Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:47:23.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of Parties in the Study of Politics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Avery Leiserson
Avery Leiserson
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the beginner approaches the study of politics, one of the most natural questions for him to ask is: what is it that political science studies? This is a way of asking what is the political scientist's conception of reality. More often than not, the teacher finds the student looking for an objective physical structure, simplified yet concrete, like the astronomer's reduced-scale construction of the solar system, the biologist's photographic reproduction of microscopic cellular organisms, or the physicist's diagram of atomic structure. It is important for the student of human affairs to realize that while individuals, small groups, mass meetings, and even whole cities can be photographed or diagrammed, social scientists have never succeeded in reproducing satisfactory physical models of such concepts as personality, social structure, bureaucratic organization, the price system, or government. Nor do the ends and criteria of government, like order, justice, freedom, welfare or security, lend themselves to analysis in terms of physical or chemical elements like oxygen, carbon, iron, or uranium. Perhaps the closest physical analogy to politics and government is an automobile engine or an electric power plant; but no one would claim that the driver of a car has learned the principles of the engine if all he knows is how to operate it, any more than the power plant engineer understands generation if all he learns is how to read dials and pull switches. Theory is required, and its function is to identify and abstract from total reality the essential minimal concepts and to formulate statements describing the relationships between those concepts whereby the world of experience becomes comprehensible. Theory is never identical with the totality of phenomenal experience; the propositions and principles of theory provide a means by which aspects of reality can be explicitly analyzed and verified, in the hope that some synthesizing minds will make the efforts toward a synthetic reconstruction of reality on the basis of understood principles.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1957 , pp. 943 - 954
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1957

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

1 Reichenbach, H., The Rise of Scientific Philosophy (Berkeley, 1951)Google Scholar. For non-institutional, mathematical formulations, see Simon, H. and Newell, A., “Models: Their Uses and Limitations,” in White, L. D., ed., The State of the Social Sciences (Chicago, 1956), pp. 66–84Google Scholar; Lerner, D. and Lasswell, H. D., eds., The Policy Sciences (1951)Google Scholar, Chs. 1, 8–9.

2 Almond, G. A., “Comparative Political Systems,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 18, pp. 391–409 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Some representative works of this period are: Bluntschli, J. B., Theory of the State (1885)Google Scholar; Burgess, J. W., Political Science, and Constitutional Law (1890)Google Scholar; Seeley, J. R., Introduction to Political Science (1893)Google Scholar; Willoughby, W. W., The Nature of the State (1896)Google Scholar.

4 Mill, J. S., Representative Government (1861)Google Scholar; Bagehot, W., The English Constitution (1872)Google Scholar; Wilson, W., Congressional Government (1885)Google Scholar; Bryce, J., The American Commonwealth (1888)Google Scholar; Lowell, A. L., Governments and Politics of Continental Europe (1897)Google Scholar; Goodnow, F. J., Politics and Administration (1900)Google Scholar.

5 The dualism appears sharply in the organization of such works as Willoughby, W. F., The Government of Modern States (1918)Google Scholar; Laski, H. J., A Grammar of Politics (1925)Google Scholar; Garner, J. W., Political Science and Government (1928)Google Scholar. Recent efforts to transcend this separation are Merriam, C. R., Systematic Politics (1945)Google Scholar; MacIver, R. M., The Web of Government (1947)Google Scholar.

6 Weber, M., Theory of Economic and Social Organization, Part III (1919, English translation by Parsons, , 1947)Google Scholar; Catlin, G., The Principles of Politics (1930)Google Scholar; Merriam, C. E., Political Power (1934)Google Scholar; Lasswell, H. D., World Politics and Personal Insecurity (1935)Google Scholar and, with Kaplan, A., Power and Society (1950)Google Scholar; Easton, D., The Political System (1953)Google Scholar. But see Cook, T. I., “The Methods of Political Science,” in Contemporary Political Science (UNESCO, Paris, 1950)Google Scholar.

7 Dahl, R. A. and Lindblom, C. E., Politics, Economics and Welfare (1953)Google Scholar, Part IV; Dahl, R. A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar.

8 Lipson, L., The Great Issues of Politics (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 4.

9 Simon, H., “On the Observation and Measurement of Political Power,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 15, p. 500 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; March, J. G., “An Introduction to the Theory and Measurement of Influence,” this Review, Vol. 49, p. 431 (1955)Google Scholar; Dahl, R. A., “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 2, p. 201 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oppenheim, F., “Control and Causation,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 19 (1958)Google Scholar.

10 The contrast intended here is with political systems based on tribal, kinship, nomadic, agricultural, or primitive, localized communities, where hereditary authority, the persistent resort to violence, religious symbolism and organization, or monolithic mass movements variously prevent the development of representative government through party politics. See MacLeod, W. C., The Origin and History of Politics (New York, 1931)Google Scholar; Jenks, E., State and Nation (London, 1919)Google Scholar; Clokie, H. M., “The Modern Party-State,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 15 (1939), 139–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 The most recent formulation of this thesis is Mills, C. W., The Power Elite (New York, 1950)Google Scholar. Although Mills protects himself by presenting facts of personal interpenetration between corporate, military and governmental hierarchies, the whole weight of his argument reproduces the Marxist and determinist thesis of the subordination of political to other forms of social power. The more general statement, and more adequate interpretation, goes back to Aristotle, but relevant recent formulations in terms of the functional requirements of the political order may be found in Merriam's Systematic Politics, chs. 1, 6; Mosca, G., The Ruling Class (New York, 1939)Google Scholar; Merton, R. K., Social Theory and Social Structure (Free Press, 1949)Google Scholar, ch. 1; Neumann, F., “Approaches to the Study of Political Power,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 65, p. 161 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Michels, Compare Robert, Political Parties (Glencoe, Ill., 1949)Google Scholar with Duverger, M., Political Parties (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, or Neumann, S., ed., Modern Political Parties (Chicago, 1956)Google Scholar. For an attempt at synthesis of organizational theory ranging from primitive tribes through local communities to industrial factory organization, see Homans, G. C., The Human Group (New York, 1950)Google Scholar.

13 Historic examples of this reasoning are: Democracy (rule by the majority) implies organization (oligarchy). Organization means control of members (followers) by officers or a minority of leaders. Therefore democracy is impossible (19th century conservatives) or undesirable (20th century fascists).

14 Examples of these approaches may be found in Ranney, A. and Kendall, W., Democracy and the American Party System (New York, 1956)Google Scholar and Dahl, K. A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, 1955)Google Scholar.

15 Neumann, S., Comparative Political Parties (1956), pp. 1–4, 395–421Google Scholar; “Comparative Politics: A Half-Century Appraisal,” Journal of Politics (August, 1957)Google Scholar.

16 On these points, see the report of the Committee on Comparative Politics, this Review, Vol. 49, pp. 1022–49 (1955); Rustow, D. A., “The Comparison of Western and Non-Western Political Systems” (Washington: American Political Science Association, 1956)Google Scholar; Almond, G. A., “The Seminar on Comparative Politics,” Items, Vol. 10, No. 4 (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1956)Google Scholar.

17 Truman, D. B., “The Impact on Political Science of the Revolution in the Behavioral Sciences,” The Brookings Institution, Research Frontiers in Politics and Government (Washington, 1955), pp. 202–231Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.