Intro

What is critical political science?
Clyde W. Barrow
The Encyclopedia of Critical Political Science ment of political science (Crick 1959; Somit
is the first effort to offer a comprehensive and Tanenhaus 1967; Gunnell 1993; Farr et
overview of the methods, approaches, con- al. 1995), the contemporaneous “state of the
cepts, scholars, and journals that have come discipline” of political science (Finifter 1983,
to be recognized as critical political science 1993; Katznelson and Milner 2002), and “the
in the United States or that have influenced future of political science” (Lasswell 2005).
the development of critical political science Indeed, by the mid-1990s, the history of the
over the last six decades. The Encyclopedia social sciences had become a recognized
does not identify critical political science interdisciplinary field of study among pro-
with any one method, ideology, or school of fessional historians and among specialized
thought, nor does it confine itself to the tradi- scholars in the various social science and
tional disciplinary boundaries and subfields humanities disciplines (Easton et al. 1995).
that constitute the official political science As the number of disciplinary histories
discipline as it is represented in most flagship proliferated in political science, it became
political science journals. Consequently, the evident that there was not a single history of
Encyclopedia seeks to highlight scholars and the discipline, but histories of the discipline.
scholarship that is often ignored or dismissed There were disagreements about whether
by the official political science discipline, political science met the criteria to call itself
precisely because that scholarship generates a discipline as compared to physics with its
knowledge that is critical of existing eco- Standard Model (Oerter 2006; Mann 2010).
nomic and political systems, including the There were questions about whether political
multiple institutions and policies that support science had undergone one or two or three
and reproduce those systems. As politically “paradigmatic revolutions” or whether this
engaged scholarship, critical political science amorphous thing we call political science
seeks to identify political trajectories that ever had anything that could be called a “par-
promote the building of a new society based adigm” comparable to Newtonian mechanics
on a democratic and egalitarian economic, (Kuhn 1962). There were even questions
social, and political order without class about whether political science had ever gen-
exploitation, institutionalized racism and erated a genuine “theory” as compared to
sexism, imperialism, and catastrophic envi- the theory of gravity or the theory of special
ronmental destruction. relativity. However, even if one dismissed
such quibbling as the consequence of old
A critique of political science and misguided scientistic aspirations, disci-
plinary historians could not even agree on
The Encyclopedia of Critical Political the significance of individual scholars to
Science is being published in the context the development of modern political science
of a discipline that has long been defined with competing narratives claiming that A.
by a “small, and doubtless expanding pond Lawrence Lowell,1 Charles Merriam,2 and
of disciplinary historians,” who offer up George Catlin should be regarded as the
a variety of histories, interpretations, and founding father of the behavioral revolution
critiques of political science and its various and this the posed the problem of whether
subfields (Seidelman 1990, 596). However, the behavioral revolution began in the 1920s,
what began as a small cottage industry in the the 1950s, or had been present at the very
1960s has grown to industrial proportions, as inception of the discipline.3 There has been
books and articles proliferate on the origins an equally vibrant cottage industry in the
of political science (Ross 1991; Easton et al. production of handbooks and encyclopedias
1995; Furner 2011), the historical develop- of political science that purport to define
1
Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 05/22/2024 09:31:12AM
via free access
2 Encyclopedia of critical political science
and fix a disciplinary paradigm and its key (as opposed to a normative) definition of
concepts or to at least define some sub-field political science would simply:
or area of study within it. Yet, what is missing
from most of these works is any recognition aggregate what political scientists do. This
of what we call critical political science. would include papers at conferences, journal
Critical political science simply does not articles, books, the content of undergraduate
exist in the extant histories, handbooks, and teaching and graduate training for political
encyclopedias of the discipline and when it scientists, and advice to government, interest
does warrant a mention, it is only a sentence groups, political movements, and aspiring pol-
iticians … the aggregation must be broad to
or two intended to dismiss this undercurrent include political science throughout the world
of the discipline as unworthy of study or and the activities of most political scientists,
serious consideration. who are not at elite institutions.”4
Discipline against profession While Roelofs notes that such a project would
However, there has always been a critical require considerable time, a large team of
political science in the United States going researchers, and a very large budget, it is from
back to Charles A. Beard (1913), who can such a perspective that I draw a distinction
also reasonably be considered one of the between official hegemonic political science
discipline’s founders (Barrow 2000). Yet, the and mainstream political science. A study
story told by most of the extant disciplinary of the type proposed by Roelofs will prob-
histories is a narrative of the triumph of ably never be undertaken precisely because
positivist philosophy, behavioral methodol- it would likely reveal that critical political
ogy, and formal modeling as the inevitable science is mainstream political science, if one
and rightful outcome of a fair competition identifies “science” with what the majority
in the free market of ideas, where “the best” of political scientists do in practice. Official
ideas emerged from a meritocratic clash of political science is a normative philosophy
intellectual titans. In this narrative, critical about what certain professional elites at Ivy
political science has largely been written out League and other R1 institutions think others
of the history of the discipline, and it is now ought to be doing if they want to claim the
simply ignored by the Brahmin priests of occupational title of being a “political scien-
the discipline, because it does not fit into the tist,” but this means that it is really nothing
official narrative. more than an ideological artifact of the pro-
The irony of this still hegemonic posi- fession’s relation to the state, corporations,
tivist philosophy of science is that while it and political power (Hauptmann 2022).
claims to define the scientific method, it is A starting point for defining critical politi-
not an empirical or behavioral description cal science might be the original Constitution
of the social and intellectual practices of of the Caucus for a New Political Science
living political scientists. It is a normative (1979), which states that a “new political
theory that purports to tell political scientists science” was being organized “to help make
how they ought to conduct their scientific the study of politics relevant to the strug-
activities (Cohen and Nagel 1934; Hempel gle for a better world.” In 2021, when the
1965; Popper 1959) in contrast to how most organization changed its name to the Caucus
of us actually do them. An empirical, as for a Critical Political Science, its articles of
opposed to a normative, definition of polit- incorporation and constitution were amended
ical science is that political science is what to give more substance to its mission as “an
people who are credentialed as political sci- association of critical scholars committed to
entists do in the day-to-day practice of their making the study of political science relevant
discipline. Methodology, as defined by Max to building a more democratic and egalitar-
Weber (1949) is simply self-reflection about ian economic, social, and political order”
what political scientists do and how they (Government 2021). The essays collected in
do it. Thus, in asking the question “What is the Encyclopedia of Critical Political Science
Political Science?”, Joan Roelofs, a found- exemplify and expand upon both of these
ing member of the Caucus for a Critical principles.
Political Science, observes that an empirical While many disciplinary historians have
dismissed critical political science as a minor

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
What is critical political science? 3
eruption on the margins of the discipline, the logical, theoretical, or content orientation of
fact that the Caucus was still being talked most political scientists (Kasza 2005, 2010;
about in the APSR nearly 40 years after its Pion-Berlin and Cleary 2005).
founding by scholars such as John Dryzek In fact, the persistent and chronic criticism
(2006) and John G. Gunnell (2006) sug- of the official journals by members of the
gests that critical political science cannot political science discipline exemplifies the
be ignored, despite the best efforts of the distance between the official profession and
profession’s court historians to dismiss it in the mainstream discipline, if we identify the
one or two sentences. In fact, as Seidelman “mainstream” discipline with the intellectual
observes, the confrontation between the dis- orientations and methodological practices
cipline of political science and the official of most living political scientists. Even an
profession initiated by CNPS in 1967 left APSA Task Force on Political Science in the
political scientists at a professional impasse 21st Century (2011, 1) recognized that:
by the mid-1980s, with the result that the dis-
cipline once again revolted against the pro- Political science is often ill-equipped to address
fession in 2000. This impasse had clearly not in a sustained way, why many of the most
been resolved on the 100th anniversary of the marginal members of political communities
American Political Science Association, even around the world are often unable to have their
though Seidelman (1985, 240–41) had earlier needs effectively addressed by governments.
written “an epitaph for political science as it Just as importantly, political science is also
ill-equipped to develop explanations for the
has been practiced in the United States.” social, political, and economic processes that
lead to groups’ marginalization. This limits
Official versus mainstream the extent to which political science is rele-
vant to broader social and political discourse
political science … issues related to marginalization including
When the intellectual founders of critical race, gender, and inequality are not well repre-
political science declared an end to political sented in articles published in the discipline’s
science, they were not proposing to abolish flagship journals.”
the discipline of political science, but they
were challenging what I call official polit- This observation is reminiscent of the same
ical science. In this respect, it is necessary concerns that led to the establishment of the
to reassert the presence of critical political CCPS in 1967 and, thus, one must seriously
science within the discipline and to empha- question whether the official political science
size that critical political science is a major profession has evolved at all in the last 60
component of the discipline’s mainstream years even if the profession is now more
even though it is in conflict with the official demographically diverse. Indeed, the 21st
profession as reproduced through the pro- Century Task Force (2011, 1) concluded that
fession’s regulatory apparatus. For instance, a key reason for these continuing discipli-
when the CCPS last ran a slate of candidates nary lacunae is that “political science tends
for APSA Council in 2011, in coalition with not to be self-reflective about the analyt-
Perestroika (Monroe 2005), its candidates ical limitations of many of its traditional
won approximately 35 percent of the votes methodological approaches. The tendency to
cast (without even running a serious cam- accept its approaches as ‘objective’ science,
paign) (Association News 2011), which sug- for example, tend to inhibit the development
gests that critical political science is a much of a more critical debate about the potential
more substantial element of the discipline phenomenological bases of much empirical
than is reflected in the official organs of the social science.” Such a report should draw
APSA and the regional political science asso- our attention to the fact that “official” politi-
ciations. Thus, it is my contention that most cal science and its governing elite is too often
discussions of the political science discipline confused with the “mainstream” discipline,
mistakenly conflate official political science which at last report consisted of 11,891 indi-
with mainstream political science.5 The vidual members in the United States and
Encyclopedia of Critical Political Science abroad (APSA 2023a). We have allowed
questions the claim that the existing official professional elites to conflate the official pro-
journals (profession) represent the “main- fession with the mainstream discipline for far
stream” discipline in terms of the methodo- too long, when in fact the official profession

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
is not the mainstream of the discipline as it is Democratic Party. Thus, it would be fool-
actually practiced by most political scientists. hardy to try and identify a “paradigm” or a
The Caucus for a New Political Science “theory” of critical political science, but this
challenged this myth when it was founded in does not mean that one cannot find something
1967. It effectively became the first organ- like Ludwig Wittgenstein’s (1968) “family
ized section of the APSA in 1969 with its resemblances.” Critical political science is
own panels at APSA conventions. Since akin to a language family, or even a Venn
that time, the APSA (2023b) has authorized diagram, where methods, theories, concepts,
51 Organized Sections that have a cumula- journals, and scholars are interconnected by
tive membership of 23,263. The Organized a series of overlapping similarities, but where
Sections alone publish 20 official journals no one commonality is shared by everyone
that in various ways compete with the flag- who would call themselves a critical political
ship publications of the APSA. The prolif- scientist. Critical political science is method-
eration of these “organized sections” has ologically eclectic, theoretically pluralistic,
largely emerged from the growing interest and conceptually diverse and, yet, it manages
among political scientists in interdisciplinary, to hang together as a critique of how official
subfield, and methodological research that political science is performed through its
usually falls outside the official profession journals and conferences.
and cannot find an adequate outlet in the Indeed, when the Caucus for a Critical
official panels of the APSA or in the official Political Science was founded in 1967, it
journals. In fact, the combined membership already included political scientists of many
of the APSA’s Organized Sections is now diverse viewpoints, but it was united by
twice as large as the nominal membership of a philosophical and methodological critique
the official profession, which is a prerequisite of behavioralism, an empirical critique of
for gaining access to the Organized Sections. pluralist theory, and an ideological critique
The dominant paradigms of official polit- of the relationship between political science
ical science are certainly reproduced in the and the state. By 1979, after a decade of
Association’s flagship journal, and in most organizational insurgency and conflict with
of the regional association journals, but these the APSA, these strands of thought fused into
journals do not any longer define the dis- a full-blown critique of capitalist society and
cipline of political science (Schram 2003). an explicit commitment to a socialist-feminist
Indeed, the APSA has been almost helpless politics (Barrow 2017). Thus, critical polit-
to stop the proliferation of critical political ical science finds its most recent intellec-
science, which flourishes in the publication tual origins in a critique of the systems
of alternative journals and through alternative analytic-pluralist paradigm that came to dom-
scholarly conferences and professional asso- inate official political science in the 1950 and
ciations, including the Caucus for a Critical 1960s,6 but which by 1968 was singularly
Political Science, Union of Radical Political incapable of explaining how a student revolt,
Economics, Socialist Scholars Conference, the civil rights movement, the anti-nuclear
Rethinking Marxism Conference, and the movement, and the anti-war movement all
Historical Materialism Conference, among erupted at the very moment when official
many others, which collectively generate political scientists were smugly declaring
more attendance than the annual meetings of “the end of ideology” (Bell 1960). These
the APSA. movements collectively disrupted the system
The proponents of this critical challenge equilibrium posited by systems analysts and
to the official profession include a diverse they challenged the theoretical claim that
array of political scientists, including those the United States (and Western Europe)
that might be called disenchanted liberals had achieved a peaceful class compromise
and critical pluralists to Marxian socialists, on managed capitalism and the Keynesian
and everything in between those two poles. welfare state (Singer 1970; Touraine 1971;
In other words, the critical challenge to offi- Young 1977).
cial political science has included almost The first wave of critical scholarship
everyone and anything that is not positivist, emerged in the late 1950s through the 1960s
as well as anyone and everything that is to as a challenge to the major empirical claims
the ideological left of mainstream liberal- of pluralist theory, although this scholarship
ism as enunciated and practiced by the U.S. continued to work through the questions,

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
concepts, and methods of pluralist theory. tion and political oppression of the working
As Mark Kesselman (1982b, 86) observes, class and other marginalized or subordinate
during this time: social groups.
The critique of pluralism and systems anal-
Scholars demonstrated that inequalities of ysis as the hegemonic paradigm in politi-
power and income within the United States cal science increasingly came into focus as
were extensive, cumulative, and persistent; a political program starting with the student
political officials were recruited from a narrow revolt, which challenged the increasingly cor-
social and economic group and did not accu- porate university by seizing control of admin-
rately represent the interests of the poor; the istration buildings and by chasing military
political system institutionalized racial and eco-
nomic inequality, producing systematic biases and C.I.A. recruiters off their campuses.7 The
in the operation of pluralism; nondecisions student movement gradually linked up with
and abuses of power by political authorities the civils rights movement and this alliance
severely narrowed the range of political alter- became a cornerstone of the anti-Vietnam
natives; and concentrations of private power War movement. The civil rights movement,
limited American democracy. especially the Freedom Summer (1964)
and a surge in urban (black) riots in cities
These critiques offered empirical documen- across the United States made the (capi-
tation of continuing economic and political talist) system’s purported equilibrium look
inequality in the United States, while calling increasingly suspect. Moreover, inside the
attention to the increasingly visible dise- social sciences, events transpired to pull back
quilibrium and dysfunctions within Western the profession’s veil of feigned scientific
and worldwide political systems. This cri- objectivity and political neutrality, includ-
tique emerged in a straight line from Floyd ing Project Camelot, Henry Kissinger’s and
Hunter’s Community Power Structure (1953), Samuel P. Huntington’s role in the Vietnam
C. Wright Mills’s, The Power Elite (1956), War, and the Evron Kirkpatrick affair, which
G. William Domhoff’s, Who Rules America? exposed linkages between the C.I.A. and
(1967) to Ralph Miliband’s, The State in the American Political Science Association.
Capitalist Society (1969). Numerous other Behind the scenes, official political scientists
scholars contributed to the development of were actively deploying their new science
this critique, including E.E. Schattschneider, for the purpose of delegitimating democratic
Christian Bay, Henry Kariel, William E. movements at home and forcibly suppressing
Connolly, Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, peasants’ and workers’ revolutions abroad.
Murray Edelman, Matthew Crenson, Michael In fact, by the mid-1970s, official political
Parenti, and Joseph Peschek among others science concluded that there was a “crisis of
but, as Kesselman (1982a) describes it, criti- democracy” and that the crisis consisted of
cal political science quickly traveled the road too much democracy and not enough capi-
from a critique of “apologetic pluralism to talism (Crozier, Huntington, and Watanuki
Marxism.” 1975).
At the end of this road, Ralph Miliband Thus, by the late 1960s and early 1970s,
suggested that “capitalism” and “the state” critical scholars began to abandon the last
must be central concepts of a critical politi- vestiges of the pluralist approach, even in its
cal science. Miliband (1969, 2, 3) observed more critical forms, to build out this same cri-
that “a theory of the state is also a theory tique from an explicitly Marxist perspective.
of society and of the distribution of power The conclusions drawn from the critique of
in that society,” whereas pluralist assump- pluralism became the new starting point for
tions tended “to exclude, by definition, the the development and articulation of an alterna-
notion that the state might be a rather special tive theoretical framework, which more often
institution, whose main purpose is to defend than not was Marxism, although there were
the predominance in society of a particular some critical political scientists who began
class.” From this perspective, the mainte- to experiment with Freudian Psychoanalysis
nance of system equilibrium by the political (Wolfenstein 1969, 1993), Phenomenology
institutions in capitalist societies is in fact the (Surkin 1970), and Critical Theory (Arato and
maintenance of economic and political ine- Ebhardt 1978). During this time, Kesselman
quality and, therefore, the economic exploita- (1982b, 116) further points out that “Marxist
political studies were born from a collision

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
between realities in the United States and went far beyond the aspirations of behavio-
elsewhere – imperialism, inequality, repres- ralism’s founders, such as Charles Merriam,
sion, racism, and sexism – and the myths V.O. Key, and Harold Lasswell.8 The con-
of pluralist democracy and incrementalism temporary generation of behavioralists, while
purveyed in American government textbooks invoking these names, systematically ignored
and scholarly research by the major figures the caveats of those same scholars, particu-
in American political science.” However, in larly their explicit normative commitment to
referencing “Marxism” as an alternative theo- improving democracy.
retical framework, it should be noted that this Charles E. Merriam (1925, 130), who is
Encyclopedia includes essays on ten different often considered the founder of the behavio-
types of Marxism, as well as multiple theories ral movement, observed that the application
of imperialism, dependency, and empire, so it of statistical measurement to political behav-
would be a mistake to assume that Marxism ior and governmental processes was “one of
was ever a monolithic or orthodox paradigm the great opportunities of modern political
within critical political science. science, especially in the United States,” but
Instead, the critique of pluralism emerged he also acknowledged “fundamental prob-
in multiple strands of criticism from disen- lems regarding the possibilities and limita-
chanted liberals to Marxists, and these cri- tions of quantitative method in dealing with
tiques were first collected and summarized in social phenomena.” Consequently, Merriam
a book edited by Charles A. McCoy (Lehigh concludes “it is not to be assumed that the
University) and John Playford (Monash quantitative study of government will super-
University), entitled Apolitical Politics: sede analysis of other types, either now or
A Critique of Behavioralism (1967). This perhaps at any time.”9 Harold Lasswell (1951,
book pulled together several previously pub- 4) also stressed the need for using “appro-
lished essays by Christian Bay, James Petras, priate” quantitative methodologies, but as
Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz, Todd supplements to historical, institutional, and
Gitlin, Steven Lukes, and many others. The philosophical approaches, which in combi-
book was published just prior to the founding nation would produce “authentic information
of the CNPS, and its critique of behavioralist and responsible interpretations” of the policy
methodology and pluralist theory became an process.
intellectual rallying point for critical political Lasswell (1951, 8, 15) was very clear that
scientists, who the embraced the book as an while “one significant feature” of the devel-
early manifesto of critical political science opment of the policy sciences was its use of:
(Ehrenberg 1999, 503).
For both intellectual and political reasons, “careful observation, measurement, and record
the critiques in Apolitical Politics could not making, quantification is relegated to a rela-
be easily dismissed by behavioralists in the tively secondary position. The richness of the
academic establishment. The editors (1967, context in the study of interpersonal relations
3) of Apolitical Politics did not reject the sci- is such that it can be expressed only in part
entific study of politics, as did the Straussians, in quantitative terms … The policy frame
of reference makes it necessary to take into
but instead agreed with behavioralists that account the entire context of significant events
too many American political scientists had (past, present, and prospective) … and puts the
“been unduly preoccupied with the philo- techniques of quantification in a respected but
sophic, legalistic, or descriptive treatment subordinate place.”
of political institutions.” The contributors to
Apolitical Politics believed that behavioral- Moreover, in contrast to most contemporary
ism had a great deal to contribute to political behavioralists, who looked to psychology
science through its rigorous application of as the model social science, Lasswell (1951,
scientific method, its insistence on the impor- 9) argued that Keynesian economics was
tance of theory-building, and its willingness “a remarkable example of the creative results
to draw on findings from other disciplines, which may follow, not when new quantifi-
such as sociology, psychology, and econom- cations are made, but when new models of
ics. However, they also pointed out that the institutional processes are devised, models
contemporary generation of behavioralists which can unify quantitative and nonquanti-
had become methodological extremists, who tative observations and point the way to new
made unsupportable and dogmatic claims that

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
empirical, theoretical, and policy activities.” Playford (1967, 11) agreed with Lasswell that
This type of interdisciplinary, mixed methods “real knowledge of the political world is prac-
would allow the social sciences to become tical knowledge” and, therefore, “political
“the policy sciences of democracy” (Lasswell research must address itself to real problems
1951, 9; Torgerson 1985). in their real settings, even if this involves
Establishment behavioralists often invoked a sacrifice of methodological precision …
the names of Merriam and Lasswell as political science must be political as well as
forebears of the behavioral revolution, but scientific.” Similarly, Christian Bay (1970,
the reality is that neither of these found- xvi), a co-founder of the Caucus for a New
ing fathers suggested that political scientists Political Science decried the current state of
should rely exclusively on quantitative data the political science discipline as making:
and quantitative analysis, nor did they argue
that empirical research was confined to the no sense at all, with neo-Aristotelian philoso-
highly statistical techniques and models that phers [i.e., Straussians] disdainful of empirical
now make many social science journals look inquiry on one side of the gulf, confronted with
more like textbooks in advanced mathematics logical positivist behavioralists who shy away
than political science. Merriam and Lasswell from any and all normative commitments on
always reminded readers that “qualitative” the other side. To make matters worse, commu-
nications across the chasm at times suggest the
data of the sort that can be collected through existence of two enemy camps, not two kinds
key informant interviews, focus groups, of scholars with complementary contributions
content analysis, reviewing government doc- to make toward a common objective.
uments and legislative proceedings, judicial
decisions, foundation reports, government Thus, it is necessary to correct the widespread
statistics, and even journalistic accounts of misconception that CCPS and critical political
policy formation are all “empirical” forms of science was methodologically anti-empirical
observation and data collection. Heinz Eulau and anti-quantitative. The CCPS and criti-
(1963, vii) and others, despite acknowledging cal political scientists have often been dis-
Lasswell as “a continuing source of stimula- missed as a group of discontented political
tion” were ignoring Lasswell’s caveat about philosophers, who were rallying behind the
appropriate quantification and methodologi- Straussians’ anti-behavioral/anti-empirical
cal pluralism. It was in this respect that “new” critique of contemporary political science.10
political science was reasserting itself as the However, as Bay’s statement makes clear,
heir to a long tradition of reform political this was never the case as those speaking on
science (Seidelman 1985; Gunnell 2006). behalf of the Caucus were as anti-Straussian
Similarly, as McCoy and Playford (1967, as they were anti-behavioral. Their critiques
10) also pointed out, the late V.O. Key, were directed at what Somit and Tanenhaus
“while regarded by many as a behavioralist, had called “behavioral extremists” of the sort
never allowed himself to be dominated by his represented by Heinz Eulau, Austin Ranney,
methodology. In fact, his greatness becomes and Nelson Polsby, who were steadily cap-
apparent precisely where he leaves the narrow turing leadership of the discipline in the
confines of his empirical data.” For example, 1960s and afterwards despite more measured
Key (1960, 24) wrote that “the invention of voices.
the sample survey gave the study of politics In fact, most CCPS members, including
a powerful observational instrument. Yet it its leadership were specialists in American
is a tool singularly difficult to bring to bear Government and Politics, Public Policy,
upon significant questions of politics.” In International Relations, and Comparative
this sense, critical political science was reaf- Politics with its membership spanning the
firming Lasswell’s call for a political science breadth of the discipline’s subfields, such
that was empirical, applied, and normative in as Michael Parenti, Sanford Schram, James
the sense that Lasswell expected policy sci- Petras, and Mark Kesselman, respectively.11
entists to conduct research that was not only Most of the essays in Apolitical Politics are
immediately useful to decision-makers, but not about political philosophy, but empiri-
that would support and sustain democratic cal, historical, and institutional critiques of
government by assisting public officials and behavioral and pluralist research in American
citizens in being informed and effective in politics, comparative politics, and interna-
performing their responsibilities. McCoy and

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
tional relations. Dwight Waldo (1975, 115) theories that began to emerge in the 1970s
points out that many of the early CCPS and 1980s. While much of critical politi-
activists had sophisticated statistical skills for cal science is anchored in Marxist political
the time, but “in a formal sense, the positions economy, class analysis, and a theory of the
argued by the Caucus members often were capitalist state, by the mid-1980s, critical
those of the traditionalists (e.g., the impor- political science had increasingly embraced
tance of values, a loose, as against a strict various strands of feminism, post-structural-
interpretation of science).”12 ism, post-modernism, ecology, and LGBTQ
David Easton (1969, 1051), the high politics, which evolved into an increasingly
priest of the behavioral revolution in polit- intersectional and multi-dimensional under-
ical science, responded to critical political standing of capitalism, power, and the state.
scientists in his 1969 APSA presidential This entailed a recognition of post-Marxist
address and he surprised the Behavioral claims that political power is not always
Establishment by echoing many of the con- exercised through decisions and actions, but
cerns expressed by them. Easton declared: is often embedded within, and reproduced
through, a multiplicity of non-state and
A new revolution is under way in American non-institutional social forms, including lan-
political science. The last revolution – behavio- guage, leisure, cultural artifacts and symbols,
ralism – has scarcely been completed before it mass media, and inter-personal relations, to
has been overtaken by the increasing social and name a few.
political crises of our time. The weight of these Consequently, in addition to developing
crises is being felt within our discipline in the a critique of liberal democracy and the capi-
form of a new conflict in the throes of which
we now find ourselves. This new and latent talist state, critical political scientists have stu-
challenge is directed against a developing diously attempted to rethink the categories of
behavioral orthodoxy … The initial impulse of the liberal-democratic republic, as institution-
this revolution is just being felt. Its battle cries alized in capitalist societies, by re-examining
are relevance and action. the concept of “democracy” itself. These
efforts to re-examine the theory and practice
A year after Easton announced the of democracy seek to extend its applicability,
post-behavioral revolution, the Caucus for and deepen its practice, to include various
a New Political Science published a second forms of economic democracy, deliberative
book, entitled An End to Political Science: democracy, populist democracy, radical and
The Caucus Papers (1970), which was participatory democracy, and digital democ-
a collection of essays by newly prominent racy, among others. Critical political science
members of the CNPS that proclaimed the emphasizes that “democracy” does not have
end of political science as it was currently to be confined to the narrow institutional
practiced in the United States. Marvin Surkin limits (e.g., periodic elections) currently
and Alan Wolfe (1970, 5) proclaimed that: allowed in capitalist societies.
Yet, any attempt to expand the theoretical
To change political science will require a cri- meaning and political practice of democ-
tique of the current [behavioral-pluralist] para- racy requires that critical political scientists
digm and the development of alternative modes reassess various forms of political struggle
of research, theory, and social practice. The and this has led to a renewed focus today
only way this is possible is by ending the on questions of political strategy (Knox
hegemony of political science over its students 2012; Barrow 2019; Barrow 2023) and
… In short, because the only political science political tactics (Barrow 2022; Blackledge
permitted in America today is that defined and 2019). Beyond the narrow sphere of politi-
determined within the existing paradigm, and
because only those “responsible” critics who cal campaigns and elections, critical political
are content to remain within the established scientists have sought to renew interest in
pluralistic mold are tolerated, we conclude that alternative non-electoral forms of political
the only option now available to critics and struggle such as mutual aid, direct action,
reformers is an end to political science. diversity of tactics, social movements, the
general strike, the mass strike, and even
These proclamations set the stage for a new community armed self-defense (as a tactic of
wave of post-behavioral methodologies and last resort). Thus, what one will not see in the
ECPS are the normal categories of official

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
political science, such as political parties, power and the state. There is a multiplicity of
elections and campaigns, representation, leg- ways to generate different kinds of knowledge
islatures and Congress, the U.S. Presidency, about politics and power.
and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are to put Yet, it is also important to emphasize
it bluntly the categories of bourgeois republi- that critical political science has not gen-
canism and bourgeois social science. erally embraced the most extreme versions
From this perspective, the concept of of post-modernist non-intersectional identity
politics opens up onto a wide panoply of politics, which is nothing more than a con-
alternative ways of studying politics. One temporary variant of the old pluralism and
can find politics, power, oppression, and post-1960s Democratic Party “liberalism,”
emancipation in cultural forms such as art even though it performs itself as a certain
(Macdonald 1999; Mattern and Love 2013, type of cultural “radicalism.” In the United
Mattern 2016), music (Mattern 1998; Love States, as in most countries of the world,
2006, 2016), literature (Williams 1977), film critical political scientists would mostly agree
(Kiersey and Neumann 2013), and television that is not possible to undertake an empir-
(Gonzalez 2019). It is no accident that the ical or historical analysis of class, culture,
subtitle of New Political Science, the flagship or political economy without incorporating
journal of the Caucus for a Critical Political factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, reli-
Science, has always been a “journal of poli- gion, geographic location, and citizenship
tics and culture.” It was an explicit signal that status into our understanding of class forma-
critical political science intended to widen the tion and intra-class hierarchies. It is also not
boundaries of political science and to recog- possible to undertake a realistic empirical
nize that power, ideology, and political con- or historical analysis of these “identities”
flict are embedded in society and culture and without also incorporating class into the anal-
not just exercised through a state apparatus. ysis. Consequently, critical political science
These diverse strands of thought have never promotes and facilitates a constructive
fused into a single over-arching theoretical engagement between Marxism, Feminism,
perspective – nor is it expected that they will Critical Race Theory, Post-Marxism,
ever do so – but there is a great deal of bor- Post-Modernism, Post-Structuralism, and
rowing and lending of methods and concepts other forms of analysis to unravel the com-
among these strands of thought that create plexities of power, domination, exploitation,
what the pluralists would call “cross-cutting and oppression. Anyone who would assert
cleavages,” which both unite and divide criti- the exclusive hegemonic prerogatives of
cal political scientists across a multiplicity of a single method or theory within critical
axes.13 Critical political science is now akin political science is not a critical political sci-
to a mosaic or a patchwork quilt, where the entist, but an ideologue and a methodological
individual pieces might or might not stand dogmatist. The emphasis of critical political
on their own, but where the final product is science must always be on “the critical” and
greater than a mere sum of its parts. this includes self-criticism and an openness
Yet, it is also important to emphasize to mutual criticism within its ranks. Equally
that while critical political scientists have important is that critical political scientists
never subscribed to the most extreme ver- are also willing to engage the official disci-
sions of Behavioralism, or to positivist phi- pline – to be critical and to be criticized by
losophy, neither do most of them embrace others – rather than isolating one’s self in
the anti-empiricist, anti-behavioralist, and the security of a self-validating, solipsistic,
subjectivist epistemology that came to define intellectual silo.
large swaths of the Post-Modernist turn in the The entries in the Encyclopedia of Critical
social sciences and humanities. Critical polit- of Political Science, and the authors of those
ical scientists have always called for a meas- entries convey an image of the political
ured and reasonable form of methodological science discipline, which harkens back to
pluralism and mixed methods approaches to its origins when political science was often
political science. It insists that there is not called the political sciences (Smith 1886).
a single definitive “scientific method” in As discussed in the Preface to ECPS, the
political science, but a plurality of methods biographical entries include individuals that
and approaches that can offer insights into the official discipline would exclude from
political conflict, and knowledge about social political science because they are nominally

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
classified as economists, sociologists, his- Indeed, another decade after Lowi’s admo-
torians, literary critics, anthropologists, phi- nition to the discipline, Bertell Ollman (2000,
losophers, and so on. Even the individuals 554) could rightly observe that official polit-
formally affiliated with departments of political science was still preoccupied with the
ical science employ a variety of methodo- question of “how to study” political science
logical approaches, draw on theories and instead of “what to study.” By this time, the
concepts from other disciplines, and write on dominant paradigm was shifting from behav-
topics as diverse as art, music, film, ideology, ioralism to rational choice theory and formal
social movements, the state, poverty, and modeling, but the underlying positivist phi-
public policy, to name a few. losophy of science remained unchanged
despite Easton’s earlier assault on the Political
What official political science does Science Establishment. However, Ollman
(2000, 555) added that rational choice theory
not study and formal modeling, which were beginning
More than a decade after Easton’s declaration to displace the old behavioralism “carries the
of the post-behavioral revolution, Charles miniaturization of political science one step
Lindblom (1982), the APSA President further by dismissing what people actually
acknowledged that despite the official dis- do politically and concentrating on their deci-
cipline’s on-going pretensions to being sions to do it, on the calculations involved (or
a science in the same mold as physics, official supposedly involved, or, for some scholars,
political science had continued churning out ideally involved) in making choices.”
trivial findings that merely reaffirmed what Moreover, Ollman concluded that the main
we already knew about politics and govern- problem with official political science was
ment. Lindblom chastised official political not what it studied, but what it did not study,
scientists for their “amateur” definition of because it seemed that all the most interesting
problems and even asked why they continue and important questions that might be the
to naively assume that government serves the focus of political science were either not
common good, rather than the interests of an amenable to “scientific” investigation or they
economic and political elite, when a wealth were outside the discipline’s boundaries. The
of empirical data and critical political science objects of study in political science were still
proved the latter? Why did political scientists method driven, which meant the scope of
define political socialization as education political science was increasingly narrowed
instead of as ideological mystification, rei- to those things that were susceptible to quan-
fication, and indoctrination that legitimates tification, that is, elections, public opinion,
the interests of a dominant elite? Most impor- and elite decision-making. Yet, according
tantly, why did Establishment pluralism still to Ollman (2000, 561), the most significant
so willingly accept citizen apathy as a source lacuna in official political science was still
of political stability instead of as a failure “the absence of capitalism from political
to build a vibrant democracy? Instead of science.” The assumption by official political
voting behavior, why not study non-voting scientists was that political institutions were
and alienation among citizens (e.g., Hirsch neutral arbiters of group conflict within an
1971; Hirsch and Gutierrez 1977)? These autonomous “political system.” This a priori
were obvious questions, and the answers analytical assumption allowed political
were often already in plain sight, as the previ- science to assume that the state is “a set of
ous critiques of pluralism had demonstrated, institutions independent of the capitalist class
but the official profession’s hegemonic meth- and, therefore, more or less available to any
odological lens was a blinder that suppressed group that organizes itself effectively to use
critical facts about liberal capitalist democ- it.” This means that despite all evidence
racies. Twelve years later, Theodore J. Lowi to the contrary, political scientists continue
(1994) again drew attention to the continuing “to treat our society as a democracy made
absence of the state in political science while up of individual citizens rather than a dic-
also serving as President of the American tatorship of the capitalist class, albeit one
Political Science Association. However, with democratic trimmings” (Ollman 2000,
these warnings from within the profession’s 561). Ollman (2000, 561) concluded that
elite were also dismissed and they had little these methodological and conceptual blinders
impact on official political science. ensured that political science would studi-

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
ously avoid capitalism and, thereby, trivialize of political science in the twenty-first century,
or evade the non-democratic premises and a recent APSA taskforce report (2011, 13,
practices of liberal capitalist “democracies.” 4) acknowledges that political scientists still
Thus, one of the most important foci of treat race, ethnicity, and gender “as marginal
critical political science has been its commit- aspects of the political system,” while text-
ment to foregrounding what official politi- books are not “representative of issues related
cal science does not study. Official political to ethnic, racial, gender, class, and other
science does not study the working class, nor dimensions of diversity and inclusion” (e.g.,
does it study women, African-Americans, Sclofsky and Funk 2018; Funk and Sclofsky
Chicanos/Latinos, or ecologists. When offi- 2021). The report (2011, 1) observes that this
cial political science responded to the cri- is perhaps not surprising insofar as the politi-
tiques of critical political scientists, official cal science profession, as represented in most
political science did so by integrating these university departments “does not currently
groups into the behavioral-pluralist paradigm include scholars with backgrounds from the
to study them merely as interest groups or full range of positionalities including race,
voting blocs, but of course it never exam- class, gender, and sexual orientation that are
ined the underlying structures of group iden- often the most marginalized in societies.”
tity, nor asked why these groups came into There is another blind spot in the
being as political actors. Official political positivist-behavioral orientation of official
science did not study “labor” or “the working political science and that problem is high-
class,” but it did look at the small number lighted in the 1979 CNPS declaration that
of workers organized into trade unions as its goal was “to make the study of politics
just another pluralist interest group. It will relevant to the struggle for a better world.”
still not entertain the question of whether Critical political scientists are engaged
the class structure of capitalism is based on scholars, scholar-activists, and sometimes
the exploitation of labor and the extraction activist-scholars. As mentioned earlier, they
of surplus value (evidently a question for reject the myth of value neutrality in the
economists to sort out). Consequently, offi- social sciences insofar as one should not
cial political science will not even broach the confuse scientific objectivity with political
question of “class struggle,” except as some- neutrality. A scholar may conduct rigorous
thing to be contained by political institutions, and objective scientific studies of their topic,
because it otherwise disturbs the functional but this does not mean that the results of their
equilibrium of the political system. Official studies, nor the original selection of ques-
political science did not study how political tions, is politically neutral. Critical political
institutions and public policies contribute scientists refuse to ignore the fact that all
to the problems of poverty and inequality, social scientific knowledge is anchored in
because such concerns were the province of ideological assumptions (Mannheim 1936)
sociology and economics. Official political that themselves can be subjected to scrutiny
science did not study ecology, but when it and critique by self-reflective scholarship
finally did turn its attention to environmental (Habermas 1971). Thus, a critical scholar
issues, it did so again through the lens of cannot be indifferent to the social and polit-
interest group politics, but with little notice ical impact of their science or pretend that
of the fact that environmental politics and the because one pursues knowledge for its own
ecology movement emerged as a response to sake that it does not have potential conse-
the devastating impact of capitalist economic quences beyond the journal that publishes it.
development on the planet and the human However, as exemplified by Easton, the
ecosphere (Crenson 1971; Lukes 1974). positivists and behavioralists drew a sharp
Moreover, despite the profession’s distinction between “pure science” and
concerted efforts over the last decade to “applied science.” Easton claimed that
demonstrate its “relevance” to solving social applied (policy) science depends on (builds
and political problems, and to being more on) pure scientific research, so he was very
methodologically and demographically clear in his own work that political scien-
diverse, those efforts merely advertise its tists should not adopt “the policy orienta-
long-standing ties to corporate capitalism and tion” being proposed by Harold Lasswell
the state (APSA 2014; Lupia and Aldrich at the same time. Easton (1965, Chap. 1) is
2015). Indeed, in contemplating the question very clear about claiming that a scientific

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
explanation and understanding of political So exactly when do we know enough as

behavior must logically precede the solution political scientists to become policy advo-
of urgent practical problems in society. The cates and engaged scholars? The philosophy
gist of Easton’s argument was that political of science that undergirds official political
scientists had not yet built up a sufficient science provides a ready-made excuse for
storehouse of verified scientific propositions never tackling big or difficult issues, because
(general theory) to justify their intrusion into conclusions and recommendations must
the policy domain. Thus, Easton was prepared always be postponed while political scientists
to let policy-makers muddle through on their “test” yet more hypotheses of limited or
own, but for how long (Lindblom 1959)? trivial importance, or wait on the results of
This question was answered more than fifty the next “field experiment” (assuming the
years later with the release of the APSA’s results have not been fabricated). The com-
task force report on American Democracy in mitment to a specific definition of “science”
an Age of Rising Inequality (2004). has merely been a pretext to avoid poli-
Frances Fox Piven (2006, 45), a long-time tics – an excuse for political scientists to
member of the CCPS and former President of neglect salient issues that raise unsettling
the American Sociological Association called questions about the structure of capitalist
the report a good “first step,” but she also society, as well as the non-democratic and
criticized it for being “timid” in its conclu- even anti-democratic aspects of liberalism,
sions and policy recommendations. As Brian but even worse is that the structure of official
Waddell (2012, 339), another CCPS member political science often obstructs any mean-
observed, the Task Force report “lacked any ingful discussion of solutions to these prob-
serious consideration of why inequality has lems by reproducing the flight from public
accelerated in recent decades” and it “seems policy. Thus, it was somewhat ironic that in
to consciously evade the question of cor- 2010–11, when the Editor of this volume was
porate power, and the ways that business Chair of the CNPS, and the organization was
and government interact as two interrelated contemplating changing its name to “criti-
systems of power.” As Waddell notes, the- cal,” because it was not “new” anymore, that
oretical explanations, as opposed to mere one of the most persuasive arguments against
empirical description, would necessarily doing so was that official political science
involve a critical examination of the public had not substantially changed since 1967 and,
policies adopted and implemented since the therefore, the critical political science cri-
beginning of the Reagan Revolution, which tique of the official discipline was effectively
facilitated the growth of economic and class just as new now as it was in 1967!
inequality in the United States. Finally, however, it is important to call
The irate response by Jacob S. Hacker, attention to the current “political science is
a member of the Task Force, was that “If relevant” movement within the official disci-
members of the Task Force were ‘timid’ … pline. I would be remiss if I did not point out
we were only in the appropriate sense that we that contrary to many official misconceptions,
were restrained by the limited state of current critical political scientists have not primarily
knowledge.” Hacker (2006, 45) claimed that criticized official political science for being
“the ongoing refinement, and sometimes irrelevant.14 Rather, critical political scientists
replacement, of theories and concepts rooted have criticized the profession for feigning
in sustained lines of empirical inquiry ulti- scientific disinterest and political neutrality,
mately drives the social sciences forward.” while covertly applying its talents to either
Consequently, Hacker (2006, 48–9) pointed ignore pressing social issues, to help suppress
to the alleged “need for new research and marginalized social groups, to sustain the
new theories and, yes, new debates.” Twelve exploitation of working classes around the
years later, a new APSA Task Force on world, and to legitimate the undemocratic
Racial and Class Inequalities in the Americas exercise of power by corporate and state
(2016) could still claim accurately that “to elites at home and abroad. Political science
some extent, political science has lagged has never been irrelevant; but it has been dan-
behind cognate fields of history, economics gerous to ordinary people all over the world.
and sociology in terms of scholarly attentive- It is exactly for this reason that official polit-
ness to inequality.” ical science does not seriously study itself as
a profession, or as an intellectual discipline,

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
nor does it use the tools of political science decisional criteria, expectations, organizational
to study the university as a political actor or culture, and operating practices that are taken from,
and have their origins in, the modern business
as an extension of the state (Barrow 1990). corporation.”
Official disciplinary histories have instead 8. Connolly (1967, 5) states “We accept, in short, the
corralled the study of the discipline within scientific ideal of political inquiry.” Surkin and
the confines of traditional political theory, Wolfe (1970, 4) also note that “many members
of the CNPS employed behavioral techniques and
a marginalized subfield, while dismissing the considered themselves ‘behavioralists’.”
idea that the university should be studied as 9. Similarly, Simon (1985).
a political institution.15 Thus, the court his- 10. For instance, Landau (1972, 6, 13), which other-
torians of political science present the devel- wise offers a sophisticated rebuttal to the CNPS
manifestos, claims that the positions articulated
opment of the discipline as a disembodied by McCoy and Playford and the Straussians “often
dialogue across the ages, albeit over a much merge, as a reading of both the Storing and the
shorter time span (150 years), where ideas McCoy-Playford volumes reveals.”
compete with each other detached from their 11. Political Philosophy and Theory is overrepre-
sented in CCPS membership and Comparative
historical, sociological, and political context Politics underrepresented, compared to the APSA,
and, thus, the “best” ideas necessarily win. where 11.3 percent of all members identify with
These official histories merely reproduce and Political Philosophy and Theory and 29.3 percent
legitimate the official discipline’s concep- identify as Comparative Politics. Otherwise,
CCPS subfield membership closely parallels
tion of itself as an intellectual meritocracy, that of the discipline as a whole. In 2022, the
when it is in fact a political organization, distribution of CCPS membership was Political
and an organization heavily influenced by Philosophy and Theory (39.5 percent), American
the power and interests of a ruling class and Politics (24.1 percent), Comparative Politics (13.1
percent), International Relations (11.8 percent),
the capitalist state. In that respect, official Public Policy (5.7 percent), Public Law (3.8
political science is political ideology, and this percent), Public Administration (0.8 percent),
Encyclopedia is an ideology critique. and Methodology (1.1 percent), see, American
Political Science Association > RESOURCES >
Data on the Profession > Dashboard > Membership
Notes > Organized Sections (apsanet.org).
12. For example, several future CNPS members
1. Somit and Tanenhaus (1967, 74) claim that “by any and sympathizers, including Theodore J. Lowi,
standard, Lowell is entitled to rank with Merriam Kenneth M. Dolbeare, Edward S. Greenberg,
as a progenitor of the ‘new science of politics’ and James Prothro participated in some of the
of the 1920s and as intellectual godfather of the first conferences sponsored by the Social Science
current behavioral movement.” Research Council’s new Committee on Legal
2. Waldo (1975, 48) argues that “under Merriam’s and Governmental Processes, which replaced its
leadership the University of Chicago became noted Committee on Political Behavior in 1964, see,
for a serious and sustained effort to stress the Ranney (1968, vii).
‘science’ in political science … and a significant 13. The concept of cross-cutting cleavages was orig-
number of the leaders of the later behavioral move- inally suggested as a mechanism that generates
ment were trained there in the thirties.” political stability by Simmel (1950). The basic idea
3. Gunnell (2005) dissents from both claims and is that no one group can organize all of its members
argues that G.E.G. Catlin and William Yandell into a single, uniform “ideology” or “political
Elliott “set the terms of a dialogue that, for platform” because it must appeal to members of
three-quarters of a century, would define the dis- the other groups, who are simultaneously members
course of political science.” of other groups, but who have different values
4. Roelofs (2015, 348). and interests on particular issues. One of the best
5. I am also not suggesting that the “mainstream” of discussions of this stabilizing process is found in
the political science discipline is reducible to “criti- Lipset (1960).
cal political science,” but the two segments overlap 14. Of course, this too warranted an APSA, Report of
to a significant degree. In fact, “the mainstream” the Task Force on Improving Public Perceptions
of the discipline is highly diverse and fragmented of Political Science’s Value (Washington, DC:
and cannot be identified with any single method, American Political Science Association, 2014).
theory, or ideology beyond a common opposition 15. In contrast, see Barrow (1990); Schram (2016),
to positivism and scientism. Wilson and Kamola (2021); Hauptmann (2022) are
6. McCoy and Playford (1967, 10) suggest that by the notable exceptions to this tendency.
mid-1960s it would “not be unwarranted to speak
of the behavioralists as members of an ‘estab-
lishment’ within the discipline.” Indeed, Easton
(1979, 4, 20) declares the behavioral revolution
References
a fait accompli and refers to its practitioners as a Adcock, Robert. 2014. “A Disciplinary History
“concrete academic movement” within political of Disciplinary Histories: The Case of Political
science. Science.” In A Historiography of the Modern
7. Steck (2003, 66) defines the corporate university Social Sciences, edited by Roger E. Blackhouse
“as an institution that is characterized by processes,

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
and Philippe Fontaine, 211–36. Cambridge: Poulantzas Was a Vital Theorist of Democratic
Cambridge University Press. Socialism (jacobin.com).
American Political Science Association. 2004. Bay, Christian. 1970. The Structure of Freedom.
Task Force on Inequality and American Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Democracy, American Democracy in an Age of Beard, Charles A. 1913. An Economic Interpretation
Rising Inequality. Washington, D.C. of the Constitution of the United States. Glencoe,
American Political Science Association. 2011. IL: The Free Press.
Task Force for Political Science for the Bell, Daniel. 1960. The End of Ideology: On the
21st Century. Washington, D.C. Available Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties.
at TF_21st Century_AllPgs_webres90.pdf Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
(apsanet.org). Blackledge, Paul. 2019. “On Strategy and Tactics:
American Political Science Association. 2014. Marxism and Electoral Politics.” Science &
Report of the Task Force on Improving Public Society 83, no. 3 (July): 355–80.
Perceptions of Political Science’s Value Caucus for a New Political Science, “Constitution
Washinton, D.C. Available at APSA 2014_ (as Revised Fall 1978).” Copy on file with the
Task Force Report.pdf (apsanet.org). author.
American Political Science Association. 2016. Cohen, Morris R. and Ernst Nagel. 1934.
Task Force on Racial and Class Inequalities in Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method.
The Americas. Washington, D.C. Available at: New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.
www.apsanet.org/inequalities. Connolly, William E. 1967. Political Science and
American Political Science Association. 2023a. Ideology. New York: Atherton Press.
“APSA Membership Dashboard.” Dataset Crenson, Matthew A. 1971. The Un-politics of Air
Generated 02/23. American Political Science Pollution; A Study of Non-Decision-Making in
Association > RESOURCES > Data on the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
the Profession > Dashboard > Membership Press.
(apsanet.org). Crick, Bernard. 1959. The American Science of
American Political Science Association. 2023b. Politics. Berkeley: University of California
“Section.” Available at Groups – APSA Press.
Connect Beta (apsanet.org). Crozier, Michel, Samuel Huntington, and Joji
Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, eds. 1978. Watanuki. 1975. Crisis of Democracy: Report
Essential Frankfurt School Reader. New York: on the Governability of Democracies to the
Urizen Books. Trilateral Commission. New York: New York
Barrow, Clyde W. 1990. Universities and the University Press.
Capitalist State: Corporate Liberalism and the Dryzek, John S. 2006. “Revolutions without
Reconstruction of American Higher Education, Enemies: Key Transformations in Political
1894–1928. Madison: University of Wisconsin Science.” American Political Science
Press. Review 100, no. 4 (November): 487–92.
Barrow, Clyde W. 2000. More Than a Historian: Easton, David. 1965. A Framework for Policy
The Political and Economic Thought of Charles Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
A. Beard. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Inc.
Publishers. Easton, David. 1969. “The New Revolution in
Barrow, Clyde W. 2017. “The Political and Political Science.” American Political Science
Intellectual Origins of New Political Science.” Review 63, no. 4 (December): 1051–61.
New Political Science 39, no. 4 (December): Easton, David, John Gunnell, and Michael B. Stein,
437–72. eds. 1995. Regime and Discipline: Democracy
Barrow, Clyde W. 2019. “Marxist Political and the Development of Political Science. Ann
Theory, Diversity of Tactics, and the Long Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Civil War.” New Political Science 41, no. 4 Ehrenberg, John. 1999. “Commentary: History of
(December): 622–53. the Caucus for a New Political Science.” New
Barrow, Clyde W. 2022. “What’s in a Name? Political Science 21, no. 3 (Fall): 501–07.
From New Political Science to Critical Political Eulau, Heinz. 1963. The Behavioral Persuasion in
Science.” New Political Science 44, no. 1 Politics. New York: Random House.
(March): 3–26. Farr, James, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T.
Barrow, Clyde W. 2022. “Legal and Illegal Leonard. 1995. Political Science in History:
Political Tactics in Marxist Political Theory.” Research Programs and Political Traditions.
In Research Handbook on Law and Marxism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
edited by Paul O’Connell and Umut Özsu, 6–20. Finifter, Ada W. ed. 1983. Political Science: The
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers, State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.:
Ltd. American Political Science Association.
Barrow, Clyde W. 2023. “Nicos Poulantzas Was Finifter, Ada W. ed. 1993. The State of the
a Vital Theorist of Democratic Socialism.” Discipline II. Washington, D.C.: American
The Jacobin, January 24. Available at Nicos Political Science Review.

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
Funk, Kevin and Sebastian Sclofsky. 2021. “The Katznelson, Ira and Helen V. Milner, eds. 2002.
Liberal Ideology: On Intellectual Pluralism Political Science: State of the Discipline. New
and the Marginalization of Marxism in U.S. York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc.
Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Kesselman, Mark. 1982a. “The Conflictual
Politics 54, no. 3 (June): 593–7. Evolution of American Political Science:
Furner Mary O. 2011. Advocacy and Objectivity: From Apologetic Pluralism to Trilateralism
A Crisis in the Professionalization of American and Marxism.” In Public Values and Private
Political Science, 1865–1905. New Brunswick, Power in American Politics, edited by J. David
N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Greenstone, 34–67. Chicago: University of
Government of the District of Columbia. 2021. Chicago Press.
“Certificate of Incorporation: Caucus for Kesselman, Mark. 1982b. “The State and Class
a Critical Political Science.” Washington, Struggle: Trends in Marxist Political Studies.”
D.C.: Department of Consumer and Regulatory In The Left Academy: Marxist Scholarship on
Affairs, Corporations Division. American Campuses, edited by Bertell Oilman
Gonzalez, George A. 2019. Justice and Popular and Edward Vernoff, 82–114.
Culture: Star Trek as Philosophical Text. Key, Jr., V.O. 1960. “The Politically Relevant in
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 24, no. 1
Gunnell, John G. 1993. The Descent of Political (Spring): 54–61.
Theory: The Genealogy of an American Kiersey, Nicholas J. and Iver B. Neumann.
Vocation Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2013. Battlestar Galactica and International
Gunnell, John G. 2005. “Political Science on Relations. London and New York: Routledge.
the Cusp: Recovering a Discipline’s Past.” Knox, Robert. 2012. “Strategy and Tactics.”
American Political Science Review 99, no. 4 In Finnish Yearbook of International Law,
(November): 597–609. Volume 21, 193–229. Helsinki: Ius Gentium
Gunnell, John. 2006. “The Founding of the Association.
American Political Science Association: Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific
Discipline, Profession, Political Theory, and Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Politics.” American Political Science Review Press.
100, no. 4 (November): 479–86. Landau, Martin. 1972. Political Theory and
Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Knowledge and Human Political Science. New York: Macmillan Co.
Interests, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. Lasswell, Harold D. 1951. “The Policy
Boston: Beacon Press. Orientation.” In The Policy Sciences: Recent
Hacker, Jacob S. 2006. “Inequality, American Developments in Scope and Method, edited by
Democracy, and American Political Science: Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell, 3–15.
The Need for Cumulative Research.” PS: Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Political Science & Politics 39, no. 1: 47–9. Lasswell, Harold D. 2005. The Future of Political
Hauptmann, Emily. 2022. Foundations Science, with a new introduction by Jay Stanley.
and American Political Science: The New Brunswick: AldineTransaction.
Transformation of a Discipline, 1945–1970. Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. “The Science of
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ‘Muddling Through’.” Public Administration
Hempel, Carl G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Review 19, no. 2 (Spring): 79–88.
Explanation, and Other Essays in the Lindblom, Charles. 1982. “Another State of Mind:
Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press. Presidential Address, APSA 1981.” American
Hirsch, Herbert. 1971. Poverty and Politicization: Political Science Review 76, no. 1 (March):
Political Socialization in an American 9–21.
Sub-Culture. New York: Free Press. Lipset Seymour Martin. 1960. Political Man: The
Hirsch, Herbert and Armando Gutierrez. 1977. Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, N.Y.:
Learning to Be Militant: Ethnic Identity and Doubleday.
the Development of Political Militance in Love, Nancy Sue. 2006. Musical Democracy.
a Chicano Community. San Francisco: R&E Albany: State University of New York Press.
Research Associates. Love, Nancy Sue. 2016. Trendy Fascism: White
Jameson, Frederic. 1991. Postmodernism or The Power Music and the Future of Democracy.
Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, Albany : State University of New York Press.
NC: Duke University Press. Lowi, Theodore. 1992. “The State in Political
Kasza, Gregory J. 2005. “Methodological Bias in Science: How We Become What We Study.”
the American Journal of Political Science.” In American Political Science Review 86, no. 1
Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political (March): 1–7.
Science, edited by Kirsten Renwick Monroe, Lowi, Theodore. 2005. “Every Poet His Own
342–5. New Haven: Yale University Press. Aristotle.” In Perestroika! The Raucous
Kasza, Gregory. 2010. “Perestroika and the Rebellion in Political Science, edited by Kirsten
Journals.” PS: Politics and Political Science Renwick Monroe, 45–52. New Haven: Yale
43, no. 4: 733–4. University Press.

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. Ross, Dorothy. 1991. Origins of American Social
London and New York: Macmillan. Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lupia, Arthur and John. H. Aldrich. 2015. How Salisbury, Robert. 2001. “Current Criticism of
Political Science Can Better Communicate Its APSA is Nothing New.” PS: Political Science
Value: 12 Recommendations from the APSA and Politics 34 (December): 767.
Task Force. Washington, D.C.: American Schram, Sanford. 2003. “Return to Politics:
Political Science Association. Available at How Perestroika and Postparadigmatic Political
Political Science Can Better Communicate Its Science.” Political Theory 31, no. 6: 835–51.
Value: 12 Recommendations from the APSA Schram, Sanford. 2016. Neoliberalizing the
Task Force | PS: Political Science & Politics | University: Implications for American
Cambridge Core. Democracy. New York and London: Routledge.
Macdonald, Bradley J. 1999. William Morris and Sclofsky, Sebastián and Kevin Funk. 2018. “The
the Aesthetic Constitution of Politics. Lanham, Specter That Haunts Political Science: The Neglect
MD: Lexington Books. and Misreading of Marx in International Relations
Mann, Robert. 2010. Introduction to Particle and Comparative Politics.” International Studies
Physics and the Standard Model. Boca Raton: Perspectives 19, no. 1 (February): 83–101.
CRC Press. Seidelman, Raymond. 1985. Disenchanted Realists:
Mannheim, Karl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia. New Political Science and the American Crisis,
York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. 1884–1984. Albany: State University of New
Mattern, Mark. 1998. Acting in Concert: Music, York Press.
Community, and Political Action. New Seidelman, Raymond. 1990. “Can the History of
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Political Science Be Neutral?” American Political
Mattern, Mark. 2016. Anarchism and Art: Science Review 84, no. 2 (June): 587–607.
Democracy in the Cracks and on the Margins. Seidelman, Raymond. 1993. “Political Scientists,
Albany: State University of New York Press. Disenchanted Realists, and Disappearing
Mattern, Mark and Nancy S. Love, eds. 2013. Democrats.” In Discipline and History: Political
Doing Democracy: Activist Art and Cultural Science in the United States, edited by James Farr
Politics. Albany: State University of New York and Raymond Seidelman, 311–25. Ann Arbor:
Press. University of Michigan Press.
McCoy, Charles A. and John Playford, eds. 1967. Simmel, Georg. 1950. Sociology, translated, edited,
Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behaviorialism. and with an introduction by Kurt H. Wolff.
New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950.
Merriam, Charles E. 1925. New Aspects of Politics. Simon, Herbert A. 1985. “Charles E. Merriam and the
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ‘Chicago School’ of Political Science.” Edmund
Monroe, Kristen Renwick, ed. 2005. Perestroika! Janes James Lecture, Delivered on October 10,
The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New available at http://digitalcollections.library.cmu
Haven: Yale University Press. .edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=34043.
Oerter, Robert. 2006. Theory of Almost Everything: Singer, Daniel. 1970. Prelude to Revolution: France
The Standard Model, The Unsung Triumph of in May 1968. London: Jonathan Cape.
Modern Physics. New York: Pi Press. Smith, Munroe. 1886. “Introduction: The Domain
Ollman, Bertell. 2000. “What is Political Science? of Political Science.” Political Science Quarterly,
What Should It Be?” New Political Science 22, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March): 1–8.
no. 4 (December): 553–62. Somit, Albert and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1967. The
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, Development of American Political Science
IL: Free Press. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Pion-Berlin, David and Dan Cleary. 2005. “Method Steck, Henry. 2003. “Corporatization of the
Bias in the APSR.” In Perestroika! The Raucous University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity.”
Rebellion in Political Science, edited by Kirsten Annals of the American Academy of Social and
Renwick Monroe, 304–22. New Haven: Yale Political Science 585, no. 1 (January): 66–83.
University Press. Surkin, Marvin. 1970. “Sense and Nonsense in
Piven, Frances Fox. 2006. “Response to ‘American Politics.” In An End to Political Science: The
Democracy in an Age of Inequality’.” PS: Caucus Papers, edited by Marvin Surkin and
Political Science & Politics 39, no. 1 (January): Alan Wolfe, 13–33. New York: Basic Books,
43–6. Inc.
Popper, Karl R. 1959. Logic of Scientific Discovery. Torgerson, Douglas. 1985. “Contextual
New York: Basic Books. Orientation in Policy Analysis: The
Ranney, Austin, ed. 1968. Political Science and Contribution of Harold D. Lasswell.” Policy
Public Policy. Chicago: Markham Publishing Science 18: 241–61.
Co. Touraine, Alain. 1971. The May Movement. New
Roelofs, Joan. 2015. “What is Political Science York: Random House.
and What Should It Be?” International Critical Waddell, Brian. 2012. “When the Past is Not
Thought 5, no. 3: 348–61. Prologue: The Wagner Act Debates and the

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access
Limits of American Political Science.” New Wilson, Ralph. 2021. Free Speech and Koch
Political Science 34, no. 3 (September): Money: Manufacturing a Campus Culture War.
338–57. London: Pluto Press.
Waldo, Dwight. 1975. “Political Science: Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1968. Philosophical
Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe.
Enterprise.” In Handbook of Political Science; Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Political Science: Scope and Theory, Vol. 1, Wolfenstein, E. Victor. 1969. Personality and
edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, Politics. Belmont, CA: Dickenson.
1–130. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wolfenstein, E. Victor. 1993.
Weber, Max. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Psychoanalytic-Marxism: Groundwork. New
Sciences, translated by Edward A. Shils and York: Guilford Press.
Henry A. Finch. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Young, Nigel. 1977. An Infantile Disorder? The
Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Crisis and Decline of the New Left. Boulder,
Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CO: Westview Press.

Clyde W. Barrow - 9781800375918
via free access

Intro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is critical political science?

explanation and understanding of political So exactly when do we know enough as

You might also like