Richard Falk's Study of Future Worlds is the most comprehensive world order scheme to appear since the Clark-Sohn plan of the late 1950's. In fact, in terms of scope, function, plan and organization, Falk's 506-page work is probably the most comprehensive proposal in the history of world order literature.

A Study of Future Worlds is an outgrowth of the World Order Models Project (WOMP) that was created by Saul Mendlovitz in 1966. Under Mendlovitz's leadership, a series of national teams have produced several volumes, each offering a complete alternative world order model for criticism, comment and, hopefully, support as a serious political proposal. Falk's book is the American contribution to this series and is often referred to as WOMP-USA in the literature of the World Order Models Project.

The highest function of criticism is to stimulate an author to think harder, to go further, to reconsider, and, possibly, to try again. At times, often unwittingly, author and critic join in a species of tacit collaboration. I regard Stanley Michalak's generally helpful critique of A Study of Future Worlds in this spirit.

The overall ambition of world order studies has been to work out an intellectual framework useful for understanding and acting upon the great global challenges of our time—the menace of large-scale warfare, the scandal of large-scale poverty, the outrage of acute injustice, the dangers of environmental decay, and the burden of inhumane and/or ineffectual governance at all levels of social organization (from family to planet).

I greatly appreciate the care with which Professor Falk read my essay and the time he spent in writing a response to it. His comments have helped to sharpen and illuminate the differences between us and he has clarified for me some of the points he makes in A Study of Future Worlds. I will reply just briefly to some of the comments that Professor Falk makes in his response.

1. As Professor Falk indicates, some of the major differences between us are empirical —he would say “partly”; I would say “largely.” That is, we differ on the existence and significance of rising political forces or counterelites and the likely growth and future impact that these forces will have.

Political scientists refer to the comparison of various governments as being the field of comparative politics. Within that category, those that deal with less-developed countries are said to be specialists in political development, a term that has long been controversial due to its value implications. But within this political development category, there is a strong tendency for scholars to either specialize in a specific country and/or a specific set of countries. The sets are generally geographic, so among political scientists one can be a Latin Americanist, an Africanist, and so forth.

Political is a ubiquitous and seemingly indispensable term in the discussion of human affairs. We use it to speak of quite different kinds of things — institutions, actions, conflicts, expenditures, a type of discourse, a branch of science, and such. We apply it to the life and thought of modern nations, ancient cities, and primitive tribes. Even the internal affairs of businesses, unions, schools and churches are sometimes called “political.” In all these cases, we assume that the term has, or at least can have, some definite meaning. Yet it is difficult to say what, if anything, “political” signifies in its various applications and how it signifies what it does.

One clear fact emerging from current public opinion polls is that most Americans have little confidence in both political leaders and the political system. At the time of this writing, the president's approval ratings have slipped to the lowest mark for any president since World War II – just above 25 percent, according to one poll. Members of Congress have hardly been faring better. Throughout 1977, even as the president's popularity began to slide down, approval ratings for Congress never went above 40 percent, ending the year at just above 30 percent. Indeed, all politicians have suffered from severely diminished status in the public eye. In one recent survey on occupational prestige, they were rated next to last among fifteen occupations listed, a step above salesmen and one below skilled workers.

Eric Voegelin's influence upon contemporary political philosophy is an acknowledged fact. Thus although one may disagree with much of what Voegelin has written, no responsible scholar can afford to simply overlook his work. Of his writings, the book that apparently has had the widest, if not the deepest, impact is The New Science of Politics. And although some commentators have focused upon the critical analysis of scientism with which Voegelin begins his text, most scholars appear to be interested primarily in his development of the concept of gnosticism. This interest, in turn, seems to reflect Voegelin's own intentions at the time.