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

176 W. J. M. Mackenzie
There is in fact a spectrum of differing views between these extremes: but it is
in general accepted that the discipline is itself involved in the politics of States
and that each political scientist must take his own moral and intellectual stand
on these matters, within the scope allowed by the political environment in
which he works.
3. Nomothetic
There is also some controversy within the discipline about the nomothetic
scope of political science. In this case also there are extreme views. On the one
hand (e.g., in the work of Michael Oakeshott) there is the view that politics is
essentially a practical art, and that generalizations about it are necessarily
abstract in character and useless as a guide to action; at the other extreme are
those (one might cite George Catlin, Harold Lasswell and Karl Deutsch) who
have maintained for many years that the present political situation of mankind
requires the development of political science as a rigorous scientific study, a
view which has in its turn been strenuously attacked by Professor Leo Strauss
and others. It is difficult to estimate the balance of opinion within the discipline,
especially as those who expound the two extreme views are particularly able and
eloquent. But certainly a majority seek some way of conciliation, recognizing
the constructive case for each of the two extreme views, but deprecating their
mutual hostility.
On the one hand, it would not be denied that political science is a human
science of a precarious kind. In Max Weber’s terms, its object is Verstehen, to
gain insight, not merely to dissect. There is much talk of a ‘behavioural persua-
sion’ in political science: but the word ‘behaviour’ thus used does not imply
that those who favour it accept the rules of method of behavioural psychology.
In Professor Piaget’s terminology, even political behaviourists study conduite,
not comportement. To do otherwise would be absurd.
Conversely, it would be hard to find anyone to deny seriously what is urged on
the other side; that politics is of such importance to mankind that it requires
the application of the best intellectual methods available; that practical politics
and the academic study of politics have both suffered greatly from carelessness
in language and in method ; that any academic committed professionally!&o
political study must bring to it the standards or rigour and completeness which
is usual in other disciplines. To which might be added, with rather less unanimi-
ty and enthusiasm, that all successful sciences have made some use of mathema-
tical formulation and have developed some techniques of measurement.
Each political scientist has to find his own place in this spectrum, within the
conditions defined for the discipline in his own country. But certainly there is
emerging (as Professor Deutsch says in the quotation used on p. 172 above) a
profession which recognizes itself even in its perplexities. There has of late been
so much talk of methodology that most scholars now prefer to discuss work in
progress rather than work that might perhaps be done at some time in the future.
Nevertheless, discussion of method implies discussion of the scope and limits
of free and rational action in politics, and many of the traditional themes of
political thought have been re-examined incidentally.