Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:38:24.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Science and Modern British Society1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Trevor Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

FOUR YEARS AGO THIS JOURNAL INITIATED AN OCCASIONAL series on the development of political science in different countries. To date four articles have appeared covering West Germany, Japan, France and the United States of America. Reading them together one is struck as much by the similarities as by the differences between the four countries. The main distinction of a comparative kind to be made, of course, is the fact of the sheer size and corresponding influence of American political science in relation to that of any other country or indeed all other countries taken together. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that commentaries on the contemporary character of American political science are almost exclusively concerned with its own methodological and professional considerations, while analogous exercises on the recent development of the discipline in other countries invariably dwell at length on how each has responded to the paradigmatic changes that have been pioneered from time to time in the USA; and as often as not they will admit of a hint of apology either for not embracing the new American modes fully enough, or, if positively disinclined so to do, for not developing a sufficiently considered critique of their shortcomings, or, again, for not themselves innovating alternative approaches and techniques of similar import and magnitude.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1986 , pp. 420 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1986

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.)

Footnotes

1

An earlier draft of this article was presented to the Critical Political Science panel of the annual conference of the Political Studies Association, University of Manchester, 1985.

References

2 von Beyme, K., ‘Western Germany’, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1982, pp. 94–107 Google Scholar; Ishida, T., ‘Some Characteristics of Political Science in Japan’, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1982, pp. 335—50Google Scholar; Dreyfus, F., ‘Political Science in France’, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1982, pp. 429–43Google Scholar; Dreijmanis, J., ‘Political Science in the United States’, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1983, pp. 194—217 Google Scholar.

3 In this respect see J. P. Plamenatz, Democracy and Illusion, 1973, who is highly critical of modern American scholars including, C. W. Mills, R. A. Dahl and A. Downs. Note particularly the ‘Mark Anthony’ style of the Preface’s sixth paragraph (p. ix). See also M. J. C. Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers, 1967, chs. 1—12 for a different but powerful critique of American political science as exemplified in the works of R. A. Dahl and G. A. Almond.

4 Barry, B., ‘Self-Government Revisited’, in Miller, D. and Siedentop, L. (eds), The Nature of Political Theory, 1983, p. 121 Google Scholar (my italics).

5 Kavanagh, D., ‘Personality, Politics and Government: S. E. Finer’, in Kavanagh, D. and Peele, G. (eds), Comparative Government and Politics, 1984, p. 1.Google Scholar

6 For the traditional British dislike of such reviews see Ridley, F. F., ‘Editor’s Preface’ to the Anniversary Issue of Political Studies, Vol. XXIII, Nos. 2—3, 1975, p. 124 Google Scholar, where he writes ‘… I am always suspicious of “balance sheet” accounts of the sort that have been presented in the USA’. In the past decade, however, a more self-critical stance has been adopted. Cf., for example, W. J. M. Mackenzie, ch. 10, ‘Politics’ in P. Barker (ed.), The Social Sciences Today, 1975; J. Hayward, ch. 28, ‘United Kingdom’ in W. G. Andrews (ed.), International Handbook of Political Sciences, 1962; and P. Norton and J. Hayward, ch. 14, ‘Retrospective Reflections’ in Norton and Hayward (eds), Political Science and Political Reform in Britain, 1986.

7 The Listener, 6 September 1984.

8 In their The Private Government of Public Money, 1974.

9 J. Bulpitt, Territory and Power in the UK, 1983.

10 I have in mind those such as A. H. Birch, The British System of Government, 1967; J. P. Mackintosh, The Government and Politics of Britain, 1970; G. C. Moodie, The Government of Great Britain, 1964; R. M. Punnett, British Government and Politics, 1968; C. R. Rose, Politics in England, 1965; and F. Stacey, The Government of Modern Britain, 1968.

11 Young, H., Sunday Times, 30 08 1981.Google Scholar

12 Somervell, D. C., English Thought in the Nineteenth Century, 1929, p. 192.Google Scholar

13 These words were written before the results of the University Grants Committee’s rankings exercise was announced in May 1986, which negated any such optimism. The overall evaluation of political science was far below that of economics or sociology and, indeed, most other disciplines.

14 B. C. Parekh, Contemporary Political Thinkers, 1982, ch. 8 passim.