Table Of ContentCopyright by
William Welch.
1951
THE POSSIBILITY OF A SCIENCE OF POLITICS!
RECSNT EXPRESSIONS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE VIM BJ THE
WORK OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH STUDENTS
(Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Require
ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.)
Y/illiam Welch
Clinton, N. Y.
February, 1951
Preface
There are two limitations placed on the discussion of the Possi
bility of a Science of Politics contained in the following essay which,
although commented on in the text, are so capable, if incorrectly under
stood, of causing a general misunderstanding of the essay, as to deserve
special mention in a Preface.
The first of these has to do with the meaning of Science. Science
as a product of inquiry is defined very narrovrly. The result is that
only the physical sciences (notably Physics and Chemistry) can be in
cluded within the class without provoking important objection. In
clusion of other disciplines customarily known by the name is a matter
quite open to debate. The principal justification for this extreme con
struction is to be found in the consideration that it is the physical
sciences which exponents of the possibility of a Science of Politics most
often have in mind, as testified by the frequency of occurrence of the
title, 'Physics and Politics'. However, additional justification of
scarcely less force is afforded by the consideration that the treatment
as standards of comparison of the most advanced sciences has the advantage
of best pointing up the problems involved in attempting a transformation
of Politics in this direction. One important consequence of the extreme
construction is that much of what the essay says about the actualities of
Science, notably the procedures of Science, cannot be presented as apply
ing to the biological sciences. And from this flows the further con
sequence that the conclusions of the essay concerning the potentialities
of Politics would not necessarily hold, were the term so broadened as
to make the biological sciences typical.
The second limitation has to do with the aspect of the issue of a
Science of Politics. Only the aspect of potentiality is examined in the
following pageSo The only question raised is the question, 'Can there
be a Science of Politics?'. And the answer given — viz. that there can
be such a Science, although its construction, would be difficult — is
given in the same mood. Not examined is the aspect of future destiny.
To the question, 'Will there be a Science of Politics?', this essay, un
like Comte's Positive Philosophy, or Professor Merriam's more recent New
Aspects of Politics, seeks no answer. 'Whether or not the body of students
of the subject will elect to conform to Scientific procedures in numbers
enough, and with sufficient fidelity and intelligence, to achieve the end
of which the possibility is here considered — this is left to others to
divine.
Nor is the aspect of desirability examined. The avoidance of con
fusion, and of the impairment of objectivity, upon which Stuart Price and
others have based their counsel of what they call the separation of
Politics from Ethics, dictate the exclusion from the paper of consideration
of the question, 'Should there be a Science of Politics?1. Whether or
not it is desirable for the student of Politics to conform to the pro
cedures of the Scientist raises a whole new set of problems. Are the
alternatives (1) conformity to the procedures of the Scientist, on the one
hand, and (2) conformity, on the other hand, to some other procedures, say,
the method of insight, or intuition? If so, what precisely is 'insight1
In what way(s) does it differ from the procedures of the Scientist, and
present a truly viable alternative? Or, are the only alternatives (l)
careful and regulated conformity to the procedures of the Scientist, on
the one hand, and (2) careless and capricious conformity, on the other
hand — but conformity in either case, any truly and radically other
method being ruled out as illusory? The investigation of these, and
countless other natters which have to be passed on before the normative
judgment can be attempted, is also left to others.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I: The Affirmative View and its Development
Chapter 1: The Affirmative View and its Development............... 1
Part II: Theory Underlying the Affirmative View
Chapter 2: The Possibility of Objectivity......................... 5h
Chapter 3: The Possibility of Establishing Serviceable Types 100
Chapter li.: The Possibility of Quantification......... 1 hh
Part III: Practical Applications of the Affinnative View
Chapter 5: Investigations of Public Electoral Behaviour........... 18U
Chapter 6: Investigations of Public Opinion on Political Affairs.... 228
Chapter 7: A Recent Outstanding Investigation! V. 0. Key’s
Southern Politics......................... 27U
Part IV; The Validity and Promise of the Affirmative View
Chapter 8: The Validity and Promise of the Affirmative View......... 291
Selective Bibliography 320
I
Part I
Chapter 1
The Affirmative Vieir and its Develepment
CHAPTER 1
THE AFFIRMATIVE VIEW AND ITS DEVELOPMENT
(1) Introductory Remarks
The subject of this essay is a point of view. The data upon which It
is based are the articles, books, and other literature about the point of
view. The point of view is that a Science of Politics is possible, or, as
it will be called, when precisely defined, the Affirmative View of the
Possibility of a Science of Politics. The literature about the point of
view comprises (1) writings that favor it, and (2) writings that criticise
it, the essay's stress being upon the former, as indicated by the sub
title. Writings that favor it may in turn be divided into what may be
termed (a) Theoretical Expressions of the point of view, and (b) Practical
Expressions of the point of view. By Theoretical Expressions is under
stood the literature advancing logical considerations on behalf of the
affirmation. By Practical Expressions is understood the literature de
scribing efforts to demonstrate by concrete application the validity of
the affirmation, though along with these will be considered similar efforts
not explicitly offered for purposes of demonstration. To describe in
detail the point of view and its components; to record its genealogy and
show Its contemporary philosophical affiliates; to appraise its major
theoretical propositions; above all, to evaluate the attempts made to
realise in practice the potentialities it asserts, and so to assess its
promise: these are the aims of the essay.
A full treatment of the point of view described would consider ex
pressions of the wider view that affirms the possibility of Social Science
generally, and neighbouring views affirming the same for sister Social
Sciences, for these views are not dissociable logically, resting on one
and the same philosophical foundation. Knowledge is not to be had,
however, save on condition of making artificial cuts in the "seamless web
of reality", to the end of reducing to manageable proportions the raw-
materials of the investigating process. So the understanding sought by
this essay would be lost (or had at prohibitive cost) were the treatment
of logically allied views, and the literature expressing them, truly com
prehensive.
For this reason advantage is taken of the convention which permits
separating Politics from the rest of Social Science; and only passing
attention is given the views, and the literature expressing the views
affirming the possibility of Social Science generally, or of a Science of
Economics, or of Sociology, in particular.
For this reason, also, not all expressions of the point of view in
question come within the scope of the essay, but only those written within
certain limits of time and place. The limit set on time of writing,
represented by the adjective 'recent* in the sub-title, is 1923, a date
chosen because it marks the change from intermittent to continuous in the
stream of relevant literature. On the one hand, there appeared in that
1 2
year the first significant published articles of Gosnell and Lasswell.
On the other hand, there took place the first session of the National
1 Gosnell, Harold F., "Some Practical Applications of Psychology
in Government", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 28, p. 22 (May, 1923).
2 Lasswell, Harold D., "Chicago’s Old First Ward", National
Municipal Review, Vol. 12, p. 127 (March, 1923).
Conference on the Science of Politics; and Merriam and Gosnell undertook
h
their study of Non-Voting in the Chicago Mayoralty election. A year
later, in 1921;, Non-Voting was published, and with it Rice's dissertation
on Farmers and Workers in American Politics,'* and Holcombe's Political
Parties of Today.^
The place limitation reflected by the adjectives 'American' and
'British' is imposed solely for the sake of attaining manageableness of
material, although it might also be justified on the grounds that the
literature on the point of view in question has been more extensive in
these countries than in others, in recent years at least. Of course,
neither this restriction, nor the time and subject restrictions mentioned
above, means a complete exclusion from consideration of literature falling,
as it were, out-of-bounds. This would be impossible, as it would be
undesirable. And in point of fact, one section of the first chapter
touches on pre-1923 literature of many countries, that is not confined to
the particular Social Science of Politics alone; whereas contemporary dis
cussion in further chapters will include references to expressions of the
wider view. What the restrictions do mean is that no attempt will be made
to give exhaustive consideration to the literature outside the limibs.
3 See "Report on the National Conference on the Science of Politics"
(Sept. 3-8, 1923) American Political Science Review, Vol. 18, p. 119 (1921;).
I; Merriam, Charles E., and Gosnell, Harold F., Non-Voting, Chicago
1921;.
5 Rice, Stuart A., Fanners and Workers in American Politics, New
York, 192L;.
6 Holcombe, Arther N., Political Parties of Today, New York, 1921;.
