Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:32:06.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Theory as a Vocation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Sheldon S. Wolin
Sheldon S. Wolin*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to sketch some of the implications, prospective and retrospective, of the primacy of method in the present study of politics and to do it by way of a contrast, which is deliberately heightened, but hopefully not caricatured, between the vocation of the “methodist” and the vocation of the theorist. My discussion will be centered around the kinds of activity involved in the two vocations. During the course of the discussion various questions will be raised, primarily the following: What is the idea which underlies method and how does it compare with the older understanding of theory? What is involved in choosing one rather than the other as the way to political knowledge? What are the human or educational consequences of the choice, that is, what is demanded of the person who commits himself to one or the other? What is the typical stance towards the political world of the methodist and how does it compare to the theorist's?

The discussion which follows will seek, first, to locate the idea of method in the context of the “behavioral revolution,” and, second, to examine the idea itself in terms of some historical and analytical considerations. Then, proceeding on the assumption that the idea of method, like all important intellectual choices, carries a price, the discussion will concentrate on some of the personal, educational, vocational, and political consequences of this particular choice. Finally, I shall attempt to relate the idea of the vocation of political theory to these same matters.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , December 1969 , pp. 1062 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1969

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.)

Footnotes

*

This is a revised version of a paper delivered September, 1968, before the Conference for the Study of Political Thought.

References

1 “Methodist. One who is skilled in, or attaches great importance to, method; one who follows a (specified) method.” Oxford Universal Dictionary.

Although most social scientists would contend that actual research rarely conforms to a step-bystep procedure, it remains the case that such procedure stands as a model for what they aim at. Thus, in a section of a text-book on research methods entitled “Major Steps in Research,” the authors insert the qualification above but acknowledge that “published research strongly suggests the existence of a prescribed sequence of procedures, each step presupposing the completion of the preceding one.” Selltiz, Claire et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, rev. ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963), pp. 8–9 Google Scholar.

2 I have discussed Kuhn's interpretation and its relevance to political science in “Paradigms and Political Theories,” Politics and Experience. Essays Presented to Michael Oakeshott, ed. King, P. and Parekh, B. C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 125–152 Google Scholar.

3 Almond, G. A. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 43.

5 Selltiz, et al., op. cit., pp. 6–7.

6 Easton, D., A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 7.Google Scholar

7 As a recent work on political socialization (which is described as “a universal feature of political life …”) admits: “ … the reader is forewarned that the treatment is heavily biased in favor of a model appropriate to western democracies, particularly in the United States.”

8 See. for example, H. Eulau's language in Pool, I. de Sola (ed.), Contemporary Political Science (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 58–59 Google Scholar; and the more cautious remarks in Somit, A. and Tanenhaus, J., The Development of American Political Science (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1967), pp. 174ffGoogle Scholar.

9 This may appear contentious, but, in reality, it is only a restatement of what appears in Almond, G. A., “Political Theory and Political Science,” American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 873–875 Google Scholar.

10 Campbell, A., “Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change,” in Campbell, A. et al., Elections and the Political Order (New York: Wiley, 1966), p. 45 Google Scholar.

11 I., de Sola Pool, “The Public and the Polity,” in Pool (ed.), op. cit., p. 26 (emphasis added).

12 Easton, , Framework, p. 50 Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 48.

14 Easton, D., A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965), p. 475 Google Scholar.

15 Works, ed. Bowring, J., 11 vols. (Edinburgh, 1843), Vol. II, p. 493 Google Scholar.

16 Heraclitus, frags. 203, 235; Parmenides, frags. 342, 344–7. Kirk, G. S. and Raven, J. E., The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957)Google Scholar. The idea reappears in Machiavelli, Discorsi, Bk. I, Preface; Tocqueville, , Oeuvres complètes, ed. Mayer, J.-P. (Paris: Gallimard, 1961–), Vol. I, p. 293 Google Scholar.

17 Discourse on Method, tr. Veitch, J., The Method, Meditations, and Philosophy of Descartes (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., n.d.), Pt. I, p. 149 Google Scholar.

18 See Ong, W., Ramus. Method and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 53ff.Google Scholar; Gilbert, N. W., Renaissance Concepts of Method (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), p. 3ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 All quotations are from Howell, W. S., Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500–1700 (New York: Russell and Russell, 1961), pp. 21, 23–24 Google Scholar. The Ramist influence upon the American Puritans has been discussed by Miller, Perry, The New England Mind, The Seventeenth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 1939, 1961), p. 154ffGoogle Scholar. and Appendix A.

20 Howell, op. cit., p. 152.

21 Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885), I.vi.4.Google Scholar

22 Discourse on Method (Veitch trans.), Pt. VI, p. 192.

23 Works of Francis Bacon, ed. Ellis, R. L., Spedding, J. and Heath, D. D., 7 vols. (London: 1887–1892), Vol. VI, pp. 268–269 Google Scholar.

24 Ibid., p. 289. “We know that the founders [of New England] studied Francis Bacon.” Miller, op. cit., p. 12.

25 Meditations, II in Descartes. Philosophical Writings, tr. Smith, N. K. (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 189 Google Scholar

26 Rules X–XI (tr. N. K. Smith), pp. 43–44, 47.

27 Cited in Rossi, P., Francis Bacon. From Magic to Science, tr. Rabinovitch, S. (London: Routledge, 1968), p. 141 Google Scholar.

28 “Preface to the Principles of Philosophy” (tr. Veitch), p. 288.

29 Francis Bacon. Selected Writings, ed. Dick, H. G. (New York: Random House, 1955), pp. 435, 533 Google Scholar. See also Descartes, , Discourse on Method in Smith, N. K. (ed.), Descartes. Philosophical Writings, Pt. IV, p. 118 Google Scholar.

30 Philosophical Writings (ed. Smith, ), Discourse on Method, III, p. 111 Google Scholar.

31 Ibid., II, pp. 103–104, 112.

32 Ibid., Pt. II, p. 103.

33 Easton, , A Framework, p. 30 Google Scholar.

34 Discourse on Method, tr. Smith, , Pt. III, pp. 111–113 Google Scholar.

36 “It is the very essence of the theoretical enterprise that, if and when it seems appropriate, it should feel free to sever itself from the bonds of traditional ways of looking at political life.” Easton, , A Fraviework, p. viii Google Scholar.

There is no doubt that breaking with the past has been a feature of all great theoretical innovations, including those in the history of political theory. Yet the matter is not that simple, as witness Plato's respect for tradition, Aristotle's deference to his predecessors, Augustine's retrieval of major aspects of classicism, and Machiavelli's insistence on restoring certain forms of classical political knowledge. Hobbes was probably the first writer to advocate a break in the modern sense. Some aspects of his attempt will be discussed in my forthcoming essay, Hobbes: Political Theory as Epic (University of California Press).

36 Discourse on Method, Veitch, tr., Pt. II, p. 158 Google Scholar.

37 Banfield, Edward C., “In Defense of the American Party System,” Voting, Interest Groups, and Parties, ed. Seasholes, B. (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1966), p. 130 Google Scholar.

38 Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, E., A Strategy of Decision (New York: Free Press, 1963), p. 73 Google Scholar.

39 Democracy in America (ed. Bradley, P.), 2 vols. New York: Knopf, 1945), Vol. II, pp. 42, 99 Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 3.

41 Riker, W., The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1902), p. viii, emphasis in the originalGoogle Scholar.

42 Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), passim Google Scholar.

43 Pool, op. cit., pp. 23–24 (emphasis added).

44 Backstron, C. H. and Hursh, G. D., Survey Research (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1963), ed. Robinson, J., pp. xi-xv, 4, 13 Google Scholar.

45 Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 165 Google Scholar.

46 Taton, R., Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery, tr. Pomerans, A. J. (New York: Science Editions, 1962), p. 64ffGoogle Scholar.

47 Downs, A., An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 21 Google Scholar.

48 Hanson, N. R., Patterns of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 5ffGoogle Scholar.

49 The remarks from Tocqueville are to be found in Oeuvres complètes, Vol. I, pp. 12, 14, 222 Google Scholar.

50 Dahl, R., Modem Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 8 Google Scholar

51 Hanson, op. cit., p. 36.

52 Ibid., p. 30.

53 E.g., Popper, K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Science Editions, 1961), pp. 19, 38 Google Scholar.

54 An exception would be Huntington, S., “Political Development and Political Decay,” World Politics, Vol. 17 (04, 1965), 386–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As an illustration of a contemporary way of dealing with the problems the reader is referred to Rogow, A. A. and Lasswell, H. D., Power, Corruption, and Rectitude (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar. This work criticizes Acton's epigram, points out how a like animus against power led to the separation of powers doctrine, how the latter frustrates the majority, and how the problem can be handled by organizational and bureaucratic sanctions.

55 Lasswell, H. D. and Kaplan, A., Power and Society. A Framework for Political Inquiry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 145 Google Scholar.

56 Representative Government, Ch. II (Everyman edition, p. 193). My point would not be affected if political socialization were defined in some other contemporary mode, e.g., learning “roles,” or as “a readiness to tolerate outputs that are perceived to run contrary to one's wants and demands. …“: Easton, , A Systems Analysis of Political Science, p. 272 Google Scholar.

57 Political Science. Newsletter of the American Political Science Association, Vol. I, No. 1 (Winter, 1968), p. 25 (col. 1)Google Scholar.

58 De Cive, Pref. ad finem.

59 Apter, D., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. x Google Scholar.

60 The Nerves of Government (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1963), pp. 94, 98 Google Scholar.

61 Ibid., pp. 91–92.

62 Politicus, 262 b-c.

63 Op. cit., pp. 162–108.

64 Berelson, B. and Steiner, G., Human Behavior (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964), p. 13 Google Scholar.

65 Eulau, op. cit., p. 7. See also Almond, G. and Powell, B., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), p. 214 Google Scholar; Alker, H., Mathematics and Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 6–8 Google Scholar.

66 Here it is only necessary to recall Plato's long discussion of cognition or Hobbes's effort to place political philosophy upon a new and more scientific basis.

67 Letter to Vettori, April 16, 1527.

68 Utopia, Bk. I, tr. Surtz, E. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), p. 49 Google Scholar.

69 De Cive, Preface to the Reader, ed. Lamprecht, S. P. (New York: Appleton, 1949), p. 18 Google Scholar.

70 Selltiz, op. cit., p. 31.

71 Dahl, , Political Analysis, p. viii Google Scholar.

72 Eulau, in Pool, (ed.), Contemporary Political Science, p. 55 Google Scholar.

73 If the Seventh Letter is to be believed, Plato also condemned the government of the Thirty, which included some of his kinsmen, for their threats against Socrates (324 d-e).

74 Republic 473 (Conford tr.)

75 Gerth, H. and Mills, C. W., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 128 Google Scholar.

78 Pool, (ed.), Contemporary Political Science, p. vii Google Scholar. The essays by Eckstine and Dahl are excepted.

77 Personal Knowledge, p. 138.

78 Cited by Wilkausky, A., The Politics of the Budgetary Process (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), p. 178 Google Scholar.

79 Civic Culture, p. 475.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.