Key Takeaways
1. Political Science Suffers from a "Malaise" of Untapped Potential
Yet, in spite of undeniable accomplishments, and in spite of the fact that every year there are millions of valuable and talented man-hours devoted to political research and its communication to others, the condition of American political science is disturbing and disappointing, if not in absolute results at least in terms of what is possible.
A discipline's shortcomings. Despite its long history and significant growth in the United States since the Civil War, political science has not lived up to its potential. While it has expanded numerically, with thousands of teachers and numerous courses, and gained influence in policy-making, its actual research output falls short of societal demands and what is achievable compared to other social sciences. This "malaise" is a critical concern for the field's future.
Lagging behind peers. Political science is often perceived as the least advanced among social sciences, offering "a crumb" where "a slice of bread" is needed. It struggles to penetrate the "hard core of political power" or provide reliable knowledge about the determinants and consequences of policy, often yielding less insight than a well-informed layman. This deficiency stems from a reluctance to adopt rigorous scientific standards and a failure to clarify the role of theory.
Fragmentary and vague. Research remains fragmented, lacking a cohesive theoretical framework to connect diverse studies. Key concepts like "dictatorship" or "democracy" are often vague and ill-defined, making definitive confirmation or invalidation of generalizations impossible. This perpetuates a state where insights remain largely untested, hindering the discipline's maturation and its ability to offer reliable, generalized knowledge.
2. Hyperfactualism and Premature Application Hinder Theoretical Progress
A major source of the shortcomings in political science lies in the failure to clarify the true relationship between facts and political theory and the vital role of theory in this partnership.
Fact-gathering obsession. For over half a century, American political science has been captivated by a narrow view of science, equating it primarily with the zealous collection and classification of facts. This "hyperfactualism" leads to vast inventories of research monographs, each detailing specific political situations, but often lacking conscious connection or broader theoretical significance. The focus has been on what is, rather than why or how these facts relate within a larger system.
Premature policy focus. Compounding this issue is a tendency to jump directly to "applied science" or "policy science," focusing on how knowledge ought to be used to reform political structures. This prescriptive orientation, while seemingly practical, diverts energy from developing "pure science" – the discovery of universal uniformities and causal relations. Political scientists often propose reforms without first rigorously proving the underlying hypotheses about how institutions actually function.
Consequences for theory. This dual emphasis on raw facts and immediate application has suppressed the development of general theory. Without a conscious theoretical framework, research remains fragmentary, concepts stay unclear, and the discipline struggles to identify significant variables or establish reliable, verifiable generalizations. The result is a discipline rich in data but poor in the overarching understanding that systematic theory provides.
3. Traditional Concepts Like "The State" and "Power" Fail to Define the Political System Adequately
Neither the state nor power is a concept that serves to bind together political research.
The elusive "state." Defining political science solely as the study of "the state" is problematic due to the term's immense ambiguity and historical limitations. With over 145 definitions, "the state" often serves as a symbol for unity rather than a precise analytical tool. It typically excludes pre-state societies or nomadic groups, where political interaction undeniably occurs, thus failing to encompass the full scope of political life.
Power's broadness. While "power" offers a more dynamic, activity-based definition (the effort to influence others), it is too broad on its own. If every instance of influence is considered "political power," then all social science becomes the study of power, losing the distinctiveness of political inquiry. Political science is interested in political power, not power in general, such as within a family or a criminal gang.
Mistaking part for whole. Both "the state" and "power" often mistake a part of political reality for the whole. "The state" describes a specific institutional form, while "power" describes a pervasive social activity. Neither, in isolation, provides a sufficiently connotative definition—one that identifies the general properties of a phenomenon that make it political, regardless of its institutional manifestation or the specific context of influence.
4. The "Authoritative Allocation of Values for a Society" is the Core of Political Inquiry
My point is, in summary, that the property of a social act that informs it with a political aspect is the act’s relation to the authoritative allocation of values for a society.
Defining the political. The central theme of political inquiry, encompassing both "politicking" and policy-making, is the "authoritative allocation of values for a society." This concept provides a robust orienting framework, distinguishing political activity from other social phenomena. It focuses on how decisions and actions distribute desirable (or undesirable) things, and how these distributions are accepted as binding by the community.
Policy as value allocation. "Policy" is not merely a formal decision but a "web of decisions and actions that allocates values." This includes both formally enunciated laws and the practical consequences of their implementation, such as black markets or discriminatory zoning practices. Political science is concerned with every way values are allocated for a society, whether through explicit law or implicit practice.
The nature of authority. A policy is "authoritative" when those affected by it feel they must or ought to obey it, regardless of their specific motivations (moral, customary, or fear-based). This psychological acceptance of bindingness is crucial. Furthermore, political science focuses on allocations authoritative for the whole society, not just for subgroups like trade unions or churches, even if those groups have internal authoritative policies.
5. Understanding Political Life Requires Distinguishing Situational and Behavioral Data
A rounded analysis of a political event therefore requires some attention to the situational as well as to the psychological data involved.
Two types of determinants. To fully understand political activity, research must consider two distinct, yet interdependent, classes of data: situational and psychological (or behavioral). Situational data refer to the external circumstances and structured relationships that shape activity, independent of individual personalities. Psychological data, conversely, focus on the internal motivations, feelings, and predispositions of the human actors.
Situational influences. Traditional political science, often called "institutional," has implicitly focused on situational data. It examines how formal governmental structures (like the separation of powers), organized groups (like political parties and interest groups), and broader social groupings (like economic classes or regional affiliations) create a "power situation" that constrains and directs political actors. These external patterns of activity influence policy regardless of who the specific individuals are.
Behavioral insights. The "behavioral revolution" in political science, drawing heavily from psychology, emphasizes the "human being" as the center of attention. It seeks to understand how individual attitudes, personalities, and motivations influence political outcomes. However, a common pitfall is to overemphasize psychological causality, sometimes overlooking the reciprocal influence of the situation on individual behavior and attitudes.
6. Values Inevitably Influence Research, Demanding Conscious Moral Clarity
Values are an integral part of personality and as long as we are human, we can assume that these mental sets and preferences will be with us.
Inescapable values. Political research, like all social inquiry, is inherently tied to human purposes and values. Even if factual and moral propositions are logically distinct, in practice, values are an "integral part of personality" and cannot be shed. They profoundly influence every stage of research, from problem selection and formulation to data interpretation, making the ideal of "value-free" social science a "chimera."
Moral clarity is crucial. Since values are inescapable, the goal for rational social scientists is not to eliminate them, but to achieve "moral clarity" by making them explicit. This allows for scrutiny of their potential influence on research, reducing bias and increasing reliability. However, true moral clarity is not a simple act of "avowal" but a "long process of moral inquiry," requiring deep reflection and understanding of one's ultimate preferences and their implications.
Constructive approach to values. Achieving genuine moral clarity demands a "constructive approach" to values, where one actively builds an "image of the political system that flows from our moral premises." This involves synthesizing values with facts to fully elaborate their meaning and knowable consequences, rather than merely stating them formally. This rigorous process helps researchers understand how their moral framework might shape their theoretical systems.
7. Modern Political Theory Has Declined into Historicism, Neglecting its Constructive Role
In its most general terms, I shall argue that while moral views may be logically separable from factually oriented knowledge, in actual research our moral frame of reference plays an influential and inextricable part in conditioning our observations and conclusions.
Loss of constructive function. Historically, political theory encompassed all fundamental problems of political life, including both causal and moral inquiry. However, in the last half-century, particularly in the American tradition, it has largely "declined into historicism." This means it primarily focuses on the historical description of past political ideas and their relation to their milieu, rather than engaging in the "constructive approach" to moral problems.
Historicism's limitations. This historicist approach, exemplified by scholars like Dunning, McIlwain, and Sabine, treats values as products of historical conditions, often viewing them as "dogmas without warrant" or mere "rationalizations" of action. While it provides valuable insights into the evolution and meaning of ideas, it largely neglects the critical task of evaluating and reformulating moral standards for contemporary challenges. The focus shifts from what ought to be to what has been thought.
Consequences for political science. This preoccupation with the history of ideas, rather than the process of valuation itself, leaves political scientists ill-equipped to understand and clarify their own moral premises. It fosters a "moral conformity" to prevailing values, assuming they are "eternally right" and require no radical re-evaluation. This intellectual inertia prevents political theory from providing the necessary leadership in articulating new moral hypotheses for a rapidly changing world.
8. The Implicit "Equilibrium Theory" is a Pervasive but Flawed Framework
The pattern emerges, however, less by design than by accident. Its form is the theory of political equilibrium, the only discernible suggestion of a theoretical framework on the broad horizon of empirical research.
Unconscious theoretical framework. Despite the general neglect of explicit theory, a pervasive, albeit often unarticulated, theoretical framework underlies much of American political research: the "theory of political equilibrium." This concept, borrowed from economics and physics, implicitly suggests that all political variables are interdependent and tend towards a state of stability or "rest" where no actor wishes to change their position.
Flawed application. Political scientists often use "equilibrium" to describe an actual condition of the political system, or a "moving equilibrium," rather than as a theoretical model or heuristic device. Unlike in physics or economics, where equilibrium is a precisely defined, often frictionless, theoretical norm against which reality is measured, political science has mistakenly treated it as an empirical state. This imprecision renders the concept barren of meaning if everything is always in "equilibrium."
Quantification barrier. The utility of equilibrium analysis as a rigorous theoretical framework is severely limited by the lack of quantifiable political data. To apply it effectively, one would need to measure the "power" of interacting elements precisely, which is currently impossible. While the concept offers valuable insights into systemic interdependence and the importance of studying political change, its practical application as a comprehensive, testable theory remains a distant aspiration due to these measurement challenges.
9. Rejuvenating Political Theory Requires Embracing Both Causal and Constructive Moral Inquiry
When properly viewed, therefore, the great political theories of the past are not simply inquiries into desirable political conditions of living. They correspond, at the level of knowledge and skill then available, to what we know today as political science.
Broadening theory's scope. To overcome its current limitations, political theory must reclaim its historical breadth, moving beyond its narrow focus on the history of moral ideas. The "great theories" of the past, from Aristotle to Mill, were comprehensive inquiries into all fundamental aspects of political life, encompassing factual, moral, applied, and theoretical propositions. They offered insights into both what is and what ought to be, and how to bridge the gap.
Integrating causal and moral inquiry. Political theory needs to actively engage in both causal and constructive moral inquiry. It must analyze and formulate empirically oriented theories to understand the determinants of political activity, while simultaneously developing a "constructive approach" to moral problems. This involves building images of desirable political systems, rigorously exploring the implications of moral premises, and testing their coherence against factual conditions.
Autonomy and verification. Theoretical research, especially at high levels of abstraction, requires a degree of autonomy from immediate empirical verification. Like mathematical physics, it needs space to develop logical insights, even if immediate operationalization is difficult. However, this autonomy must be balanced by the ultimate goal of empirical relevance, ensuring that theories are, in principle, testable and contribute to a more reliable understanding of the political system.
