Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword by Bruce Miroff and Stephen Skowronek -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- Institutionalists and Radical Democrats -- The Third Tradition: Beyond Mechanics and Spontaneity -- Modernism as Channeled Flux -- Sovereignty and the State -- Citizenship and Legitimacy -- Civic Education -- The Search for Reform Politics -- 2. The Impulse toward a Science of Politics, 1880-1900 -- The Attack on Amateurs -- The Profession Builders -- The Strange Populism of the Founder of American Sociology -- The Literary Politician and the Administrative Elite -- The American Crisis Formulated -- 3. Science as Muckraking: The Cult of Realism in the Progressive Era -- Arthur F. Bentley: The Objective Science of Middle-Class Revolution -- The Fashioning of Scientific Politics -- Progressive Science as Critical Unmasking -- Between Science and Sentiment: The Chastened Optimism of Charles Austin Beard -- The Paradox of Realism -- Realism versus Reform: Beard's Confrontation with the American Political Tradition -- The Return to "Values -- The Demise of Fact Gathering -- 4. Reform and Disillusionment in the New Deal -- Charles E. Merriam and the Crisis of American Democracy -- Behavioral Political Science and the Crisis of American Democracy -- The Making of a Rational Public -- Charles E. Merriam and the New Deal -- Reform versus Science -- The Reformer as Therapist: Harold D. Lasswell -- The Early Works -- The Eclipse of Reform Science: Conclusions -- 5. The Behavioral Era -- V. O. and the Third Tradition -- Behavioralism as Pure Science -- Empirical Democratic Theory -- Legitimacy, Power, and the Political Subculture -- The Behavioralism of David Truman -- From Reformism to Behavioralism -- Pluralist Democracy -- The Seeds of the Whirlwind -- Reality Destroys Realism -- 6. The Eclipse of Unity.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 403-415) and index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

In the December 1988 issue of thisReview, John Dryzek and Stephen Leonard argued the need for "context-sensitive" histories of the discipline of political science. In their view, disciplinary history must guide practical inquiry if it is to be most useful. The course of their argument draws the criticisms of three political scientists concerned about the history of political science—James Farr, John Gunnell, and Raymond Seidelman. Dryzek and Leonard respond to their critics and underscore their own rationale for enhanced interest in the history of the discipline.