Before we delve more specifically into the issues and
ideas associated with your current work, I would like to pause on an
in teresting confluence between your early work and the establishment
of the Caucus for a New Po litical Science. As you know, the Caucus
was established in 1967 to critique and revamp what was considered
the increasingly antipo liti cal character of po litical science in a world
shaken by the third world insurgencies, the rise of the New Left, strug-
gles for African American equality, and a growing discontent with the
militarization of global life seen in the Vietnam War. For members of
the Caucus— and for fellow scholars sympathetic to its orga nizational
and ideological thrust— the discipline was defined by a myopic meth-
odological commitment to behavioralism, a rather limited reigning
conception of pluralism, and a supposed “value neutrality” belied by
the deep connections between po litical science scholarship and exist-
ing po liti cal power.1 What I find fascinating is that your early work was
clearly part of the growing discontent associated with the insurgent
goals of the Caucus. In your first work, Po litical Science and Ideology,
and in your subsequent edited volume, The Bias of Pluralism, you are
clearly aligning yourself with this growing critique of mainstream po-
liti cal science. As you note in an essay published in The Bias of Plural-
ism, “A definable ‘critical temper’ finds increasing expression within the
‘left wing’ of po litical science (and allied disciplines) today and I seek
here to identify and support the main thrust of that temper.”2 With that
said, I would be curious to get your sense of how you now view your
Previous Page Next Page