Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T00:53:03.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2006

JOHN S. DRYZEK
JOHN S. DRYZEK
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

American political science is a congenitally unsettled discipline, witnessing a number of movements designed to reorient its fundamental character. Four prominent movements are compared here: the statism accompanying the discipline's early professionalization, the pluralism of the late 1910s and early 1920s, behavioralism, and the Caucus for a New Political Science (with a brief glance at the more recent Perestroika). Of these movements, only the first and third clearly succeeded. The discipline has proven very hard to shift. Despite the rhetoric that accompanied behavioralism, both it and statism were revolutions without enemies within the discipline (other than those appearing after they succeeded), and therein lies the key to their success.

Type
“THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , November 2006 , pp. 487 - 492
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. 1988. “The Return to the State.” American Political Science Review 82 (September): 853– 74.Google Scholar
Bay Christian. 1965. “Politics and Pseudo-politics: A Critical Evaluation of Some Behavioral Literature.” American Political Science Review 59 (March): 39– 51.Google Scholar
Bay Christian. 1968. “For An American Political Science Association.” PS 1 (Winter): 36– 38.Google Scholar
Bentley Arthur F. 1908. The Process of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Catlin George E. G. 1927. The Science and Method of Politics. New York: Knopf.
Charlesworth James C., ed. 1962. The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Dahl Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl Robert A. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest.” American Political Science Review 55 (December): 763– 72.Google Scholar
Dryzek John S. 1986. “The Progress of Political Science.” Journal of Politics 48 (May): 301– 20.Google Scholar
Easton David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.
Easton David. 1991. “Interview.” In Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline, ed. Michael A. Baer, Malcolm E. Jewell, and Lee Sigelman. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Easton David. 1993. “Political Science in the United States: Past and Present.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. James Farr and Raymond Seidelman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Elliott William Yandell. 1928. The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics: Syndicalism, Fascism, and the Constitutional State. New York: Macmillan.
Eulau Heinz. 1972. “Report of the President.” PS 5 (Autumn): 436– 38.Google Scholar
Evans Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farr James. 1993. “Political Science and the State.” In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. James Farr and Raymond Seidelman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Farr James. 1995. “Remembering the Revolution: Behavioralism in American Political Science.” In Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions, ed. James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Follett Mary Parker. 1918. The New State: Group Organization and the Solution of Popular Government. New York: Longmans, Green.
Garand James C., and Micheal W. Giles. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political Scientists.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (April): 293– 308.Google Scholar
Garceau Oliver. 1951. “Research in the Political Process.” American Political Science Review 45 (March): 69– 85.Google Scholar
Goodnow Frank. 1904. “The Work of the American Political Science Association.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association 1: 35– 46.Google Scholar
Gunnell John G. 1988. “American Political Science, Liberalism, and the Invention of Political Theory.” American Political Science Review 82 (March): 71– 87.Google Scholar
Gunnell John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gunnell John G. 1995. “The Declination of the ‘State’ and the Origins of American Political Science.” In Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions, ed. James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gunnell John G. 2004. “The Real Revolution in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (January): 47– 50.Google Scholar
Gunnell John G. 2005. “Political Science on the Cusp: G. E. G. Catlin and William Yandell Elliott.” American Political Science Review 99 (November): 597– 609.Google Scholar
Herring Pendleton. 1929. Group Representation Before Congress. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuhn Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laski Harold J. 1917. Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lowi Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.
Lowi Theodore J. 1973. “The Politicization of Political Science.” American Politics Quarterly 1 (January): 43– 71.Google Scholar
Ranney Austin. 1991. “Interview.” In Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline, ed. Michael A. Baer, Malcolm E. Jewell, and Lee Sigelman. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Schlosberg David. 1998. “Resurrecting the Pluralist Universe.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (September): 583– 616.Google Scholar
Seidelman Raymond, with Edward J. Harpham. 1984. Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Storing Herbert J., ed. 1962. Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Swidorski Carl. 2004? “‘Perestroika’ and the Caucus for a New Political Science.” Online at http://www.psa.ac.uk/psanews/0312/New%20Political%20Science.htm.
Torgerson Douglas. 1995. “Policy Analysis and Public Life: The Restoration of Phronesis?” InPolitical Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions, ed. James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Truman David B. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Knopf.
Wilson Woodrow. 1885. Congressional Government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wilson Woodrow. 1887. “The Science of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly 2 (June): 197– 222.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.