The Political and Intellectual Origins of New Political Science^*

^*This is a revised and expanded version of an earlier article published as Barrow, Clyde, W. “The Intellectual Origins of New Political Science,” New Political Science: A Journal of Politics and Culture 30:2 (2008), pp. 215–244.

Abstract

In 1967, the burgeoning discontent of many political scientists culminated in the establishment of the Caucus for a New Political Science. The Caucus included political scientists of many diverse viewpoints, but it was united methodologically by a critique of behavioralism and by the idea that political science should abandon the myth of a value-free science. This article reviews the political and intellectual origins of New Political Science by examining some of the major works of the late 1960s and early 1970s purporting to establish the foundations of a new political science. It concludes that new political science originated as a methodological critique of behavioralism, an empirical critique of pluralist theory, and a sociological critique of the relationship 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.

Notes

^* This is a revised and expanded version of an earlier article published as Barrow, Clyde, W. “The Intellectual Origins of New Political Science,” New Political Science: A Journal of Politics and Culture 30:2 (2008), pp. 215–244.

¹ Caucus for a New Political Science, “Constitution (as Revised Fall 1978),” (photocopy on file with the author).

² David Ricci, The Tragedy of Political Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); Raymond Seidelman, Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1985).

³ Kristen Renwick Monroe (ed.), Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 1, 9. Also see Robert Salisbury, “Current Criticism of APSA is Nothing New,” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (December 2001), p. 767, and Theodore Lowi, “Every Poet His Own Aristotle,” in Monroe (ed.), Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 45–52, on the parallels between the new political science revolt and the Perestroika rebellion: John S. Dryzek, “Revolutions without Enemies: Key Transformations in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 100:4 (November 2006), p. 491, observes that “many of the younger members of the Perestroika e-mail list in the early 2000s were apparently unaware of this last attempted reformation of the discipline, and needed reminding that once there was the Caucus, and indeed that it lived still.”

⁴ Following the Perestroika rebellion, membership in the New Political Science Organized Section of the APSA grew from 309 in 2000 to 516 in 2007. Catherine E. Rudder, 2000. “Executive Director’s Report,” (PSOnline: 2000), available at www.apsanet.org.

⁵ John G. Gunnell, “The Real Revolution in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37:1 (January 2004), pp. 47–50.

⁶ Charles E. Marriam, New Aspects of Politics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1925).

⁷ David Easton, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953); Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1956).

⁸ For a sampling of the behavioralist literature at the time see David Easton, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953); David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965); David Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965); Heinz Eulau, Samuel J. Eldersveld, and Morris Janowitz (eds), Political Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1956); S. Sidney Ulmer (ed.), Introductory Readings in Political Behavior (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1961); James C. Charlesworth (ed.), The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science (Philadelphia, PA: American Academy of Political Social Science, 1962); Austin Ranney (ed.), Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1962); Heinz Eulau, The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics (New York, NY: Random House, 1963).

⁹ Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, IL: Free Press), pp. 75, 126–27, states that political science “is concerned with the power relations within the institutional system and with a broader aspect of settlement of terms. ... Neither power in the political sense nor the operation of government as a sub-system of the social system can be treated in terms of a specifically specialized conceptual scheme ... precisely for the reason that the political problem of the social system is a focus for the integration of all of its analytically distinguishable components, not of a specifically differentiated class of these components. Political science thus tends to be a synthetic science, not one built about an analytical theory as is the case with economics.”

¹⁰ David Easton, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), p. 106.

¹¹ Ibid.,106.

¹² David Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, pp. 21–23.

¹³ For example, David Truman, The Governmental Process (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953). For an analysis of this relationship see James Petras, “Ideology and United States Political Scientists,” in Charles A. McCoy and John Playford (eds), Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism (New York, NY: ThomasY. Crowell, 1967), pp. 76–98. Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, p. 22, articulates the relationship in the following way: “The behavioral approach testifies to the coming of age of theory in the social sciences as a whole, wedded, however, to a commitment to the assumptions and methods of empirical science. Unlike the great traditional theories of past political thought, new theory tends to be analytic, not substantive, explanatory rather than ethical, more general and less particular. That portion of political research which shares these commitments to both the new theory and the technical means of analysis and verification thereby links political science to broader behavioral tendencies in the social sciences; hence its description as political behavior.”

¹⁴ Robert A. Dahl, Social Science Research on Business: Product and Potential (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 36.

¹⁵ Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960). Charles A. McCoy and John Playford, (eds), Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behaviorialism (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1967), p. 10, suggest that by the mid-1960s it would “not be unwarranted to speak of the behavioralists as members of an ‘establishment’ within the discipline.” Indeed, Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis, pp. 4, 20, declares the behavioral revolution a fait accompli and refers to its practitioners as a “concrete academic movement” within political science.

¹⁶ Daniel Singer, Prelude to Revolution: France in May 1968 (London, UK: Jonathan Cape, 1970); Alain Touraine, The May Movement (New York, NY: Random House, 1971); Nigel Young, An Infantile Disorder? The Crisis and Decline of the New Left (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1977).

¹⁷ National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, The Kerner Report: The 1968 Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1988 [1968]).

¹⁸ William E. Connolly, Political Science and Ideology (New York, NY: Atherton Press, 1967).

¹⁹ A political history of the CNPS is a much needed corrective to the omissions and misrepresentations of existing disciplinary histories.

²⁰ H. Mark Roelofs, The Tension of Citizenship: Private and Public Duty (New York, NY: Rinehart, 1957); H. Mark Roelofs, The Language of Modern Politics: An Introduction to the Study of Government (Homewood, IL.: Dorsey Press, 1967).

²¹ H, Mark Roelofs, “Roelofs, H. Mark (1923–).” Contemporary Authors (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 2004).

²² Ibid.

²³ Christian Bay, The Structure of Freedom (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958), ch. 5; Christian Bay, “Preface to the 1965 Printing,” in The Structure of Freedom (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970), p. ix; Christian Bay, “Preface to the 1970 Printing,” in The Structure of Freedom (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970), pp. v–vii.

²⁴ Bay, The Structure of Freedom, ch. 5.

²⁵ Bay, “Preface to the 1970 Printing,” p. ix.

²⁶ Christian Bay, “Politics and Pseudopolitics: A Critical Evaluation of Some Behavioral Literature,” American Political Science Review 54:1 (March 1965), p. 39.

²⁷ Bay, “Preface to the 1970 Printing,” p. xiii.

²⁸ Charles A. McCoy and John Playford (eds), Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1967).

²⁹ John Ehrenberg, “Commentary: History of the Caucus for a New Political Science,” New Political Science 21: 3 (Fall 1999), p. 418.

³⁰ For example: James C. Charlesworth (ed.), The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science (Philadelphia, PA: American Academy of Political Social Science, 1962); Alfred Cobban, “The Decline of Political Theory,” Political Science Quarterly 68:3 (September 1953), pp. 321–37; Herbert J. Storing (ed.), Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962).

³¹ The term Caucusistas is borrowed from Dryzek, “Revolutions without Enemies”; Eulau, The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics, p. 32.

³² Ibid.

³³ Alfred Cobban. “The Decline of Political Theory.” Political Science Quarterly 68:3 (September 1953), p. 335.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Herbert J. Storing. Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1962), pp. 308–09.

³⁶ Ibid., v. It is an ironic twist that Straussians used the term “New Political Science” in referring to behavioralism, because it was comparatively new in comparison to political philosophy, but they also sought to link behavioralism to its philosophical origins in Thomas Hobbes’s “new science of politics.” Christian Bay is the only person among the CNPS’s founders who was aware of this irony in his writings and it may be that the Caucus for a New Political Science was so named as an effort to recapture the heritage of Merriam, Lasswell, and Key as opposed to Leo Strauss. Indeed, at the height of the CNPS struggle within the APSA, Bay (1970, v) declared: “I still consider myself a behavioralist.”

³⁷ In 1965, Bay, “Preface to the 1965 Printing,” pp. ix–x, criticized the Straussians, who were “the most vocal among the contemporary critics of the New Science of Politics, neo-Aristotelian by persuasion” for having “failed to produce any viable alternative approach” to behavioralism. One unfortunate result of the Straussians’ s critique of behavioralism was that “political philosophy (in the now widely accepted sense in which Lasswell distinguishes this discipline from that of political science) lately by default has become the almost exclusive domain of a neo-Aristotelian breed of political scientists which has no use at all for such facts as the behavioralists produce!”

³⁸ McCoy and Playford, Apolitical Politics, p. 10.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 3.

⁴⁰ William E. Connolly, Political Science and Ideology (New York, NY: Atherton Press, 1967), p. 5, states, “We accept, in short, the scientific ideal of political inquiry.” Marvin Surkin and Alan Wolfe, An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), p. 4 also note that “many members of the CNPS employed behavioral techniques and considered themselves ‘behavioralists’.” Also, Marvine Surkin and Alan Wolfe, “The Political Dimension of American Political Science.” Acta Politica (October 1969), p. 51.

⁴¹ Charles E. Merriam, New Aspects of Politics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1925), p. 113.

⁴² Ibid., p. 130.

⁴³ Harold D. Lasswell, “The Policy Orientation,” in Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell (eds), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1951), p. 4.

⁴⁴ Eulau, The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics, p. vii.

⁴⁵ McCoy and Playford, p. 10; V.O. Key, Jr., “The Politically Relevant in Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly 24:1 (Spring 1960), p. 24, observes that “The invention of the sample survey gave the study of politics a powerful observational instrument. Yet it is a tool singularly difficult to bring to bear upon significant questions of politics. Over the past two decades, surveys of national, state, and local populations have, to be sure, produced many findings … Most of these findings, though, have been primarily of sociological or psychological interest.”

⁴⁶ McCoy and Playford, Apolitical Politics, p. 11.

⁴⁷ Christian Bay, “Preface to the 1970 Printing” in Christian Bay, The Structure of Freedom (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), p. xvi.

⁴⁸ McCoy and Playford, Apolitical Politics, p. 10.

⁴⁹ C. Wright Mills, People, Power, and Politics: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills (New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1963), p. 226.

⁵⁰ The philosopher Robert Paul Wolff (ed.), Political Man and Social Man (New York, NY: Random House, 1966), p. 10, chastised behavioralists for their willingness to state “in forthright terms that political apathy is a Good Thing!,” because they considered voter apathy a source of political stability or system equilibrium.

⁵¹ McCoy and Playford, Apolitical Politics, p. 6.

⁵² Ibid., 3. While modern political science had its genesis in the reform politics of the Progressive era, Dwight Waldo’s Political Science in the United States: A Trend (Paris, FR: UNESCO, 1956), p. 17, attitudinal survey of American political scientists concluded, as a matter of empirical fact, that “the political order has been ‘accepted’, and distinctive American ‘political theory’ has tended to be concerned with means and methodology.”

⁵³ Key, “The Politically Relevant in Surveys,” p. 54.

⁵⁴ McCoy and Playford, Apolitical Politics, p. 7; C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).

⁵⁵ For example, Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961); Nelson Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963); Arnold Rose, The Power Structure (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1967).

⁵⁶ Shin’ya Ono, “The Limits of Bourgeois Pluralism,” in McCoy and Playford (eds), Apolitical Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Co, 1967), p. 105.

⁵⁷ Robert A. Dahl, “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model,” American Political Science Review 52:1 (March 1958), pp. 463–69.

⁵⁸ Ono, “The Limits of Bourgeois Pluralism,” p. 108.

⁵⁹ G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967); G. William Domhoff, The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1970); Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society: An Analysis of the Western System of Power (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1969).

⁶⁰ Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review 56:4 (December 1962).

⁶¹ The irony is that Dahl understood the mobilization of bias well before he conducted his empirical research in New Haven. For example, Robert Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1956) states that a basic proposition of democratic theory is that “Constitutional rules are mainly significant because they help to determine what particular groups are to be given advantages or handicaps in the political struggle. In no society do people ever enter a political contest equally; the effect of the constitutional rules is to preserve, add to, or subtract from the advantages and handicaps with which they start the race … constitutional rules … are crucial to the status and power of the particular groups who gain or suffer by the operation.” However, what Dahl (Dahl, Who Governs?, p. 137) claimed to verify in Who Governs? had already been assumed as an ideological proposition in A Preface to Democratic Theory, namely, that “a central guiding thread of American constitutional development has been the evolution of a political system in which all the active and legitimate groups in the population can make themselves heard at some crucial stage in the process of decision.”

⁶² Bachrach and Baratz, “Two Faces of Power.” While they fail to acknowledge it, Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz’s, “Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review 57:3 (September 1963), pp. 632–42, concept of non-decisions is already advanced in C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. 4, where Mills observes “Whether they [the power elite] do or do not make such decisions is less important than the fact that they do occupy such pivotal positions; their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself an act that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they do make.”

⁶³ Bachrach and Baratz, “Two Faces of Power,” p. 952.

⁶⁴ American Political Science Association, “Final Report of the American Political Science Association, Committee on Professional Standards and Responsibilities: Ethical Problems of Academic Political Scientists,” PS 1:3 (Summer 1968), pp. 3–29.

⁶⁵ American Political Science Association. 2011. “Constitution,” available online at: https://www.apsanet.org/portals/54/Files/APASConstitution2011.pdf

⁶⁶ Christian Bay, “Communications: To the Editor,” American Political Science Review 61:4 (December 1967), p. 1096; American Political Science Association, “Final Report of the American Political Science Association, Committee on Professional Standards and Responsibilities: Ethical Problems of Academic Political Scientists.”

⁶⁷ Bay, “Communications: To the Editor,” p, 1096.

⁶⁸ H. Mark Roelofs, “Communications: To the Editor,” PS 1:1 (Winter 1968), p. 38.

⁶⁹ Ibid., 40. Other members of the original executive committee were Ronald Bayer (University of Chicago), Tom Blau (University of Chicago), Alex Gottfried (University of Washington), Edward C. Hayes (University of California, Berkeley), Sanford V. Levinson (Harvard University), Alden E. Lind (University of North Carolina), David Morris (Institute for Policy Studies), and Marvin Surkin (Moravian College).

⁷⁰ Ibid., 39.

⁷¹ Ibid., 39.

⁷² Ibid., 39.

⁷³ Bay, “Communications: To the Editor,” p. 1096.

⁷⁴ Roelofs, “Communications: To the Editor,” p. 39.

⁷⁵ Christian Bay, “For an American Political Science Association,” PS 1:1 (Summer 1968), pp. 36–38.

⁷⁶ Roelofs, “Communications: To the Editor,” p. 39.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 39.

⁷⁸ Dryzek, “Revolutions Without Enemies,” p. 491.

⁷⁹ John Ehrenberg, “Commentary: History of the Caucus for New Political Science.” New Political Science 21:3 (Fall 1999), p. 417.

⁸⁰ Surkin and Wolfe, “The Political Dimension of American Political Science.” pp. 44–45.

⁸¹ Evron M. Kirkpatrick, “Report of the Executive Director, 1968–69,” PS 2 Special Supplement (Summer 1969), pp. 479–537.

⁸² Helene Silverberg, “Gender Studies and Political Science: The History of the ‘Behavioralist Compromise’,” in James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (eds), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1993), p. 368, observes that in the late 1960s, women began entering political science graduate programs in substantial numbers and “they formed part of a growing constituency available for mobilization against the established structure of the postwar profession.” A group of these women joined the CNPS insurgency and the Caucus attempted to attract women to its ranks by creating its own Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession, chaired (ironically) by (a male) Alan Wolfe. David Easton responded by appointing an APSA Committee on the Status of Women, but neither vehicle was deemed suitable for advancing women’s issues in the profession, which led a small group to found the Women’s Caucus for Political Science. Like the CNPS, the WCPS sought to promote both intellectual and organizational change within the APSA. A Black Caucus was organized almost simultaneously with the other two caucuses, which signaled an immediate need to address gender and race discrimination, as well as a possible split on the left between class and identity politics.

⁸³ Kirkpatrick, “Report of the Executive Director”, p. 479; David Easton, “The New Revolution in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 63:4 (December 1969), p. 1051.

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ Alan Wolfe, “Practising the Pluralism We Preach: Internal Processes in the American Political Science Association,” Antioch Review 29 (Fall 1969), p. 354.

⁸⁶ Alan Wolfe, “The Professional Mystique,” in Marvin Surkin and Alan Wolfe (eds), An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), pp. 288–309.

⁸⁷ Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 5.

⁸⁸ John E. Mueller, “The Political Scientist Decides: An Examination of the 1969 APSA Ballots,” PS 3:3 (Summer 1970), p. 311.

⁸⁹ Donald G. Herzberg, “To the Editor,” PS 2:4 (Autumn 1969), p. 704.

⁹⁰ James W. Prothro, “To the Editor,” PS 2:4 (Autumn 1969), pp. 702–03.

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² Ibid.

⁹³ American Arbitration Association, “1970 APSA Election Results,” PS 4:1 (Winter 1971), p. 49; Charles L. Taylor and Gordon Tullock, “The 1970 APSA Elections,” PS 4:3 (Summer 1971), p. 354.

⁹⁴ Mueller, “The Political Scientist Decides.”; Taylor and Tullock, “The 1970 APSA Elections.”; Bernard Grofman, “The 1971 APSA Elections,” PS 5:3 (Summer 1972), pp. 278–89.

⁹⁵ Grofman, “The 1971 APSA Elections,” p. 283.

⁹⁶ PS also published the results of a rather weak mail survey (n ¼ 176) of political scientists in the Mountain West (i.e. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), which found “that behavioralism has far more adherents with the profession than does post-behavioralism. ... The popularity of post-behavioralism also seems to vary with field of specialization in political science. It is particularly strong among the Political Theorists.” See Kendall L. Baker, Sami G. Hajjar, and Alan Evan Schenker, “A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science,” PS 5:3 (Summer 1972), pp. 271–72.

⁹⁷ Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 5.

⁹⁸ Marvin Surkin, “Sense and Nonsense in Politics,” in Surkin and Wolfe (eds), An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), pp. 13–33. Surkin proposed “an alternative methodology for the social sciences based on existential phenomenology the theoretical foundations of which are consistent with the position that for a social scientist to be empirical is not to assume that he must be value-free or nonideological. In fact, existential phenomenology is well suited to the view that an empirical analysis of reality is not only a way of understanding the social world, but that it is also a way of criticizing society and of changing it as well.” Ibid., p. 27.

⁹⁹ Parenti, “Power and Pluralism,” p. 112.

¹⁰⁰ Michael Parenti, “Power and Pluralism: A View from the Bottom,” in Surkin and Wolfe (eds), An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), p. 137.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 115.

¹⁰² Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory, pp. 88–89.

¹⁰³ Ibid., 60.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid.

¹⁰⁵ Mills, The Power Elite.; Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1963); Paul M. Sweezy, The Present as History: Essays and Reviews on Capitalism and Socialism (New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 1953), chs. 9 and 10.

¹⁰⁶ Dahl, Who Governs?, pp. 180–81.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., 164.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., 101–02, 164.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., 164.

¹¹⁰ Polsby, Community Power, p. 134.

¹¹¹ Ibid.

¹¹² Parenti, “Power and Pluralism,” p. 116.

¹¹³ Two important exceptions at the time were Michael Harrington, The Other America: Poverty in the United States (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1962) and Herbert Hirsch, Poverty and Politicization: Political Socialization in an American Sub-Culture (New York, NY: Free Press, 1970).

¹¹⁴ See also Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1971); Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race, and the Urban Crisis (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1974); Michael Parenti, Power and the Powerless (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1978).

¹¹⁵ Bachrach and Baratz, “Two Faces of Power”; William E. Connolly (ed.), The Bias of Pluralism (New York, NY: Atherton Press, 1969); Matthew A. Crenson, The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decision-making in the Cities (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971).

¹¹⁶ Matthew A. Crenson, “Nonissues in City Politics: The Case of Air Pollution,” in Surkin and Wolfe (eds), An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), p. 144.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., 144–45.

¹¹⁸ Ibid., 145.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 144–45.

¹²⁰ See Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, “Decisions and Non-Decisions: An Analytical Framework,” American Political Science Review 57:3 (1963), pp. 632–42.

¹²¹ Crenson, “Nonissues in City Politics,” p. 148.

¹²² Parenti, “Power and Pluralism,” p. 113.

¹²³ Ono, “The Limits of Bourgeois Pluralism,” pp. 108–09.

¹²⁴ Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 11.

¹²⁵ Parenti, “Power and Pluralism,” p. 112.

¹²⁶ Henry Kariel, The Decline of American Pluralism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1961); Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966).

¹²⁷ Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 1969), p. 51; Theodore J. Lowi, “The Public Philosophy: Interest-Group Liberalism,” American Political Science Review 61:1 (1967), pp. 5–24.

¹²⁸ Mills, The Power Elite, p. 300.

¹²⁹ Mills, The Power Elite, pp. 3–4.

¹³⁰ Domhoff, Who Rules America?, p. 11.

¹³¹ Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society.

¹³² Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 169.

¹³³ James Petras, “Patterns of Intervention: US Foreign Policy and Business in Latin America,” in Marvin Surkin and Alan Wolfe (eds), An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970) pp. 186–87.

¹³⁴ Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 6.

¹³⁵ Ibid., 5.

¹³⁶ David Kettler, “Beyond Republicanism: The Social Critique of Political Idealism” in Marvin Surkin and Alan Wolfe, An End to Political Science: The Caucus Papers (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), p. 40.

¹³⁷ Wolfe “The Professional Mystique,” p. 290.

¹³⁸ Ibid., p. 290.

¹³⁹ Ibid., p. 291.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid.

¹⁴¹ Ithiel de Sola Pool, “The Necessity for Social Scientists Doing Research for Governments,” Background 10 (August 1966), p. 111.

¹⁴² Surkin and Wolfe, “The Political Dimension of American Political Science,” p. 55.

¹⁴³ Wolfe, “The Professional Mystique,” p. 3.

¹⁴⁴ See James Ridgeway, The Closed Corporation (New York, NY: Random House, 1968); David Horowitz, “Sinews of Empire,” Ramparts 8 (October 1969), p. 32; Noam Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1969); Conor Cruise O’Brien and William Dean Vanech (eds), The Left Academy: Marxist Scholarship on American Campuses (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1969).

¹⁴⁵ Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 299.

¹⁴⁶ Lewis Lipsitz, “Vulture, Mantis, and Seal: Proposals for Political Scientists,” in George J. Graham, Jr. and George W. Carey (eds), The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science (New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972), p. 173.

¹⁴⁷ Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, p. 4.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid.

¹⁴⁹ Wolfe, “The Professional Mystique,” p. 303.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid.

¹⁵¹ Ibid.

¹⁵² Ibid., 304.

¹⁵³ Ibid., p. 305.

¹⁵⁴ Quoted in Ibid., p. 306.

¹⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 306.

¹⁵⁶ See Christian Bay, “Thoughts on the Purposes of Political Science Education,” in George Graham, Jr. and George W. Carey (eds), The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science (New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972), pp. 88–102; Theodore Lowi, “The Politics of Higher Education: Political Science as a Case Study” in George Graham, Jr. and George W. Carey (eds), The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science (New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972), pp. 11–36; Henry Kariel, Saving Appearances: The Reestablishment of Political Science (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1972).

¹⁵⁷ Alan Wolfe and Charles A. McCoy, Political Analysis: An Unorthodox Approach (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., Inc., 1972); Michael Parenti, Democracy for the Few (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1974); Edward S. Greenberg, American Political System: A Radical Approach (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, 1977).

¹⁵⁸ Surkin and Wolfe, “The Political Dimension of American Political Science,” p. 61; Martin Nicolaus, “The Professional Organization of Sociology: A View from Below,” Antioch Review 29 (Fall 1969), pp. 357–87.

¹⁵⁹ Wolfe, “Practising the Pluralism We Preach,” p. 372.

¹⁶⁰ Alan Wolfe, “Unthinking About the Thinkable: Reflections on the Failure of the Caucus for New Political Science,” Politics & Society 1:3 (May 1971), pp. 398–406.

¹⁶¹ Seidelman, Disenchanted Realists, p. 198.

¹⁶² “Editorial Introduction,” Politics & Society 1:1 (November 1970), p. 1.

¹⁶³ Ibid.

¹⁶⁴ Ibid.

¹⁶⁵ Philip Abrams, Historical Sociology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982).

¹⁶⁶ Theda Skocpol, “A Critical Review of Barrington Moore’s Social Origin of Dictatorship and Democracy” Politics and Society 4:1 (Fall 1973), pp. 1–35; Clyde W. Barrow, Critical Theories of the State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 126.

¹⁶⁷ “Note to Readers,” New Political Science 1:1 (Spring 1979), p. 7; see Bertell Ollman and Edward Vernoff (eds), The Left Academy: Marxist Scholarship on American Campuses (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1982), who suggested at the time that “a Marxist cultural revolution is taking place today in American universities.”

¹⁶⁸ Victor Wallis, “The Caucus at a Turning Point,” New Political Science 1:1 (Spring 1979), pp. 90–91.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid., 90.

¹⁷⁰ Ibid., 90–91.

¹⁷¹ Ibid., 89.

¹⁷² Ibid., 92.

¹⁷³ Ibid., 91.

¹⁷⁴ Jane Gruenebaum and Paul Thomas, “CNPS 1979,” New Political Science 1:1 (Spring 1979), pp. 92–94.

¹⁷⁵ Ibid., 93.

¹⁷⁶ “The Socialist Academic,” New Political Science 1:2 (1979–1980), p. 3.

¹⁷⁷ Ehrenberg, “Commentary: History of the Caucus for a New Political Science,” p. 418.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid., 419.

¹⁷⁹ Davora Yanow, “Practicing Discipline,” Politics and Society 36:3 (July 2003), pp. 398.

¹⁸⁰ Lee Sigelman, “The APSR in the Perestroika Era.” in Kristen Renwick Monroe (ed.) Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 323–29.

¹⁸¹ Monroe, Perestroika!.

¹⁸² Clyde Barrow, “Politics Denied: Comments on Waismel’s and Lowi’s ‘Politics in Motion,’” New Political Science 33:1 (March 2011), pp. 79–86.

¹⁸³ Wolfe, “The Professional Mystique,” p. 304, observes that “Something seems to happen to people when they become political scientists, or maybe people who become political scientists were strange to begin with. But whatever the causal relationship, this profession is one of the least movable there is. (Economics may be worse).”

¹⁸⁴ Seidelman, “The APSR in the Perestroika Era,” p. 198.

¹⁸⁵ Ibid., 199; also Raymond Seidelman, “Political Scientists, Disenchanted Realists, and Disappearing Democrats,” in James Farr and Raymond Seidelman (eds), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 319–20.

¹⁸⁶ Dryzek, “Revolutions Without Enemies,” p. 491.

¹⁸⁷ Theodore J. Lowi, “The Politicization of Political Science,” American Politics Quarterly 1 (January 1973), pp. 43–71.

¹⁸⁸ Wolfe, “The Professional Mystique,” pp. 306–07.

¹⁸⁹ Surkin and Wolfe, “The Political Dimension,” p. 58.

¹⁹⁰ Roelofs, The Closed Corporation, p. 39, states that “the Caucus is not dedicated to any orthodoxy—or unorthodoxy—in methodology, ideological persuasion, or subject matter interests.”

¹⁹¹ “Note to Readers,” New Political Science 1:1 (Spring 1979), p. 7.

¹⁹² Lowi, “The Politicization of Political Science.”

¹⁹³ Wolfe, “Unthinking About the Thinkable.”