Political Science and Political Philosophy: Ontological Not Normative David R. Mayhew PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), 192-193. Stable URL: httpflinks,stor.orgsici?sick=1 049-9965 %/28200006%2033%3 A2%9C 1923 APS APPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H PS: Pottcal Science and Politic is cumtently published by American Political Science Associstion. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at flip: feworwjtor org/aboutterms.htmal. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in par, that unless you fave obtained pcior permission, you may not dowaload an cnt isus of @ journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial uss. Please contact the publisher cegarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bupsforwer,jstor.onp/jounals/apsa html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission. ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact support @jstor.org- up:thvwwjstor.orgy Sat Aug 6 23:40:40 2005Political Science and Political Philosophy: Ontological Not Normative David R. Mayhew, Yale University Wits. lio tassel political theory and modeen writing about it for current-day posi- tive (that is, explanatory) political science? By “classical,” I mean works from Plato through at least Weber In modern American political sci- ence, the conventional answer to this question has been that classical theory offers normative illumination, Ie helps out with certain “should” questions—that is, recommendations about how political systems should be constructed ar how individuals acting 4s political beings should be- have. Important as this line of think- ing may be in its own tetms, [ be- licve that it has worked to marginalize or trivialize classical the- ory for many writers and teachers in the positive sectors, It has allowed the kind of dismissal that Ayer (1948), writing at the high tide of logical positivism, gave to normative concerns. Classical theory scholars made a tactical mistake a few gener- ations back, if they had any choice in che matter, to let themselves be- come labeled “normative.” Tt is much better to see classical theory as 2 source of ontological illumination—that is, as a window to the nature of political reality. What is the nature of the political reality that political scientists should be studying?" If we members of the profession possessed a clear, singu- far answer to this question, we might not feel the need 10 keep classical theory alive. But we do not possess a dear, singular answer, or at least we do not agree on any. Hence, we David R, is Sterting Profesor Seid &, Mayhew i Seng Protein, Gfesmey 11980), Compe: Te Bese oration (1974), Placing. Pores in Arenson Paltcs (1980), Divided. We Govern 11991), and America's Congres: Actions inthe Fu Sphere, Jemes Madi- fon through Newt Granth flarhcomng 2200) 192 keep resorting to classical theory for clues In my view, the classical tradition generated at least four distinct an- swers (0 the question: What is the nature of the political reality that we should be studying? All four answers have remained alive in political si ‘ence of recent generations under- taken as a positive, as distinguished from a normative, enterprise. Draw ing on classical and modern writers where appropriate, I give those four answers below. The police realy worth zeroing on “conpewatin” Peat i, tis is patietns of conflict or eal tion makieg among stipulated units. To demonstate sueh pat ferns and theie consequences is the task of the discipline. The tit i question see typically in ‘duals, But they ay also be ine ferest groups, asses, parties, states, ar even, a8 in Huntin (£996) cecent writing, ci ‘This @ dominantly Anglo can approach to polities extending fom Hobbes through Bentham, Marx asa porttayer of class con Tet, Beard the Amesiean pluralist, ceadition af the mid-twentieth een- tury—consider Lasse’ tlle Pot ites Who Gets What, When, How? (1936}—and, most recently, much ‘af rational chaiee, Both liberalism, with ts jostling indivi, and Manism, with fs confictig classes, have been accommodated Ing search for configurative pat terns across unit, i e4a under standably become second nature fo impute stategies, (0 resort 0 mathematies, 10 meastre, and ca ddeaw om microeconomics. Teese fate all tendencies we have come {6 uttnest in abuneance. For Amecican political seectits,con- figurative concerns offered an easy road trom plutalism 0 rational che Political reali is “panicpation.” No, a second answer goes, the proper subject of political science 's participation and its eonse- jguemiees—whieh are ordinarily thought t@ be favorable. This is ‘ein extending feom Aristotle thcough Mchisvelh, Tocqueville, ‘Atendt, ano, after World Wat Tl, ‘Almand and Verba's Cie Cuore (1963). Teincludes the entire anon of “republicanism.” [the Ince twentiett century, which was & creative time on the pactspetion Front, we heard a gieat deal about “socal eapial” courtesy ot Put nam (1998), the "public sphere” cauttesy of Habermas (1989), and “civil society" fllowing te col- lapse af the Sevier empire. These eqneerns atose coneurterly with ‘ational choice, bu, it terms of dnalytic content, de fo kinds of development mgt as well have been taking place on separate planets. le the “paricipstion” tea Sition, as T have characterized s— consider Tacquevile's Demacracy idrionca there has existed vit tually 90 interest in eonfiguative paterns, strategies, zero-sum a8 sumptions, oF microeconamnc the- foxy, alhulgh thee Has been Mes Polat reality is “steering.” This isa tess prominent emphasis ia lhe cone temparaty profession, but it remains avatlable. By “seering” wie has Scholarly roots iw Pato and Macha well, Tmean the management of states of govecament by leaders, That i the politieal reality shat needs to be ied —and without regard fr ts rmiccofoundations in soclety. Such amicrofoundations may oF nat exis, but for analytic purposes they can be lacgely ignored. Steering seems to hate enjoyed 2 local peak ducing the anid-twenteth century a, correspond ingly it actual politics, the power of the American hational state ctested, Invluental works include Neustad's Presidential Power (1960), Kisinget’s ‘A Word Restored (1987), and, radiat- ing influence fom the €conarnies dis ciple, Keyees's mictofourdation feze blueprints for managing governments and economies, Since fen, despite occasional prominent works by such diverse writers a8 Kras- her (1975), Skoweonek (1982), Mans field (1988), and Moore (1993, steer- ing scems ( have fallen of relative {a atier emphases in politcal science proper. The ouegeoning of the Kennedy Schoo! outside the profes PS June 2000sion’s norms for project defiition aay be partly 2 zeaction to this fak loft. Political ality is “unfoldinghserse ‘uyes.” There exists a strange—at least to a canventionallyrained American polilical seientist—yet ‘widely represented tradition that is missing ftom the above categories. eis a Continental, largely Ger- san, tradition. This i the idea that the type of political reality worth attending to 4s an unfolding process—an unfolding of history {in general and of cettain “struce tres" (ina large sense) that come into existence during thar uafold- ing. Accordingly, the role of politi- ‘eal sclence isto tell the story of that unfolding, and to anatomize its emergent structures. Pioneered by Hegel, this tradition has de- seended through Marx in his cole as portrayer of historical stages (lassical theorists can ishabit more than one category here), Note 1, Note that this question isnot in elt a normative” one. Gren stable substitutes for the ters "politial” and “poliieal scien References Almond, Gabriel A, and Sidney Verba, 1963. The Cite Culaye: Political tides and Damecraay in Five Natons, on Anaiyic ‘Sudy. Princeton: Princeton University Press Ayer, AL 1946, Language, Truth, and Lagi Laedlon: Gollancr. Dawes, Antiany. 1957. An Economic Theory ‘of Paracray, New Yorke Harpet ‘Guncel, Jan. 1986. Berseen Philasophy and Polides The Alienation af Peistcal Dery. Anthert; University of Mastzusrts Pres Heabecmas, Jurgen. 1985, The Sonctura! Trans- formation af the Public Sphere. Tans ‘Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press “Huntington, Samuel P, 1996, The Clash of Weber as the anatomizer af, for example, bureaucracy and capicale ism, and, more receatly, Habecmas in much of his writing), Marcuse, and Ofle. Tocqueville fits in as the anatomist of emergent niaeteeath- ‘century American demacracy. In ‘American political science depart= meats, this Continental tradition has figured in much of the friction between classical theory and posi tive analysis—natably in the 19408 and 1950 as European émigré scholars assumed places on Amer- ican faculties (Gunnell 1986) Note that this friction has had vit= tally nothing to do with norma {ive versus nennermative thrusts Tchas been about ontological and resulting methodological differ- ences. If Tam correct in arguing the above, the American political sci cence profession in general, and most large university departments within tists" che same cuestion was faced by, among others, Calle, Freue, Einstein, Nartet, Key> neg and Chamaky. [t would not be particu: Civilizations and the Remaking of World ‘Order. New York: Sinan & Seaustee Kissinger, Henry A. 1957. World Restored: Matorich, Cuereagh and te Problema of Peace, 1912-22. Boston: Houghton Mite Krasner, Stephen D. 1978. Defending the No oil Interest: Raw Moers vesemens, ‘and US. Foreign Poly. Princeton: Prince- {en University Pres Laswell, Harold D. 1956. Police Who Ges What, Wher, How. New Yorks McGraw Hilt Mansfeld, Harvey C. Je. 1989, Taming dhe Prince’ The Ambivalence of Mader Execs tive Power. New York: Free Press. Moote, Mavs Harrison. 1995. Ceang Public aks: Soansgie Menagement in Gover ‘mort. Cambridge, MA Harvard Uoisersiy Press F50nkine wonw.apsonetorg it, exist in and are probably fated to continue in a condition of ontologi- cal pluralism, Attractive as various particular emphases may be, some- hhow it does not seem appropriate to try to stamp out any of the kinds of enterprises exemplified by Riker (4962, 1982) and Dawns (1957), Put- nam and Almond and Verba, New- stadt, or Weber and Habermas. In this circumstance of pluralism, the profession's body of classical theory has taken on roles not played by compatable sets of classical texts in, for example, psychology and eco- nomics. Classical theory offers a re~ frestier course in what positive polit- ical science complicatedly is, Te keeps alive the question of ontology. And it offers smart old intellectual ‘moves that can be dusted aff for use when the profession's ontological tastes shift, as they sometimes do, laey helpful to eateporize the eeasons for ter answers as “normative.” Neustadt, Richaté F, 1960, Presidential Power: The Poles of Lenderhis. New York: wiley. Puram, Robert. 1993, Mating Demacracy Wark: Cine Traditions x Moder ley Princeton: Princeton University Press Riker, Willams HL (982. Leber Apaoet Popuum: A Confrontation between the ‘Theory of Democracy andthe Theo of Seta! Choice. Sa Francia: WH. Free. 1986 The Tier of Poca Coatttons [New Haven: Yale University res. Skowronek, Stephen, 1982. Building @ New “American Sate: The Expansion of Nawonat ‘Aiminstneive Capacmes, 1877-1920. New ‘York! Cambridge University Press. 193