In Search of the State: Political Science as an Emerging Discipline in the U.S.

  • John G. Unnell
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 15)


Although the study of the history of political science may not be as fully developed as that of some of the other social sciences, this area of research in the United States has now reached a point where it is difficult any longer to contemplate writing a single general treatment. Although there are reasons to be dissatisfied with existing work, particularly because of the tendency toward polemical and apologetic genres, the general contours of the development of the discipline and profession are quite accessible (1). However, in the way of corrective and specialized endeavors, there is still much to be accomplished. One of the subjects that has remained somewhat fallow is a careful consideration of the concept of the state. Although for a long period, in the early years of the field, this concept was virtually constitutive of political inquiry, it seemed by the beginning of the behavioral era in American political science, by the mid-1950s, that it was at best a vestigial notion. During the last decade, however, many social scientists have been “bringing the state back in,” even though others are still uneasy about such tendencies and worry about the “return of the state” and about the concept of the “political system besieged by the state” (2).


Political Science Political Philosophy Political Theory American Scholar Political Ethic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See John G. Gunnell, “The Historiography of American Political Science,” in David Easton and John G. Gunnell, eds., The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Perspective (London: Routledge, 1990); John Dryzek and Stephen Leonard, “History and Discipline in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 82 (1988); Bernard Crick, The American Science of Politics (Berkeley: University of Califormia Press, 1959); Albert Lepawsky, “The Politics of Epistemology,” Western Political Quarterly Supp. (1964); Dwight Waldo, “Political Science: Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Enterprise,” in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1 (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1975); David Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984); Raymond Seidelman (with Edward Harpham), Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985); James A. Caporaso, ed., The Elusive State (Newbury Park: Sage, 1989); David Easton, “The Political System Besieged by the State,” Political Theory 9 (1981); Gabriel Almond, “The Return of the State,” in A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science (Newbury Park: Sage, 1989).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. vii, 44.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    James Farr, “The Estate of Political Knowledge: Political Science and the State,” in JoAnne Brown and David van Keuren, eds., The Estate of Social Knowledge (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Anna Haddow, Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900 (New York: Appleton-Century, 1939), pp. 101,155.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crick, op. cit., pp. 30–31,95–96.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 97.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniel Rodgers, Contested Truths: Key Words in American Politics Since Independence (New York: Basic Books, 1987), pp. 145–6, 163, 165.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., p. 165.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid., p. 175.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernest Barker, Nietzsche and Treitschke: The Worship of Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1914); “The Discredited State,” Political Quarterly, 2 (1915).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    John Dewey, German Philosophy and Politics (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1915), pp. 123–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Westel Woodrow Willoughby, Prussian Political Philosophy (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1918).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franklin Giddings The Responsible State (Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1918), p. 48.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibid., p. 46.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frank Sargent Hoffman, The Sphere of the State or the People as a Body-Politic (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894), pp. 1–6, 17.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walter P. Metzger, Academic Freedom in the Age of the University (Colombia University Press, 1955); Laurence R. Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965); Mary O. Furner, Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1975); Thomas Haskell, The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth Century Crisis of Authority (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977); Dorothy J. Ross, “Professionalism and the Transformation of American Social Thought,” Journal of Economic History 38 (1978) and “The Development of the Social Sciences,” in Alexandra Oleson and John Voss, eds., The Origins of Knowledge in Modern American, 1860–1920 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Lepawsky, op. cit., pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    George Beard, American Nervousness: Its Causes and Consequences [1881] (New York: Arno Press, 1972), p. 122.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Francis Lieber, The Stranger in America (Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard, 1835), p. 197.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Thomas Sergeant Perry, ed., The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber (Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1882); Lewis R. Harley, Francis Lieber: His Life and Political Philosophy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1899); Frank Freidel, Francis Lieber: Nineteenth Century Liberal (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1947); Bernard Edward Brown, American Conservatives: The Political Thought of Francis Lieber and John W. Burgess (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951); James Farr, “Francis Lieber and the Interpretation of American Political Science,” Journal of Politics 52 (1990).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Francis Lieber, ed., Encyclopedia Americana (Philadelphia: Thomas Desilver & Co., 1835), Vol. X.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibid., Vol. XI, p. 568.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid., Vol. X.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    William Paley, The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1788).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Francis Lieber, Manual of Political Ethics (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1885), Vol. I, p. 162.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., Ch. XII.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Francis Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1881), Vol. I, p. 217.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., pp. 330–34.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ibid., pp. 367–68.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, p. 99.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid., p. 97.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, The Theory of the State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885), p. 54.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid., p. 235.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Herbert B. Adams, The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities (Washington: Bureau of Education, 1887), p. 55.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Theodore Woolsey, Political Science or the State Theoretically and Practically Considered (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1878).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Laurens Hickok, A System of Moral Science (Schenectady: G.Y. Van Debogert, 1853).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See Gladys Bryson, “The Emergence of the Social Sciences from Moral Philosophy,” International Journal of Ethics 42 (1932); “The Comparable Interests of the Old Moral Philosophy and the Modern Social Sciences,” Social Forces XI (1932).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    See, for example, Herbert B. Adams, The German Origins of New England Towns (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1882).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Herbert B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study, The Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science (Baltimore: Freeman, 1884), p. 21.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Adams, The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities, p. 171.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid., p. 194.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    See Fritz Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Haskell, op. cit., and Furner, op. cit.; L.L. and Jessie Bernard, Origins of American Sociology: The Social Science Movement in the United States (New York: Russell and Russell, 1943) and “A Century of Progress in the Social Sciences,” Social Forces XI (1933).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bernard and Bernard, The Origins of American Sociology, p. 559.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    John Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), pp. 254–55. Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, Vols. 1, 2 (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1890–91).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    John Burgess, The Civil and the Constitution, 1859–1865, vols. 1, 2 (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1901).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    For an analysis of the development of German historical scholarship, see George Iggers, The German Conception of History (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    John Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar, pp. 109, 124.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ibid., p. 131.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ibid., pp. 202–3.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ibid., p. 139.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    See Haddow, Political Science in American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1900, p. 180.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar, p. 244.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    John Burgess, “The Study of the Political Sciences in Columbia College,” International Review 12 (1882), p. 346.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ibid., p. 347.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibid., p. 348.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ibid., p. 350.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Herbert Adams, The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities, p. 67.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ibid., pp. 83–84.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    John Burgess, “Germany, Great Britain, and the United States,” Political Science Quarterly 19 (1904), p. 19.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    John Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar, p. 358.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    John Burgess, The Reconciliation of Government with Liberty (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915) and the Foundations of Political Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933). The latter was a revised edition of certain basic portions of Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. For a thorough discussion of Burgess’s view of history, see Bert James Loewen-berg, “John William Burgess, the Scientific Method, and the Hegelian Philosophy of History,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 42 (1955).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    John Burgess, “Political Science and History,” American Historical Review 2 (1897), p. 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ibid., p. 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    John W. Burgess, Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, p. v.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    John Burgess, “Political Science and History,” p. 407.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ibid., pp. 407–8.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
  73. 73.
    Woodrow Wilson, The State: Elements of History and Practical Politics (London: D.C. Heath & Co., 1891).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    W._W._ Willoughby, An Examination of the Nature of the State (Norwood: Norwood Press, 1896).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ibid., p. 338.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    W._W._ Willoughby, “The Political Theory of Professor John W. Burgess,” Yale Review 17 (1908), p. 64.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Charles Merriam, History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau (New York: Columbia University Press, 1900), p. 179; A History of American Political Theories (New York: Macmillan Co., 1903), p. 373.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Charles Merriam, “William Archibald Dunning,” in Howard W. Odum, ed., American Masters of Social Science (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1927) pp. 131–2.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    William A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories (New York: Macmillan, 1902, 1905, 1920).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    William A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories, Ancient and Medieval (New York: Macmillan, 1902), pp. xix, xx.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Frank Goodnow, “The Work of the American Political Science Association,” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association (Lancaster: Wicker-sham Press, 1905).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Henry Jones Ford, “The Scope of Political Science,” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1906, p. 206.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    James Quayle Dealy, The Development of the State (New York: Silver, Burdett & Co., 1909), p. 3.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Henry Jones Ford, The Natural History of the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1915) p. 175.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    See Raymond G. Gettell, History of Political Thought (New York: Century, 1924).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Jacob E. Cooke, ed., The Federalist (New York: Meridian Books, 1961), p. 244.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ibid., p. 28.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ibid., pp. 347–49.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ibid., pp. 84, 428.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ibid., pp. 57–58.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ibid., pp. 60, 51, 349.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    See Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York: Norton, 1969).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    See, e.g., Seidelman, op. cit. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • John G. Unnell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations