PSC 5323

Political Inquiry
Scope and Methods

Professor
David D. Corey
Draper 209
Phone: 710-7416
Email: david_d_corey@baylor.edu
Office hours: come by anytime

“The subordination of theoretical relevance to method perverts the meaning of science on principle.
Perversion will result whatever method should happen to be chosen as the model method. Hence, the
principle must be carefully distinguished from its special manifestation.”
Eric Voegelin, New Science of Politics

Course Description

When we study a work of political science, we tend to look first for the argument the author makes.
Rarely do we go on to reflect on the methodological question: how does this author arrive at his or her
conclusions, and is the method sound? Yet, this is arguably the question that matters most for aspiring
students of political science, not only because it constitutes the craft of inquiry, but also because it
facilitates reflection on the extent to which political inquiry can, or ought, to be approached as a science.
What is science, and what distinguishes it from non-science or pseudo-science? What methods are
available and/or suitable for various kinds of political questions? And what constitutes soundness or rigor
for each method?

The purpose of this class is to pursue these questions across the field of political science, but with special
emphasis on political theory and philosophy. At the outset of the course, we’ll work dialectically to
develop two useful tools: first, a suitably expansive definition of political science and, second, a
conceptual map of the various types of questions political scientists might ask. This map will be
especially useful for locating the place of various approaches within the discipline as a whole and also for
gauging the scope of any particular approach.

As a backdrop to our examination of different approaches, we’ll read Max Weber’s powerful account of
the separation of facts and values in science. To a certain extent, every thinker we read this semester can
be interpreted as reacting to Weber, even while the reactions differ considerably.

In the remainder of the course, we proceed through a careful investigation of several approaches to
political inquiry. The approaches I’ve emphasized have been chosen in order to highlight prominent
schools of political philosophy. We cannot be exhaustive, but we’ll analyze six major approaches. These
include the history of political thought, Rawlsian political theory, and four kinds of political philosophy:
Arendtian, Oakeshottean, Straussian and Voegelinian. Of every approach and every author, we shall ask:
what are the main questions under consideration? What types of questions are these? What answers are
offered? What is the method, and what makes the method more or less rigorous? And, finally, what
motives, goals and assumptions (examined and unexamined) undergird each author’s work?

1
Goals
 To gain an overview of the discipline and to better understand how various approaches relate to
each other and to political science as a whole.
 To become methodologically conscious—that is, to learn to appreciate methodological rigor and
genius, and to demand these not only from others but also from ourselves.
 To learn which methods are suitable for different questions in political science and to learn what
constitutes rigor according to each method.
 To better socialize ourselves into the discipline by understanding what political scientists are
doing and why. This is not incompatible with criticism of certain approaches—indeed it is a
precondition of intelligent criticism.
 To consider the types of political theory and/or philosophy we want, personally, to practice.
 To improve our scholarship not only by paying greater attention to method, but also by learning
to distinguish between method of inquiry on the one hand and method of presentation on the
other, or in other words, between science and rhetoric.
 To prepare for comprehensive exams by discussing major works of twentieth-century political
thought.

Required Texts

R.G. Collingwood, Autobiography

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays
Michael Oakeshott, On Human Conduct
Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections
Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism
Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition
John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement

Course requirements

Paper 1 (7 pages.) 25%. See the end of the syllabus for paper suggestions
Paper 2 (7 pages.) 30%
Final Paper (10-20 pages) 35%
Participation 10%

Grade Scale: 0-59=F; 60-69=D; 70-79=C; 80-82=B-; 83-86=B; 87-89=B+; 90-92=A-; 93-100=A

2
 COURSE CALENDAR

T 1/14 Class Introduction: Frederick Wilhelmsen, “The Great Books: Enemies of Wisdom,”
Modern Age (Summer/Fall 1987): 323–31; R. G. Collingwood, Autobiography chapters
1-5.

TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Th 1/16 Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, “Political Science: The Discipline,” in A
New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), ch. 1.
Gabriel Almond, “Political Science: The History of the Discipline,” in Ibid., ch. 2.
Brian Barry, “Political Theory, Old and New,” in Ibid., ch. 23.

T 1/21 Bhikhu Parekh, “Political Theory: Traditions in Political Philosophy,” in Ibid., ch. 21.
Leo Strauss, “An Epilogue” in Herbert J. Storing, Essays on the Scientific Study of
Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962).
Ross Corbett, “Political Theory within Political Science,” PS (2011): 565-70.

FACT/VALUE DICHOTOMY
Th 1/23 Max Weber, “The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Economics,” in
Edward Shils and Henry Finch, eds. Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social
Sciences (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949), pp. 1-47.
T 1/28 Eric Voegelin, New Science of Politics, “Introduction”; and Leo Strauss, Natural Right
and History, ch. 2.

QUENTIN SKINNER
Th 1/30 Quentin Skinner, “The Limits of Historical Explanations,” Philosophy 41 (1966): 199-
215.
T 2/4 Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and
Theory 8 (1969): 3-53; Quentin Skinner, “Motives, Intentions and the Interpretation of
Texts,” New Literary History 3, On Interpretation: I (1972): 393-408.

JOHN RAWLS
Th 2/6 Justice as Fairness, ed. Erin Kelly (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 1-
38.

T 2/11 JF, pp. 39-79; Allan Bloom, “Justice: John Rawls versus the Tradition of Political
Philosophy,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975): 648-662; reprinted in Giants
and Dwarfs;
Th 2/13 JF, pp. 80-115
T 2/18 JF, pp. 115-179.
Th 2/20 JF, pp. 180-202.

HANNAH ARENDT
T 2/25 Hannah Arendt, “Philosophy and Politics: What is Political Philosophy?” a course
offered at the New School in spring 1969, from the papers of Hannah Arendt at the
Library of Congress.
Th 2/27 The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), Part I.
T 3/4 HC, Parts II and III (selections)
Th 3/6 HC, Part IV

3
spring break
T 3/18 HC, Part V and VI (selections)

MICHAEL OAKESHOTT
Th 3/20 “Political Philosophy,” in Religion, Politics and the Moral Life (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1993).

T 3/25 On Human Conduct (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), Chapter 1; “Rationalism in
Politics” in Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992).
Th 3/27 OHC. Chapter 2.
T 4/1 OHC, Chapter 3.

LEO STRAUSS
Th 4/3 Strauss, “What is Political Philosophy?” Catherine Zuckert, “The Straussian Approach”
in George Klosko, ed., Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011) pp. 24-35.
T 4/8 Natural Right & History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1953), Introduction and
ch. 1
Easter Break

T 4/15 NRH. ch. 3 and 4.

Th 4/17 NRH, ch. 5.
T 4/22 NRH. ch. 6.

ERIC VOEGELIN
Th 4/24 Voegelin, “Reason: The Classic Experience” (Southern Review, 1974).
T 4/29 Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections (1/2); and half of Voegelin, Science Politics &
Gnosticism (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1968).
Th 5/1 Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism.

A Word About the Papers

Though I am happy to offer specific suggestions for paper topics, I would also encourage you to think up
your own. My one requirement is that the papers be about method. Natural topics, therefore, would
focus on such questions as the following: What is political philosophy [or theory] for John Rawls [or
whichever author you wish to address]? Similarly: How does Hannah Arendt [or whomever] do political
philosophy? Or: How does so-&-so’s approach to political philosophy stand in relation to Max Weber’s
insistence on the separation between facts and values.

I am not going to make specific deadlines for the papers. You should stagger them in such a way that you
are not overburdened at the end of the semester. Certainly, both of the smaller papers should be finished
by April 24, when we turn the final corner of the course.