Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:02:04.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2006

JAMES FARR ,
JACOB S. HACKER  and
NICOLE KAZEE
JAMES FARR
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
JACOB S. HACKER
Affiliation:
Yale University
NICOLE KAZEE
Affiliation:
The Brookings Institution and Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The “policy scientist of democracy” was a model for engaged scholarship invented and embodied by Harold D. Lasswell. This disciplinary persona emerged in Lasswell's writings and wartime consultancies during the 1940s, well before he announced in his APSA presidential address, printed in the Review precisely 50 years ago, that political science was “the policy science par excellence.” The policy scientist of democracy knew all about the process of elite decision making, and he put his knowledge into practice by advising those in power, sharing in important decisions, and furthering the cause of dignity. Although Lasswell formulated this ambitious vision near the zenith of his influence, the discipline accorded the ideal—and Lasswell—a mixed reception. Some heralded the policy scientist of democracy; others observed a contradictory figure, at once positivist and value-laden, elitist and democratic, heroic and implausible. The conflicted response exemplifies Lasswell's legacy. The policy scientist of democracy was—and is—too demanding and too contradictory a hero. But the vital questions Lasswell grappled with still must be asked a century into the discipline's development: what is the role of the political scientist in a democratic society? Do political scientists have any obligation to inform or shape policy? Are there democratic values that political science should serve, and if so, what are they? Lasswell never satisfactorily answered these questions. But in asking and trying to answer them—in his writings and in his own career—he was guided by a profound and inspiring conviction: Political science has a unique ability, and even perhaps a special obligation, to engage with issues of democratic choice that fundamentally affect the life circumstances of citizens.

Type
“THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , November 2006 , pp. 579 - 587
Copyright
© 2006 by the American Political Science Association

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

Almond Gabriel. 1987. “Harold Dwight Lasswell,” in Biographical Memoirs, v. 57. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Almond Gabriel and Harold D. Lasswell. 1934. “Aggressive Behavior by Clients toward Public Relief Administrators: A Configurative Analysis.” American Political Science Review 28 (August): 643– 55.Google Scholar
Anderson Charles W. 1971. “Comparative Policy Analysis: The Design of Measures.” Comparative Politics 4 (October): 117– 31.Google Scholar
Brown S. R. et al. 2004. Symposium on the Future of the Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences 37 (December): 207– 58.Google Scholar
Crick Bernard. 1954. “The Science of Politics in the United States.” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 20 (August): 308– 20.Google Scholar
deLeon Peter. 1988. Advice and Consent: The Development of the Policy Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
deLeon Peter. 1995. “Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (November): 886– 905.Google Scholar
Dryzek John S. 1989. “Policy Sciences of Democracy.” Polity 22 (Autumn): 97– 118.Google Scholar
Easton David. 1950. “Harold Lasswell: Policy Scientist for a Democratic Society.” Journal of Politics 12 (August): 450– 77.Google Scholar
Eulau Heinz. 1969. “The Maddening Methods of Harold D. Lasswell: Some Philosophical Underpinnings.” In Politics, Personality, and Social Science in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Harold D. Lasswell, ed. Arnold A. Rogow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 15– 40.
Eulau Heinz. 1977. “The Hoover Elite Studies Revisited.” Social Science History 1 (Spring): 392– 400.Google Scholar
Eulau Heinz and Susan Zlomke. 1999. “Harold D. Lasswell's Legacy to Mainstream Political Science: A Neglected Agenda.” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (June): 75– 89.Google Scholar
Gewirth Alan. 1949. “Political Power and Democratic Psychiatry.” Ethics 59 (January): 136– 42.Google Scholar
Horwitz Robert. 1962. “Scientific Propaganda: Harold D. Lasswell.” In Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, ed. Herbert J. Storing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jones Charles O. 1973. Review [of Pre-View of the Policy Sciences]. American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1363– 64.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1925. “Two Forgotten Studies in Political Psychology.” American Political Science Review 19 (November): 707– 17.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1927. “The Theory of Political Propaganda.” American Political Science Review 21 (August): 627– 31.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1929. “The Study of the Ill as a Method of Research into Political Personalities.” American Political Science Review 23 (November): 996– 1001.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1930. Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasswell Harold D. 1931. “The Measurement of Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review 25 (May): 311– 26.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1935. World Politics and Personal Insecurity. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lasswell Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lasswell Harold D. 1941. “The Garrison State.” American Journal of Sociology 46 (January): 455– 68.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1942. “The Developing Science of Democracy.” In The Future of Government in the United States: Essays in Honor of Charles E. Merriam, ed. Leonard D. White. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasswell Harold D. 1948. Power and Personality. New York: Norton.
Lasswell Harold D. 1950. National Security and Individual Freedom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lasswell Harold D. 1951a. “The Immediate Future of Research Policy and Method in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 45 (March): 133– 42.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1951b. “The Policy Orientation.” In The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method, eds. Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lasswell Harold D. 1951c. Papers re Army-Navy-Air Force Personnel Security Board. Harold D. Lasswell Papers. Box 213, Folder 14. Yale University Library. New Haven, CT.
Lasswell Harold D. 1956a. “The Political Science of Science: An Inquiry into the Possible Reconciliation of Mastery and Freedom.” American Political Science Review 50 (December): 961– 79.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1956b. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park: Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland Press.
Lasswell Harold D. 1957. “The Normative Impact of the Behavioral Sciences.” Ethics 59 (January): 1– 42.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1963. The Future of Political Science. New York: Prentice Hall.
Lasswell Harold D. 1965. “The Emerging Policy Sciences of Development: The Vicos Case.” American Behavioral Scientist 8 (March): 28– 33.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1971a. A Pre-View of the Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing.
Lasswell Harold D. 1971b. The Policy Orientation of Political Science. Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Agra-3, India.
Lasswell Harold D. 1979. The Signature of Power: Buildings, Communication, and Policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Lasswell Harold D. and Nathan Leites, eds. 1950. Language of Power. New York: George Stewart.
Lasswell Harold D. and Renzo Sereno. 1937. “Governmental and Party Leaders in Fascist Italy.” American Political Science Review 31 (October): 914– 29.Google Scholar
Leites Nathan. 1948. Review [of Power and Personality]. Public Opinion Quarterly 12 (Autumn): 517– 19.Google Scholar
Lerner Daniel and Harold D. Lasswell, eds. 1951. The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
MacRae Duncan. 1970. “Social Science and the Sources of Policy, 1951–1970.” PS: Political Science and Politics 3 (Summer): 294– 310.Google Scholar
McDougal Myres S. 1947. “The Law School of the Future: From Legal Realism to Policy Science in the World Community.” The Yale Review 56 (September): 1345– 55.Google Scholar
Mead Lawrence M. “Policy Studies and Political Science.” Policy Studies Review 85 (November): 319– 35.
Merelman Richard M. 1981. “Harold D. Lasswell's Political World: Weak Tea for Hard Times.” British Journal of Political Science 11 (October): 471– 97.Google Scholar
Moore Wilbert E. 1952. Review [of The Policy Sciences]. Public Opinion Quarterly 16 (Spring): 142– 44.Google Scholar
Muth Rodney. 1990. “Harold Dwight Lasswell: A Biographical Profile.” In Harold D. Lasswell: An Annotated Bibliography, ed. Rodney Muth, Mary M. Finley, and Marcia F. Muth. New Haven: New Haven Press.
Somit Albert and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1964. American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline. New York: Atherton Press.
Sproule J. Michael. 1997. Propaganda and Democracy: The American Experience of Media and Mass Persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weidner Edward W. 1954. Letter of Nomination, 25 January. APSA Archives.Google Scholar
Whittlesey Walter Lincoln. 1935. Review [of World Politics and Political Insecurity]. American Political Science Review 29 (June): 501– 503.Google Scholar
Wildavsky Aaron B. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little Brown.
Wolpert J. F. 1949. Review [of Language of Politics]. Ethics 60 (October): 69– 71.Google Scholar
Wright Quincy. 1952. Review [of The Policy Sciences]. American Political Science Review 46 (March): 234– 38.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.