On (Lost and Found) Analytical History in Political Science

doi:10.1017/9781009231053.012

11 - On (Lost and Found) Analytical History in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 December 2022

Ira Katznelson

Edited by

Richard Bourke and

Quentin Skinner

Show author details

Richard Bourke: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Quentin Skinner: Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

I argue that feminism develops a historicist critique of philosophy from within philosophy. Feminist thinkers bring to bear both history and historicist sensibilities to reveal concepts as constructs of power rather than given in nature, and reason as fractured, weaponised, and thickly situated in political structures. They thereby take aim at both philosophy and – relatedly – patriarchy. But feminists are not immune from the lure of conceptual analysis, from wanting to fix, to get right, the terms of their campaign – nor indeed from wanting themselves to claim a transcendent vantage point of truth. This chapter is about the gulf between history and philosophy, and the feminist bridge between them.

Keywords

Political science history

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: History in the Humanities and Social Sciences , pp. 260 - 285

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009231053.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, C. F. 1902. ‘An Undeveloped Function’, American Historical Review, 7: 2, pp. 203–32.Google Scholar

Adams, Herbert B. 1895. ‘Is History Past Politics?’, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 13th series, 3–4, pp. 67–81.Google Scholar

Adcock, Robert. 2003. ‘The Emergence of Political Science as a Discipline: History and the Study of Politics in America, 1875–1910’, History of Political Thought, 24: 3, pp. 481–508.Google Scholar

Adcock, Robert and Bevir, Mark. 2010. ‘Political Science’ in The History of the Social Sciences since 1945, ed. Backhouse, Roger E. and Fontaine, Philippe. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Anderson, Perry. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London.Google Scholar

Bailyn, Bernard. 2015. Sometimes an Art: Nine Essays on History. New York.Google Scholar

Bates, Robert H. et al. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton.Google Scholar

Berndtson, Erkki. 1983. ‘Political Science and Democracy: Four Phases of the Development in American Political Democracy’ in Exploring the Basis of Politics: Five Essays on the Politics of Experience. Language, Knowledge, and History, ed. Heiskanen, Ilkka and Hänninen, Sakari. Tampere.Google Scholar

Bowen, Norman. 1983. ‘Professionalism, Reform and Organic Theory in the Founding of the Social Sciences’, Revue française d’études américaines, 16, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar

Burgess, J. W. 1897. ‘Political Science and History’ in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1896, Volume I. Washington.Google Scholar

Bury, J. B. 1903. The Science of History: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered in the Divinity School Cambridge on January 26, 1903. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Clark, Christopher. 2012. ‘Power’ in A Concise Companion to History, ed. Rublack, Ulinka. Oxford.Google Scholar

Cochran, Thomas C. 1948. ‘The “Presidential Synthesis” in American History’, American Historical Review, 53: 4, pp. 748–59.Google Scholar

Cochran, Thomas C. 1956. ‘The Social Sciences and the Problem of Historical Synthesis’ in Varieties of History, ed. Stern, Fritz. New York.Google Scholar

Collini, Stephan, Winch, Donald and Burrow, John. 1983. The Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth Century Intellectual History. Cambridge.Google Scholar

de Swaan, Abram. 1988. In Care of the State. New York.Google Scholar

Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda, eds. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gaddis, John Lewis. 2002. The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past. New York.Google Scholar

Heaney, Michael T. 2007. ‘The Chicago School that Never Was’, PA: Political Science and Politics, 40: 4, pp. 753–8.Google Scholar

Heaney, Michael T. and Mark Hansen, John. 2006. ‘Building the Chicago School’, American Political Science Review, 100, pp. 589–96.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hedström, Peter and Swedberg, Richard, eds. 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Higham, John. 1979. ‘The Matrix of Specialization’ in The Organization of Knowledge in America, 1860–1920, ed. Oleson, Alexandra and Voss, John. Baltimore.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1944. Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915. Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1948. The American Political Tradition. New York.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1949. ‘From Calhoun to the Dixiecrats’, Social Research, 26 (June), pp. 135–50.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1954–5. ‘The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt’, The American Scholar, 24 (Winter), pp. 9–27.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1956. ‘History and the Social Sciences, in Varieties of History, ed. Stern, Fritz. New York.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Richard. 1965. The Paranoid Style in American Politics. New York.Google Scholar

Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. 1883. Series 1–2. Baltimore.Google Scholar

Kagan, Jerome. 2009. The Three Cultures. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Katznelson, Ira. 1986. ‘Knowledge about What? Policy Intellectuals and the New Liberalism’ in States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies, ed. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda. Princeton.Google Scholar

Katznelson, Ira. 2003a. ‘The Possibilities of Analytical History’ in The Democratic Experiment: New Directions in American Political History, ed. Jacobs, Meg, Novak, William J. and Zelizer, Julian. Princeton.Google Scholar

Katznelson, Ira. 2003b. Desolation and Enlightenment: Political Knowledge after Total War, Totalitarianism, and the Holocaust. New York.Google Scholar

Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen, eds. 2002. Political Science: State of the Discipline. New York.Google Scholar

Key, V. O., Jr. 1955. ‘A Theory of Critical Elections’, Journal of Politics, 17: 1, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar

Key, V. O., Jr. 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York.Google Scholar

Key, V. O., Jr. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1938–1960. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Kitson Clark, G. 1967. The Critical Historian. London.Google Scholar

Lane, Frederic C. 1955. Review of The Social Sciences in Historical Study, Journal of Economic History, 15, pp. 65–67.Google Scholar

Lowell, A. 1910. ‘The Physiology of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 4, pp. 1–15.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, eds. 2015. Advances in Comparative Historical Analysis. New York.CrossRef Google Scholar

‘The Meeting of the American Historical Association in Philadelphia’. 2003. American Historical Review, 8: 3, p. 421.Google Scholar

Merriam, Charles Edward. 1900. History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. New York.Google Scholar

Merriam, Charles Edward. 1903. A History of American Political Theories. London and New York.Google Scholar

Merriam, Charles Edward. 1921. ‘The Present State of the Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 15, pp. 173–85.Google Scholar

Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston.Google Scholar

Mynott, Jeremy. 2013. ‘Introduction’ in Thucydides, The War of the Peloponnesians and the Athenians. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Nettl, J. P. 1968. ‘The State as a Conceptual Variable’, World Politics, 20: 4, pp. 559–92.CrossRef Google Scholar

Novick, Peter. 1988. That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession. New York.CrossRef Google Scholar

Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen. 1986. ‘Editors’ Preface’, Studies in American Political Development, 1, pp. vii–viii.Google Scholar

Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen. 2002. ‘The Study of American Political Development’ in Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen. New York.Google Scholar

Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda. 2002. ‘Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science’ in Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen. New York.Google Scholar

Potter, David M. 1955. ‘Review’, American Quarterly, 7, pp. 78–81.Google Scholar

Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. 1945. The Age of Jackson. Boston.Google Scholar

Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. 1957–60. The Age of Roosevelt. 3 vols. Boston.Google Scholar

Sewell, William H., Jr. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago.Google Scholar

Shepard, Walter James. 1925. ‘Political Science’ in The History and Prospects of the Social Sciences, ed. Elmer Barnes, Harry. New York.Google Scholar

Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of Social Revolutions in Russia, France, and China. New York.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Rogers M. 1997. ‘Still Blowing in the Wind: The American Quest for a Democratic, Scientific Political Science’ in American Academic Culture in Transformation, ed. Bender, Thomas and Schorske, Carl E.. Princeton.Google Scholar

Social Science Research Council. 1954. The Social Sciences in Historical Study: A Report of the Committee on Historiography. Bulletin 64.Google Scholar

Stern, Fritz, ed. 1956. Varieties of History. New York.Google Scholar

Tilly, Charles, ed. 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton.Google Scholar

Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, and Huge Comparisons. New York.Google Scholar

Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York.Google Scholar

Truman, David B. 1959. The Congressional Party: A Case Study. New York.Google Scholar

Tsou, Tang. 1951. ‘A Study of the Development of the Scientific Approach in Political Studies in the United States, with Particular Emphasis on the Methodological Aspects of the Works of Charles E. Merriam and Harold D. Lasswell’. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Turner, Frederick Jackson. 1893. ‘The Significance of the Frontier in American History’ in Annual Report of the American Historical Association. Washington.Google Scholar

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974.The Modern World System. New York.Google Scholar

Watkins, Frederick Mundell. 1934. The State as a Concept of Political Science. New York.Google Scholar

Wawro, Gregory J. and Katznelson, Ira. 2020. ‘American Political Development and New Challenges of Causal Inference’, Public Choice, 185, pp. 299–314.Google Scholar

Willoughby, Westel. 1911. Examination of the Nature of the State: A Study in Political Philosophy. New York.Google Scholar

Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. ‘The Study of Administration’, Political Science Quarterly, 2, pp. 197–222.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wong, Bin. 2012. ‘Causation’ in A Concise Companion to History, ed. Rublack, Ulinka. Oxford.Google Scholar

Zagorin, Perez. 2005. Thucydides: An Introduction for the Common Reader. Princeton.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.