Political science owes its knowledge to the contribution of other social sciences but at a same time it has blend of uniqueness. Comment
Answers
Explanation:
NPS) at the 1967 meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA). The original Constitution of the Caucus for a New Political Science states that it was organized “to help make the study of politics relevant to the struggle for a better world.”1 While the Caucus includes political scientists of many diverse viewpoints, it is united by the idea that the discipline should abandon “the myth of a value-free science” and openly advance a progressive political agenda.2 While originally founded as an alternative Caucus to the APSA, it soon sought additional, official recognition as the first organized section of the APSA with the right to sponsor its own panels, collect membership dues, and publish its own journal New Political Science.
In 2000, many of the same discontents that had led a previous generation of political scientists to organize the Caucus resurfaced in the “perestroika rebellion,” which denounced the APSA as an organization controlled by “East Coast Brahmins” and one that promotes a “narrow parochialism and methodological bias toward the quantitative, behavioral, rational choice, statistical, and formal modeling approaches.”3 In the wake of the Perestroika rebellion, CNPS membership roughly doubled over the next five years, but aside from a vague discontent with the existing discipline and its professional association, it is still not likely that many members of the CNPS today can actually articulate a concept of new political science.4
This article examines the political and intellectual origins of New Political Science by reviewing some of the major works of the late 1960s and early 1970s that sought to establish and clarify the foundations of new political science. It concludes that new political science was originated as a methodological critique of behavioralism, an empirical critique of pluralist theory, and a sociological critique of the relation between political science and political power. However, by 1979, after a decade of organizational insurgency and conflict with the APSA, these strands of thought fused into a critique of capitalist society, while its methodological critique of political science was transformed into a commitment to socialist politics.
Political Science as Behavioralism
It is now recognized that the “behavioral revolution” of the 1950s was actually the Thermidor phase of a disciplinary paradigm shift that had begun as far back as the 1920s,5 when Charles E. Merriam (1925) a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, called for a new political science based on the observation of real governments and political behavior as opposed to one based on normative speculation.6 The behavioralists broke with the earlier practice of political scientists by claiming to have discovered a “value-neutral” political science and by viewing all earlier works on politics as merely a storehouse of hypotheses for empirical falsification or verification.7 Behavioralism’s main methodological claim was that uniformities in political behavior
Answer:
wwww
Explanation:
wwwwww