Comprehensive Guide to Political Science: An Essential Handbook

The Discipline of Political Science

Ever wonder what makes political science a real discipline? It's more than just talking about elections and governments. Political science has matured into a professional field with established methods and standards.

The term "discipline" traditionally implied training, order, and control. But in academia, it refers to a structured system of knowledge with specific rules and approaches. Political science exists as both an academic discipline and a profession with organized communities like the American Political Science Association (APSA) and International Political Science Association (IPSA).

As a discipline, political science provides a framework that structures research and analysis. It's self-organizing, with professionals following shared standards and norms. These standards vary across subspecialties but create a coherent whole that defines minimal professional competence.

Political scientists operate with a professional identity that includes responsibilities to their field. Academic political scientists adhere to formal codes of ethics focusing on research integrity, and they're socialized into these professional standards throughout their education and careers.

💡 Think of political science as a community with its own language and rules. When you enter this community, you learn these rules not just to pass tests but to contribute meaningful knowledge about how politics works.

The theme throughout this discipline is increasing professionalism, with political scientists holding themselves and others to high standards of excellence. This professionalism doesn't just mean following rules—it means constantly judging and improving the quality of research based on shared understandings of what good political science looks like.

What is Politics?

Politics is everywhere in our lives, but what exactly defines it? At its core, politics is about constrained social power—how people use power within limits and the techniques they develop to navigate these constraints.

Harold Lasswell famously defined politics as "who gets what, when, and how," focusing on the distribution of resources and power. This definition highlights how politics revolves around power relationships where one person can influence another's actions. As Robert Dahl put it: "X has power over Y insofar as X can get Y to do something more to X's liking which Y would not otherwise have done."

What makes this political rather than just force? The key distinction is that unconstrained power (pure force) isn't politics—it's more the domain of physics or military science. Politics exists precisely because of constraints and the strategic maneuvering that happens within them.

Social power in politics takes many forms:

• It includes both intentional acts and unintended consequences
• It covers both obvious power plays and subtle manipulations
• It encompasses both external threats and internalized norms

Political acts often have distributional consequences (who gets what piece of the pie), but they're not always about distribution. The meaning of political acts to the participants can be just as important as what resources get allocated.

💡 Next time you see a political debate, look beyond what people are arguing about to see the constraints they're working within. Are they limited by laws, social norms, resources, or something else? The real politics happens in how they navigate these constraints.

Politics comes in different styles—distributive, regulative, redistributive, and identity politics each operate with different logic. Understanding these distinctions helps explain why political conflicts take different forms in different contexts.

Several Sciences of Politics

Can the study of politics truly be scientific? Absolutely. Science is fundamentally a systematic inquiry working toward ordered propositions about the empirical world—and political phenomena can certainly be studied this way.

Political science deals with human actions involving beliefs, purposes, intentions, and meanings. While these elements make political science more probabilistic than deterministic (like physics), they don't prevent scientific inquiry. We might not discover universal laws of politics, but we can identify patterns and probabilities that help explain political phenomena.

The maturation of political science as a profession has been marked by increasing ability to see multiple perspectives. This evolution proceeded through three major phases:

1. The Behavioral Revolution moved beyond formal institutions to focus on actual political behaviors and individual interests. This approach rejected constitutional myths in favor of studying how people really act.

2. The Rational Choice Revolution imposed mathematical rigor and formal models on political analysis, focusing on how self-interest drives political decisions. This approach brought precision but sometimes reduced politics to narrow material interests.

3. New Institutionalism emerged as a significant contribution that blended both institutions and interests. Today's political scientists recognize that politics involves a mix of agency and structure, rationalism and habituation, science and storytelling.

💡 Modern political scientists have a richer toolkit than their predecessors, allowing them to see politics through multiple lenses rather than being locked into a single approach.

This evolution reflects different ways of telling disciplinary histories. Some approaches, like the "guru and camp followers" model, created isolated schools of thought with minimal engagement. More productive approaches include the modus vivendi (way of living) that allows collaboration despite differences, and mutatis mutandis (sharing building blocks), where scholars build on each other's work across subdisciplines.

Professional Touchstones

What binds political scientists together as professionals? The increasing professionalization of political science is evident in shared methodological techniques and a core literature that creates a common language—a lingua franca—for the discipline.

While political science has become increasingly article-based, its most lasting contributions often come in book form. These works serve as touchstones that provide reference points for the discipline. An interesting phenomenon in political science is the emergence of "instant classics"—books that are almost immediately incorporated into the canon upon publication.

Some notable works that have contributed to political science professionalism include:

• "Essence of Decision" by Graham Allison
• "Evolution of Co-operation" by Rod Axelrod
• "Governing the Commons" by Elinor Ostrom
• "Making Democracy Work" by Robert Putnam

Interestingly, most political science works have a relatively short shelf-life. Analysis of references shows that over three-quarters of cited works were published within the past 20 years, indicating how quickly the field evolves.

Several recurring themes emerge across political science:

• Constraint as a key concept in understanding political behavior
• The recognition that ideas have consequences
• Appreciation for history and context in shaping political institutions

💡 Political science sees constraints everywhere—from history's legacy to social rules to economic forces. Understanding politics means understanding how these constraints shape what's possible.

The New Institutionalism has brought attention to how rules and regimes constrain political life. These constraints follow a "Russian-doll model" where rules are nested within higher-order principles—legislation within constitutions, constitutions within historical contexts. None of these constraints exist in isolation; each is embedded in relation to others and nested in hierarchies of authority.

Constraints and New Voices

Political science has increasingly recognized multiple types of constraints that shape political behavior. Socio-economic forces work at the surface of social life, while cognitive constraints limit how people process information and make decisions. Our beliefs about what's true and important guide and constrain our actions, often based on past experiences.

The traditional fact-value distinction has been challenged by recognition that political agents are ethical actors who internalize values and act upon them. To understand human behaviors, we must acknowledge how facts and values intertwine in mental processes and political dynamics.

Political scientists today employ complex research designs that systematically relate structures, processes, and outcomes. This requires theoretical frameworks that can integrate multiple levels of analysis—one reason why rational choice analysis and new institutionalism have become so influential.

When surveying the field of political science, it's important to notice what's missing as well as what's present. Over time, certain subfields rise and fall in prominence. For instance, there's less focus on law and public administration today than in previous eras.

New voices have emerged in contemporary political science:

Feminist perspectives have developed a large literature on women's distinctive roles in politics, bringing a different voice particularly to political theory, international relations, and public policy.

Postmodernist approaches have made more modest inroads, often operating at a high theoretical level. While sometimes abstract, postmodernism offers valuable insights for studying "new political movements" and the fracturing of traditional international orders.

💡 Contemporary political science has become substantially post-positivist, taking seriously the subjective aspects of political life—meanings, beliefs, intentions, and values. This represents a shift toward recognizing the complexity of human experience.

Political methodology seems to be entering a postmodern phase that emphasizes contextualized and path-dependent explanations. This represents something of a retreat from seeking universal explanations toward acknowledging the particularity of political phenomena.

Shape of the Profession: Bibliometrics

How do we measure influence in political science? Bibliometrics—tracking how frequently scholars cite each other's work—provides fascinating insights into the discipline's structure. This approach helps gauge individuals' reputations, assess how intensively particular works are used, and measure how ideas from one subdiscipline penetrate others.

Political science has experienced several intellectual revolutions. The Behavioral Revolution and Rational Choice Revolution have passed, while the New Institutionalist movement represents the most recent significant shift. This latest movement aligns somewhat with rational choice approaches but also incorporates sociological perspectives.

"Integrators" play a crucial role in political science—these are scholars whose work appears in multiple subdisciplines, connecting disparate bits of knowledge. By examining who serves as integrators, we can see how subdisciplines relate to the larger discipline.

Some subdisciplines, like Comparative Politics and Political Economy, are well-integrated into the profession as a whole. Others, like Public Policy and Administration and Political Theory, have their own most-referenced authors who serve as integrators within those fields.

The history of political science stretches back to ancient Greece, with modest gains during Roman times, limited progress in the Middle Ages, some advancement during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, substantial growth in the 19th century, and solid development in the 20th century when it acquired genuine professional characteristics.

💡 The evolution of political science can be measured by growth in knowledge about two fundamental questions: What are the properties of political institutions, and what criteria should we use to evaluate them?

The 20th century saw several significant "blips" of innovation:

1. The Chicago Blip $1920-1940$ brought organized empirical research programs emphasizing psychological and sociological interpretations of politics.
2. The Behavioral Revolution after World War II spread behavioral approaches globally while improving traditional subdisciplines.
3. The rise of deductive mathematical methods and economic models through rational choice approaches.

Throughout this history, political science has maintained a progressive-eclectic view that embraces plurality of ideas and combinations of approaches, guided by rules of evidence and inference.

Progressive-Eclectic History Themes

The history of political science reflects a commitment to creating knowledge through evidence-based inference. Whether using thick description or formal modeling, all political science aims to understand political phenomena through careful analysis.

Different research styles can be placed on a continuum. On one end is Clifford Geertz's "thick description" approach (evidence without inference), exemplified by studies like Womack's work on Mexican peasant leader Zapata. On the other end is deductive theory (inference without evidence), like Downs' theory of democracy. Both approaches contribute to our understanding, though in different ways.

Greek and Roman political thought established the foundation for modern political science. While writings from the ancient Near East and Biblical texts touched on political themes, they weren't truly political science. Political science properly began with Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.

Plato's works, including the Republic, Statesman, and Laws, explored ideal regimes, political virtue, and the concept of mixed constitutions. He developed a classification of regime types that would influence political thought for centuries.

Aristotle expanded on Plato's work with a more empirical, inductive approach. His Politics drew on a collection of 158 constitutions of Greek city-states. Aristotle developed a six-fold classification of government forms based on both quantity (rule by one, few, or many) and quality (pure or impure):

💡 Aristotle's analysis of social structures and their relationship to political institutions would be familiar to modern political scientists. His questions about political stability and breakdown still drive research today.

Aristotle's qualitative analysis asked: What creates political stability? What causes breakdowns? His clinical sorting of political specimens and hypotheses about causes and sequences formed a methodology that, while lacking systematic tests, laid groundwork for future research.

Historical Overview: Greeks and Romans

The Greek political tradition spread beyond city-states through Alexander's conquests and the intermingling of Greek and Oriental cultures. Two important Stoic philosophical notions emerged during this period: the idea of universal humanity and the concept of natural law. These ideas were advanced by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus in the 3rd century BCE and transmitted to the Roman intellectual elite by later Stoics.

Polybius $203-120 BCE$ adapted Platonic-Aristotelian ideas to interpret Roman history and institutions. He attributed Rome's remarkable growth and power to its political institutions, particularly its implementation of mixed constitution principles combining monarchic (Consulate), aristocratic (Senate), and democratic (Assembly) elements.

Cicero $106-43 BCE$ applied mixed constitution theory to Roman history at a time when Rome was in decline. He appealed for a return to earlier Roman Republican culture and structure, and he developed the Stoic doctrine of Natural Law—the belief in a universal, natural law derived from the divine order of the cosmos and the rational and social nature of humans.

Greek and Roman thought established two great themes of political theory that have carried forward to the present day:

1. What are the institutional forms of polity? (Classification of organizational forms)
2. What standards should be used to evaluate them? (Legitimacy, justice, natural law)

These ideas were transmitted through history to Catholic political theory and beyond. Thomas Aquinas $1225-1274$ provided a medieval codification of mixed constitution theory and theory of law, arguing that mixed constitutions contributed to justice and stability through conformity to divine and natural law.

During the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, mixed government and natural law provided theoretical foundations for political analysis. Just as Aquinas looked to Israel and Rome as exemplars of mixed government, Italian political scientists pointed to Venice with its monarchic Doge, aristocratic Senate, and democratic Great Council.

💡 The concept of mixed government—balancing different principles of authority—was considered the key to political stability for centuries. Look for this pattern in modern systems that combine democratic, aristocratic, and executive elements.

The political crises of late 15th and early 16th century Florence stimulated important theoretical debates between figures like Machiavelli (who favored popular elements) and Guicciardini (who preferred an aristocratic bias).

Renaissance to Enlightenment

Machiavelli $1469-1527$ made a breakthrough in Renaissance political theory with his treatment of regime legitimacy and political leadership. Unlike his predecessors, Machiavelli legitimized non-normative politics as unavoidable and necessary for survival. In "The Prince," he argued that a ruler who fails to employ necessary means when required for survival would be unable to do good when possible. This value-free orientation touched a nerve in political science, and "Machiavellian" became synonymous with moral indifference and political cynicism.

Jean Bodin $1529-1596$ formulated the theory of sovereignty as a solution to problems of instability and disorder. His doctrine of absolutism was in polemic with the theory of mixed constitution. Bodin argued that classic cases of mixed government like Rome and Venice were actually centralized regimes with concentrated legislative-executive powers under a central authority.

The Enlightenment brought substantial progress in political theory, with writers pursuing the same themes as their predecessors but with greater sophistication. Thomas Hobbes $1588-1679$ was influenced by Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian Wars, which he saw as parallel to the violence of England in the 17th century. In "De Cive" and "Leviathan," Hobbes argued that sovereign authority is required to secure society from a disorderly, violent state of nature. He favored monarchical absolutism as the best form of government, with the obligation to provide security and welfare limiting the ruler's power.

John Locke $1632-1704$ in his "Second Treatise of Government" derived conclusions about government's origins and legitimacy from different contractual assumptions than Hobbes. Locke argued that people consent to government to ensure welfare and liberty, and he developed a separation of powers theory dividing authority into legislative, executive, and federative (foreign relations) components.

💡 The progress in political science during this period came from logical derivation of conclusions about government forms, authority, liberty, and obligation from sociological and psychological assumptions.

Montesquieu $1689-1755$ went beyond Hobbes and Locke by rigorously gathering evidence from Persia, Rome, Venice, and England to compare their institutions to France. As a comparativist and causal pluralist, Montesquieu emphasized the variety of human political experience. His notion of separation of powers as the best form of government, described as a Newtonian balance among powers, influenced the American constitution-makers.

From Enlightenment to 19th Century

The American Constitution represents a significant application of political theory. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, described a "science of politics" whose principles were either unknown to the ancients or imperfectly understood by them. James Madison and Hamilton tested European philosophical theories against the experiences of the United States colonies, combining Montesquieu's separate powers with practical experience in checks and balances to create a formula for liberty.

The 19th century saw philosophers forecast improvements in human conditions through growth of knowledge. Historicists in the first part of the century viewed history as a unilinear development toward freedom and rational rule. George Hegel $1770-1831$ saw the Prussian bureaucratic monarchy as exemplifying reason and freedom, and developed a dialectic view of history as the clash of opposites and emergence of syntheses.

Karl Marx $1818-1883$ applied this dialectic to class struggles, arguing that capitalism supplants feudalism and is in turn supplanted by proletarian socialism, ultimately leading to a truly free, egalitarian society. For Marx, social science was discovered in and employed in political action.

Auguste Comte $1798-1857$ argued that science would break the constraints of theology and metaphysics, enabling humanity to exercise rational control over nature and social institutions. His philosophical positivism held that all sciences progress through theological and metaphysical stages before reaching a scientific or positive stage.

💡 The 19th century witnessed tension between grand theories of historical development and more empirical, pluralistic approaches to understanding politics. This tension continues in political science today.

In the later part of the 19th century, evolutionists took a more empirical and pluralistic approach than the earlier historicists. Herbert Spencer $1820-1903$, an early post-Darwinian social evolutionist, explained political centralization and decentralization through environmental features like mountain versus prairie terrain. He argued that democratization resulted from socioeconomic changes that led to urban concentration and proliferation of interests.

Other important thinkers developed contrasting concepts to understand social development: Sir Henry Maine distinguished ancient from modern law as a shift from status relationships to contractual ones; Ferdinand Töennies contrasted Gemeinschaft (community) with Gelleschaft (society); Max Weber examined modern rationality versus traditionality; and Émile Durkheim compared organic solidarity with mechanical solidarity.