Suchergebnisse

Confusion reigns almost supreme in the field of political science, particularly when the meaning of terms is involved. Some of our most commonly used words have so many meanings, shades of meaning, and connotations that hearers and readers are frequently at a loss as to the meaning and significance of terms used unless the speaker or writer defines them as he uses them. A cursory examination of the term "state" brought to light no fewer than one hundred forty-five different definitions, even though only a few writers were included who might be classed as radical. Less than half of the definitions were in general agreement. Even this statement is based on the assumption that when the same words were used by two writers they were used to mean the same thing; and I doubt whether the assumption is entirely justifiable. Furthermore, "state" is not the only term in political science which is defined in multifold ways. A similar situation was found when others, especially "law," "government," "political," "administration," were investigated.The process of communication between political scientists, as well as between these scientists and laymen or between laymen and laymen, comes to be a guessing game. Consciously or unconsciously, it is suggested, we are spending much of our time guessing what the sender means when he uses even technical words.

A nomenclature is a system of names or signs, or both, used in any field of knowledge. Such systems are of value to scientists in a field if they enable positions to be seen more clearly or distinctions to be drawn more readily.In a recent article, Huntington Cairns says: "There prevails, secondly, confusion with respect to the instrument—linguistics—with which the anthropologist, the jurist, or the social scientist must pursue his investigations and through whose medium he must state his conclusions. … But once the social scientist passes from these simple aspects to the realm of theory, linguistics becomes a problem and it is in his struggle with this problem that he is most envious of the symbolism of the mathematician."1Confusion and uncertainty appear to be present in several sections of political science. Linguistics is a problem for us in theory; in addition, it is a serious one in teaching and in the field of research.When a problem appears in a field of knowledge which handicaps effective work, experiments are in order, not only to analyze the phenomenon itself, but, in addition, to find ways or means by which the causes producing the unfortunate circumstance may be removed, or at least reduced. Can the apparent confusion and uncertainty among political scientists concerning the meaning of terms, labels, or intellectual positions be reduced? This is an important problem which directs our attention to the possibility of developing a nomenclature for political science.

Reprints of tracts issued between 1784 and 1921. ; Mode of access: Internet.

by James Wilford Garner ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Pol.g. 1091

Includes indexes. ; First ed. published in 1910 by the Classification Division. ; "Additions and changes to April 1900": 137 p. at end. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Custom has decreed that the president of this Association, as almost his final act before leaving his briefly-held office, shall deliver an address to those of his colleagues who are hardy enough to assemble to hear him. In this address he endeavors to give something of his best thought concerning some political question. Thereby he generally contrives, also, to convey to his fellow-members something of a feeling of corporate unity and a sense of professional direction.As my thoughts have turned recently toward the consideration of political science as a whole, as a unified discipline, and as a factor in the government of man, I thought I would discuss with you the question of the rôle of political science in the conduct and preservation of what we now call democratic government.Standing before you a year ago, President Frederic Austin Ogg spoke thoughtfully and with eloquence of American democracy after the war. He directed his remarks in part to the gloomy predictions of various speculative writers who prophesy the end in our age of democracy and constitutional government. With masterly competence, he showed that the modern trend toward strong executive leadership is not at all the same as a drift into dictatorship. In the United States this trend primarily means that the executive office is being developed to fulfil its true function in a democracy that intends to become stronger, more active, and more efficient.

The American Political Science Association was founded December 30, 1903, at New Orleans. Its organization was the outgrowth of a movement looking toward a national conference on comparative legislation. A group having the matter in charge held a meeting in December, 1902, at Washington, the call for which stated that the formation of an American Society of Comparative Legislation had been suggested as "particularly desirable because of the complexity of our system of federal government." Interest in legislation in general and in the problems presented by the lawmaking activities of the federal and state agencies in particular was, therefore, the starting point from which proceeded the wider range of interests which gave rise to this Association. The preliminary meeting in Washington indicated that if a new national society were to be formed it might be well to enlarge its scope so as to embrace the whole of political science, of which comparative legislation is an important part. A year later, thanks to the coöperation of the American Historical Association and of the American Economic Association, which were having joint meetings in New Orleans, opportunity was given to the group to form an organization, the members of which were in large part members of one or both of the older Associations. The adoption of the constitution of this Association was the result. In a way, therefore, the American Political Science Association is the god-child of the American Historical and the American Economic Associations. All but two annual meetings have been held jointly with one or both of the older bodies, indicating not only a factor of common membership but also a large measure of common interests and kindred endeavors.

Political science is at the parting of the ways. Its foundations have been undermined by the claims of law and jurisprudence, into whose hands it has been deliberately surrendering itself for the past half-century or more, and now its chief strongholds are under fire from the neighboring fields of sociology, economics, and ethics. So severe and so persistent have these attacks become that the time has arrived when the political scientist must decide whether he will allow his subject to be absorbed in any one or all of these various fields, or will attempt to reëstablish it as a distinctive discipline.The reasons for this state of things are not difficult to discover. They quite obviously lie in the fact that in the pursuit of their basic problem—the search, namely, for the nature and source of sovereignty—political philosophers have so generally followed two equally futile and fruitless paths: either the path of pure speculation leading to a supernatural or metaphysical theory, or the path of legal analysis, leading ultimately to the juristic theory of the state. Indeed, during these recent years political theory has been so increasingly "under bondage to the lawyers" that it is little wonder that a reaction has come, and that thinkers in their determination to find the reality behind the formal juristic conception, are now repudiating not only the legal, but even the political, character of the state.