Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

172 W. J. M. Mackenzie
A reorganization on these lines is logical but would have at least one intel-
lectual disadvantage. The present limitation of political science to the study of
States and of matters which arise out of their organization is legalistic and in
some senses arbitrary and artificial. The defmition of ‘State’ is a puzzle which
perhaps appeals at kst sight to lawyers rather than to social scientists. Never-
theless, political scientists, concentrating on State politics, are forced to learn
(at least in a rudimentary way) a rather large range of techniques, and to link
together philosophical and empirical interests. The ‘specialization out’ of these
parts of politics offering answerable questions6 might well have a bad effect on
the residual discipline. Political theory at present borders on political philos-
ophy; but both alike are disciplined and held back from metaphysical specula-
tion by their links with empirical work on the practice of politics. At the same
time, the continuing link between empirical work and very large political
questions serves to winnow out descriptive research which is scientifically or
practically trivial.
Certainly the flavour of modern political science is determined by this peculiar
‘mix’, and there is no doubt that the main body of opinion among recognized
political scientists tells strongly in favour of its retention. I quote from Professor
Karl Deutsch, a very wide-ranging political scientist (in this quotation he uses
‘political theory’-in contrast with ‘political philosophy’- to mean the conceptual
side of political science as a nomothetic discipline):
‘Political theory is not only a field of inquiry conceived in abstract thought. It
is also an organized body of human activity ... It forms a social instrument of
inquiry, including a pool of common memories, a pool of more or less expert
referees and reviewers, and an explicit or implied set of standards of quality and
relevance for judging new work. In all these respects, political theory is an estab-
lished discipline, in contrast to a mere adhoc field of interdisciplinary collabora-
tion. ..’7 Most political scientists would accept these conclusions, though not
necessarily for Professor Deutsch’s reasons; and a number of strong arguments
tell in this direction, that of the maintenance of the independence of political
science as a discipline ranging widely from a specified base.
First, there is his argument, based on a reading of recent work on the socio-
logy of science, that political science exists as an ‘invisible college’ of scholars
in communication, and that such an entity persists in so far as it is successful.
As seen from the United States of America, this looks avery strong argument
indeed; members of the discipline are numerous there, and they have a marked
consciousness of unity of interest in spite of internal differences. The discipline
is not so strong elsewhere, and there are great differences between countries;
nevertheless, the existence of an extended network can be felt in one’s own
work and on occasions such as the biennial congress of the International Politi-
cal Science Association.s
Secondly, there are the existing faculty arrangements in many countries.
Historically, Western political science has been as closely allied with philo-
sophy, law and history as with sociology, psychology and economics. There is
no doubt that it is now being drawn towards the latter group, but not without
resistance. The argument can be put at two levels; first, that in fact philosophy,