Utopia's Children: an Interpretation of Three Political Novels
| Author | Alex Gottfried,Sue Davidson |
| Date | 01 March 1962 |
| Published date | 01 March 1962 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296201500102 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
17
UTOPIA’S
CHILDREN:
AN
INTERPRETATION
OF
THREE
POLITICAL
NOVELS
ALEX
GOTTFRIED,
University
of
Washington
AND
SUE DAVIDSON,
Seattle
I
N
RECENT
YEARS
there
has
been
some
trend
away
from
the
atomization
~
of
knowledge
arising
out
of
specialization
This
trend
makes
itself
felt
in
graduate
programs
for
prospective
political
scientists,
who
are
now
urged
to
partake
of
training
in
the
other
social
sciences,
as
well
as
to
learn
such
special
technique
as
statistics.
Political
scientists
whose
formal
years
of
study
are
behind
them,
are
alive
to
these
possibilities,
and
in
many
cases
are
conscientiously
rac-
ing
to
fill
the
gaps
left
by
their
own
overspecialized
educations.
In
the
midst
of
these
pressures,
less
and
less
time
and
attention,
and
even
course-work,
are
given
to
the
humanities.
This
lack
is
characteristic
not
only
of
programs
for
present-day
undergraduate
and
graduate
students;
it is
also
char-
acteristic
of
the
training
and
background
of
practicing
political
scientists
who
matured
during
the
rage
for
specialization,
and
whose
acquaintance
with
belles-
lettres
is
even
more
meagre
than
their
contact
with
the
sister-disciplines.
It
was
not
so
with
students
of
government
of
fifty
years
ago,
who
ingested
literature
in
large
draughts,
and
whose
quotations
of
the
political
observations
of
Horace,
or
Shakespeare,
or
Goethe,
or
Racine
in
some
cases
provide
their
younger
colleagues
their
only
brush
with
great
literature.
Yet
great
literature
has
not
dis-
appeared
with
this
neglect;
and
great
(as
well
as
merely
good)
fictional
works
which
are
rich
in
political
ideas
and
insights
have
kept
pace - or,
often,
run
before
-
the
changing
political
scene,
as
a
look
at
The
Magic
Mountain,
Fathers
and
Sons,
Man’s
Fate,
The
Possessed,
and
dozens
of
other
distinguished
modern
novels
can
quickly
testify.
If
we
ask
ourselves
what
political
scientists
are
about,
no
outcry
can
be
ex-
pected
against
the
minimal
proposition
that
it
is
an
attempt
to
gain
a
better
under-
standing
of
the
political
process.
Nor
will
it
be
denied
that
the
political
process
cannot
be
understood
without
some
understanding
of
&dquo;society&dquo;
writ
large,
and
the
human
beings
who
make
up
society,
in
all
the
richness
and
complexity
of
their
interpersonal
relations.
How
is
such
an
understanding
to
be
gained?
One
avenue
is
the
exhaustive
study
of
man
in
society
through
each
of
the
relatively
narrow
disciplines:
eco-
nomic
man;
political
man;
socio-psychological
man,
and
so
on.
An
obvious
dif-
ficulty
with
this
approach
is
the
limitation
set
by
time
and
energy;
this
is
a
par-
ticularly
severe
problem
where
technical
skills
are
needed,
and
where
failure
to
master
them
properly
can
and
has
resulted
in
some
disastrously
half-baked
con-
clusions.
But
even
supposing
longevity
and
genius
sufficient
to
grasp
and
employ
each
of
the
separate
disciplines,
the
question
of
synthesis
remains.
18
One
asks
oneself,
then,
about
alternative
ways
of
understanding
man
in
society,
which
may
be
available
to
students
of
government.
Literature,
particularly
serious
or
quality
literature
suggests
itself
as
one
practicable
alternative.
Serious
literature
sometimes
deals
with
&dquo;society,&dquo;
sometimes
with
groups
and
individuals
in
relation
to
society,
usually
with
both
-
and
in
some
cases,
there
is
an
additional
bonus:
not
only
are
society
and
people
treated
but,
more
or
less
directly,
some
as-
pect
of
the
political
system
or
the
political
process.
Thus
we
have
an
opportunity
of
viewing
not
only
economic
man,
political
man,
individual
and
social
psyschol-
ogy,
but
all
of
these
and
more,
in
their
interrelated
functioning.
Although
the
very
general
statement
above,
of
the
aim
of
the
political
sci-
entist,
can
be
made
without
quarrel,
there
is
a
ferment
discernible
in
the
dis-
cipline
today,
in
which
goals,
methods,
materials,
and
techniques
are
being
re-
appraised
and
called
into
question.’
At
least
some
of
the
critics
have
proposed
that
a
new
look
at
the
humanities
might
produce
salutary
effects.
Among
these
critics,
a
handful
have
put
forward
literature
specifically.2
In
a
schema
for
the
study
of
politics
in
literature,
Morton
Kroll
suggests
the
line
of
thought
which
has
produced
this
revival
of
interest.
The
threads
for
understanding
a
political
group
or
personality,
or
for
grasping
the
com-
plexities
of
a
political
decision,
may
be
tied
to
the
deepest
and,
at
times,
most
obscure
recesses
of
the
social
fabric.
Imaginative
literature
often
provides
subjective
analysis
of
reactions,
situa-
tions,
personalities,
values,
and
behavior
that
span
and
penetrate
these
recesses.
Social
scientists
cannot
afford
to
ignore
the
possibilities
inherent
in
such
insights
and
intelligence.’
1
David
Easton,
The
Political
System:
An
Inquiry
into
the
State
of
Political
Science
(New
York:
Knopf,
1953);
Daniel
Lerner
and
Harold
D.
Lasswell,
The
Policy
Science
(Stanford:
Stan-
ford
University,
1955);
Dwight
Waldo,
Political
Science
in
the
United
States
of
America
(Paris:
UNESCO
Documentation
in
the
Social
Sciences,
1956);
Eric
Voeglin,
The
New
Science
of
Politics:
An
Introduction
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1955);
Amer-
ican
Political
Science
Association,
Committee
for
the
Advancement
of
Teaching,
Goals
for
Political
Science
(New
York:
Sloane,
1957);
Bernard
Crick,
The
American
Science
of
Poli-
tics
(Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1959);
Roland
Young
(ed.),
Approaches
to
the
Study
of
Politics
(Evanston:
Northwestern
University
Press,
1958);
Hans
J.
Morgenthau,
Scientific
Man
vs.
Power
Politics
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1946),
Dilemmas
of
Politics
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1958),
and
"Reflections
on
the
State
of
Political
Science,"
Review
of
Politics,
17
(October
1955), 459;
Charles
S.
Hyneman,
The
Study
of
Politics
(Urbana:
University
of
Illinois
Press,
1959).
Professor
Hyneman
supplies
an
excellent
bibliography
which
includes
fifty-six
articles
from
the
American
Political
Sci-
ence
Review
for
the
years
1942-58,
and
fifty-five
articles
from
other
journals.
2
Dwight
Waldo,
Perspectives
on
Administration
(University:
University
of
Alabama
Press,
1959),
77-106;
Roland
Egger,
"The
Administrative
Novel,"
APSR,
53
(1959),
448-55;
Edwin
A.
Bock,
"PI&E,"
Public
Administration
Review,
Vols. 17
and
18
(1957-58);
Harry
Jaffa,
"The
Limits
of
Politics:
An
Interpretation
of
King
Lear,"
APSR,
51
(June
1957),
405-27;
Allen
Bloom,
"Cosmopolitan
Man
and
the
Political
Community,"
APSR,
54
(March
1960),
130-57,
and
"Political
Philosophy
and
Poetry,"
ibid.
(June
1960),
457-64.
Also
see
comments
on
the
Bloom
and
Jaffa
articles
by
Sigrid
Burckhardt,
"English
Bards
and
APSR
Reviewers,"
ibid.
(March
1960),
158-66;
and
"On
Reading
Ordinary
Prose:
A
Reply
to
Bloom,"
ibid.
(June
1960),
465-70.
Bloom
closes
the
dialogue
with
"A
Restatement,"
in
ibid,
471-73.
Eugene
Burdick
and
Robert
North
are
political
scientists
who
are
also
novelists.
Pro-
fessor
Burdick
is
author
of
a
political
novel,
The
Ninth
Wave
and
co-author
of
The
Ugly
American.
Also
see
his
"The
Politics
of
the
Beat
Generation,"
Western
Political
Quarterly,
12
(September
1959), 553-55.
Professor
North’s
Revolt
in
San
Marcos
is
an
excellent
politi-
cal
novel.
For
non-political
scientists
who
have
contributed
to
the
subject
of
literature
and
poli-
tics,
see
the
essays
of
Irving
Howe
collected
under
the
title,
Politics
and
the
Novel
(New
York:
Horizon
Press
and
Meridian
Books,
1957);
and
a
useful
guide
by
James
L.
Blotner,
The
Political
Novel
(New
York:
Random
House,
1955).
3
PROD,
3
(January
1960),
3.
Also
see
his,
"The
Politics
of
Britain’s
Angry
Young
Men,"
Western
Political
Quarterly,
12
(September
1959), 555-57.
To continue reading
Request your trial