Understanding and Assessing the Book of Modern Political Analysis: Innovations and Dilemmas

Abdolahpour Chenari, Mohammad

Document Type : Research

Author

Mohammad abdolahpour chenari

Assistant Professor of Political Sciences, Faculty of Law and Theology, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is, in particular, to understand and evaluate Robert Dahl and Brackner's book, modern political analysis and in general, to provide a framework for analyzing a text. Today, the conventional way of examining a text with false assumptions, which actually lead to a lack of understanding and evaluation, is to presuppose definitions of understanding and evaluation, attention to semantic dimensions, and emphasis on face and content evaluation. But, is it really possible to evaluate without understanding the work? The main reasoning behind this article is that the conditions for the possibility of understanding and evaluating a piece of work, based on this assumption, are that understanding and evaluation are inextricably bound. The context of understanding requires the return of the text to the historical context and the context of the evaluation involves the propositional content. The result of the application of this interconnectedness is that the work has been written in the political atmosphere of "democracy" and "behaviorist" science. The verbs contained in the speech initially confirm the behavioral-oriented monistic methodology, then change into pluralistic affiliation. An increasing propositional content represents innovation in the thematic, political, and methodological context. Decreasing propositional content points to problems in the methodological domain of political sciences. For example, it is not able to provide a valid argument about how to obtain normative propositions from the empirical methods of studying the historical and metaphysical values. Therefore, the understanding and appraisal of political phenomena require Robert Dahl's methodological adjustments.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Sociology

References

استریکلند، دی و دیگران (1380)، مقدمه‌ای بر تحلیل سیاسی، ترجمة علی معنوی، تهران: آگه.

دال، رابرت و اشتاین بریکنر (1392)، تحلیل سیاسی مدرن، ترجمة حمیرا مشیرزاده، تهران: فرهنگ جاوید.

گادوین، رابرت و چارلز تیلی (1390)، تحلیل سیاسی با تکیه بر شرایط و زمینه‌ها، ترجمة رضا سیمبر، تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق.

هی، کالین (1385)، درآمدی انتقادی بر تحلیل سیاسی، ترجمة احمد گل‌محمدی، تهران: نشر نی.

Adcock, R. and M. Bevir (2007), “The Remaking of Political Theory”, in Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon C. Stimson (eds.), USA: Princeton University Press.

Al-Marayati, Abid A. (1987), “Reviw”, International Social Science Review, vol. 62, no. 4.

Austin, J. L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisa (eds.), Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Austin, J. L. (1970), “Performative Utterance”, in: Philosophical Papers, Second Edition, J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock (eds.), Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Baker, K. L., S. G. Hajjar, and A. E. Schenker (1972), “A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science”, Political Science & Politics, vol. 5, no. 3.

Baum, W. M. (2005), Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

Berkenpas, J. R. (2012), “The Behavioral Revolution?’ History and Myth in American Political Science”, the Western Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting (Portland), Western Michigan University.

Berndtson, E. (1987), “The Rise and Fall of American Political Science: Personalities, Quotations, Speculations”, International Political Science Review, vol. 8, no. 1.

Bluhm, William T. (1966), “Review”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 28, no. 4.

Dahl, A. Robert (1947), “Review: Validity of Organizational Theories”, Public Administration Review, vol. 7, no. 4.

Dahl, R. (2007), “Normative Theory, Empirical Research, and Democracy”, Passion, Craft and Method in Comparative Politics, Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder (eds.), The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1961), “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest”, American Political Science Review, vol. 55, no. 4.

Dahl, R. A. (1978), “Pluralism Revisited”, Comparative Politics, vol. 10, no. 2.

Dahl, R. A. (1958), “Review: Political Theory: Truth and Consequence”, World Politics, vol. 11, no. 1.

Dahl, R. A. (1947), “The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems”, Public Administration Review, vol. 7, no. 1.

Dahl, R. A. (2006), A Preface to Democratic Theory: Expanded Edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Day, W. (1983), “On the Difference between Radical and Methodological Behaviorism”. Behaviorism, vol. 11, no. 1.

Dryzek, J. S. (2006), “Revolutions without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science”, American Political Science Review, vol. 100, no. 4.

Easton, D. (1957), “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems”, World Politics, vol. 9, no. 3.

Easton, D. (1957), “Traditional and Behavioral Research in American Political Science”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1.

Easton, D. (1969), “The New Revolution in Political Science”, American Political Science Review, vol. 63, no. 4.

Easton, D. (1985), “Political Science in the United States Past and Present”, International Political Science Review, vol. 6, no. 1.

Easton, David (1965), A Framework for Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Eisenberg, Avigail (2012), “Pluralism and Method at the Turn of the Century”, in: Modern Pluralism: Anglo-American Debates Since 1880, Mark Bevir (ed.), Cambridge :Cambridge University Press.

Gatlin, Douglas S. (1972), “Review”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 34, no. 2.

Gunnell, J. G. (1996), “The Genealogy of American Pluralism: from Madison to Behavioralism”, International Political Science Review, vol. 17, no. 3.

Gunnell, J. G. (2004),“The Real Revolution in Political Science”, Political Science and Politics, vol. 37, no. 1.

Hobbs, John A. (1981), “Review”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 43, no. 3.

Kaplan, Harold (1964), “Review”, International journal, vol. 19, no. 2

Kettler, D. (2006), “The Political Theory Question in Political Science, 1956–1967”, American Political Science Review, vol. 100, no.4.

Kirn, M. E. (1977), “Behavioralism, Post-Beliavioralism, and the Philosophy of Science: Two Houses, One Plague”, The Review of Politics, vol. 39, no. 1.

Krouse, R. W. (1982), “Polyarchy and Participation: the Changing Democratic Theory of Robert Dahl”, Polity, vol. 14, no. 3.

Lakatos, Imre (1968a), “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. 69.

Lakatos, Imre (1968b), “Falsification and Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Criticism and the Growth Of Knowledge, I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre (1970), “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions”, Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Pholosophy of Science Association, vol. 1970.

Mayhew, D. R. (2000), “Political Science and Political Philosophy: Ontological not Normative”, Political Science & Politics, vol, 33, no. 2.

Merriam, C. E. (1921), “The Present State of the Study of Politics”, American Political Science Review, vol. 15, no. 2.

Miller, E. F. (1971), “David Easton's Political Theory”, Political Science Reviewer, vol. 1, no. 1.

Monroe, K. R. (2004), “The Chicago School: Forgotten but not Gone”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 02, no. 1.

Moon, J. D. (1975), The Logic of Political Inquiry: a Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives, Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Moore, J. (1981), “On Mentalism, Methodological Behaviorism, and Radical Behaviorism”, Behaviorism, vol. 9, no. 1.

Prothro, James W. (1964), “Review”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 26, no. 2.

Ross, D. (2007), “Anglo-American Political Science, 1880-1920”. In: Modern political science: Anglo-American exchanges since 1880, Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon C. Stimson (eds.), USA: Princeton University Press.

Sangiovanni, Andrea (2008), “Normative Political Theory: A Flight from Reality?”, in: Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme, Duncan Bell, Oxford University Press.

Skinner, Quentin (1969), “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, The Historical Journal, vol. 8, no.1.

Skinner, Quentin (1974), “Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action”, Polittical Theory, vol. 2, no. 3.

Skinner, Quentin (2002), Vision of Politics: Regarding Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, S. B. (2000), “Political science and Political Philosophy: An Uneasy Relation”, Political Science and Politics, vol. 33, no. 2.

Strickland, D. A. (1978), “Review”, The American Political Science Review, vol. 72, no. 1.

Varma, Vishwanath P. (1974), “Review: Quest for Scientificity in Political Science”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 35, no. 1.

Wahlke, John C. (1979), “Pre-Behavioralism in Political Science”, The American Political Science Review, vol. 73.

Warren, M. E. (1989), “What is Political Theory/ Philosophy?”, Political Science and Politics, vol. 22, no. 3.

Wogu, I. A., E. Ovia, and V. Akoloeowo (2013), “Behaviouralism as an Approach to Contemporary Political Analysis”, Internatiional Journal of Education and Research, vol. 1, no. 12.

Pizhuhish nāmah-i intiqādī-i mutūn va barnāmah hā-yi ̒ulūm-i insāni (Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences)

Understanding and Assessing the Book of Modern Political Analysis: Innovations and Dilemmas

References

References

Volume 18, Issue 12 - Serial Number 64
June 2019
Pages 111-132

Understanding and Assessing the Book of Modern Political Analysis: Innovations and Dilemmas

References

References

Volume 18, Issue 12 - Serial Number 64June 2019Pages 111-132

Volume 18, Issue 12 - Serial Number 64
June 2019
Pages 111-132