¹ See, e.g., G. V. Osipov, Sovremennaia burzhuaznaia sotsiologiia: kriticheskii ocherk [Contemporary Bourgeois Sociology: A Critical Essay] (Moscow 1964); I. S. Kon, Pozitivizm v sotsiologii: istoricheskii ocherk [Positivism in Sociology: An Historical Essay] (Leningrad 1964); and G. M. Andreeva, Sovremennaia burzhuaznaia empiricheskaia sotsiologiia: kriticheskii ocherk [Contemporary Bourgeois Empirical Sociology: A Critical Essay] (Moscow 1965).

² Kalenskii is also the author of an earlier critical essay on “bourgeois” political science. Cf., V. G. Kalenskii, “O predmetei metode burzhuaznoi politicheskoi nauki,” [On the Subject and Method of Bourgeois Political Science], Sovetskoe gosudarstvoi pravo [hereafter cited as SGP], No. 9 (1966), 33–41. The earliest Soviet critical essay specifically devoted to political science in the West, as far as I know, is B. Shabad, “Apologiia politicheskoi sistemy kapitalizma (O tak nazyvaemoi 'politicheskoi nauke' v burzhuaznoi sotsiologii),” [Apologia of the Political System of Capitalism (On the So-Called 'Political Science' in Bourgeois Sociology)], Kommunist, No. 2 (1960), 87–97. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Bundesinstitut fur Ostwissenschaft-liche und Internationale Studien in Cologne, Germany, for making Kalenskii's book available to me during the summer of 1970.

³ Kalenskii cites with approval the critical essays by Christian Bay, “Politics and Pseudopolitics: A Critical Evaluation of Some Behavioral Literature,” American Political Science Review [hereafter cited as APSR], LIX (March 1965), 39–51, and Jack L. Walker, “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy,” ibid., LX (June 1966), 285–295, as well as Meehan's argument, in The Theory and Method of Political Analysis (Homewood 1965), 265–69, that the political scientist must, above all, be a responsible social critic. Kalenskii does not discuss Meehan's later work, Contemporary Political Thought: A Critical Study (Homewood 1967)—although much of this study is directly relevant to his critique of American political science.

⁴ When I travelled in the Soviet Union in 1961 and 1963, I did not meet a single Russian who understood the meaning of the term “political science.” During 1967–68, when I spent ten months at Moscow State University as a participant in the US-Soviet academic exchange program, I found that quite a few students and a considerable number of faculty members were familiar with the term.

⁵ See Powell, David E. and Shoup, Paul, “The Emergence of Political Science in Communist Countries,” APSR, lxiv (June 1970), 572–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and an earlier review of Kalenskii's book in ibid. (March 1970), 188–89. See also Churchward, L. G., “Toward a Soviet Political Science,” Australian Journal of Politics and History, xii (May 1966), 66–75Google Scholar, and László Révész, “Political Science in Eastern Europe: Discussion and Initial Steps,” Studies in Soviet Thought, VII (September 1967), 185–210.

⁶ This fact has not prevented some Soviet scholars from implying the existence of such a discipline when writing for a non-Soviet audience. Thus, for example, Zvorykin, A. A., in “The social sciences in the U.S.S.R.: achievements and trends,” International Social Science Journal, xvi, No. 4 (1964), 588–602Google Scholar, includes political science in his classification of the social sciences in the USSR. He defines political science as follows: “Political science is linked up with a group of scientific disciplines concerned with political relationships in society, political institutions and organizations, and with political concepts, ideas and theories. Together, they form the political superstructure. Political science may therefore be described as the study of the political superstructure of a given society” (pp. 596–97). Elsewhere in the same article, the author suggests a much broader definition of political science when he discusses the main trends in the social sciences. (See pp. 600–601). The existence of political science as a separate field of study is also implied in Makar Goriainov and Igor Glagoliev, “Notes concerning research on peace and disarmament conducted in the U.S.S.R.,” ibid., XVII, No. 3 (1965), 417–19. Two other Soviet authors, writing in 1964 for a Soviet audience, proposed a classification of the social sciences which clearly did not include recognition of political science as a separate discipline; see V. Zh. Kelle and M. la. Koval'zon, “O klassifikatsii obshchestvennykh nauk,” [On the Classification of the Social Sciences], Voprosy filosofii [hereafter cited as VF], No. II (1964), 15–26.

⁷ Apparently there were plans to develop a political science course for secondary schools in 1961–62, but these plans never materialized. Proposals for university-level courses in political science have suffered the same fate. See Uchitel'skaia Gazeta. April 4, 1961, 3, and G. S. Ostroumov, “Nauchnye osnovy politiki—v tsentre vnimaniia Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk,” [The Scientific Bases of Politics—At the Center of Attention of the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences], SGP, No. 7 (1965), 151.

⁸ Cf., “Programma KPSS,” in XXII S”ezd Kommunisticheskoi Partii Sovetskogo Soiuza. Stenograficheskii Otchet [The 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Stenographic Report] (Moscow 1962), III, 324.

⁹ See, for example, L. F. Il'ichev, Obshchestvennye naukj i kommunizm [The Social Sciences and Communism] (Moscow 1963); S. Kovalev, “Trebovaniia zhizni i obshchest-vennye nauki,” [The Demands of Life and the Social Sciences], Pravda, May 6, 1966, 2–3; “O merakh po dal'neishemu razvitiiu obshchestvennykh nauk i povysheniiu ikh roli v kommunisticheskom stroitel'stve,” [On Measures for the Further Development of the Social Sciences and the Elevation of Their Role in Communist Construction], Pravda, August 27, 1967, 1–2 [hereafter cited as “O merakh …”]; “Kommunisticheskaia parliinost'—vazhneishii printsip marksistsko-leninskoi filosofii,” [Communist Party Spirit—The Most Important Principle of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy], Kommunist, No. 3 (1970), 65–79; G. Glezerman, “Istoricheskii materializm i problemy sotsial'nykh issledovanii,” [Historical Materialism and the Problems of Social Research], ibid., No. 4 (1970), 76–87; O. Iakhot, “O edinstve kolichestvennogo i kachestvennogo analiza sotsial'nykh protsessov,” [On the Unity of Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Social Processes], ibid., No. II (1970), 51–60, where historical materialism is described as “the methodological foundation of all the social sciences [and] of concrete sociological research …” (p. 51).

¹⁰ Cf., “O merakh …” (fn. 9), 1; emphasis added. The Pravda statement, issued in the name of the CPSU Central Committee, emphasized that “the greatest attention in scientific research should be given to Marxist-Leninist methodology, to the principles of a concrete historical approach to social phenomena which reflects the theory of the class and the viewpoint of the Party” (p. 2).

¹¹ Cf. Bociurkiw, Bohdan R., “The Post-Stalin ‘Thaw’ and Soviet Political Science,” Canadian journal of Economics and Political Science, xxx (February 1964), 22–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² See, for example, A. M. Kulkin and N. I. Kondakov, eds., Stroitel'stvo kommunizma i obshchestvennye naukj. Materialy Sessii Obshchego Sobraniia Akademii Nauk SSSR 19–20 Okt., 1962 [The Construction of Communism and the Social Sciences. Materials of the Session of the General Assembly of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Oct. 19–20, 1962] (Moscow 1962), and the numerous articles in Pravda, Kommunist, Vo-prosy filosofii, as well as other journals. See also Rene Ahlberg, Die Entwickjung der empirischen Sozialforschung in der Sowjetunion. Berichte des Osteuropa-Instituts an der Freien Universitat Berlin, Heft 60 (Berlin 1964) and Wolfgang Leonhard, “Gegen-wartsprobleme des sowjetischen ‘wissenschaftlichen Kommunismus,’” Osleuropa, XVII (October-November 1967), 726–40.

¹³ “O merakh …” (fn. 9), 2.

¹⁴ Since 1938, the Soviet science of the state and law has included the following disciplines: the theory of the state and law, the history of the state and law, the history of political doctrines, state (i.e., constitutional) law, administrative law, and, since 1946, the discipline of “Soviet construction.” Purged along with Pashukanis in 1937, the discipline of “Soviet construction” was reestablished in 1946. Combining elements of local government and administrative science, and concerned with the practical operation of the Soviets [sovety], their executive apparatus, and the “mass organizations” (in Soviet terminology they are called “social organizations” kobshchestvennye organizatriik), this branch of Soviet state science probably comes closest to the Western concept of political science. To further complicate the picture, in 1962 M. A. Suslov, main Party theoretician and member of the Politbureau, officially proclaimed that the political theory of communism would henceforth be designated as “scientific communism” (nauchnyi kommunizm), thus in effect establishing a new discipline. See Kommunist, No. 3 (1962), 15–46; for a discussion of the background and early history of this new discipline, see Leonhard (fn. 12), 731 ff. In 1963, compulsory courses on scientific communism were introduced at all institutions of higher education. See Klaus Meyer, “Die sowjetischen Hochschulen nach der Reform,” Osteuropa, xiv (September 1964), 626, 630. One of the major problems involved in the recognition of political science as a separate academic discipline has been the question of its delineation from “scientific communism.” See “O razrabotke problem politicheskikh nauk,” [On Working Out the Problems of the Political Sciences], Pravda, June 13, 1965, 4 [hereafter cited as “O razrabotke …”].

¹⁵ Examples of such research are discussed in Powell and Shoup (fn. 5), 577ff.

¹⁶ For a discussion of Soviet public opinion polls, see Kassof, Allen, “Moscow Discovers Public Opinion Polls,” Problems of Communism, x (May-June 1961), 52–55Google Scholar; Emilia Wilder, “Opinion Polls,” Survey, No. 48 (July 1963), 118–29; and Ahlberg, René, “Theorie der öffentlichen Meinung und empirische Meinungsforschung in der UdSSR,” Osteuropa, xix (March 1969), 161–72Google Scholar.

¹⁷ The indirect evidence points to 1960 as the founding year of the SAPS. See, however, Bociurkiw (fn. 11), 29.

¹⁸ The genesis and early activities of the SAPS are discussed in ibid., 29ff.

¹⁹ See, for example, S.Z., “Mezhdunarodnyi forum po voprosam politicheskoi nauki,” [International Forum on Questions of Political Science], SGP, No. 1 (1968), 140.

²⁰ Both presidents, most of the vice-presidents, the general secretary, and all of the members of the executive committee in 1965 were jurists. The preponderance of legal scholars among the members and officials of the SAPS, it goes without saying, has influenced its orientation toward political science as a field of study and academic discipline. More specifically, the Association is dominated by the Moscow Institute of State and Law, whose approximately 150 members are automatically members of the SAPS and comprise nearly one-half of its total membership. See Ostroumov (fn. 7), 151, and Churchward (fn. 5), 73–74.

²¹ E. V. Tadevosian, the first president of the SAPS, reportedly told a Western scholar that the establishment of this organization did not signify the recognition of political science as an independent academic discipline. See Skilling, Gordon, “In Search of Political Science in the USSR,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, xxix (November 1963), 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the report of the 1965 meeting of the SAPS by Tadevosian, E. V., “Diskussiia o politicheskoi nauke,” [Discussion About Political Science], VF, No. 10 (1965), 164–66Google Scholar.

²² See Ostroumov (fn. 7), 148ff.; “O razrabotke …” (fn. 14); and Tadevosian (fn. 21), 165–66.

²³ See, for example, the report of the 1962 meeting of the SAPS in Shatrov, V. P., “V Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk,” [In the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences], SGP, No. 8 (1962), 126–27Google Scholar.

²⁴ See Slavin, V., “Pervoe ezhegodnoe sobranie Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk,” [The First Annual Meeting of the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences], SGP, No. 7 (1961), 133Google Scholar.

²⁵ Thus, for example, in 1962 the SAPS attempted to induce the APSA to protest against the “persecution” of the Communist Party in the U.S. and later turned to the IPSA with a similar request. See Shatrov (fn. 23), 127, and, by the same author, “Tret'e ezhegodnoe sobranie Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk,” [The Third Annual Meeting of the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences], SGP, No. 7 (1963), 163.

²⁶ The last reported annual meeting of the SAPS took place in February of 1966. See Pomerantsev, I. T., “V Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh nauk,” [In the Soviet Association of Political Sciences], SGP, No. 6 (1966), 135Google Scholar. I have been unable to find any reference to later annual meetings in the pages of SGP and VF, i.e., those journals which had previously reported on the activities of the SAPS. I have not had access to Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR. A delegation of scholars, headed by V. M. Chkhikvadze, the president of the SAPS, attended the 1967 Congress of the IPSA. See S.Z. (fn. 19), 139. In 1969 a collection of essays was published in English translation under the joint auspices of the Institute of State and Law of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Soviet Political Science Association. Cf., Chkhikvadze, V. M., ed., The Soviet State and Law (Moscow 1969)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Cf., Safarov, R. A., “Vyiavlenie obshchestvennogo mneniia v gosudarstvenno-pravovoi praktike,” [The Manifestation of Public Opinion in State and Legal Practice], SGP, No. 10 (1967), 50, 52Google Scholar.

²⁸ See F. Burlatskii, “Politika i nauka,” [Politics and Science], Pravda, January 10, 1965, 4; emphasis added.

²⁹ Burlatskii suggested that the main perspectives of political science should be the study of the mechanism and dynamics of political leadership in a society. He proposed the following divisions within political science: (i) political (class) relations in Socialist and capitalist countries; (2) international relations; (3) structure and activities of the state; (4) political parties; (5) social organizations; (6) mass movements; (7) international unions and organizations; (8) forms and methods of diplomacy; (9) public opinion; and (10) methods of propaganda.

³⁰ Tadevosian (fn. 21), 164–65.

³¹ See “O razrabotke …” (fn. 14). Pravda suggested the following divisions of political science: (1) study of the political system, questions of leadership, organization, and government in Socialist countries; (2) study of the problems of political power in capitalist countries and in the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America; (3) problems of contemporary international relations and theoretical problems of foreign policy; (4) basic problems of the contemporary Communist, workers' and national liberation movement; and (5) study of contemporary political ideologies and theories. As this proposal makes clear, the study of politics in Communist countries is to proceed separately from the study of politics in general, and any suggestion of possible affinities between Communist and capitalist politics is to be discouraged.

³² Cf., Burlatskii, F. M., Lenin, Gosudarstvo, Politika [Lenin, the State, and Politics] (Moscow 1970)Google Scholar. Citation on p. 8. For a bibliography of Western sources, cf., pp. 516–23.

³³ Ibid., 493–94. Burlatskii's emphasis on the importance of the development of middle-level theoretical propositions is particularly interesting and significant in view of the fact that the first decade of “concrete sociological research” in the Soviet Union has been characterized by the lack of such propositions. On this point, see V. A. Iadov, “Rol’ metodologii v opredelenii metodov i tekhniki konkretnogo sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia,” [The Role of Methodology in the Determination of the Methods and Technique of Concrete Sociological Research], VF, No. 10 (1966).

³⁴ Burlatskii (fn. 32), 494.

³⁵ See, for example, Tadevosian (fn. 21), 165, and the kind of opposition which can be inferred from the follow-up article to Burlatskii's Pravda essay of January, 1965: “O razrabotke …” (fn. 14).

³⁶ The Western social scientist will gain a measure of appreciation for the plight of his Soviet colleagues when he reads the following typical exhortation published in Pravda: “Our social science must combine a consistent Marxist-Leninist Party spirit (partiinost') with a strictly scientific approach.” Cf. S. Kovalev, “Trebovaniia zhizni i obshchestvennye nauki,” [The Demands of Life and the Social Sciences], Pravda, May 6, 1966, 3.

³⁷ The articles are far too numerous to list. For examples, cf., ibid., 2–3; F. Konstan-tinov, “Leninskaia partiinost' v filosofii i sovremennost',” [The Leninist Party Spirit in Philosophy and the Present],Kommunist, No. 1 (1966), 84–94; V. Pashuto and others, “Printsip partiinosti v istoricheskom issledovanii i ego sovremennye kritiki,” [The Principle of Party Spirit in Historical Research and Its Contemporary Critics], ibid., No. 4 (1966), 72–79; P. Demichev, “Stroitel'stvo kommunizma i zadachi obshchest-vennykri nauk,” [The Construction o£ Communism and the Tasks of the Social Sciences], ibid., No. 10 (1968), 14–35. See also fn. 9.

³⁸ On this point, cf., Tadevosian (fn. 21), 165, and Leonhard (fn. 12), 734ff.

³⁹ See Burlatskii (fn. 28).

⁴⁰ See the interesting reactions to Burlatskii's Pravda essay by E. Ambartsumov and A. Galkin (both section chiefs of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences) and by members of the Latin American Institute of the Academy, including its director, S. Mikhailov, in “O razrabotke …” (fn. 14).