History and Discipline in Political Science

John S. Dryzek, Stephen T. Leonard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either “Whiggish” and condescending toward the past, or “skeptical” and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1245-1260
Number of pages16
JournalAmerican Political Science Review
Volume82
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1988
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

political science
history
rationality
political scientist
discourse

Cite this

Dryzek, John S. ; Leonard, Stephen T. / History and Discipline in Political Science. In: American Political Science Review. 1988 ; Vol. 82, No. 4. pp. 1245-1260.
@article{e05daa2a0c0740728ee640c3d9ff17fe,
title = "History and Discipline in Political Science",
abstract = "Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either “Whiggish” and condescending toward the past, or “skeptical” and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.",
author = "Dryzek, {John S.} and Leonard, {Stephen T.}",
year = "1988",
doi = "10.2307/1961758",
language = "English",
volume = "82",
pages = "1245--1260",
journal = "American Political Science Review",
issn = "0003-0554",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

History and Discipline in Political Science. / Dryzek, John S.; Leonard, Stephen T.

In: American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, No. 4, 1988, p. 1245-1260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - History and Discipline in Political Science

AU - Dryzek, John S.

AU - Leonard, Stephen T.

PY - 1988

Y1 - 1988

N2 - Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either “Whiggish” and condescending toward the past, or “skeptical” and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.

AB - Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either “Whiggish” and condescending toward the past, or “skeptical” and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971706854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2307/1961758

DO - 10.2307/1961758

M3 - Article

VL - 82

SP - 1245

EP - 1260

JO - American Political Science Review

JF - American Political Science Review

SN - 0003-0554

IS - 4

ER -