Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:29:14.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History and Discipline in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John S. Dryzek  and
Stephen T. Leonard
John S. Dryzek
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Stephen T. Leonard
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either “Whiggish” and condescending toward the past, or “skeptical” and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , December 1988 , pp. 1245 - 1260
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

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 A. 1966. “Political Theory and Political Science.” American Political Science Review 60: 869–79.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1983. “The Ontological Presuppositions and Political Consequences of a Social Science.” In Changing Social Science, ed. Sabia, Daniel R. Jr. and Wallulis, Jerald. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 1976. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. The Possibility of Naturalism. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1986. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Blondel, Jean. 1981. The Discipline of Politics. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Burian, Richard. 1977. “More Than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and the Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 42: 1–42.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Herbert. 1931. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: G. Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald, and Burrow, John. 1983. That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard. 1959. The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and Conditions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1986. “The Progress of Political Science.” Journal of Politics 48: 301–20.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of the Discipline. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1983. “Political Theory: The Evolution of a Sub-Field.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1984. “Five Parables.” In Philosophy in History, ed. Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Quentin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haddow, Anna. 1939. Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1980. Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of the Sciences. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Higgot, Richard A. 1983. Political Development Theory. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1962. Leviathan. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 1987. “After Empiricism: The Realist Alternative.” In Idioms of Inquiry, ed. Ball, Terence. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Janos, Andrew C. 1986. Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, Dennis. 1983. Political Science and Political Behaviour. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1983. “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1969. “Comment.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 11: 403–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepenies, Wolf, and Weingart, Peter. 1983. Introduction to Functions and Uses of Disciplinary History, ed. Graham, Loren, Lepenies, Wolf, and Weingart, Peter. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1985. Forward to Disenchanted Realists, by Seidelman, Raymond and Harpham, Edward J.. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1968. “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered.” British Journal of Sociology 19: 119–29.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Nicolo. 1950. The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1977. “Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narratives, and the Philosophy of Science.” The Monist 60: 453–72.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. “The Relationship of Philosophy to Its Past.” In Philosophy in History, ed. Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Quentin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maclntyre, Alasdair. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Manicas, Peter T. 1987. A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E. 1925. New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary J., and Moe, Terry M.. 1986. “The Positive Theory of Hierarchies.” In Political Science: The Science of Politics, ed. Weisberg, Herbert F.. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Natchez, Peter B. 1985. Images of Voting / Visions of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, David M. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76: 753–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Quentin. 1984. Introduction to Philosophy in History, ed. Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Quentin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidelman, Raymond, and Harpham, Edward J.. 1985. Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1967. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J., ed. 1962. Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1984. “Philosophy and Its History.” In Philosophy in History, ed. Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Quentin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, David. 1979. Naturalism and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1986. Introduction to Political Science: The Science of Politics, ed. Weisberg, Herbert F.. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.