The Duck of Minerva

The State of Political Science

Featured

by Dan Nexon

20 May 2013, 1142 EDT

It may, however, be appropriate to point out that the persisting bipolar conflict in the  field between humanists and behavioralists conceals a lively polemic within both camps  and perhaps particularly among the so-called  behavioralists. Among the modernists neologisms burst like roman candles in the sky, and wars of epistemological legitimacy are fought. The devotees of rigor and theories of the middle range reject more speculative general theory as  non-knowledge; and the devotees of general theory attack those with more limited scope as technicians, as answerers in search of questions.

From Gabriel Almond, “Political Theory and Political Science,” American Political Science Review 60,4 (1966), p. 878.

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

6 Comments

  1. GM
    GM on 20 May 2013 at 11.47 EDT

    Plus ça change?…

    Excellent find. Thanks Dan.

  2. GM
    GM on 20 May 2013 at 11.47 EDT

    Plus ça change?…

    Excellent find. Thanks Dan.

  3. colin wight
    colin wight on 20 May 2013 at 11.49 EDT

    But they aren’t epistemological wars. In what sense are they epistemological?

  4. Andreas
    Andreas on 20 May 2013 at 17.24 EDT

    So? What exactly is this supposed to tell us/illustrate/be a witty comment about? Care to provide some context? Where are the ‘humanists’ or the ‘behaviouralists’ these days? What, in your esteemed opinion, are actually the relevant debates these days?

    • David Kaib
      David Kaib on 21 May 2013 at 10.06 EDT

      I’ve never seen someone take such offense at the posting of a short quote.

  5. Denise
    Denise on 23 May 2013 at 05.04 EDT

    I had this exact conversation a few weeks ago. Thank you for reminding me that someone older (smarter?) than me had already said it….