Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-77pjf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T00:12:49.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Science of Democracy?

A Discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

John Gerring
John Gerring
Affiliation:
Boston University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist. By Jon Elster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 212p. $80.00 cloth, $22.99 paper.

Alexis de Tocqueville is surely one of the most widely cited, discussed, and celebrated political theorists in the world. Jon Elster's book, Alexis de Tocqueville: the First Social Scientist proceeds from a provocative premise: that Tocqueville's major works were lacking in “system” and were “hugely incoherent,” and that Tocqeuville himself “was not a major political thinker” (xi). Elster argues that instead Tocqueville ought to be viewed as a penetrating historical sociologist and an exemplary social scientist who might well be considered the first true social scientist. Elster's argument is important for at least two reasons: first, because it offers a striking and challenging reading of Tocqueville; and second, because it expands on Elster's own contributions in the philosophy of social science, and develops interesting understandings of “causal mechanisms,” methodological individualism, and social explanation more generally. As Elster writes in his Introduction, “the main task of this book is to argue for the relevance of Tocqueville for social science in the twenty-first century (p. 5).” The purpose of this Perspectives symposium is to assess Elster's argument in broad terms. What are the strengths and limits of Elster's reading of Tocqueville? How ought we to assess Elster's understanding of Tocqueville's deficiencies as a “political theorist?” What is the relevance of Tocqueville for contemporary social science? And, most importantly, what are the challenges and possible trajectories facing social science in the twenty-first century, and to what extent does Elster's essay point us in the right direction?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Type
Review Symposium: The Social Science of Democracy?
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 377 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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

Achen, Christopher H. 2002. “Toward a New Political Methodology: Microfoundations and ART.” Annual Review of Political Science 5: 423–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Jeffrey, Giesen, Bernhard, Munch, Richard, and Smelser, Neil J., eds. 1987. The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William, and Richardson, Robert. 1993. Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2003. “Beyond Hempel and Back to Hume: Causal Mechanisms and Causal Explanation.” Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A., and Primo, David M.. 2007. “Modernizing Political Science: A Model-Based Approach.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (4): 741–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A., and Primo, David M.. N.d.Models with Meaning: Reimagining the Science of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1986. “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 91 (May): 1309–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David. 1993. “The Comparative Method.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 105–19.Google Scholar
Collins, Randall. 1981. “On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology.” American Journal of Sociology 86 (March): 984–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Karen S. 2000. “Advances in the Microfoundations of Sociology: Recent Developments and New Challenges for Social Psychology.” Contemporary Sociology 29 (September): 685–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl. 2001. “Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy.” Philosophy of Science 68 (1): 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley. 2002. “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms: Schema Instantiation, Modular Subassembly, Forward/Backward Chaining.” Philosophy of Science 69 Supplement (September): S354–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, Avinash, Skeath, Susan. 1999. Games of Strategy. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1998. “A Plea for Mechanisms.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, ed. Hedstrom, Peter and Swedberg, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engell, A. D., Haxby, J. V., and Todorov, A.. 2007. “Implicit Trustworthiness Decisions: Automatic Coding of Face Properties in Human Amygdala.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19: 1508–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuchs, Stephan. 1989. “On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology: A Critique of Macrosociological Reductionism.” Sociological Perspectives 32 (2): 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambetta, Diego. 1998. “Concatenations of Mechanisms.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, ed. Hedstrom, Peter and Swedberg, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 102–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 2008. “The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (January): 161–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But …” Comparative Political Studies 43 (November): 1499–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, Stuart S. 1996. “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation.” Erkenntnis 44: 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimcher, Paul W. 2003. Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain: The Science of Neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel N., and Weinstein, Jeremy. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision? An Experimental Approach.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechter, Michael, ed. 1983. The Microfoundation of Macrosociology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hedstrom, Peter. 2005. Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedstrom, Peter, and Swedberg, Richard. 1998. “Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, ed. Hedstrom, Peter and Swedberg, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Paul W. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 (December): 945–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Joan, ed. 1991. Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan. 2005. “Natural Resources, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution: Uncovering the Mechanisms.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (August): 508–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A., and Powell, Robert. 1999. “International Relations: A Strategic Choice Approach.” In Strategic Choice and International Relations, ed. Lake, David A. and Powell, Robert. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch. 2008. “Indeterminacy and Causal Mechanisms in International Relations Theory.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Little, Daniel. 1998. Microfoundations, Method, and Causation. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James, Rueschemeyer, amd Dietrich, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, Jose Antonio, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Clayton. 1996. The Logic of Historical Explanation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Van Bouwel, Jeroen, and Weber, Erik. 2002. “Remote Causes, Bad Explanations?” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 32 (4): 437–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bergh, Jeoren C.J.M., and Gowdy, John M.. 2003. “The Microfoundations of Macroeconomics: An Evolutionary Perspective.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 27: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. A Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Weber, Erik, and Van Bouwel, Jeroen. 2002. “Symposium on Explanations and Social Ontology 3: Can We Dispense with Structural Explanations of Social Facts?” Economics and Philosophy 18: 259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1979. Microfoundations: The Compatibility of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlforth, William C. 1998. “Reality Check: Revising Theories of International Politics in Response to the End of the Cold War.” World Politics 50 (4): 650–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar