Political Theory as a Vocation

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.

[1]  D. Easton,et al.  A Systems Analysis of Political Life , 1966 .

[2]  Perry Miller The New England mind : the seventeenth century , 1940 .

[3]  S. Verba,et al.  The Civic Culture , 1963 .

[4]  R. Tuve,et al.  Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700 , 1958 .

[5]  M. Weber From Max Weber: Essays in sociology , 1946 .

[6]  Donald J. Pierce,et al.  Democracy in America , 2018, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[7]  Neal Ward Gilbert Renaissance Concepts of Method , 1960 .

[8]  D. Apter,et al.  The politics of modernization , 1966 .

[9]  Hayward R. Alker,et al.  Mathematics and Politics , 1965 .

[10]  Harold D. Lasswell,et al.  Power and Society; a Framework for Political Inquiry. , 1951 .

[11]  G. Vlastos,et al.  The Presocratic Philosophers , 1959 .

[12]  W. Ong,et al.  Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue , 1958 .

[13]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy , 1957 .

[14]  Paolo Rossi Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science , 1968 .

[15]  Gabriel A. Almond,et al.  Comparative politics : a developmental approach , 1969, American Political Science Review.

[16]  D. Easton,et al.  A framework for political analysis , 1966 .

[17]  A. Flew,et al.  Patterns of Discovery. , 1961 .

[18]  Political Development and Political Decay , 1965 .

[19]  A. Campbell SURGE AND DECLINE: A STUDY OF ELECTORAL CHANGE , 1960 .

[20]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[21]  C. D. Foster,et al.  A Strategy of Decision , 1963 .

[22]  N. Rescher,et al.  Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery , 1958 .

[23]  M. Deutsch,et al.  Research Methods in Social Relations , 1952 .

[24]  K. Popper,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1960 .

[25]  A. Wildavsky,et al.  The Politics of the Budgetary Process. , 1965 .

[26]  Harold D. Lasswell,et al.  Power, corruption, and rectitude , 1964 .

[27]  William H. Flanigan,et al.  The Theory of Political Coalitions. , 1965 .

[28]  Gabriel A. Almond,et al.  Political Theory and Political Science , 1966, American Political Science Review.