In framing a response to your question, we
need to add some historical context to the American historical themes of political science.
Pre-1900, political science was rooted in sectionalism and reconstruction politics. The notion
of federalism and states rights dominated the political climate. By the 1920s, political science
shifted towards how the American Industrial Revolution shaped urban and rural policy. The
influence of the Progressive Movement, with its emphasis on the plight of workers and, to some
extent, greater civil rights, became the prevalent framework in which political scientists
operated. The Great Depression, World Wars, and FDRs presidency shaped the political landscape.
Political science broadened its scope to include societal problems and a global perspective.
This perspective led to an economic interpretation of politics and a rise in Marxist
construction of the American political landscapes. The turbulence of the sixties led to the
emergence of a new analysis of America by political scientists. This view became known as a
neo-Marxist view.
Neo-Marxists further broadened the scope of political
inquiry by maintaining the Marxist economic notions of class but expanding the Marxist
interpretation to include new categories of race, gender, and other marginalized members of
society as part of their study. Some political theorists argue the American political science
culture is still primarily a neo-Marxist framework, while others argue political science is in a
state of transformation to a view influenced by globalization, technology, and political
movements (climate change, for example.). These frameworks are, of course, an overgeneralization
of the transitions in political theory but are necessary for discussing the traditional and
modern view of political science.
Here are a few ways political scientists
have traditionally and continue to approach the field of study. Political science looks at
political events and movements from the perspective of political parties and voters. The
criticism of this method in the United States political system while divided between the
monopolies of the Democratic and Republican party voters tend to function on a personal
levelparties call these kitchen table issues. It is hard to draw a general conclusion of voters
when different kitchen table issues affect individuals in very different personal ways. The
unemployed factory worker in Ohio has little in common with the high-tech employee of San
Francisco or the farmer in Nebraska. Voting patterns are discernable, but the reasons a person
chooses to vote are not as simple as party affiliation.
Another way political
scientists study society is through the power structures and how power operates in the
community. Power structures are informal and formal networks. The criticism is determining how
these networks operate. It is easy to see the effect of a political decision. It is much more
complex to decide on how many choices were influenced by corporate, community, or other
interests. Power structures are not transparent or easily discernible. There is the study of
political science from the perspective of how politics influences the average citizen. Similar
to power structures but much different in focus, this study focuses solely on the impact and not
on how the decision was made. Divorcing the decision-making process from the decision is
problematic on many different levels. The criticism of this kind of research is that the
underlying assumption is citizens are not interested in politics unless it affects them
directly. The average citizen is oblivious to decisions made by political leaders and is
perfectly willing to allow someone else determine the political future as long as it doesnt
involve them on a personal level. A good example is how citizens view the former military draft,
who fights wars, and when or where war is fought.
The distinguishing factor
between the traditional approach and the modern approach in political science is the use of
social data. Political scientists tend towards incorporating large amounts of social data in
their research which until early in the twentieth century was not the case. Some outside and
inside the field question the relevance of political science as a field. It seems much of the
field involves so much social research that other fields have made political science irrelevant.
That is a different sort of argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment