Where do we go from here?
| Published date | 01 March 2011 |
| Author | Theodore J. Lowi |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512111405787 |
| Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Political Science Review
32(2) 223–230
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512111405787
ips.sagepub.com
Corresponding author:
Theodore J. Lowi, Department of Government, Cornell University, 115 White Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Email: TJL7@cornell.edu
Where do we go from here?
Theodore J. Lowi
Department of Government, Cornell University, USA
Abstract
This is a story about competition between a primitive political science, a modern political science, and their
significance to the future of political science and the state. The old-fashioned political science is comprised
of storytelling, otherwise called case studies. The modern, pure political science is committed to the
incorporation of the methods of pure science. The difference between the two is the origin of an on-going
debate within political science. When the state suffers a threat to its sovereignty, it seeks to suppress or
coopt domestic centers of power. It patronizes the pure science because it shows some promise of valuable
service. Chile is a significant example. And the older political science will suffer due to its tendency to expose
pathologies and its inability to remain neutral. Thus, once the state tends toward authoritarianism, the
storytelling political science is likely to suffer because thorough analyses find their way toward criticism, to
pathology. Once the state has intervened, the national association may respond but with too little support,
and the individual practitioners may have to retreat to their national association and to the International
Political Science Association, which may speak for all of the 60+ national associations. The International
Political Science Association will be the canary in the coal mine. The Nobel awaits.
Keywords
authoritarianism, state, primitive science, pure science, pathology, regularity, causality, rationality
Prognosis does not imply anything about the desirability of the course of events that one predicts. If a doctor
predicts that his patient will die presently, this does not mean that he desires it. (Schumpeter, 1942: 61)
I became a political scientist at Yale during the rise and decline of McCarthyism, but it had little
effect on me until its revival in the mid-1960s in Chicago. The infamous House Un-American
Activities Committee (HUAC) set up shop to investigate and expose the alleged revival of com-
munism, and their focus was on a few public health doctors who were first to reveal findings
regarding the perils of cigarettes. (And yes, they had been left-wing activists during their college
days.) Subpoenas were issued, but instead of invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent,
To continue reading
Request your trial