Political Science Past And Present

Political Science: Past and Present – David Easton 1. What is the problem of political science as Easton sees is – or at least the problem of “Western (or American) political science”? No unification vision between ideas of how political science should be taught/learned. Science aspect vs. Abstract aspect Concern about professors: project their opinions, professor teaches what he/she has been taught and believes without consideration for the students. Easton identifies four stages in American political science: formal, traditional, behavioral and post-behavioral. Political scientist today still latch onto one of these four stages. Formal: a. relationship between laws/constitutions and reality Political scientist studied laws through written documents. They would summarize and explain what those documents meant. (Ex. read the constitution and give a description account of it…Because it says "this" is the reason why "that" takes place.) What is the problem with just studying documents? It's not applicable…How? Is everything in politics written down? –No. It's only formal. Politics involves more informal actions. Traditional: a. highly descriptive b. atheoretical c. added study of “informality”/interest groups, committee politics, etc. Many things we take for granted are extra-Constitutional. (Ex. Nothing is said about the two-party system of Republics and Democrats.) Try to explain American politics without mentioning the party system. What did David Easton find out about the formal and traditional methods of political science in his own years as a college student? Learning was not very coherent. He learned a lot of stuff, but he didn't know where all these pieces fit into the bigger puzzle of politics. He does not see how all these things relate.

Behavioral: Tried to apply the information – make it applicable. Apply scientific method to it. You can make sense of "anything" through the scientific method. (Ex. How conservative a European soccer fan is? –You can find information on this.) Ellis – If you knew the method you could be a political scientist. It's not all easy. Earlier on it's easy, but later on it becomes more difficult. a. b. c. d. e.

discoverable uniformities in human behavior can be confirmed by empirical tests increased use of methods increased desire for theory value-neutral social science

What did the turn toward value-neutral social science mean for the future of the political science discipline? You do not get information to tell what one should or should not do. Political science has leaned towards positive questions "is" and is leaving normative questions "ought". Problem: People believed within the disciple should be normative. People should have something to say about the studies/data. Did not give answers to certain questions (see below). Postbehavioral: a. deep dissatisfaction with behaviorism b. despite “scientific predictabilities”, lack of identifying “world’s problems” c. problem of value-free political science People want to know what we should do. When the university cannot advise people on good, bad or neutral things they turn towards media. The media is not necessarily bad, but trust is questionable since goal for some is to entertain. d. towards a “new” political science Political science that privileges normative questions. Issues concerning race, gender, sexuality, etc. Studying things that were not previously studied. Multiple schools. Important Political Events: 9/11 End of Cold War (fall of Communism) Two earth-shattering events that we were unaware of. We (political scientists) failed the

people. Why are these things important? Why did they happen?