Barrington Moore bequeathed comparativists a problem: how to reconcile his causal claim of 'no bourgeoisie, no democracy' with his normative 'dream of a free and rational society'. Lichbach harmonizes causal methodology and normative democratic theory, illustrating their interrelationship. Using a dialogue among four specific texts, Lichbach advances five constructive themes. First, comparativists should study the causal agency of individuals, groups and democracies. Second, three types of collective agency should be paired with an exploration of three corresponding moral dilemmas: ought-is, freedom-power and democracy-causality. Third, at the center of inquiry, comparativists should place big-P Paradigms and big-M Methodology. Fourth, as they play with research schools, creatively combining prescriptive and descriptive approaches to democratization, they should encourage a mixed-theory and mixed-method field. Finally, comparativists should study pragmatic questions about political power and democratic performance: in building a democratic state, which democracy, under which conditions, is best, and how might it be achieved?
Advocates of rational choice theory in political science have been perceived by their critics as attempting to establish an intellectual hegemony in contemporary social science, to the detriment of alternative methods of research. The debate has gained a nonacademic audience, hitting the pages of the New York Times and the New Republic. In the academy, the antagonists have expressed their views in books, journal articles, and at professional conferences. Mark I. Lichbach addresses the question of the place of rational choice theory in the social sciences in general and in political science in particular. He presents a typology of the antagonists as either rationalist, culturalist, or structuralist and offers an insightful examination of the debate. He reveals that the rationalist bid for hegemony and synthesis is rooted in the weaknesses, not the strengths, of rationalist thought. He concludes that the various theoretical camps are unlikely to accept the claimed superiority of the rationalist approach but that this opposition is of value in itself to the social sciences, which requires multiple perspectives to remain healthy. With its penetrating examination of the assumptions and basic arguments of each of the sides to this debate, this book cuts through the partisan rhetoric and provides an essential roadmap for the future of the discipline. Mark I. Lichbach is Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland.
Advocates of rational choice theory in political science have been perceived by their critics as attempting to establish an intellectual hegemony in contemporary social science, to the detriment of alternative methods of research. The debate has gained a nonacademic audience, hitting the pages of the New York Times and the New Republic. In the academy, the antagonists have expressed their views in books, journal articles, and at professional conferences. Mark I. Lichbach addresses the question of the place of rational choice theory in the social sciences in general and in political science in particular. He presents a typology of the antagonists as either rationalist, culturalist, or structuralist and offers an insightful examination of the debate. He reveals that the rationalist bid for hegemony and synthesis is rooted in the weaknesses, not the strengths, of rationalist thought. He concludes that the various theoretical camps are unlikely to accept the claimed superiority of the rationalist approach but that this opposition is of value in itself to the social sciences, which requires multiple perspectives to remain healthy. With its penetrating examination of the assumptions and basic arguments of each of the sides to this debate, this book cuts through the partisan rhetoric and provides an essential roadmap for the future of the discipline. Mark I. Lichbach is Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland.
Barrington Moore bequeathed comparativists a problem: how to reconcile his causal claim of 'no bourgeoisie, no democracy' with his normative 'dream of a free and rational society'. Lichbach harmonizes causal methodology and normative democratic theory, illustrating their interrelationship. Using a dialogue among four specific texts, Lichbach advances five constructive themes. First, comparativists should study the causal agency of individuals, groups and democracies. Second, three types of collective agency should be paired with an exploration of three corresponding moral dilemmas: ought-is, freedom-power and democracy-causality. Third, at the center of inquiry, comparativists should place big-P Paradigms and big-M Methodology. Fourth, as they play with research schools, creatively combining prescriptive and descriptive approaches to democratization, they should encourage a mixed-theory and mixed-method field. Finally, comparativists should study pragmatic questions about political power and democratic performance: in building a democratic state, which democracy, under which conditions, is best, and how might it be achieved?
This book reassesses the research schools in comparative politics, assessing knowledge, advancing theory, and in the end seeking to direct research in the coming years. It begins by examining the three research schools that guide comparative politics; rational choice theory, culturalist analysis, and structuralist approaches. The first set of contributors offer briefs for each of the schools, presenting core principles, variations within each approach, and fresh combinations. A second set of authors applies the research schools to established fields of scholarship. The concluding section contains essays by the editors, returning the focus to the theme of advanced theory in comparative politics.
Social order results from a complex interaction of individual actions, institutional structures, and cultural norms. But just how do they relate to one another, and is any one factor predominant? The answers that social science has provided reflect the competing paradigms of the rationalist, structuralist, and culturalist approaches. In this innovative book, two prominent social scientists coming from competing research traditions attempt to chart a course between them, drawing on their respective strengths to present a new model based on a classificatory scheme of market/community/contract/hierarchy. The discussion, which includes a closing dialogue between the authors, covers both methodological and empirical issues, with a review of classic theories of revolution and an analysis of the process of relegitimation following the French Revolution and the Dutch Revolt against the Hapsburgs.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.