Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science

7 Pages·0.1 MB·English

by  Dryzek John S.

Article: “Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political
Science”
Author: John S. Dryzek

Issue: November 2006
Journal: American Political Science Review

This journal is published by the American Political Science
Association. All rights reserved.

APSA is posting this article for public view on its website. APSA journals are fully
accessible to APSA members and institutional subscribers. To view the table of
contents or abstracts from this or any of APSA’s journals, please go to the website of our
publisher Cambridge University Press (http://journals.cambridge.org).

This article may only be used for your personal, non-commercial use. For permissions
for all other uses of this article should be directed to Cambridge University Press at
[email protected] .
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview Vol.100,No.4 November2006
Revolutions Without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political
Science
JOHN S. DRYZEK AustralianNationalUniversity
Americanpoliticalscienceisacongenitallyunsettleddiscipline,witnessinganumberofmovements
designedtoreorientitsfundamentalcharacter.Fourprominentmovementsarecomparedhere:
thestatismaccompanyingthediscipline’searlyprofessionalization,thepluralismofthelate1910s
and early 1920s, behavioralism, and the Caucus for a New Political Science (with a brief glance at the
morerecentPerestroika).Ofthesemovements,onlythefirstandthirdclearlysucceeded.Thediscipline
hasprovenveryhardtoshift.Despitetherhetoricthataccompaniedbehavioralism,bothitandstatism
wererevolutionswithoutenemieswithinthediscipline(otherthanthoseappearingaftertheysucceeded),
andthereinliesthekeytotheirsuccess.
Many have tried to change the character of rulesoutatleastoneallegedrevolution,aswewillsee.
Americanpoliticalscience,butfewhavesuc- What is most striking about the two movements that
ceeded. The revolutionaries in question are did succeed, the statism of the disciplinary founding
those who have sought in a group enterprise to set and behavioralism, is that they did not have any seri-
theagenda forthedisciplineinconscious rejectionof ousenemiesinsidethedisciplinewhocouldarticulate
most or all of what has gone before. In these terms, opposition to the rise of the new persuasion. These
the discipline has seen five revolutionary movements. enemies only appeared after the movement’s success,
(Proclamation and establishment of a new research and so paradoxically validated the transformation in
program, such as structural functionalism or biopoli- question.Althoughoneshouldbecautiousaboutgen-
tics, does not qualify, and “paradigm shift” in Kuhn’s eralizingonthebasisoffourcases,thesearetheonly
[1962] sense is generally not an appropriate frame.) cases we have. The lesson would seem to be that the
Firstcamethosewhofoundedthedisciplineinthelate disciplinecanbetransformedinrevolutionaryfashion
nineteenthcenturyasaprofessionalizedstate-building onlybymovementswithnoexistingenemiesprepared
scienceinaseeminglyrecalcitrantpolity—–andagainst toresist.Toputitanotherway,inacenturyandahalfof
amateur political analysis. Next came the pluralists, American political science, no reform movement has
whointheearlytwentiethcenturytookuparmsagainst eversucceededifitopposedtheactualpracticeofthe
the monistic state and its disciplinary handmaiden. disciplineinawaythatmetwithexplicitresistancefrom
Thirdcamethebehavioralistsofthemid-twentiethcen- practitioners.Americanpoliticalsciencemaybejustas
tury,whorevoltedonbehalfofthestudyofactualbe- hard to reform in fundamental ways as the American
havior,science,thepoliticalsystem(asopposedtothe politicalsystemthathassooftenfrustratedreformists
state),and(again)pluralism.FourthcametheCaucus fromwithinourdiscipline’sranks,fromFrancisLieber
foraNewPoliticalScienceinthelate1960sandearly toTheodoreLowi.
1970s,whichrejectedbehavioralism’sallegedcomplic- IfocushereondevelopmentsinthestudyofUnited
ityinthestatusquoofAmericanpoliticsinfavorofa Statespolitics,sometimesintegratedwith,thoughmore
politically committed political science oriented to the recently separated from, political theory. Much could
social crisis of the times. Fifth came the Perestroika be said about comparative politics and international
movement of the early twenty-first century, targeted relations, but it is orientation to the study of Ameri-
against perceived hegemony of formal and quantita- canpoliticsthatdefinestheAmericandiscipline’sbasic
tiveapproaches,infavorofmethodologicalpluralism, identityandnormativepurpose.
qualitativeinquiry,andagainanorientationtopressing
publicproblems.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE STATE
Because Minerva’s owl has yet to take flight over
Perestroika, I will say little about it, but of the previ- Theconceptof“thestate”wascementedintoAmeri-
ousfourmovements,onlytwosucceeded.Asuccessful canpoliticaldiscoursebyfigureswhoweretobecome
revolution may be defined in terms of resetting the centraltothenewdisciplineofpoliticalscienceinthe
discipline’s agenda, as validated by the recognition of latenineteenthcentury(thoughtheconcepthadfound
practitioners, whether or not they shared the move- mention as far back as the arguments of the Federal-
ment’s commitments. Practitioners then have to posi- istsintheconstitutionaldebates;Farr1993,69).From
tion themselves in relation to the new understanding, FrancisLieber,appointedtothefirstAmericanprofes-
eveniftheydonotshareit.Successmustberecognized sorshipinhistoryandpoliticalscienceatColumbiain
assuch;thismayseemlikeanobviouscriterion,yetit 1857, to Woodrow Wilson and well beyond, the main
practical task of political science was seen as the es-
tablishment of a unitary national state accompanied
John S. Dryzek is Professor, Political Science Program, Research
by a virtuous national citizenry. Wilson was far from
SchoolofSocialSciences,AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra,
alone in envisaging a political system with disciplined
ACT0200,Australia([email protected]).
ThankstoJamesFarrandRobertGoodinfortheircomments. parties presenting well-reasoned policies to informed
487
RevolutionsWithoutEnemies November2006
voters, enacted by Congress, and implemented by Americanpoliticsbygroups(SeidelmanandHarpham
an expert bureaucracy practicing the best in ad- 1984,77–78).Thesamewastrueofthatotherancestor
ministrative science. This administrative state would of behavioralism, Charles Merriam, who in the 1920s
“breathe free American air” (Wilson 1887). Such stillsought“nationaldemocraticconsolidationandso-
normative advocacy was linked to a host of empir- cial control” (Gunnell 1993, 105). Though stripped of
ical studies of American institutions exposing frag- itsmoreorganicassociations,thecentralizingstatere-
mentation,sectionalism,parochialism,andcorruption. mainedaliveasnormativeaspirationinthe1920s.
Wilson’s(1885)ownCongressionalGovernmentexem- Normative pluralism arrived with Harold Laski
plifiedthisgenre. (1917), Mary Parket Follett (1918), and their sym-
Foroverhalfacentury,thecentralpurposeofpolit- pathizers. Laski and Follett were influenced by the
icalsciencewasseenastheestablishmentofaunified philosophy of William James, who stressed the vari-
state,supportedbyaunifiedandcompetentnation.In ety of ways in which individuals could experience the
thefirstpresidentialaddresstothenewAmericanPo- world; so their pluralist ethics was rooted in diver-
litical Science Association (APSA), Frank Goodnow sity of experience rather than in diversity of interest.
(1904)spokeoftheroleofpoliticalscienceinassisting Follettvaluedtheorganizationofsocietyfromthebot-
the “realization of State will.” Occasionally political tomupingroups,not thesocialengineering fromthe
allies could be found for this project—–especially in top down that the discipline’s statists always favored.
the Progressive Movement. More often the project Follett(10)famouslyasked,“Whatistobedonewith
foundered in the face of the corruption, patronage, this diversity?” The statist answer was clear: erase it.
partymachines,parochialism,andregionalismthatthe Beyondvaluingit,herownanswerwaslessclearinits
statists sought to supplant, and the recalcitrance of implicationsforpoliticalreform.
theMadisoniansystemthatthediscipline’sleadersbe- According to Gunnell (2004), the rise of plural-
lievedwasinadequateforadynamicmodernindustrial ism in the 1920s constituted the only true revolution
economy and society. Some, though not all, opposed in the history of American political science. Gun-
federalisminthenameofaunifiednationalstate. nell’skeyfigureisGeorgeCatlin(1927),notLaskior
The discipline was, then, founded not only to study Follett. Catlin was influenced by Laski, but rejected
politicsbutalsotoadvanceapoliticalagenda—–andall Laski’s ethics in favor of disinterested science. Un-
subsequent revolutionary movements share this fea- like Laski and Follett, Catlin’s pluralism was based
ture (though in the case of behavioralism it was not on the self-interest of groups, not on their diversity
initially admitted). The founders were of course en- ofexperience—–andinthishewasfollowedbytheplu-
gagedinestablishingthedisciplineratherthanchang- ralistsofthebehavioralera,whotoGunnellwerenot
ingit,buttheyconsciouslyrejectedaparticularkindof revolutionaries at all, but mere successors to Catlin’s
amateur political analysis; they were in this sense in- paradigmshift.
tellectualrevolutionaries.Theamateurapproachtothe YetifwelookatthesubstanceofCatlin’swork,we
studyofpoliticswasmanifestedintheAmericanSocial see an explanation of politics that the statists could
Science Association (ASSA), founded in 1865 and fi- acceptwithouttoomuchdifficulty—–rememberingthat
nallyputtobedbytheestablishmentofAPSAin1903 they had often recognized plurality, but saw it as
and the American Sociological Association in 1905. a problem to be overcome. Thus Catlin’s pluralism
ASSA was largely reformist, Christian, activist, and as empirical reality was hardly revolutionary. Even
oriented to public welfare (Seidelman and Harpham William Yandell Elliott, identified by Gunnell as the
1984,20),andnotconducivetotheseriousstudyofpol- leader of the statist opposition to pluralism in the
iticsthataskedhardquestionsaboutthefundamental 1920s, could accept pluralism as explanatory theory,
character of American political reality. The founders as Gunnell himself admits (Gunnell 1995, 36). It was
of the professional discipline of political science did, onlynormativepluralismthatElliottopposed.Thusit
then,establisharadicallynewintellectualagenda,and is only in its normative aspects that pluralism could
the concept of “the state” was professionally central be truly revolutionary—–and in this sense Laski and
in establishing the new discipline’s identity (Gunnell Follett were better placed to lead a revolution than
1995,21).Therewasnoresistancetothisprojectfrom Catlin. But clearly their work did not reorient the
insidethenascentdisciplinebecausethosesupplanted discipline—–whichadoptednormativepluralismexplic-
remainedfirmlyontheoutside. itlyonlyinthe1950s,andtheninverydifferentterms,
stressing interest rather than experience as the root
ofplurality(seeSchlosberg1998ondifferencesacross
THE PLURALIST REVOLT
generationsofpluralism).
TheUnitedStateshadalwaysbeenamorepluralpolity The main reason we cannot categorize the dispute
than the discipline’s statists desired; they recognized of the 1920s as a revolution is that it was not vali-
pluralism as a fact, but were likely to call it frag- datedassuchbydisciplinarypractitionersintheafter-
mentation, a problem to be overcome rather than a math, and so was not in a position to orient the work
condition to be valued. This was true even of Arthur of the discipline thereafter. Can a revolution happen
Bentley,whose1908bookTheProcessofGovernment withoutanyonenoticing?Gunnell’s(2005)solutionto
wastreatedasaprecursorbybehavioralism’spluralists. thisproblemistoquoteKuhn(1962)onthe“invisibil-
InhislaterunpublishedworkMakers,UsersandMas- ity”ofrevolutionsasthenewunderstandingcomesto
ters, Bentley actually condemned the domination of dominate. But here Kuhn is referring to the tendency
488
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview Vol.100,No.4
of adherents of a victorious paradigm to rewrite the System, characterized by Farr (1995, 207) as “the sin-
past so as to recast their predecessors as precursors gle most important manifesto lodged against tradi-
in a cumulative history; and nothing like this actually tional political science during the behavioral revolu-
happened in political science between the 1920s and tion.” Easton is lauded by Gunnell (1993, xi) as “the
1940s.Moreover,onKuhn’saccountthoseresponsible movement’s most significant theoretician.” Chapter 2
forthebreakthroughwouldberecognizedandpraised of The Political System, “The Condition of American
fortheirachievements,elevatedtothedisciplinarypan- Political Science” (with a section on “The Malaise of
theon. Catlin was not recognized in these terms. The Political Science”) is the most polemical. The chapter
onlyattemptedrevolutionofthe1920swasthatofthe contains28footnotes,noneofwhichnamesacontem-
normative pluralists; and that did not succeed. Resis- poraneous American political scientist guilty of the
tancewithinthedisciplinewasstiff,includingCharles allegedsinsofhyperfactualismandfailuretotheorize.
Beard, Walter Shepard, Francis Coker, and William NamesthatdofigureinthesefootnotesareKey,Simon,
Yandell Elliott, among others. Laski was stigmatized Merriam, Herring, Appleby, Lasswell, Gosnell, and
asaradicalsocialist,andpluralismitselfwascharacter- Eldersveld,praisedforbeingexceptions.Inthesection
izedbyElliott(1928)asrelatedtoItalianfascism.Nor- ofChapter3on“Hyperfactualism,”theonlysustained
mativestatistaspirationsremained,thoughtheywere critique is of the writings of James Bryce, works by
subsequently to diminish (before revival in Theodore then half a century old. In Chapter 10, Easton criti-
Lowi’s [1969] The End of Liberalism, linked to the cizes political theorists for retreating into the history
earlierstatistsinwhatSeidelmanandHarpham[1984] of political thought; but of his main references, only
callthe“thirdtradition”ofcentralizingandreformist GeorgeSabineremainedactive.
political science). Language changed, and by midcen- Much later, Easton (1993, 292–93, originally pub-
tury“thestate”hadalmostdisappearedfromthedis- lished1985)describes“traditionalpoliticalscience”of
ciplinarylexicon,exceptininternationalrelations. the 1920s to 1940s as focusing on parties and pres-
sure groups (NB: not on the state). His references
onpressuregroupsareBentley(1908)andPendleton
BEHAVIORALISM
Herring(1929).By1953Bentleyhadpassedfromthe
Behavioralism may be defined in terms of its com- scene—–and was also revived as a protobehavioralist,
mitments to “(1) a research focus on political behav- especially by Truman (1951). Herring was alive and
ior, (2) a methodological plea for science, and (3) a well, and had in 1949 been instrumental in establish-
political message about liberal pluralism” (Farr 1995, ingtheCommitteeonPoliticalBehavioroftheSocial
202), as well as the organizing concept of a polit- ScienceResearchCouncil(ofwhichhewaspresident),
ical system (Easton 1953). Although behavioralism oneoftheinstitutionalsponsorsofthebehavioralrevo-
emphasized the individual, there was no problem in lution.Easton(1993)reiteratesthebehavioralists’con-
studying “...individuals acting in groups to realize tentionthatthetraditionalistsmixedfactsandvalues,
their collective interests” (Farr, 204). The two most had too much description and too little explanation,
prominentgrouptheoristsoftheearlybehavioralera, andofferedfewoverarchingtheories.ButEastonthen
Robert Dahl and David Truman, were also commit- identifies Merle Fainsod’s “parallelogram of forces”
tedbehavioralists(TrumanchairedtheSocialScience as the main “latent theory” of the traditionalists. In
Research Council’s Committee on Political Behavior this parallelogram, policy decision was explained as
in the 1950s). The pluralism in the political message the resultant of the various forces pulling in different
was based on economic interest rather than on ex- directions. If this is the essence of “traditional polit-
perience, and on an underlying consensus on funda- ical science” of that era, there should have been no
mentals across different interests that in the United reasonforitspractitionerstoobjecttoanythinginbe-
States could be assumed, rather than struggled for havioralism;andtheydidnot.Fainsodhimselfbecame
(see, notably, Dahl 1956). By the early 1960s many president of the APSA in the behavioral era, and as
workswereappearingthatcelebratedbehavioralism’s president in 1968 was instrumental in defending the
triumph (notably Dahl 1961). This certainly felt like discipline’sestablishmentagainsttheCaucusforaNew
a revolution, recognized as having reoriented the dis- Political Science by restricting access to the Annual
ciplinary agenda—–by those who eventually criticized Conference’sprogram.
behavioralism,aswellasthosewhosupportedit. Norcouldanyhostilitytobehavioralismbefoundin
But what exactly did behavioralism oppose? The anyallegedpractitionersofformalinstitutionalanaly-
rhetoricoftherevolutionarieswasdirectedagainstfor- sisasopposedtoscience.Criticismofexcessformalism
mal,historical,and,inEaston’s(1953)words,“hyper- and advocacy of science had been in place since the
factual”work,definingsomethingcalled“traditional” discipline’s founding. Formalism had been attacked
politicalscience.Butwhoexactlywaspracticingtradi- byBentleyandWilson,amongothers(Seidelmanand
tional political science, and what was it? The behav- Harpham 1984, 75). And nobody was against science.
ioralists were strangely silent on the identity of their Throughout the discipline’s history, criticism of the
opponentsandtheactualcontentofspecificpiecesof preceding generation for its want of science is a con-
work. Garceau’s (1951) Review manifesto contained stant refrain. The constitution of the APSA adopted
noreferencesatall,positiveornegative.Themostsus- at its founding in 1903 proclaimed its main objec-
tained attack on the alleged status quo was Easton’s tive as “the encouragement of the scientific study of
(1953) self-consciously revolutionary The Political politics.”
489
RevolutionsWithoutEnemies November2006
If the behavioral revolution’s main tenets are WorldWar,andaColdWaragainstathird,itwashard
behavior, science, pluralism, and system, then to argue for anything that looked like an overhaul of
“traditionalists” had little reason to oppose it. Re- Americanpoliticsalongstatistlines.
searchonbehaviorattheindividuallevelwasalready None of this meant that behavioralism had a com-
beingdoneinthe1930sand1940s(byHerring,Gosnell, pletelyeasyride.Easton(1991,208)complainsthatin
Lasswell,Lazarsfeld,andothers)—–andthosewhodid thelate1950sbehavioralistsstillfeltexcludedfromthe
not do it had little objection to those who did. The Review and the Association—–though that may have
commitment to science was of long standing, though been a matter of institutional inertia rather than pol-
as Easton (1991, 209–10) points out, an emphasis on icy.Thecomplaintsshouldnothavebeentooloud,for
basicscienceasopposedtosocialproblemsservedthe in 1951 the Review had published Oliver Garceau’s
disciplineparticularlywellduringtheMcCarthyeraof (1951) behavioral manifesto, and by 1955 Angus
politicalwitch-hunts.(Thisconsiderationmayalsohelp Campbell,JamesC.Davies,SamuelEldersfeld,Heinz
explainthelackoftractionofLasswell’spolicyscience Eulau, V. O. Key, Avery Leiserson, Warren Miller,
approach,developedinthatera.)Pluralismasempiri- William Riker, and Herbert Simon had all published
caltheorywashardlynew—–indeed,the“latenttheory” intheReview.
ofthetraditionalistsascharacterizedbyEastonsounds Behavioralism did have its critics, but these did
a lot like pluralism. Easton’s own “political system” not arrive until the 1960s; indeed, their arrival con-
conceptwasmorenovel—–thoughitsmainfunctionwas firmed behavioralism’s success in setting the disci-
toprovideanewvocabulary(inputs,outputs,andfeed- pline’s agenda, as recognized even by those who op-
back)ratherthanacomprehensivetheoryofpolitics. posedit.ContraFarr(1995,216),theopponentswere
What, then was the behavioral revolution? The an- not “those stigmatized as ‘traditionalists”’ (Farr pro-
swer is that it was a selective radicalization of exist- videsnonames).OnesetwascomposedofStraussian
ing disciplinary tendencies, especially when it came theorists (Storing 1962). The Straussians did not rep-
to behavior, science, and pluralism as description and resentanyprebehavioraldisciplinaryorthodoxy;their
explanatorytheory.Behavioralismledtomoresurvey school developed alongside the riseof behavioralism,
research being funded and published, an increase in and was doubly isolated as a minority sect within the
the relative frequency of quantitative studies in the newly marginalized subfield of political theory. The
discipline’stopjournals,andarelativedeclineinwork othersetwascomposedofthoseonthediscipline’sleft
addressed to public policy. The emphasis on science (Charlesworth1962,Bay1965)whoseheatwasturned
facilitated access to new funding sources such as the upinthelate1960s.Theleftcriticsdidnotdefendany
NationalScienceFoundation.Behaviorovershadowed “traditionalism”(thoughhistoriansofpoliticalthought
institutions, though institutions were never forgotten. wereamongtheirnumber).Rather,theysoughtamore
Most of these changes involved shifts in emphasis critical and committed political science as an alter-
ratherthanradicalnovelty. native to behavioralism’s alleged ideological complic-
Thekindofworkthatbehavioralismwasmostclearly ity in an unjust status quo in politics in the United
ashiftfromwasarelativelynewsortofpoliticaltheory, States.
which had the effect of crystallizing political theory
as a separate and marginalized subfield. Prior to the
CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION: THE
behavioralrevolution,theorists(pluralistsandstatists
CAUCUS FOR A NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE
alike)werecentraltothedisciplineanddebatesabout
itsidentity.Butbytheearly1950s,emigre´scholarssuch Theleft’scriticismsofbehavioralismcoalescedin,and
as Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin helped define, the next movement that tried to reori-
were lending a decidedly antiliberal cast to political ent American political science, the Caucus for a New
theory.Thesolution,onGunnell’s(1988)account,was Political Science. The Caucus was organized at the
adivorcebetween politicaltheoryandthenewmain- 1967 Annual Meeting of the American Political Sci-
streamthatsuitedbothsides.Behavioralistscoulddis- enceAssociation.ProminentmembersincludedPeter
tancethemselvesfromanypoliticalcritiqueofAmer- Bachrach, Christian Bay, Theodore Lowi, Michael
ican liberal democracy. The only kind of broad-gauge Parenti, Alan Wolfe, and Sheldon Wolin. Room was
politicaltheorythatcouldstaywithinthemainstream also found for the international relations realist Hans
was the liberal democratic work of scholars such as Morgenthau (who opposed the Vietnam War), the
Dahl(1956). CaucuscandidateforAPSApresidentin1971.Among
Beyondshiftsindisciplinaryemphasis,theonlytruly theirnumberwerepoliticaltheoristskeentobringthe
novel aspect of the behavioral revolution came in critiqueofU.S.liberaldemocracyintothedisciplinary
interest-based pluralism as normative theory (despite centerfromthemarginsofthesubfieldtowhichithad
the ostensible commitment to value-neutral inquiry). been exiled in the early 1950s. In step with the dissi-
Bythe1950stheoldnormativetheoryofthestatehad dent politics of the late 1960s, the Caucus demanded
few disciplinary advocates. Even Elliott, who in the everythingthatbehavioralismwasnot:anorientation
late1920shadonGunnell’s(2005)accountorganized to the social problems and political crises of the time
resistance to pluralism and in the 1950s remained an and a discipline that would take collective stands on
important presence in the discipline, did not come to controversialpoliticalissues(Bay1968).TheVietnam
the state’s defense. The state, it seems, had withered War, race, and poverty loomed especially large at the
away (at least in the discipline). In a political context outset,andenvironmentalandfeministconcernswere
definedbytherecentdefeatoftwoabsolutiststatesina soon added. Though not unanimously opposed to the
490
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview Vol.100,No.4
scientific study of politics, Caucus members believed PROLIFERATING RESEARCH PROGRAMS,
that science should take a back seat to commitment BUT NO FURTHER REVOLUTION
andrelevanceandthattheexplanationofpoliticalbe-
Much has changed in the discipline in the postbehav-
havior was definitely not the proper center of gravity
ioralera.Duringthe1980s,thestatewasbroughtback
ofthediscipline.Likeitsthreepredecessormovements,
in(Evans,Rueschemeyer,andSkocpol1985),suggest-
the Caucus combined intellectual and political aims,
ing a cycle within the discipline (for an explanation
thoughitspoliticalaimsweremuchmoreexplicitthan
ofsuchcyclesintermsofchangingpoliticalproblems,
thoseofbehavioralism.
see Dryzek 1986). However, the state returned in a
Much of the energy of the Caucus was devoted to
formfardifferentthanthatinwhichitleft.Gonewas
reform of the APSA itself. It ran candidates against
thecomprehensivenormativestatismofthediscipline’s
the official slate for both President and Council, and
founding.Reactingagainstallegedsocietalreduction-
although never successful in electing a president, did
ismofthebehavioralera,thenewstatistssawthestate
get several members on the Council. (After the pas-
as an independent variable in the sense that public
sage of several decades, erstwhile Caucusistas such as
officialscouldhaveinterestsoftheirownthatdidnot
TheodoreLowiandIraKatznelsoncouldbecomePres-
simplyreflectsocialforces.Thiswasnorevolution,just
idents via the official slate.) Resistance from the now
a highlighting of particular kinds of actors and moti-
mostly behavioralist APSA hierarchy could be fierce:
vations; behavioralists such as Truman happily recog-
at the 1968 Annual Conference, panels proposed by
nizedpublicofficialswithinterestsdeterminedbytheir
thecaucuswerefrozenout.DavidEastonin1969was
institutional home as participants in pluralist interac-
more conciliatory, offering in his presidential address
tion. As Almond (1988, 858) put it (referring to the
a “New Revolution in Political Science” that would
work of Eric Nordlinger, but the point is more gen-
essentially put behavioral techniques in general and
erally applicable) “...there is no change in paradigm
hissystemsmodelinparticularintheserviceofsocial
here but rather a research program of considerable
problems. But the new set of dependent variables of-
promiseintendedtodistinguishamongpolitiesaccord-
fered by Easton did not assuage the Caucus or heal
ing to which state (governmental) personnel take the
the split (though it did help legitimate the develop-
initiative in the making of public policy...” This new
ment of the subfield of public policy in the 1970s; see
statism could be ignored by non-practitioners of its
Torgerson 1995, 229–30). The behavioralist hierarchy
program,andthelanguageof“thestate”stilldoesnot
was still firmly in place (even if its confidence was
comeeasilytomostAmericanpoliticalscientists.
shaken),resolutelyopposedtopoliticizationofthedis-
Bythe1990sitwasmuchharderforAmericanpolit-
cipline. AsEulau (1972,438) put itinhispresidential
icalscientiststoavoidtakingaviewonrationalchoice
report, “we are not set up or organized for political
theory.Thisapproachhadbeenpresentforalongtime,
action,orthepropagationofpoliticalpointsofview.”
beginninginearnestinthe1950swithworkbyKenneth
Upon completing his term as editor of the Review in
Arrow, Duncan Black, Anthony Downs, and William
1971,AustinRanneyrecallsthatinhelpingtoappoint
Riker. Its territory, and share of the Review’s pages,
hissuccessor“Iwasveryclearinmymindthatitwasn’t
subsequentlyexpandedtothepointwhereitappeared
goingtobeanycaucustype”(Ranney1991,230),and
toconstitutethediscipline’smostpopularresearchpro-
itwasnot.
gram. But rather than revolutionalizing political sci-
Rather than develop links with the social and po-
enceasawhole,rationalchoicestoodalongsideestab-
litical movements of the counter-culture, the Caucus
lishedsortsofbehavioralscholarship,thenewstatism,
sooninvestedmostofitsenergiesinmoreprofessional
cultural analysis, new institutionalism (of the nonra-
endeavors.AsLowi(1973,43–44)lamented,itbecame
tional choice variety) and other research programs in
“theCaucusforaNewPoliticalScienceAssociation.”
anincreasinglydiversediscipline.Somerationalchoice
Its assault on the commanding heights of the APSA
practitioners presented their approach as an advance
having failed, the Caucus settled down to life as one
onatheoreticalbehavioralism,ignoringthesortsofthe-
of the APSA’s ever-proliferating Organized Sections,
orythatwerepresentinbehavioralism(suchasDahl’s
sponsoringitsown(eventuallyquitesmall)setofpan-
liberal democracy and Easton’s systems theory). And
els, and publishing a journal, New Political Science,
even if they fell short in practice, behavioralists had
largely ignored by the rest of the discipline (it did
always proclaimed a belief in cumulative explanatory
not appear in the ranking of 115 journals in political
theory.
science compiled by Garand and Giles [2003]). Many
oftheyoungermembersofthePerestroikae-maillist
intheearly2000swereapparentlyunawareofthislast
CONCLUSION
attempted reformation of the discipline, and needed
remindingthatoncetherewastheCaucus,andindeed ReorientationsoftheAmericandisciplineofpolitical
thatitlivedstill(Swidorski2004). sciencehavebeenrare,withonlytwoclearepisodesin
The Caucus carried out a full frontal attack on be- acenturyandahalf.Thisrarityhasnotbeenthrough
havioralism, but met substantial resistance. Applying want of trying. The discipline has been very hard to
thetestforasuccessfulrevolutionwithwhichIbegan, shift. If a movement takes direct aim at established
the Caucus did not re-set the discipline’s agenda in a practices and understandings and meets with explicit
wayrecognizedbyallpractitioners.Inparticular,those resistance,historysuggestsitdoesnotsucceed.
who rejected the Caucus program could simply and Becausesuccessfulrevolutionsre-setthediscipline’s
safelyignoreit. agenda,theydefinethetermsoftheiropposition,which
491
RevolutionsWithoutEnemies November2006
appearsonlyafterthemovementhassucceeded.(Itis Eulau,Heinz.1972.“ReportofthePresident.”PS5(Autumn):436–
in this sense that the Caucus was constituted by chil- 38.
drenofthebehavioralrevolution.)Butevensuccessful Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. 1985.
Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University
revolutionscanfindtheiragenda-settingabilityfading
Press.
withtime.Soby1950thenormativestatismthatdomi- Farr, James. 1993. “Political Science and the State.” In Discipline
natedthedisciplineinitsearlydecadeswasexhausted. andHistory:PoliticalScienceintheUnitedStates,ed.JamesFarr
Behavioralism’slegacyofmethods,techniques,andre- and Raymond Seidelman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
searchtopicspersiststothisday,perhapsmoststrongly
Farr,James.1995.“RememberingtheRevolution:Behavioralismin
inthesubfieldofpoliticalpsychology.Butitscapacity
American Political Science.” In Political Science in History: Re-
tosetthedisciplinaryagendahasfadedsincethe1970s searchProgramsandPoliticalTraditions,ed.JamesFarr,JohnS.
in the face of a proliferation of research programs, as Dryzek,andStephenT.Leonard.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
confirmedbythelamentsofprominentbehavioralists sityPress.
Follett, Mary Parker. 1918. The New State: Group Organization
suchasEulau,Almond,andEastonaboutdisciplinary
andtheSolutionofPopularGovernment.NewYork:Longmans,
drift, fragmentation, and loss of purpose (Farr 1995, Green.
220).Indeed,ithasbecomehardereventospeakofan Garand, James C., and Micheal W. Giles. 2003. “Journals in the
agendaforthedisciplinethatcouldbere-set. Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political
Scientists.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (April): 293–
Perhaps with Thomas Kuhn (1962) in mind, many
308.
scholars view disciplinary history in terms of eras set
Garceau,Oliver.1951.“ResearchinthePoliticalProcess.”American
apart by revolutions. However, pervasive evolution PoliticalScienceReview45(March):69–85.
maymatterjustasmuch.Gradualchangeproducedthe Goodnow,Frank.1904.“TheWorkoftheAmericanPoliticalSci-
slow decline of the state from the 1900s to the 1940s enceAssociation.”ProceedingsoftheAmericanPoliticalScience
Association1:35–46.
andtheproliferationofapproachesthatcharacterized
Gunnell,JohnG.1988.“AmericanPoliticalScience,Liberalism,and
thepostbehavioralera. theInventionofPoliticalTheory.”AmericanPoliticalScienceRe-
Thesuccessoftheearlyfocusonthestateowedless view82(March):71–87.
toitsnormativecommitments,alwaysanomalousinthe Gunnell, John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Ge-
nealogyofanAmericanVocation.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Americanpoliticalsystem,thantoitsassociationwith
Press.
professionalismandscience.Behavioralismcouldreset
Gunnell,JohnG.1995.“TheDeclinationofthe‘State’andtheOri-
thediscipline’sagendabecauseitentailedtheselective ginsofAmericanPoliticalScience.”InPoliticalScienceinHistory:
radicalization of existing commitments and practices. ResearchProgramsandPoliticalTraditions,ed.JamesFarr,John
Both were revolutions without enemies, and to date S.Dryzek,andStephenT.Leonard.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versityPress.
that seems to be the only kind of revolution that can
Gunnell, John G. 2004. “The Real Revolution in Political Sci-
succeedinreorientingAmericanpoliticalscience. ence.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (January): 47–
50.
Gunnell,JohnG.2005.“PoliticalScienceontheCusp:G.E.G.Catlin
REFERENCES andWilliamYandellElliott.”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview
99(November):597–609.
Almond,Gabriel.1988.“TheReturntotheState.”AmericanPolitical Herring, Pendleton. 1929. Group Representation Before Congress.
ScienceReview82(September):853–74. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Bay,Christian.1965.“PoliticsandPseudo-politics:ACriticalEvalu- Kuhn,Thomas.1962.TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.Chicago:
ationofSomeBehavioralLiterature.”AmericanPoliticalScience UniversityofChicagoPress.
Review59(March):39–51. Laski,HaroldJ.1917.StudiesintheProblemofSovereignty.New
Bay,Christian.1968.“ForAnAmericanPoliticalScienceAssocia- Haven:YaleUniversityPress.
tion.”PS1(Winter):36–38. Lowi,TheodoreJ.1969.TheEndofLiberalism.NewYork:Norton.
Bentley,ArthurF.1908.TheProcessofGovernment.Chicago:Uni- Lowi, Theodore J. 1973. “The Politicization of Political Science.”
versityofChicagoPress. AmericanPoliticsQuarterly1(January):43–71.
Catlin,GeorgeE.G.1927.TheScienceandMethodofPolitics.New Ranney,Austin.1991.“Interview.”InPoliticalScienceinAmerica:
York:Knopf. OralHistoriesofaDiscipline,ed.MichaelA.Baer,MalcolmE.
Charlesworth, JamesC.,ed.1962.TheLimitsofBehavioralism in Jewell, and Lee Sigelman. Lexington: University Press of Ken-
PoliticalScience.Philadelphia:AmericanAcademyofPoliticaland tucky.
SocialScience. Schlosberg,David.1998.“ResurrectingthePluralistUniverse.”Po-
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: liticalResearchQuarterly51(September):583–616.
UniversityofChicagoPress. Seidelman,Raymond,withEdwardJ.Harpham.1984.Disenchanted
Dahl,RobertA.1961.“TheBehavioralApproachinPoliticalSci- Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984.
ence:EpitaphforaMonumenttoaSuccessfulProtest.”American Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
PoliticalScienceReview55(December):763–72. Storing,HerbertJ.,ed.1962.EssaysontheScientificStudyofPolitics.
Dryzek,JohnS.1986.“TheProgressofPoliticalScience.”Journalof NewYork:Holt,Rinehart,andWinston.
Politics48(May):301–20. Swidorski, Carl. 2004? “‘Perestroika’ and the Caucus for a New
Easton,David.1953.ThePoliticalSystem:AnInquiryintotheState Political Science.” Online at http://www.psa.ac.uk/psanews/0312/
ofPoliticalScience.NewYork:Knopf. New%20Political%20Science.htm.
Easton, David. 1991. “Interview.” In Political Science in America: Torgerson, Douglas. 1995. “Policy Analysis and Public Life: The
Oral Histories of a Discipline, ed. Michael A. Baer, Malcolm Restoration of Phronesis?” In Political Science in History: Re-
E. Jewell, and Lee Sigelman. Lexington: University Press of searchProgramsandPoliticalTraditions,ed.JamesFarr,JohnS.
Kentucky. Dryzek,andStephenT.Leonard.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
Easton,David.1993.“PoliticalScienceintheUnitedStates:Pastand sityPress.
Present.”InDisciplineandHistory:PoliticalScienceintheUnited Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York:
States,ed.JamesFarrandRaymondSeidelman.AnnArbor:Uni- Knopf.
versityofMichiganPress. Wilson, Woodrow. 1885. Congressional Government. Boston:
Elliott, William Yandell. 1928. The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics: HoughtonMifflin.
Syndicalism, Fascism, and the Constitutional State. New York: Wilson,Woodrow.1887.“TheScienceofAdministration.”Political
Macmillan. ScienceQuarterly2(June):197–222.
492