The Domain of Political Science

8/13/2019 The Domain of Political Science

1/9


2/9

Volume .] March,z886. [Number .

POLITICAL SCIENCEQUARTERLY.

INTRODUCTION.THE DOMAIN OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.

THE term politicalscience is greatlyn need of definition.Technical terms hould have a limited nd exactmeaning;but this particular erm s used vaguely,not by the laityalonebutbyprofessed xperts. These speak sometimes f a politicalscience, at othertimes of a pluralityof political sciences.Again, the sciences which are commonly escribedas politi-cal are oftendesignatedas social ; and besides the varioussocial sciences thereappearsto be a social science.A more exactuse of these terms s certainly esirable. This,it seems to me,is more ikelyto be obtainedby endeavoringtoestablish the respectivedomains of the sciences in questionand theirrelation o each other, han by laying down dogmaticdefinitions,he practicalvalue of which is oftenoverrated. Aneat definitions a veryattractive hing. It seems to offerheconclusionof wisdom n portableform. It is, in fact,the con-densed result of a great deal of hard thinking;but to under-standit,to appreciatewhat it includesand what t excludes,thethoughtsof the definermust be thoughtoveragain until thedisciple has gained the same outlook over the subject as themaster and thenhe no longerneeds the definition.

Social science, n the broadest sense, deals with all the rela-tionsof man in society; more precisely,with all the relationsthat result from man's social life. It may be questionedwhether t is proper o speak of a social science. We certainlyhave no general social science in the sense in whichwe haveparticular ocial sciences. In politics, n economics, n lawand

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:55:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

2 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. .in language,we are able to some extentto tracephenomenatotheircauses, to groupfacts under rules and rules underprinci-ples. But the laws whichunderlieman's social life as a wholehave not been grasped and formulated. Social science orsociology,if we use the term,is therefore implya conven-ient general expression fora plurality f social sciences. Butsocial science is used in another and a narrower ense. Thevarious social sciences do not cover the entire field of man'ssocial life. There are portionsof that field e.g., movementof population,vice and crime-which lie beyond the domainof the olderand better-definedciences; in which the prelimi-narywork of explorationhas only recentlybeen undertaken;and in which ittlehas been accomplishedbeyond the collectionof data by statisticalobservations. For lack of a more definiteterm,1ocial science is used in a restrictive ense to describethese newly-enteredomains of investigation.

Among the social sciences we find some which are des-ignated as the political sciences. Political science signifies,literally,the science of the state. Taken in this sense, itincludes the organization and functionsof the state, and therelationof states one to another. But what are the politicalsciences? Are they subdivisions,or special branches of thescience of the state? Economic science is obviouslyregardedas one of the political sciences, for the term politicaleconomy is used more often than economics and com-monly n quite as broad a sense. But economic science doesnot occupy itselfsimplywith the state. It is the science ofwealth. It deals with the financesof the state, but it dealsalso with the accumulation, exchange and distributionofwealth by individuals. But the political sciences may per-haps be taken to be those which deal with the relationsofman in the state, .e.,with all the relationswhichreszult2 rom1 For the science of population he Germans re beginning o use the wordDemologie. This newscience, trictlypeaking,ies only npartwithinhe circleofthesocial sciences; inpart t reachesout ntonatural cience, .e., biology.

2 Thislimitations obviously ecessary. The mere act hat ertain elations xistin the statedoes notmakethem olitical; otherwise,n thepresent tageof civiliza-tion, ll social relationswouldbe political. The question s: Do the relations xistbecause fmen's ivingn andunder hestate?



4/9

No. I.] THE DOMAiV OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 3man'spoliticalife. But s economic cience a purely oliticalscienceeven in this sense? Do we not find, or example,private ropertynd barter mongpeople who, ike Homer'sCyclops,knowno other ocial organizationhan thatof thefamily? If economics e a political cience,muchmoremustlaw be so. Law, ike economic cience, ealswithmanyrela-tionsnotresultingromman'spolitical ife e.g.,propertyndfamilyelationsbut its rules re at least formulatedy stateorgans, nd enforced y governmental achinery.Neverthe-less, law is not commonlylassified s one of the politicalsciences. It seems preferable,nderthese circumstances,orecognize ut one political cience the scienceof the state.The relationswithwhichthis science deals may,of course,be subdividednd treated eparately.We may separatetherelationsf states netoanother- the nternationalelations-fromhe national. We maydivide he national elationsntoquestions f stateorganizationnd stateaction. We maydis-tinguishetweenhevarious unctionsfthestate. But thereis no goodreasonforerectinghese variousgroupsof ques-tions ntodistinct olitical ciences. The connectionf eachwith ll is too ntimate.In endeavoringo distinguisholitical ciencefrom he so-calledpoliticalciences, havenothought fdenyinghecloseconnectionwhich subsistsbetweenpolitical cience, s heredefined,ndthesciencesof economicsnd law. On the con-trarytis a chief bjectof this rticle o demonstratehe nter-dependencef these ciences. In defininghemweemphasizethepoint f viewratherhanthefield f view the sidefromwhich ocial relations re regarded ather han the relationsthemselves.Thence arisesan impressionhatthedomains fthese ciences re more istincthan s really hecase.

Leicli bei inanderwohknenieGedanken,Dochhart mRaume tossenickdieSachen.Each ofthethree ciencesweare nowconsideringolds largeproportionf its territoryn commonwithoneorbothoftheothers. Law andpolitics avecommon roundntheorganiza-



5/9

4 POLITICAL SCIEiVCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. 1.tion and operationof governmentn the singlestate. Law andeconomicsare both concernedwith all commercialtransactions.The theory fgovernmentaldministrations largely conomic;and state-finances a part of the administrativeystemof thestate,is based on economic theory, nd is regulatedby law.The relative position of these sciences may be indicated bydrawingthree circles or ellipses, each of which intersects heother two,with a very considerable space occupied by all incommon. Nor is the groundwhich these threesciences cover,proper o themonly. All thesocial relationswithwhichpolitics,law and economicshave to do lie withinthe domainof ethics.Duty, loyalty,honesty,charity these ideas are forces thatunderlie nd support he state; thatgiveto lawitsmosteffectivesanction; thatcrossand modify heegoisticstruggle orgain.Politics, aw and economics political, legal and economicscience-these two classes of terms have thus farbeen usedindiscriminately.But it is obvious that the politician nd thelawyer re not necessarilypoliticalor legal scientists, nymorethana manwhobusies himself n devisingnewmeans of gain-ingwealth s an economist. Primarily,fcourse,thedifferenceis in the aim. Science aims at the discovery f truth; But themethodsmustbe suchas are adapted to realize thisaim. Whatthen are the methodsof the social sciences? All the variousmethodsemployed maybe groupedunder one term cornpari-son. The singlefactmeans nothing o us; we accumulatefactsthat seem akin; we classifyand reclassifythem, discardingsuperficialand accidental similarities as we discover deepersubstantial dentities. We accumulateand compare factsfromourown and fromforeign ountries; we accumulatefacts fromthe immediateand more remotepast, and compare themwitheach other and with present facts. Statistics, comparativelegislation,historythese are means and modes of accumulat-ingfacts forcomparison.The ancillaryrelationwhich these studies bear to the socialsciences is oftenlost fromview. We speak of an historicalscience, of a science of comparative egislation,of statisticalscience and thusapparently oordinate hese studies withthe



6/9

No. I.] THE DOMAIN OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 5social sciences of politicsand economics, aw and ethics. Buttheyshould notbe so coordinated. History,forexample, s nota social science in the same sense as economics,for t does notdeal with a definitegroup of social relations. It is a mode ofinvestigating ll sorts of social relations. The same is true ofstatistics nd comparativeegislation.I have notthe slightest ntentionof denyingthe existenceofa science of history, f statistics, r of comparativeegislation.There are methodsof accumulating nd usingfacts (?)thatareinaccurate nd deceptive. The numberof thesemethods is asunlimitedas the ingenuityof ignorance. There are, on theother hand, methods of collecting,testing, siftingand usingfacts that give approximately ccurate and reliable results.These are properly alled scientificmethods. They are limitedin number; and the most important re those whichwe call thesciences of history, f statistics, nd of comparativeegislation.But therelationof these sciences to the social sciences is notcoordinate, ut auxiliary.Of all these auxiliary ciences,themost mportants history.All othermethodsof comparative tudy may be said to operateon a singleplane-the plane of the present. History gives tothe social sciences the thirddimension,and thus indefinitelyincreases the range of comparison. But it does far more thanthis. To the applicationof the historicmethodwe owe thediscovery hat social institutions ersistand at the same timechange fromgeneration to generation and from centurytocentury;that these changes, n the case of each single institu-tion, are not fitfulut steady, and are of such a naturethatweinvoluntarily orrow words which describe the processes oforganic life, nd speak of their growth and decay ; andwhenwe take a furthertep,and comparethe social institutionsof the present time, n theirtotality,withthose of earlierandstillearlierperiodsuntil tradition anishesin the infinitezureof the past, we discovera constanttendencyfromthe simpleto the complex, constantlyncreasingdifferentiationf formand specialization ffunction;so that we borrow notherphrasefromthe science of biology, nd speak of the evolution of



7/9

6 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. 1.states and law, of art and language. The sociologists haveborrowed he word from henaturalists, ut not the conception.Before the naturalistsmade the wordtechnical,Germanphilolo-gistshad demonstrated he evolution flanguage,and a Germanjuristhad said: Law is notmade,it grows; it is as much a partand a productof a nation's ife as is its speech.'We have already een that the domains of politics, conomicsand law are largely coincident. From that coincidence alonewould resulta close interdependence. This interdependence sgreatly ncreasedby the use of the comparative nd especiallyof the historicalmethod. To use statistics afely, he sociolo-gist must take into account the entire social condition f thestate in whichthe statistics are gathered. Political or legal aswell as economicdifferencesmaymakethe statisticalreports ftwo states upon the same subject valueless for comparison.The intelligentuse of foreign egislations by the jurist, theeconomist, or the student of politics, implies not only anacquaintance with the general principlesand technical struct-ure of foreig,naw,but of the politicaland economicconditionsof the countryn and forwhich each particular aw was made.But it is in historical nvestigation hat this interdependence fthe social sciences becomes most sensible; and it is throughhistorical nvestigation hatwe gain insightinto the cause ofthis interdependence. It is rarely ossible to stampa historicalfact as exclusivelypolitical, egal, or economic. The studentwill naturally pproach it fromone of these sides, and is indang-er f failingto see the others; but a one-sided view isnevera true view. Take, forexample, he agrarian bill of theyoungerGracchus. To the economist,ts principal nterest iesin the attemptto break up the lattfundia,the great cattle-ranches, nd to reestablish mall agricultural oldings. To thelawyer, he chiefpointsof interest re the tenure by whichtheZatifundiawereheld,and the proposed nalienability f the newproperties. To the student of politics, it is a phase in thestrugglebetween the senatorial oligarchyof Rome and the

1 Savigny, eruf nserer eit (I8I5).



8/9

No. I.] THE DOMAliV OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 7democracy f thepeninsula. But to view the facttruly, ach ofthe three should be able to see it on all sides.If we seek to tracethroughhistory he evolutionof the state,we find each step in its developmentrecorded n the evolutionof law and explainedto a great degree by economic changes.The transformationf the nomadic clan into the local commu-nity nd of the tribe nto the primitive tate is accompaniedandconditionedby the developmentof agriculture. The substitu-tion of aristocracy or kingship n the ancient world,and theanalogous developmentof feudalism n mediaeval Europe, areresultsof the developmentof private property n land. Thesubstitutionof monarchyfor aristocracy,and of democracyformonarchythe cycle throughwhich Aristotle alreadysawthe little statesof the ancientworldmoving and the similarsubstitution,n modern Europe, of absolutism for feudalismand of democracyforabsolutism these furtherchanges arenecessitated by the development f commerce and the increas-ing weightof movablewealth.If it is the evolutionof law uponwhichour attention s pri-marily bent,we find that in primitive ocietyrules whichweshouldto-day all legral re inextricably lendedwithmoral pre-ceptsand religiousdogmas. Properly peaking, here s neitherreligionnor moralsnor aw in this stage of social development,for hesedistinctions re notyetdrawn. The onlysanction ofthese undifferentiatedules is religiousfear and themoral senseof the community. But as the tribe becomes territoriallyixedand the state takes form, hephysical powerof the statebeginsto be applied to compel obedienceto a certainportion f thesetraditionalrules,and law beginsto separate tselffrom eligionand ethics. As civilizationbecomes more complex,the stateplays an increasingly mportant ole, and the domain of lawwidens. But every step in its development, s in that of thestate, s conditioned o a greatextentbyeconomicchanges.Finally, fwe takeeconomics s the immediate bject of inves-tigation,we find that the operation of the social forces withwhich this science primarily oncerns itself s constantlymodi-fiedbythedevelopment f ethicsand law. In the strugglefor



9/9

8 POLUT/CAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY.existence ntowhich men enterwith unequal endowments,t isat first hephysicallyweaker whogoes under, nd thephysicallystronger ho survives;but the cruderforms f violence are grad-uallytabooedby ethics,and at last law interposes ts imperativevimn ieri veto, nds the reignofforce, nd makes the plane ofstruggle ntellectual. Then cunning nd fraud take theplace ofbrutestrength;but law meets fraudwithequitable nterposition,and developsa systemof checks that growsmore complex andrefined s the increasing ingenuityof man develops subtlerforms finiquity.

It is a result of theentireprecedingdiscussionthatpolitical,economicand legal science are so interdependenthatthe inves-tigationofanyone of thethree mpliesthe investigation fbothof the others. Choose whichyouwill,the others are necessaryauxiliaries. But ofthe three, he scienceof the state is assumingmore and more the dominantposition. The principal legalquestionofthe day, n our country,s: To whatorganororgansofthe state shall the development f law be entrustedto thejudicial and legislative, r to the legislativealone? This is theessence of the questionof codification. Behind this is risingasecond question,whichEurope has met and answeredandwhichwe shall soon be called upon to answer: Shall the developmentoflawbe partlyocal and partlynational, r nationalonly? Bothof these questions are political. Again, the burning conomicquestions of the day all turn on the advisability, he extentorthe methodof state interference:betweenlandlord and tenant,in GreatBritain; between capitalist and laborer, n Germany;betweencorporations nd thepublic, n the United States.The conceptionof the state as a mere protective ssociationagainstexternalforce nd internaldisorder s antiquated. Thestate is everywhere xercising otherfunctions han the protec-tion of person and property nd the enforcement f contract.Whether the increasing mportanceof the statebe deplored orapplauded,the fact remainsthat it is rapidlybecoming, f it isnotalready, he centralfactorofsocial evolution.

MUNROE SMITH.

Thi d l d d f 201 234 181 53 W d 5 F b 2014 22 55 26 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	camila-pieschacon
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

The Domain of Political Science

Documents