Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, American Political Science Association are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS
DAVID E. APTER
747
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
748 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 749
edge for the type of postgraduate program called for here. If this were true it
would be rather an indictment of our entire university program. But such is
not the case. Plenty of first class students come out of our universities, and
postgraduate work at the Ph.D. level should cater only to first class students.
Social analysis is technical stuff and there is no compromise with quality.
However, as soon as one raises queries pertaining to curriculum changes,
vested interests, convictions, and indeed the cultural traditions of political
science are set in motion. Questions about "education for what" vie with
queries about the basic stuff of education itself. Styles and schools in profes-
sional education, each with their virtues and angry in defense, sometimes end
by obfuscating real issues. Too often it is fashion which wins the day rather
than a sober assessment of our needs and problems.
If the ferment which has been produced in some circles in political science is
itself more than fashion, and there would be many who would deny that it is,
then it is to the science of politics and the constitution of that science that we
must address ourselves.
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
750 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 751
II
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
752 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
3 See for example, Parsons, T., et. al., Working Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe,
Illinois, 1953). See also, Almond, G. H., "Comparative Political Systems," in Eulau, et. al.,
Political Behavior (Glencoe, Illinois, 1956).
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 753
This is not a plea for integration of concepts into a single "social science."4
While the political scientist certainly is engaged in examining selected aspects
of social action and therefore depends upon the social sciences to provide as-
pects of the basic theory of such action, this does not mean that he should sud-
denly become political scientist cum psychologist or cum anything else. In that
respect the sometimes plaintive question "but is this political science" is mis-
leading. There is no doubt that the main focus for the political scientist is not
action as a whole, but only certain aspects of action.
If one accepts this point of view, however, he assumes certain responsibili-
ties. For a time at least, he may become an iconoclast. He may smash more
idols than he can replace. He may even diminish his immediate research poten-
tialities in favor of a long and difficult search over many fields of social analysis
to learn how others view human action, what they regard as important about
it, and possibly how such a search may rephrase the questions which a political
scientist might be likely to ask. And he might hesitate before going through
such a process, and might well ask, what is really in it for me?
Because this question is what some political scientists essentially are asking,
.what is incumbent upon them in order to find out? The first requirement is to
attempt an over-view of some of the different ways those in other specialized
fields attempt to categorize action data, both procedurally (in the emphasis
upon experiment), and theoretically (in the emphasis upon statements ap-
plicable beyond immediate limits of experiment).
What contributions do they make in careful and controlled observation of
4See Mandelbaum, M., "Societal Facts," in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. VI,
No. 4 (Dec. 1955), for a good discussion of this problem. Speaking of the problem of re-
ductionism Mandelbaum says, "There can scarcely be any doubt that there is at present
a considerable measure of disagreement among social scientists concerning the relations
which obtain among their various disciplines. For example there is little agreement as to
how the province of 'social psychology' is related to general psychology on the one hand
or to sociology on the other. There is perhaps even less agreement as to how sociology
and history are related, or whether, in fact history is itself a social science. Even the
province of cultural anthropology which, in its earlier stages, seemed to be capable of
clear definition, is now in a position extremely fluid. This type of fluidity in boundaries of
the various social sciences, and the ease with which concepts employed in one discipline
spread to other disciplines, has been quite generally regarded as a promising augury for
the future of the social sciences. One notes the frequency with which 'integration' is held
up as an important programmatic goal for social scientists. But such pleas for integration
are ambiguous. On the one hand, they may merely signify a recognition of the fact that
attempts to understand some concrete problems call for co-operation between persons
trained to use the concepts and methods of different social sciences, or that workers in one
discipline should be aware of the methods and results of those who work in other fields.
On the other hand, what some who plead for 'integration' seem to demand is that the
various disciplines should merge into one larger whole. On such a view the goal of integra-
tion would be the achievement of a state in which all persons who work in the field of
social science would operate with the same set of concepts and would utilize the same
methods of inquiry." The latter position is of course absurd if only because of the wide
variety of research needs in the differing social sciences and because specialized theory is
not easily transferred from one discipline to another.
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
754 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 755
6 See David Easton's general thesis that properly speaking there is no political theory
today, The Political System (New York, 1953), passim.
7 See Merton's paradigm of functional analysis and Marxian analysis in Social Theory
and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois, 1949), Chapter 1.
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
756 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
III
8 For a good view of Barker's efforts at positive theory construction one need only
look at his Principles of Social and Political Theory (London, 1953), where "out of his
later years" he begins to deal in systematic analytical fashion with the materials he had
previously worked in brilliant intuitive fashion. The volume is not only a failure as theory
construction, but points up how far he has strayed from the tradition of Maitland, or for
that matter, Gierke.
9 Parsons, Talcott, "Some Highlights of the General Theory of Action," unpublished
paper presented at the Northwestern University Conference on Analytic Systems,
Spring, 1955, p. 3.
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 757
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
758 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 759
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
760 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
ence as we have used the term, one can perhaps put forward an assumption
which helps reaffirm the significance of political science both as a moral and an
experimental discipline. There has never yet been heard a definition of political
science, or politics, or the place of political science or politics in the scheme of
social affairs, which seemed to meet with general satisfaction. We feel vaguely
dissatisfied with attempts to define away subtle areas of our discourse and
knowledge. We often feel that the scope of our work is greater than any defi-
nition would allow, or that a definition gets us nowhere since we pay no atten-
tion to it anyway. Confusion in definitions helps to evade rather crucial issues
in political science. While we may define politics by what it "does," the fact is
that it intervenes in all major aspects of social life, and organization. The
assumption offered here is that what sets off politics, and makes some people
regard politics as both coterminous with society and coterminous with moral
and ethical imperatives, is the assumption that government as a particular
group of organizations and agencies at its most general level is responsible for
seeing that at least the minimal conditions for the perpetuation of a society
are in fact achieved. In analytical terms these conditions must be abstracted
from a wide range of "sociological" and "psychological" phenomena which go
on in any functioning society.
If this latter assumption is correct, then one is constantly, in political sci-
ence, dealing with a discipline which has for theoretical boundaries any func-
tioning system of which it is a part, and all theories relevant to how that sys-
tem functions have possible relevance to an understanding of politics, depend-
ing upon the enquiry. Equally, if one of the major concerns of a functioning
system is the empirical framework under which it will in fact function, then
social improvement is political morality, and ethics cannot be banned from the
sphere of the political scientists.
The political scientist can fall back on his lore and go through the motions
to which he has become habituated through years of practice; or he can begin
to reorganize the chaos which appears as soon as he begins to ask fundamental
questions. We need rather more suitable frames of empirical theory, avoiding
the pitfalls of omnibus knowledge on the one hand, and preaching on the other,
without evading our responsibilities as citizens in a moral order and as social
scientists.
IV
The first two trends of which we spoke represent enormous problem areas in
political science today. And if the two "schools" which we have mentioned are
to handle the tasks set for them, then we have several major priorities to estab-
lish in political science. It is easy enough to criticize but it is not so easy to
formalize the canons of criticism into standards of meritorious work.'0
10 One of the ways of doing this is of course to teach our students what some of the
more basic criteria of science are, as we indicated earlier. The application of Mill's canons
are by no means beneath our dignity or our art. Principles of logic are as much a part of
the technique of the social sciences as they are of the physical sciences, and as such should
be basic training for any political scientist worthy of his salt. In the days when politics
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS 761
was a small part of the large omnibus of social philosophy, mathematics and logic were as
fundamental to humanist education as to the scientific, and the false dichotomy of
modern times had not then yet been made. More than ever we need now to be familiar
with those basic enquiries which make up scientific enquiry. Knowledge must be outspoken
in its rules as well as in its information.
11 See Macridis, R., The Study of Comparative Government, Doubleday Short Studies
(New York, 1955), Chapter 2.
12 It is interesting to note that others wrestling with similar epistemological problem
come face to face with some of the same kinds of requirements in widely differing areas
social thought. A Danish linguist working towards systematic theory in an entirely
different fashion voices a remark as applicable to our own science as to his when, speaking
of theory, lie says, "A priori it would seem to be a generally valid thesis that for every
process there is a corresponding system, by which the process can be analyzed and described
by means of a limited number of premises. It must be assumed that any process can be
analyzed into a limited number of elements that constantly recur in various combina-
tions. Then, on the basis of this analysis, it should be possible to order these elements
into classes according to their possibilities of combination. And it should be further
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
762 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
Theory and method should be guides to action and not dogma. We need at
the outset control methods and experiments out of which the attempts to pro-
duce useful statements have been made; statements which stimulate thought
and work in many differing social science disciplines.
Our job as political scientists is perhaps the most complex of all the social
sciences in some ways, dealing as we do with a special aspect of the totality of
social activity and interpersonal behavior. All the more striking, therefore, is
our need for approaching effective control of our material, and the development
of theory through the application of scientific canons characteristic of all the
disciplines. Insofar as our work deals with a specialized branch of human ac-
tivity, we need to know some of the fundamentals of human behavior, "the
political." The task for political science in that sense is a very heavy one be-
cause we become specialists who need to have a powerful armory of analytical
tools partly derived by others as our work partakes of the general, and that de-
veloped by our own "specialists" as our work partakes of the particular.
We need then a greater clarification of the epistemological foundations of
science. Too few political scientists get specific training in theory construction,
work on science qua science, and at the same time keep contact with empirical
problems which are manipulable by scientific means. We need, too, a greater
appreciation of the difference between analytical theory and the mere creation
of synthetic categories which simply add jargon rather than effective tools for
greater understanding. We need a picture of other theories in social science
relevant to our own basic assumptions as analysts of a segment of social be-
havior, which is impossible to obtain without an understanding of what theory
is and how it works in relation to problems, and how it can be generalized to
other areas.
The immediate responsibility of our profession to the future generation of
political scientists who are coming to us for training makes these issues more
than merely academic.'3
possible to set up a general and exhaustive calculus of the possible combinations. A history
so established should rise above the level of mere primitive description to that of a syste-
matic, exact, and generalizing science, in the theory of which all events (possible com-
binations of elements) are foreseen and the conditions for their realization established."
He goes on to remark about the humanities, what is equally applicable to political science,
"It seems incontestable that, so long as the humanities have not tested this thesis as a
working hypothesis, they have neglected their most important task, that of seeking to es-
tablish the humanistic studies as a science." Hjelmslev, Louis, "Prolegomena to a Theory
of Language," p. 5. Translated by Francis J. Whitfield, in Supplement to International
Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 19, No. 1, Indiana Univ. Publications in Anthro-
pology and Linguistics, Memoir 7 (Jan. 1953).
13 This paper was stimulated by the Conference on Analytical Systems held at
Northwestern University in the Spring of 1955. My thanks are due to my colleagues at
Northwestern for helpful criticism and stimulation. I wish particularly to acknowledge the
help of Heinz Eulau, Antioch College, David Easton, The University of Chicago, Harold
Sprout, Princeton University, and Richard C. Snyder and Roland Young of North-
western University for reading and commenting on the manuscript. Their help is no
token of their responsibility.
This content downloaded from 150.214.40.140 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms