Abstract
In the so-called ‘behavioral’ phase of political science, Karl W. Deutsch occupies a place of major importance. His work reflects many of the major trends which have characterized political science in this phase: a quest for concepts of sufficient precision and applicability to provide the basis for the development of theory; the creation of operational (quantifiable) indicators for the testing of hypotheses about political behavior; and the adaptation and utilization of concepts, methodologies and insights from other disciplines. Deutsch’s writings not only reflect this emphasis but also represent a major contribution to political science at this stage in its development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This text was first published as: Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. “Karl Deutsch and the Study of Political Science,” The Political Science Reviewer, vol. 2 (Fall 1972), pp. 90–111. The permission to republish this text was granted on 14 March 2019 by the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The author was then associated with: Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
- 2.
Parsons developed an “action system” to be used as an analytical tool in sociology. He postulates an actor oriented toward attaining anticipated goals by means of a normatively regulated expenditure of energy. Since the relationships between the actor and his situation have a recurrent character or system, all action occurs in systems.
- 3.
Parsons defines a social system as a “system of interaction of a plurality of actors, in which the action is oriented by rules which are complexes of complementary expectations concerning roles and sanctions. As a system, it has determinate patterns of structural change. It has, furthermore, as a system, a variety of mechanisms of adaptation to changes in the external environment. These mechanisms function to create one of the important properties of a system, namely, a tendency to maintain boundaries.” Italics in original. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action (New York: Harper and Row [Torchbooks], 1962), pp. 195–196.
- 4.
Quoted in The Nerves of Government (New York: The Free Press, 1964), p. 77. See Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1965).
- 5.
The Nerves of Government, p. 76.
- 6.
Ibid., p. 88.
- 7.
Ibid., p. 90.
- 8.
Ibid., p. 97.
- 9.
Ibid., p. 98.
- 10.
Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, p. 70.
- 11.
Ibid., p. 5.
- 12.
Karl W. Deutsch, “The Impact of Communications upon International Relations Theory,” in Abdul Said (ed.), Theory of International Relations: The Crisis of Relevance (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 75.
- 13.
In an ‘amalgamated’ security community, previously independent political units form a single unit with a common government. In a ‘pluralistic’ security community, separate governments retain legal independence. The United States is illustrative of an amalgamated security community, while the United States-Canada, or France-Germany since World War II, may be called pluralistic security communities.
- 14.
Nationalism and Its Alternatives, p. 4.
- 15.
See, for example, Georg Simmel, Conflict, trans., Hurt H. Wolff in Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1955); Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1956), pp. 15–38.
- 16.
Nationalism and Social Communication, p. 96.
- 17.
Parsons’ action system places persons both in the role of subjects and in the role of objects. Subject (alter) and object (ego) interact in a system. If actors gain satisfaction, they develop a vested interest in the preservation and functioning of the system. Mutual acceptance of the system by the actors creates an equilibrating mechanism in the system. Supposedly, the course of action which the actor adopts is based on a previous learning experience as well as on his expectations about the behaviour of the person with whom he is interacting. According to Parsons, interaction makes the development of culture possible at the human level, and provides a significant determinant of patterns of action in a social system. Interaction among the acting subjects is crucial to Parsons’ frame-work. In a perfectly integrated social system the actors gratify each other’s specific needs.
- 18.
Nationalism and Social Communication, p. 75.
- 19.
France, Germany, and the Western Alliance, pp. 218–219.
- 20.
See Ronald Inglehart, “An End of European Integration,” American Political Science Review, LXI (March 1967), p. 91.
- 21.
Carl J. Friedrich, Europe: An Emergent Nation? (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), esp. pp. 196–215.
- 22.
The Analysis of International Relations, p. 47.
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Ibid., 113.
- 25.
Ibid., 202.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pfaltzgraff, R.L. (2020). Karl Deutsch and the Study of Political Science. In: Taylor, C., Russett, B. (eds) Karl W. Deutsch: Pioneer in the Theory of International Relations. Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02910-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02910-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02909-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02910-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)