Just a note: PLEASE check out slide's set if you didn't. holy hell. too hot. 
****************************************************************************
So, the other day there was this thread, which is all about how David Horowitz is a creep that wants to hand out "academic welfare" to "persecuted" conservative professors .... i'm pretty sure folks know what i'm talking about here, especially TheFuckOffKid and legionnaire.
Anyway, the whole issue of conservative professors and their illusory oppession was not the only thing that grabbed me about the thread. A lot of the discussion also revolved around when (if ever) it was OK to discuss politics in a college classroom. I mean, *legally,* I suppose it's always OK (free speech and what not), but ya know, when is it *appropriate.* The general consensus seems to be that the only time it was appropriate .... was in political science classes.
As a (wannabe) political scientist, I got sort of a kick out of that. People have really weird conceptions about what political scientists do. Whenever I tell people what I do, they always ask if I want to be a politician (god no). Another favorite question is "So, who is going to win the election?" People also love to ask about "What the hell is wrong with Washington?" [Apparently, it's worse for my women colleagues - who have to spend time putting up with obnoxious guys at bars who want to debate. Poor dears.
] Obviously people are just making conversation. I don't resent them or anything.
But people tend to think that "political scientist = wonk." Which isn't really the case. I mean, I *am* interested in politics, history, policies, and elections. I know some laws, decisions, and public figures; I generally keep up on the news. But not a lot .... political scientists don't reallly "get off" on those kinds of details. We think in terms of systems: we want to explain how institutions work and how voters think.
To be fair, this wasn't always the case. At the turn of the 20th century, the American Political Science Association was all in a tizzy when they thought parties had ceased to be responsible and responsive. They held meetings and drafted statements to argue for changes that would enhance government. But this normative component has pretty much disappeared from the discipline.
It would actually crack me up to see faculty like John Mark Hansen or Jeff Grynaviski bust out and start discussing politics in class. Even in classes and with professors you might expect to more contentiously normative (like Social Movements with Cathy Cohen), things stay on a "theoretical" level mostly - we spend more time evaluating models of behavior and discussing methodological problems than debating policy outcomes or ideological commitments.
Certainly, undergraduate political science is a much different beast. Discussing politics there makes perfect sense for at least two reasons:
1) It is a way to make the class more lively. Using real politics to explain dry lessons works as a teaching tool.
2) Undergraduate political science classes DO have some normative function. It is good to teach people about issues, impart civic values, and establish some basic critical thinking skills about power, the state and so on.
But, in the actual professional aspect of the discipline itself, things are much more empirical and positivist. It's about finding out what is going on, and why that is happening - it's been that way since really just post-WWII, and the behaviorial revolution (think the Chicago school, the Michigan school, Rochester etc). Essentially, quantitative, statistical approaches that accurately catch significant (re: large) trends in behavior are what dominate political science. The goal is more to measure "what is" than to debate "what should be."
Two things to note. First, this does not mean that political scientists do not have normative commitments. There is definitely an interest in ideas like participation, responsive government, as well as other "lower case" ideas of liberalism, democracy, and republicanism. And of course, political commitments (in the left/right) sense inform things like research agenda and theoretical conclusions. These things do not go away - "sociology of knowledge" is relevant. It's just people really *are* trying to be objective.
Second, there is controvery about this direction of "just measuring" in the field. A few years ago, there was a "perestroika" movement in the discipline. There was real concern that methods had overrun everything - people were asking questions not because they were important or interesting. Rather, they shaped questions to the data that was available, trying to make their models as tight as possible. "Strong" methods seemed in danger of overrunning any substantive (but more difficult to measure) research programs. Of course, other methods do exist (in the minority) - so there are people who do discourse work, etnhography, or other "qualitative" approaches. So, there really still is a concern for asking good questions still, and there are still very normatively committed people. [This is especially true among politcal theorists, who are a whole different breed. Theorists are really continental philosophers who got run out of philsophy departments - figuratively not literally - and ended up in political science. As a colleage put it: "If you want to do Hegel or Nietzsche you become a political scientist." So there are plenty of riffs and tensions in the discipline - it's not one big, consistent orgy of formal models and probit analysis.]
What's interesting about this is, first, the fact that political science is a big mess of a discipline, still figuring out what it wants to be. Higher and higher levels of statistical knowledge seem to be required in the field, leaving people interested in different approaches wary and discontent. The question of: is this about politics or numbers is still plaguing us. (In case anyone cared: I fall somewhere in the middle. I think the behavioral revolution was really great. I'm interested in accurate measurement and so on. I want to measure - to see what is happening, and not just hypothesize about it. But I feel that needs to be tempered with plenty of theoretical thinking - so that the questions we ask are relevant, not just "easy.")
The second interesting aspect is that the "public" perception of political science [wonky policy debates] seems pretty far from what it actually is [political behavior mixed with occasional debates over the purpose of government]. I don't know if any other discipline is *quite* so misunderstoo. O woe is the political scientist!
This really isn't meant to be a complaint about people or any kind of academic whining. Just some thoughts .... (and I am curious what other academic types - TheFuckOffKid, legionnaire, SweetAvenue, Esme, obd, rickets, galvagin, and fellow political scientist bredoteau - as well as anyone else - think about *their* disciplines and how they are perceived by the public/undergraduates)
****************************************************************************
So, the other day there was this thread, which is all about how David Horowitz is a creep that wants to hand out "academic welfare" to "persecuted" conservative professors .... i'm pretty sure folks know what i'm talking about here, especially TheFuckOffKid and legionnaire.
Anyway, the whole issue of conservative professors and their illusory oppession was not the only thing that grabbed me about the thread. A lot of the discussion also revolved around when (if ever) it was OK to discuss politics in a college classroom. I mean, *legally,* I suppose it's always OK (free speech and what not), but ya know, when is it *appropriate.* The general consensus seems to be that the only time it was appropriate .... was in political science classes.
As a (wannabe) political scientist, I got sort of a kick out of that. People have really weird conceptions about what political scientists do. Whenever I tell people what I do, they always ask if I want to be a politician (god no). Another favorite question is "So, who is going to win the election?" People also love to ask about "What the hell is wrong with Washington?" [Apparently, it's worse for my women colleagues - who have to spend time putting up with obnoxious guys at bars who want to debate. Poor dears.
] Obviously people are just making conversation. I don't resent them or anything.
But people tend to think that "political scientist = wonk." Which isn't really the case. I mean, I *am* interested in politics, history, policies, and elections. I know some laws, decisions, and public figures; I generally keep up on the news. But not a lot .... political scientists don't reallly "get off" on those kinds of details. We think in terms of systems: we want to explain how institutions work and how voters think.
To be fair, this wasn't always the case. At the turn of the 20th century, the American Political Science Association was all in a tizzy when they thought parties had ceased to be responsible and responsive. They held meetings and drafted statements to argue for changes that would enhance government. But this normative component has pretty much disappeared from the discipline.
It would actually crack me up to see faculty like John Mark Hansen or Jeff Grynaviski bust out and start discussing politics in class. Even in classes and with professors you might expect to more contentiously normative (like Social Movements with Cathy Cohen), things stay on a "theoretical" level mostly - we spend more time evaluating models of behavior and discussing methodological problems than debating policy outcomes or ideological commitments.
Certainly, undergraduate political science is a much different beast. Discussing politics there makes perfect sense for at least two reasons:
1) It is a way to make the class more lively. Using real politics to explain dry lessons works as a teaching tool.
2) Undergraduate political science classes DO have some normative function. It is good to teach people about issues, impart civic values, and establish some basic critical thinking skills about power, the state and so on.
But, in the actual professional aspect of the discipline itself, things are much more empirical and positivist. It's about finding out what is going on, and why that is happening - it's been that way since really just post-WWII, and the behaviorial revolution (think the Chicago school, the Michigan school, Rochester etc). Essentially, quantitative, statistical approaches that accurately catch significant (re: large) trends in behavior are what dominate political science. The goal is more to measure "what is" than to debate "what should be."
Two things to note. First, this does not mean that political scientists do not have normative commitments. There is definitely an interest in ideas like participation, responsive government, as well as other "lower case" ideas of liberalism, democracy, and republicanism. And of course, political commitments (in the left/right) sense inform things like research agenda and theoretical conclusions. These things do not go away - "sociology of knowledge" is relevant. It's just people really *are* trying to be objective.
Second, there is controvery about this direction of "just measuring" in the field. A few years ago, there was a "perestroika" movement in the discipline. There was real concern that methods had overrun everything - people were asking questions not because they were important or interesting. Rather, they shaped questions to the data that was available, trying to make their models as tight as possible. "Strong" methods seemed in danger of overrunning any substantive (but more difficult to measure) research programs. Of course, other methods do exist (in the minority) - so there are people who do discourse work, etnhography, or other "qualitative" approaches. So, there really still is a concern for asking good questions still, and there are still very normatively committed people. [This is especially true among politcal theorists, who are a whole different breed. Theorists are really continental philosophers who got run out of philsophy departments - figuratively not literally - and ended up in political science. As a colleage put it: "If you want to do Hegel or Nietzsche you become a political scientist." So there are plenty of riffs and tensions in the discipline - it's not one big, consistent orgy of formal models and probit analysis.]
What's interesting about this is, first, the fact that political science is a big mess of a discipline, still figuring out what it wants to be. Higher and higher levels of statistical knowledge seem to be required in the field, leaving people interested in different approaches wary and discontent. The question of: is this about politics or numbers is still plaguing us. (In case anyone cared: I fall somewhere in the middle. I think the behavioral revolution was really great. I'm interested in accurate measurement and so on. I want to measure - to see what is happening, and not just hypothesize about it. But I feel that needs to be tempered with plenty of theoretical thinking - so that the questions we ask are relevant, not just "easy.")
The second interesting aspect is that the "public" perception of political science [wonky policy debates] seems pretty far from what it actually is [political behavior mixed with occasional debates over the purpose of government]. I don't know if any other discipline is *quite* so misunderstoo. O woe is the political scientist!
This really isn't meant to be a complaint about people or any kind of academic whining. Just some thoughts .... (and I am curious what other academic types - TheFuckOffKid, legionnaire, SweetAvenue, Esme, obd, rickets, galvagin, and fellow political scientist bredoteau - as well as anyone else
- think about *their* disciplines and how they are perceived by the public/undergraduates)VIEW 9 of 9 COMMENTS
Firstly, your take on what political scientists do seems right on to me. Have you ever read Lowi's "The State in Political Science," from the APSR, '92? He talks a lot about the two periods you mention: the normative age (when Wilson was around) and the early behavioral days (like you, he reveres the latter).
Well, imagine my chagrin qua political theorist when I get those same questions: about current elections, about whether I aspire to office, etc. When I start trying to explain that, well, it all begins with Homer and the tragedians, it's not long before I've lost my interlocutor. (As an aside: your comment about if one wants to do Hegel or Nietzsche, he ends up in poli sci is dead on.)
So, in sum, as a theorist, I consider myself part of the humanities. Which, as I say above, makes those questions even more absurd. I just say it's a mix of philosophy and literature, and that seems to shut people up. For me it's not about social science but the history of ideas, period. Specifically my interest has always been morality--can we say anything about it? What about now, after the 20th century has seemingly left us with no solid ground to stand on?
As far as politics in the classroom, please tell someone whom does Women's Studies, African American Studies, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Criminal Justice, etc., that politics should only be reserved for poli sci.
Furthermore, do we even care about citizenship anymore in the academy, or is it all about getting a certificate to the end of getting a better job (this reminds me of the line by DuBois, "...and finally, instead of truth, beauty, goodness, wealth as the ideal of the public school")? If we are educating citizens, then even physics should be political. There are social implications of our work.
Finally, this might be semantically underhanded, but what about this idea of objectivity? Does that itself represent a bias? The idea being that objective knowledge is somehow possible; a belief that the normative, the moral, can be suspended in the pursuit of truth? I don't mean to imply that we can't say anything about the world; that is defeatist and stupid. But I do want to suggest that our is an age--as you say, the positivist one. And that, I think, is a structurally induced thing.
I have a footnote type quibble with your freedom of speech defense, and it's a bit different from our email discussion. There have been cases where students have been at least reprimanded for espousing particular views in classrooms. I can find the example if you need it. Right or wrong, it does happen.