ARNOLD BRECHT'S POLITICAL THEORY REVISITED Political ...

ARNOLD BRECHT ' S POLITICAL THEORY REVISITED 145
II
Brecht's general characterization of the "revolution" which gave
birth to the new "scientific" political theory dates it as beginning at
around the turn of the 20th century and describes it as essentially a
revolt against a then dominant mode of inquiry or discourse in
which "pronouncements were freely advanced on good and evil, just
and unjust, morally right and wrong, worthy and unworthy
(detestable or wicked), laudable and reprimandable, desirable and
undesirable, valuable and nonvaluable" (3) . The rebellious
fashioners of the new, truly "scientific" political theory came to
perceive the lack of "scientific" justification for such pronouncements,
viewing them as merely expressive of religious and
cultural dogmas and personal idiosyncrasies. They thus saw the need
for a more rigorous conception of "science" and its capacities and
limitations. That more rigorous conception entailed a primary focus
on the question of the proper methods of inquiry, for the purpose of
insuring that "scientific" inquiries would henceforth restrict
themselves to accounts of what "is," informing us about the conditions
of life as they actually are. "The trend thus was away from
`dogma'... and on to `reality"' (5). It was the "triumph" of this
revolution not only to produce a more accurate and precise account
of "reality," but, by doing so, to bring about an "unprecedented progress...in
many fields, especially in those of social welfare in the
broadest sense of the term" (5).
This is, of course, an all-too-familiar story, as it was already in
1959 when Brecht recounted it. What was rather unique in his account
of the "revolution" was his ascription of both the "triumph"
and the "tragedy" or "crisis" of twentieth century political theory to
the same source: the new conception of the relationship between
"science" and "values." Others who had propagated the story tended
only to perceive the "triumph"; 8
and if they had any awareness of
the "tragedy," they did not connect it with the new view of
"science." He and they make the element of self-restraint entailed in
the stance of the new breed of scientists, the "scientific value
8. E.g.: David Easton. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political
Science (New York: Knopf, 1953); David B. Truman, "The Impact on Political
Science of the Revolution in the Behavioral Sciences," in Research Frontiers in Politics
and Government (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1955), pp. 202-231.