Suchergebnisse

The title of my paper, I hasten to say, is intended to be noncommittal. It does not mean that there has been a marriage between agrarianism and politics, or even anything approaching a love affair. Yet perhaps this explanation is superfluous. It is obvious that there is not a close working-relationship between current politics and the theory of agrarianism. That condition is the subject of my discussion. The politics of agrarianism has not been denned or has been poorly defined. This paper is simply an attempt to locate the source of the difficulty.

"Impression of 1926. First edition 1905". ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Preface to the third edition (1920)"--P. 5. ; Includes bibliographical references and index. ; Preface -- Synopsis -- Introduction -- pt. I. The conditions of the problem: Impulse and instinct in politics. Political entities. Non-rational inference in politics. The material of political reasoning. The method of political reasoning -- pt. II. Possibilities of progress: Political morality. Representative government. Official thought. Nationality and humanity. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Scarcely two decades have passed since Lord Bryce stated that democracy is universally accepted "as the normal and natural form of government." What the author of the American Commonwealth regarded at the end of his long life as the result of the modern development had been announced by Alexis de Tocqueville even before Bryce was born. This French historian and political philosopher, who is today classed as one of the most important thinkers of all time, characterized the whole modern political and social trend as an irresistible advance towards democracy. He was afraid that democratic equality would destroy individual liberty. Like John Stuart Mill a generation later, he too was depressed by the fear that the despotism of a brutal majority rule might be a future threat to democracy. But this fear did not change the general trend of his prophecy.

"These lectures were given in April, 1939, under the broad title of 'Systematic politics' in the series conducted by the Division of Social Sciences of the University of Chicago. They constitute a preface to a much more formal and extended discussion of political science which I have long had in preparation; and beyond this there is also my 'Epilogue to politics'."--Pref." ; Bibliographical references in Appendix (p.101-118) ; Mode of access: Internet.

In a recent article in this Review, a social anthropologist, Professor W. F. Whyte, challenges American political scientists to "leave ethics to the philosophers and concern themselves primarily with a description and analysis of political behavior." Only in this way, the author contends, can the study of politics become truly scientific and not only justify its name but fulfill its function as an important body of knowledge. The challenge presented is not a new, but a vital, one with which all political scientists must inevitably be concerned. For in the answer to it is involved not only the fate of political science as a significant body of knowledge, but, conceivably as well, the very nature of the political behavior that Whyte challenges us to describe with an objectivity divorced from all judgments of value.In recent times, the point of view urged by Whyte has been perhaps most notably embodied in the writings of Pareto. But many eminent American political scientists have seriously probed the problem of methodology in politics and have arrived at conclusions similar to those urged upon us again by the author of this more recent challenge.