism, Participation, and Politics: Reflections on the Intermediate Group,” Political Theory, vol. 3, no. 2, 1975, pp. 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Harry Elmer, Sociology and Political Theory: A Consideration of the Sociological Basis of Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1924).Google Scholar
Bartelson, Jens, The Critique of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Bartelson, Jens, Visions of World Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Arthur F., The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures (Bloomington, IN: The Principia Press, 1935 [1908]).Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri, Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience (Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1920 [1889]).Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri, Matière et mémoire: Essai sur la relation du corps a l’ésprit (Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1934 [1896]).Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark, “Governance as Theory, Practice, and Dilemma,” in Bevir, Mark, ed., The Sage Handbook of Governance (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Bickford, Susan, “Reconfiguring Pluralism: Identity and Institutions in the Inegalitarian Polity,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 43, no. 1, 1999, pp. 86–108.Google Scholar
Black, Antony, “Concepts of Civil Society in Pre-Modern Europe,” in Kaviraj, Sudipta and Khilnani, Sunil, eds., Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 33–38.Google Scholar
Blatt, Jessica, Race and the Making of American Political Science (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Börzel, Tanja, “Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks,” Public Administration, vol. 76, no. 2, 1998, pp. 262–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, John W., “The American Commonwealth: Changes in Its Relation to the Nation,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, 1886, pp. 9–35.Google Scholar
Burgess, John W., Reconstruction and the Constitution, 1866–1876 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902).Google Scholar
Carney, Frederick S., “Translator’s Introduction,” in Althusius, Johannes, Politica (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995 [1614]), pp. ix–xxxiii.Google Scholar
Catlin, George E., “The Delimitation and Mensurability of Political Phenomena,” American Political Science Review, vol. 21, no. 2, 1927, pp. 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catlin, George E., “Appendix: Commentary,” in Rice, Stuart A., ed., Methods in Social Science: A Case Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931), pp. 92–94.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L., and Arato, Andrew, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Coker, Francis W., “The Technique of the Pluralist State,” American Political Science Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 1921, pp. 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald, Burrow, John, That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Steven, “Categories, Concepts or Predicaments?: Remarks on Mauss’s Use of Philosophical Terminology,” in Carrithers, Michael, Collins, Steven, Lukes, Steven, eds., The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 46–82.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E., “The Challenge to Pluralist Theory,” in Connolly, William E. ed., The Bias of Pluralism (New York: Lieber-Atherton, 1973), pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
Connolly, William E., The Terms of Political Discourse (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993 [1974]).Google Scholar
Cooley, Charles H., Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind (New York: Scribner, 1909).Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard, The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., “The Science of Politics: New and Old,” World Politics, vol. 7, no. 3, 1955, pp. 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,” American Political Science Review, vol. 52, no. 2, 1958, pp. 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., “Top Leadership, U.S.A.,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 22, no. 1, 1960, pp. 148–151.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., Modern Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963, 1970).Google Scholar
Dickey, Laurence, Hegel: Religion, Economics, and the Politics of Spirit 1770–1807 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Domhoff, G. William, “Introduction,” in Domhoff, G. William, ed., Power Structure Research (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980), pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
Dowling, R. E., “Pressure Group Theory: Its Methodological Range,” American Political Science Review, vol. 54, no. 4, 1960, pp. 944–954.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Schlosberg, David, “Disciplining Darwin: Biology in the History of Political Science,” in Farr, James, Dryzek, John S., Leonard, Stephen T., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 123–144.Google Scholar
Easton, David, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953).Google Scholar
Easton, David, “Introduction: The Current Meaning of ‘Behavioralism’ in Political Science,” in Charlesworth, James C., ed., The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science (Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1962), pp. 8–25.Google Scholar
Easton, David, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965).Google Scholar
Easton, David, “The New Revolution in Political Science,” American Political Science Review, vol. 63, no. 4, 1969, pp. 1051–1061.Google Scholar
Edmonds, David, and Eidinow, John, Wittgenstein’s Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers (London: Faber and Faber, 2001).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Avigail, Reconstructing Political Pluralism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J., Heard, Alexander, Huntington, Samuel P., Janowitz, Morris, Leiserson, Avery, McKean, Dayton D., Truman, David B., “Research in Political Behavior,” American Political Science Review, vol. 46, no. 4, 1952, pp. 1003–1045.Google Scholar
Elliott, William Y., “The Pragmatic Politics of Mr. H. J. Laski,” American Political Science Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 1924, pp. 251–275.Google Scholar
Elliott, William Y., “Sovereign State or Sovereign Group?” American Political Science Review, vol. 19, no. 3, 1925, pp. 475–499.Google Scholar
Elliott, William Y., “The Possibility of a Science of Politics: With Special Attention to the Methods Suggested by William B. Munro and George E. G. Catlin,” in Rice, Stuart A., ed., Methods in Social Science: A Case Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931), pp. 70–94.Google Scholar
Ellis, Ellen Deborah, “The Pluralistic State,” American Political Science Review, vol. 14, no. 3, 1920, pp. 393–407.Google Scholar
Ellis, Ellen Deborah, “Guild Socialism and Pluralism,” American Political Science Review, vol. 17, no. 4, 1923, pp. 584–596.Google Scholar
Ellis, Ellen Deborah, “Political Science at the Crossroads,” American Political Science Review, vol. 21, no. 4, 1927, pp. 773–791.Google Scholar
Elshtain, Jean Bethke, Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Engels, Friedrich, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” in Tucker, Robert C., ed., The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pp. 734–759.Google Scholar
Enroth, Henrik, “Beyond Unity in Plurality: Rethinking the Pluralist Legacy,” Contemporary Political Theory, vol. 9, no. 4, 2010, pp. 458–476.Google Scholar
Enroth, Henrik, “Democratic Governance,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 24, no. 2, 2011, pp. 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enroth, Henrik, “Policy Network Theory,” in Bevir, Mark, ed., The Sage Handbook of Governance (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 19–35.Google Scholar
Enroth, Henrik, “Community?” in Enroth, Henrik and Brommesson, Douglas, eds., Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchanges (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), pp. 165–180.Google Scholar
Enroth, Henrik, “Populism and the Particularization of Solidarity: On the Sweden Democrats,” in Alexander, Jeffrey C., Sciortino, Giuseppe, Kivisto, Peter, eds., Populism in the Civil Sphere (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2021), pp. 205–231.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, “Segments of Political Science Most Susceptible to Behavioristic Treatment,” in Charlesworth, James C., ed., The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science (Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1962), pp. 26–48.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, Eldersveld, Samuel J., Janowitz, Morris, “Introduction,” in Eulau, Heinz, Eldersveld, Samuel J., Janowitz, Morris, eds., Political Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1956), pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Farber, Paul Lawrence, “The Siren of Evolutionary Ethics: Darwin to Wilson,” in Teich, Mikulás, Porter, Roy, Gustafsson, Bo, eds., Nature and Society in Historical Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 291–307.Google Scholar
Farr, James, “Francis Lieber and the Interpretation of American Political Science,” Journal of Politics, vol. 52, no. 4, 1990, pp. 1027–1049.Google Scholar
Farr, James, “Political Science and the State,” in Brown, J. and van Keuren, D. K., eds., The Estate of Social Knowledge (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Farr, James, “Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science,” in Farr, James, Dryzek, John S., Leonard, Stephen T., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 198–224.Google Scholar
Farr, James, “Political Science,” in Porter, Theodore M. and Ross, Dorothy, eds., The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 7: The Modern Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 306–328.Google Scholar
Farr, James, Dryzek, John S., Leonard, Stephen T., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Ferguson, Adam, An Essay on the History of Civil Society (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966).Google Scholar
Figgis, John Neville, Churches in the Modern State (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1914).Google Scholar
Follett, Mary Parker, The New State: Group Organization the Solution of Popular Government (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998 [1918]).Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Random House, 1970).Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, “Truth and Power,” in Gordon, Colin, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 by Michel Foucault (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), pp. 109–133.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in Rabinow, Paul, ed., The Foucault Reader (London: Penguin, 1986), pp. 76–100.Google Scholar
Garson, G. David, “On The Origins of Interest Group Theory: A Critique of a Process,” American Political Science Review, vol. 68, no. 4, 1974, pp. 1505–1519.Google Scholar
Golembiewski, Robert T., “‘The Group Basis of Politics’: Notes on Analysis and Development,” American Political Science Review, vol. 54, no. 4, 1960, pp. 962–971.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., ed., A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Goto, Mineo, “Various Meanings of System in Contemporary Political Analyses,” Kwansei Gakuin Law Review, vol. 7, no. 1, 1973, pp. 34–36.Google Scholar
Green, Leslie, “Support for the System,” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 15, no. 2, 1985, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G., Political Philosophy and Time (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987 [1968]).Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G., “In Search of the State: Political Science as an Emerging Discipline in the U.S.,” in Wagner, Peter, Wittrock, Björn, Whitley, Richard, eds., Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991), pp. 123–161.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G., The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G., Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G., “Making Democracy Safe for the World: Political Science between the Wars,” in Adcock, Robert, Bevir, Mark, Stimson, Shannon C., eds., Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 137–157.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, “The European Nation-State: Its Achievements and Its Limits,” in Balakrishnan, Gopal, ed., Mapping the Nation (London: Verso, 1996), pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Hagan, Charles B., “The Group in a Political Science,” in Young, Roland, ed., Approaches to the Study of Politics (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1958), pp. 38–51.Google Scholar
Hale, Myron Q., “Cosmology of Arthur F. Bentley,” American Political Science Review, vol. 54, no. 4, 1960, pp. 955–961.Google Scholar
Hallberg, Peter, “The Nature of Collective Individuals: J. G. Herder’s Concept of Community,” History of European Ideas, vol. 25, 1999, pp. 291–304.Google Scholar
Hechter, Michael, and Horne, Christine, eds., Theories of Social Order: A Reader (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg W. F., Elements of the Philosophy of Right (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Herring, Pendleton, Group Representation before Congress (New York: Russell & Russell, 1929).Google Scholar
Herring, Pendleton, “Political Science in the Next Decade,” American Political Science Review, vol. 39, no. 4, 1945, pp. 757–766.Google Scholar
Herson, Lawrence J. R., “In The Footsteps of Community Power,” American Political Science Review, vol. 55, no. 4, 1961, pp. 817–830.Google Scholar
Hont, István, “The Permanent Crisis of a Divided Mankind: ‘Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State’ in Historical Perspective,” Political Studies, vol. 42, 1994, pp. 166–231.Google Scholar
Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953).Google Scholar
Hunter, Floyd, Top Leadership, U.S.A. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959).Google Scholar
Hyneman, Charles S., The Study of Politics: The Present State of American Political Science (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1959).Google Scholar
Jacobson, Norman, “Causality and Time in Political Process: A Speculation,” American Political Science Review, vol. 58, no. 1, 1964, pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
James, William, Essays in Radical Empiricism (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912).Google Scholar
Jessop, Bob, “Governance and Meta-Governance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety, and Requisite Irony,” in Bang, Henrik P., ed., Governance as Social and Political Communication (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003), pp. 142–172.Google Scholar
John of Salisbury, Policraticus, Nederman, Cary, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Pro Patria Mori in Medieval Political Thought,” The American Historical Review, vol. 56, no. 3, 1951, pp. 472–492.Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
Kaufman, Arnold S., “Human Nature and Participatory Democracy,” in Connolly, William E., ed., The Bias of Pluralism (New York: Lieber-Atherton, 1973), pp. 178–200.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Arnold S., “Participatory Democracy: Ten Years Later,” in Connolly, William E., ed., The Bias of Pluralism (New York: Lieber-Atherton, 1973), pp. 201–212.Google Scholar
Keane, John, “Despotism and Democracy: The Origins and Development of the Distinction between Civil Society and the State 1750–1850,” in Keane, John, ed., Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives (London: Verso, 1988), pp. 35–71.Google Scholar
Kelly, Christopher, “‘To Persuade without Convincing’: The Language of Rousseau’s Legislator,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 31, no. 2, 1987, pp. 321–335.Google Scholar
Key, V. O., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1963 [1942]).Google Scholar
Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Edelenbos, Jurian, “Meta-Governance as Network Management,” in Sørensen, Eva and Torfing, Jacob, eds., Theories of Democratic Network Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 199–214.Google Scholar
Klonoski, James R., “A Systems Analysis of Political Life by David Easton,” The Western Political Quarterly, vol. 3, 1967, pp. 737–739.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart, “Einleitung,” in Brunner, Otto, Conze, Werner, Koselleck, Reinhart, eds., Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1972), pp. xvi–xvii.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart, Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society (Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1988).Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart, “Time and Revolutionary Language,” in Schürmann, Reiner, ed., The Public Realm: Essays on Discursive Types in Political Philosophy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 297–306.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart, “‘Space of Experience’ and ‘Horizon of Expectation’: Two Historical Categories,” in Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), pp. 255–275.Google Scholar
Kress, Paul F., Social Science and the Idea of Process: The Ambiguous Legacy of Arthur F. Bentley (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970).Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).Google Scholar
Kuper, Adam, “On Human Nature: Darwin and the Anthropologists,” in Teich, Mikulás, Porter, Roy, Gustafsson, Bo, eds., Nature and Society in Historical Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 274–294.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91–196.Google Scholar
Laski, Harold J., Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917).Google Scholar
Laski, Harold J., Authority in the Modern State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919).Google Scholar
Laski, Harold J., Foundations of Sovereignty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1921).Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D., Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1958 [1936]).Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D., and Kaplan, Abraham, Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950).Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned, The Rise and Fall of Political Orders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan Ahmad, “The New Competitive Authoritarianism,” The Journal of Democracy, vol. 31, no. 1, 2020, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel, How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future (London: Viking, 2018).Google Scholar
Lindner, Rolf, The Reportage of Urban Culture: Robert Park and the Chicago School (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Lowell, A. Lawrence, “The Physiology of Politics,” American Political Science Review, vol. 4, no. 1, 1910, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven, “Power and Structure,” in Essays in Social Theory (London: Macmillan, 1977), pp. 3–29.Google Scholar
Lynd, Robert S., and Lynd, Helen M., Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1929).Google Scholar
MacIver, Robert M., Community: A Sociological Study (London: Macmillan & Co., 1936 [1917]).Google Scholar
Macridis, Roy C., “Interest Groups in Comparative Analysis,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 23, no. 1, 1961, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar
Macy, Jesse, “The Scientific Spirit in Politics,” American Political Science Review, vol. 11, no. 1, 1917, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Maitland, Frederic William, “Translator’s Introduction,” in von Gierke, Otto, ed., Political Theories of the Middle Age (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1958 [1900]).Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P., “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review, vol. 78, no. 3, 1984, pp. 734–749.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Tucker, Robert C., ed., The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pp. 469–500.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich, “The German Ideology,” in Tucker, Robert C., ed., The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pp. 146–200.Google Scholar
Meehan, Eugene J, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1967).Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E., “The Present State of the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 1921, pp. 173–185.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E., Political Power: Its Composition and Incidence (New York: Whittlesey House, 1934).Google Scholar
Miliband, Ralph, The State in Capitalist Society (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969).Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright, “The Structure of Power in American Society,” in Horowitz, Irving Louis, ed., Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Misztal, Barbara A., Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal, “Introduction: Schmitt’s Challenge,” in Mouffe, Chantal, ed., The Challenge of Carl Schmitt (London: Verso, 1999), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner, What Is Populism? (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Nancy, Jean-Luc, The Inoperative Community (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Nicholls, David, The Pluralist State: The Political Ideas of J. N. Figgis and His Contemporaries (London: MacMillan, 1994 [1975]).Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich, Twilight of the Idols, in Kaufmann, Walter, ed., The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin, 1968), pp. 463–563.Google Scholar
Odegard, Peter H., Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers (New York: The Free Press, 1937).Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, “The Principal Structures of Community: A Sociological View,” in Friedrich, Carl J., ed., Community (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1959), pp. 152–153.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy, “Political Institutions, Old and New,” in Goodin, Robert E. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, eds., A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 205–220.Google Scholar
Pildes, Richard H., “Why the Center Does Not Hold: Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America,” California Law Review, vol. 99, no. 2, 2011, pp. 273–333.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, Wittgenstein and Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, “Justice: On Relating Private and Public,” Political Theory, vol. 9, no. 3, 1981, pp. 327–352.Google Scholar
Pocock, John G. A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., “The Sociology of Community Power: A Reassessment,” Social Forces, vol. 37, no. 3, 1959, pp. 232–236.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., “Three Problems in the Analysis of Community Power,” American Sociological Review, vol. 24, no. 6, 1959, pp. 796–803.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., “How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 22, no. 3, 1960, pp. 474–484.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., “Community Power: Some Reflections on the Recent Literature,” American Sociological Review, vol. 27, no. 6, 1962, pp. 838–841.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963).Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper & Row, 1968 [1959]).Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M., “Natural Science and Social Theory,” in Olby, R. C., Cantor, G. N., Christie, J. R. R., Hodge, M. J. S., eds., Companion to the History of Modern Science (London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 1024–1043.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M., “The Death of the Object: Fin de siècle Philosophy of Physics,” in Ross, Dorothy, ed., Modernist Impulses in the Human Sciences 1870–1930 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), pp. 128–151.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Rhodes, Roderick A. W., Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability (Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Rhodes, Roderick A. W., “Understanding Governance: Ten Years On,” Organization Studies, vol. 28, no. 8, 2007, pp. 1243–1264.Google Scholar
Ricci, David M., The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A., “Introduction,” in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931), pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul, Time and Narrative, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy, “Modernist Social Science in the Land of the New/Old,” in Ross, Dorothy, ed., Modernist Impulses in the Human Sciences 1870–1930 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), pp. 171–189.Google Scholar
Rothman, Stanley, “Systematic Political Theory: Observations on the Group Approach,” American Political Science Review, vol. 54, no. 1, 1960, pp. 15–33.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo, “Political Institutions: An Overview,” in Goodin, Robert E. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, eds., A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 133–166.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo, Social Traps and the Problem of Trust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Runciman, David, Pluralism and the Personality of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Runciman, David, “The Concept of the State: The Sovereignty of a Fiction,” in Skinner, Quentin and Stråth, Bo, eds., States & Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia, “Feminist Studies and Political Science – and Vice Versa,” in Stanton, Domna C. and Stewart, Abigail J., eds., Feminisms in the Academy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), pp. 291–310.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz, Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford F., and Caterino, Brian, eds., Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method (New York: New York University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Seidelman, Raymond, “Political Scientists, Disenchanted Realists, and Disappearing Democrats,” in Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond, eds., Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 311–326.Google Scholar
Seidelman, Raymond, and Harpham, Edward J., Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis 1884–1984 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985).Google Scholar
Silverberg, Helene, “Gender Studies and Political Science: The History of the ‘Behavioralist Compromise,’” in Farr, James and Seidelman, Raymond, eds., Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 363–382.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin, “The State,” in Ball, Terence, Hanson, Russell L., Farr, James, eds., Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 90–131.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, Volume 3: Hobbes and Civil Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M., “Still Blowing in the Wind: The American Quest for a Democratic, Scientific Political Science,” Daedalus, vol. 126, no. 1, 1997, pp. 253–287.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M., “The Puzzling Place of Race in American Political Science,” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 37, no. 1, 2004, pp. 41–45.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Eva, and Torfing, Jacob, “Theoretical Approaches to Metagovernance,” in Sørensen, Eva and Torfing, Jacob, eds., Theories of Democratic Network Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 169–182.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, “Global?” in Enroth, Henrik and Brommesson, Douglas, eds., Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchanges (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
Stapleton, Julia, Englishness and the Study of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Starobinski, Jean, Action and Reaction: The History of a Couple (New York: Zone Books, 2003).Google Scholar
Stavrakakis, Yannis, “Paradoxes of Polarization: Democracy’s Inherent Division and the (Anti-)Populist Challenge,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 62, no. 1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218756924.Google Scholar
Stedman, Murray S., Jr., “A Group Interpretation of Politics,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, 1953, pp. 218–229.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo, “An Epilogue,” in Storing, Herbert J., ed., Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), pp. 307–327.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles, “Modes of Civil Society,” Public Culture, vol. 3, no. 1, 1990, pp. 95–118.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, and Goodway, June, The Discovery of Time (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1965).Google Scholar
Truman, David B., The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).Google Scholar
Ullman, Walter, A History of Political Thought: The Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1965).Google Scholar
Vincent, Andrew, “Can Groups Be Persons?” Review of Metaphysics, vol. 42, 1989, pp. 687–715.Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter, A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and Discipline (London: Routledge, 1994).Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter, “Certainty and Order, Liberty and Contingency: The Birth of Social Science as Empirical Political Philosophy,” in Heilbron, Johan, Magnusson, Lars, Wittrock, Björn, eds., The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity: Conceptual Change in Context 1750–1850 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), pp. 241–263.Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter, “‘An Entirely New Object of Consciousness, of Volition, of Thought’: The Coming into Being and (Almost) Passing Away of Society as a Scientific Object,” in Daston, Lorraine, ed., Biographies of Scientific Objects (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 132–157.Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter, Wittrock, Björn, Whitley, Richard, eds., Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991).Google Scholar
Walton, Hanes, Jr., Miller, Cheryl M., McCormickII, Joseph P., “Race and Political Science: The Dual Traditions of Race Relations,” in Farr, James, Dryzek, John S., Leonard, Stephen T., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 145–174.Google Scholar
Weir, Margaret, and Skocpol, Theda, “State Structures and the Possibilities for ‘Keynesian’ Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States,” in Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 107–164.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929).Google Scholar
Wokler, Robert, “The Enlightenment and the French Revolutionary Birth Pangs of Modernity,” in Heilbron, Johan, Magnusson, Lars, Wittrock, Björn, eds., The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity: Conceptual Change in Context 1750–1850 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998), pp. 35–76.Google Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S., Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1960).Google Scholar
Wrong, Dennis H., The Problem of Order: What Unites and Divides Society (New York: The Free Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Yack, Bernard, “Popular Sovereignty and Nationalism,” Political Theory, vol. 29, no. 4, 2001, pp. 517–536.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion, “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship,” Ethics, vol. 99, no. 2, 1989, pp. 250–274.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar