Where do we go from here?

Abstract

This is a story about competition between a primitive political science, a modern political science, and their significance to the future of political science and the state. The old-fashioned political science is comprised of storytelling, otherwise called case studies. The modern, pure political science is committed to the incorporation of the methods of pure science. The difference between the two is the origin of an on-going debate within political science. When the state suffers a threat to its sovereignty, it seeks to suppress or coopt domestic centers of power. It patronizes the pure science because it shows some promise of valuable service. Chile is a significant example. And the older political science will suffer due to its tendency to expose pathologies and its inability to remain neutral. Thus, once the state tends toward authoritarianism, the storytelling political science is likely to suffer because thorough analyses find their way toward criticism, to pathology. Once the state has intervened, the national association may respond but with too little support, and the individual practitioners may have to retreat to their national association and to the International Political Science Association, which may speak for all of the 60+ national associations. The International Political Science Association will be the canary in the coal mine. The Nobel awaits.