On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids legal discrimination against same-sex marriage. The decision sent shock waves throughout the country, with both supporters and opponents regarding it as signal of dramatic shifts in public opinion and a revolutionary development on the road to sex-gender equality. Just two days earlier, on June 24, 2015, Stephen Macedo’s Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage was published. Macedo has always worked at the intersection of legal theory, normative theory, and public policy, and Just Married offers a nuanced liberal democratic defense of marriage equality with striking resonance in light of Obergefell. We have thus invited a range of scholars on LGBT rights, and LGBT politics more generally, to comment on his book.

The discipline of political science in the United States evolved in tandem with the development of democratic education and the modern university system. Since the early years of the twentieth century, political science has been an academic discipline housed in universities and colleges, and most political scientists earn their living as university or college teachers. And yet as individual academics or as a discipline, we rarely stand back from our institutional environment and ask hard questions about what is happening with higher education and what this means for the practice of political science. Suzanne Mettler does precisely this in Degrees of Inequality: How Higher Education Politics Sabotaged the American Dream. And so we have invited a range of political science scholars, many with extensive experience as university leaders, to comment on her book and its implications for the future of political science.

Has the uneasy marriage between political theory and political science reached the point where a divorce is now necessary? I consider here the gradual decline of political theory after its post-World War II heyday and its growing self-enclosure in the face of global events that call out for the deeper sort of inquiry that political theory can offer. Drawing on examples from both the Middle East and America, I turn next to a number of institutional considerations that help us understand why this has happened. These institutional challenges pale, however, next to the challenge the hermeneutics of suspicion poses in the twenty-first century to a world increasingly exhausted by the liberal and anti-modern tropes, and in need of constructive understandings of how to go forward. I conclude with the suggestion that political theory and the humanities are better situated within a domain called comparative canonical inquiry.

The discipline of political science in the United States evolved in tandem with the development of democratic education and the modern university system. Since the early years of the twentieth century, political science has been an academic discipline housed in universities and colleges, and most political scientists earn their living as university or college teachers. And yet as individual academics or as a discipline, we rarely stand back from our institutional environment and ask hard questions about what is happening with higher education and what this means for the practice of political science. Suzanne Mettler does precisely this in Degrees of Inequality: How Higher Education Politics Sabotaged the American Dream. And so we have invited a range of political science scholars, many with extensive experience as university leaders, to comment on her book and its implications for the future of political science.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids legal discrimination against same-sex marriage. The decision sent shock waves throughout the country, with both supporters and opponents regarding it as signal of dramatic shifts in public opinion and a revolutionary development on the road to sex-gender equality. Just two days earlier, on June 24, 2015, Stephen Macedo’s Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage was published. Macedo has always worked at the intersection of legal theory, normative theory, and public policy, and Just Married offers a nuanced liberal democratic defense of marriage equality with striking resonance in light of Obergefell. We have thus invited a range of scholars on LGBT rights, and LGBT politics more generally, to comment on his book.

Why would a political scientist write a biography of a U.S. national security advisor? Biography focuses on a single individual and has no guidelines on where or how to collect evidence or on how to organize that evidence. Nonetheless, a biography of General Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, allowed me to provide a broad overview of forty years of U.S. foreign policy history, to conduct an in-depth study of the personnel and organization involved in the national security decision-making, and to narrate the life of an extremely influential and interesting public figure. Biography fulfills many of political science’s disciplinary objectives, in fact: it speaks to important issues of political science, it offers thick description and facilitates the drawing of causal inferences, it addresses agency and structure, it is falsifiable, and it is able to communicate with a larger public.

The discipline of political science in the United States evolved in tandem with the development of democratic education and the modern university system. Since the early years of the twentieth century, political science has been an academic discipline housed in universities and colleges, and most political scientists earn their living as university or college teachers. And yet as individual academics or as a discipline, we rarely stand back from our institutional environment and ask hard questions about what is happening with higher education and what this means for the practice of political science. Suzanne Mettler does precisely this in Degrees of Inequality: How Higher Education Politics Sabotaged the American Dream. And so we have invited a range of political science scholars, many with extensive experience as university leaders, to comment on her book and its implications for the future of political science.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids legal discrimination against same-sex marriage. The decision sent shock waves throughout the country, with both supporters and opponents regarding it as signal of dramatic shifts in public opinion and a revolutionary development on the road to sex-gender equality. Just two days earlier, on June 24, 2015, Stephen Macedo’s Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage was published. Macedo has always worked at the intersection of legal theory, normative theory, and public policy, and Just Married offers a nuanced liberal democratic defense of marriage equality with striking resonance in light of Obergefell. We have thus invited a range of scholars on LGBT rights, and LGBT politics more generally, to comment on his book.

Drawing largely on my own career in academia, I elaborate on the need for greater gender, racial and other forms of diversity in International Relations. Although theories are thought to be “objective,” what goes into those theories and, in turn, their explanatory power is ultimately shaped by subjective, lived experiences. Different individuals with different life stories will develop different intuitions about how the world “works,” and thus will write different theories to capture those intuitions and, in turn, larger patterns of politics. I explain here how my life experience as a privileged white male has shaped the intellectual contours of my work on international hierarchy. Building from this foundation, I then explore how professional practices elevate as gatekeepers individuals with generally similar life experiences and, thus, intuitions about what constitutes “good” work in the field, which in turn reinforces those professional practices and priorities. The final section focuses on problems of eroding the disciplinary hierarchy and broadening the pipeline into the profession.

The Port Huron Statement was one of the most important manifestos of the New Left in the United States. A foundational statement of the theme of “participatory democracy,” the text had an important influence on post-1960s politics and, arguably, on post-1960s political science. The recent publication of a new edition of the Statement is an occasion for reflection on its importance. And so we have invited a distinguished cast of political scientists shaped by the events of the sixties to comment on the impact of the Statement on their own way of envisioning and practicing political science.

In White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations, Robert Vitalis presents a critical disciplinary history of the field of international relations, and the discipline of political science more broadly. Vitalis argues that the interconnections between imperialism and racism were “constitutive” of international relations scholarship in the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century, and that the perspectives of a generation of African-American scholars that included W. E. B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and Ralph Bunche were equally constitutive of this scholarship—by virtue of the way the emerging discipline sought to marginalize these scholars. In developing this argument, Vitalis raises questions about the construction of knowledge and the racial foundations of American political development. These issues lie at the heart of U.S. political science, and so we have invited a range of political scientists to comment on the book and its implications for our discipline.

The discipline of political science in the United States evolved in tandem with the development of democratic education and the modern university system. Since the early years of the twentieth century, political science has been an academic discipline housed in universities and colleges, and most political scientists earn their living as university or college teachers. And yet as individual academics or as a discipline, we rarely stand back from our institutional environment and ask hard questions about what is happening with higher education and what this means for the practice of political science. Suzanne Mettler does precisely this in Degrees of Inequality: How Higher Education Politics Sabotaged the American Dream. And so we have invited a range of political science scholars, many with extensive experience as university leaders, to comment on her book and its implications for the future of political science.

The discipline of political science in the United States evolved in tandem with the development of democratic education and the modern university system. Since the early years of the twentieth century, political science has been an academic discipline housed in universities and colleges, and most political scientists earn their living as university or college teachers. And yet as individual academics or as a discipline, we rarely stand back from our institutional environment and ask hard questions about what is happening with higher education and what this means for the practice of political science. Suzanne Mettler does precisely this in Degrees of Inequality: How Higher Education Politics Sabotaged the American Dream. And so we have invited a range of political science scholars, many with extensive experience as university leaders, to comment on her book and its implications for the future of political science.

In White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations, Robert Vitalis presents a critical disciplinary history of the field of international relations, and the discipline of political science more broadly. Vitalis argues that the interconnections between imperialism and racism were “constitutive” of international relations scholarship in the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century, and that the perspectives of a generation of African-American scholars that included W. E. B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and Ralph Bunche were equally constitutive of this scholarship—by virtue of the way the emerging discipline sought to marginalize these scholars. In developing this argument, Vitalis raises questions about the construction of knowledge and the racial foundations of American political development. These issues lie at the heart of U.S. political science, and so we have invited a range of political scientists to comment on the book and its implications for our discipline.

The Port Huron Statement was one of the most important manifestos of the New Left in the United States. A foundational statement of the theme of “participatory democracy,” the text had an important influence on post-1960s politics and, arguably, on post-1960s political science. The recent publication of a new edition of the Statement is an occasion for reflection on its importance. And so we have invited a distinguished cast of political scientists shaped by the events of the sixties to comment on the impact of the Statement on their own way of envisioning and practicing political science.