Political Theory as Profession and as Subfield?

• Author: Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn
• Published date: 01 September 2010
• Date: 01 September 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910367495
• Subject Matter: Mini-Symposium

Political Research Quarterly
63(3) 655 –673
Political Theory as Profession
© 2010 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
and as Subfield?
DOI: 10.1177/1065912910367495
http://prq.sagepub.com
Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn1
Abstract
How does the enterprise of political theory create and sustain the borders that account for its appearance as a
distinguishable profession? In this article, the author considers and criticizes a recent effort to defend political theory’s
right to exist in the form of one of several subfields constitutive of the academic discipline of professional political
science in the United States. The author closes by suggesting that theorists might be better positioned to think
critically about politics, and the politics of liberalism more particularly, if this self-representation were to be unsettled
and possibly jettisoned altogether.
Keywords
political theory, subfield, discipline, political science
Theorists as Thugs?1
and hence that the “subfield” of political theory be incor-
porated into the “mandatory curricula” of all graduate
At the 2007 business meeting of Foundations of Politi-
political science programs. Adding teeth to this exhorta-
cal Theory, one of thirty-nine “organized sections” of the
tion, the letter then proceeded to specify “certain conse-
American Political Science Association (APSA), those
quences that we believe will inevitably be occasioned by
in attendance voted unanimously to authorize its chair to
the PSU decision, if that decision is ratified and put into
compose and, following approval by its executive council,
practice.” These include the signatories’ refusal to encour-
to send a letter to the head of the Department of Political
age suitably qualified undergraduates to apply for gradu-
Science at Pennsylvania State University (PSU). That letter,
ate study in political science at PSU and their refusal to
dated October 8 and signed by eighty-five academics, a
recommend those who receive doctorates from that program,
vast majority of whom are institutionalized in political sci-
regardless of subfield, for positions at their home institu-
ence departments and self-identify as political theorists,
tions. Sounding more like adherents of Tony Soprano than
exhorted the department at PSU to reconsider its decision
the heirs of Socrates, the signatories closed by urging the
“to discontinue the track in political theory as a course of
department at PSU to “take into account not just theoreti-
study available to doctoral students. . . . In light of the
cal arguments about the nature of the social sciences and
central place that political theory has for the study of polit-
abstract views about the interface of theory and political
ical life, we find this decision regrettable and ill-advised”
science” but also “the real consequences for your students—
(Gibbons 2007).2
those you aspire to recruit, and those you will want to
Although not officially issued in the name of Foun-
place—of unhooking training in political science from its
dations of Political Theory, a second letter, dated October
moorings in political theory” (Barber 2007).3
12 and signed by fifty-five persons, all but two of whom
In the first substantive section of this article, I elaborate
had endorsed the first, was also sent to the department
upon and criticize certain specific claims advanced in
at PSU. Although this letter acknowledged the “right”
of every institution of higher education, and so of every
1Department of Politics, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA, USA
department of political science, “to set their own program
parameters,” it nonetheless insisted that “it is essential to
Corresponding Author:
the well-trained political scientist and teacher, whether
Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn, Baker Ferguson Professor
in American, Comparative, IR [International Relations],
of Politics and Leadership, Department of Politics,
Maxey Hall, Whitman College, 345 Boyer Ave.,
or Public Law, that they have a training that includes an
Walla Walla, WA 99362, USA; phone: 509-527-5399
underpinning in political theory and critical thinking,”
Email: kaufmatv@whitman.edu

---

656
Political Research Quarterly 63(3)
these two letters. Before turning to that task, a caveat is
is never altogether under the control of its authors, cannot
in order. If these letters are to be appreciated adequately,
help but react back upon the imagined community of politi-
they must be located within a larger historical context, one
cal theorists and, in so doing, shape its members’ concep-
to which I return later in this article. Anyone conversant
tion of the enterprise to which they are committed. The
with the history of political science in the United States,
present article, accordingly, addresses issues of this sort:
especially during the decades immediately following World
What sorts of question, what forms of inquiry, what dreams
War II, will hear in these letters reverberations of a period
of possible worlds are encouraged as well as discouraged
when many proponents of the behavioral revolution
when the enterprise of political theory is defined as a spe-
sought to rid the discipline of forms of political theory
cialized subfield within a professionalized academic dis-
whose claims were deemed antiquarian and/or unverifi-
cipline? What sort of politics is constituted and reinforced
able. When “political theory” as a major field of study is
when the enterprise of political theory is thus defended?
slated for eradication at PSU, while “political methodol-
and What political possibilities are discouraged, occluded,
ogy” is retained, sharing coequal status with “American
or foreclosed thereby? Finally, if we find the answers to
politics,” “comparative politics,” and “international rela-
these questions worrisome, as I believe we should, how
tions,” it is hard not to worry that history is repeating
might we imagine doing political theory differently, and
itself, whether as tragedy or as farce, but this time under
what might be involved in affording materialized form to
the banner of quantitative methods and/or formal model-
these speculations?
ing.4 In light of this history, I have no quarrel in principle
with the decision on the part of the Foundations section to
Theorists as Border Patrol Agents?
protest the decision to drop political theory as a major
field, nor with the tactics outlined in the second letter,
The communications to PSU, as noted above, defend the
including the more hardnosed tactics (although I also
continued existence of the “subfield” of political theory
believe that consideration of the possible consequences
within a graduate program in political science on the ground
for those who may find themselves caught in the cross-
of its centrality to “the study of political life.” Before turn-
fire, especially graduate students at PSU, should cause
ing to the particulars of the rationale offered in defense of
one to think twice before deploying those tactics).
this contention, to highlight its contingent character, con-
My concern in this article is not, however, with the
sider several other ways that the case for political theory’s
particulars of the dispute at PSU (about which I have no
Penn pals could have been made. In an economic register,
inside knowledge), but with the representation of the enter-
the signatories could have stated that their aim is to protect
prise of political theory that is summoned and reinforced
the occupational status and perquisites of a specific class
by these two letters. In one sense, political theorists con-
of white-collar professionals. Or, in an expressly political
stitute a sort of imagined community, to crib a phrase from
register, the signatories could have claimed that their aim
Benedict Anderson (1991), and at least in principle, this
is to forestall erosion of the power of an acknowledged
community can be imagined in multiple ways. Those ways,
interest group within an association governed by the norms
however, are constrained by the historically contingent but
of pluralism. Or, in a gastronomical register, recalling
obdurate forms in which the enterprise of political theory
Gabriel Almond’s dispirited characterization of the various
is concretely organized and institutionalized. As students
sects within political science as so many “solitary diners
of Foucault, we know that these forms materialize par-
in a second-rate residential hotel” (1988, 828), the signa-
ticular configurations of power; and we understand that,
tories could have argued that their aim is to ensure that
no matter how difficult to trace, the relational tentacles
its tenants not be denied the epistemic equivalent of the
thereby called into being ramify into the discipline of polit-
Wednesday night special.
ical science, the terrain of higher education, the regime
To make any of these arguments would undermine
that is the United States, and the globalized economy of
the repute of the enterprise in question, and so, although
late capitalism. For these reasons, to locate the borders of
each might be appropriate in some other justificatory
political theory here but not there, to differentiate it from
context, none will do here. What the letters do instead is
this project but not that, to tell its history in this manner
to predicate their case on the basis of something akin to
as opposed to...