A pox on perestroika, a hex on hegemony: toward a critical political science [January 2003]

Abstract

While the Perestroika reform movement that began in 2000 has shaken US political science, the paucity of productive methodological argument means that the dispute becomes political rather than intellectual. The discipline, like James Bond’s vodka martini, has been shaken but not stirred. The movement may change the balance of power within the profession, but otherwise leave the practice of political science unchanged. This paper is intended to help move methodological debate, with “methodology” taken in its broad sense of reflection upon the conduct of inquiry (so it also covers epistemology). The existing – now faltering – hegemony (identified with rational choice theory and quantitative methods) may be indefensible, but Perestroika may portend only an empty pluralism in its place. I discuss a critical disciplinary pluralism as a way of making the best of existing political science practice – and redeeming Perestroika’s promise. Space limitations preclude full documentation of the impoverished state of the methodological debate, though a flavor can be gained by a look at a symposium of disciplinary stars organized to address the issues raised in the Perestroikan critique, published in the June 2002 issue of PS: Political Science and Politics under the title of “Shaking Things Up? Thoughts About the Future of Political Science.” One common theme that emerges from the symposium is the degree to which the contributors point to their own work as a model. Asked to reflect upon the shape of the discipline, these distinguished political scientists reflect mainly on, and implicitly advocate, their own work. Strikingly, none of the contributors, even those associated with hegemony, opposes pluralism in the discipline.