Suchergebnisse

I remember an afternoon graduate seminar in 1958 at Yale when Bob Dahl asked a question: "How would we best go about 'testing' the insights of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America?" Two answers were offered. "Survey research can do it all," many argued. I put my hand up and offered an alternative. We would do well to study American history, the culture of politics, and political sociology, then and now. One does not "test" Tocqueville all at once, and never fully. One continually matches his insights against what one knows and understands about our politics. Dahl accepted both answers and we then went on to other things. I recalled the question when I recently reread Ford.Ford, along with James Bryce, was one of the first political scientists to attempt an analysis of the central dynamics of American political institutions. In The Rise and Growth of American Politics (1898), he set a model followed by Arthur Bentley, Arthur Holcombe, Wilfred Binkley, Pendleton Herring, D.W. Brogan, and Clinton Rossiter, all leaders in American political science. The art was to write a perceptive book about U.S. politics that was grounded primarily in historical materials and analyzed the connections among society, politics, and government.

One of the essential atarting points of any branch of science is a consistent, broadly understood terminology. Generally accepted definitions of key terms within a discipline are important in order to judge claims by scholars about a given topic. Fortunately, among those who work on the topic of nationalism, there is a growing convergence of definitions of "nation" and "nationalism." Unfortunately, both terms are often still misused, used loosely, or used inconsistently, especially among those in political science who discuss these terms in passing. Authors of introductory textbooks, who are careful in their usage of other terms, often use these two words in varying—and even contradictory—ways in different parts of the same book. Because of their importance for the discipline, however, political scientists should be very mindful of their use of the terms "nation" and "nationalism."In this article, definitions for "nation" and "nationalism" are proposed, with each definition followed by sections on common ways the terms are misemployed in political science. I provide examples of both misuses and "loose uses." While the line between misuse and loose use is somewhat fuzzy (a point reinforced below in the discussion of nations vs. ethnic groups), I consider a misuse to be one in which the term is used in a way that is completely outside how the term is used by nationalism scholars. A loose use is one in which the author has captured only part of the concept or has stretched the meaning of the term to an extreme degree.

Gary King and the Methodology Organized Section of APSA have certainly done the profession an important service by point out some of the deficiencies of our current practices on archiving data sets. For 40 years now, political scientists have grumbled about the lack of availability of major data sets (with the McClosky (1960) data being perhaps the most prominent example), so it is high time that the profession as a whole adopts some guidelines and standards. King's article in this journal is an important way to start the discussion.

The issue of identity has been widely discussed both in recent social science and in the public sphere; race, ethnicity, gender and nation have all been extensively discussed. A common thread has been the rejection of essentialist arguments that attempt to fix identities in extra-social phenomena in favour of an appreciation of their thoroughgoing social constructedness. Given these sophisticated understandings, how are we to account for the unexpected and seemingly atavistic reassertion of the enduring value of 'Britishness' among sections of the United Kingdom elite? Recent public discussion suggests that the Whitehall/Westminster elite have become uneasy about the burgeoning political-cultural diversity of the United Kingdom. However, an elite-specified identity is unlikely to have any purchase among a diverse sophisticated population.

A decade ago, very few political scientists had either the opportunity or the incentive to engage with the political public in a direct, unmediated way. Today, there is a dense and eclectic ecosystem of political science and international relations-focused blogs and online publications, where good work can easily find an audience through social media. There are multiple initiatives dedicated to supporting academic interventions in the public sphere, and virtually every political or cultural magazine of note now offers a robust online section featuring commentary and analysis in which political scientists are well represented. This has transformed publication for a broader public from something exotic to something utterly routine. I discuss how these changes have affected individual scholars, the field of political science, and the political world with which we are engaged.