Leo Strauss: The Ancient as Modern

1988 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Susser
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Intellectual Tradition ◽  
Intellectual Style ◽  
Post War ◽  
American Political Science

Although his approach to politics and philosophy were relatively little known outside the United States, Leo Strauss was perhaps the most revered and the most controversial figure in post-war American political science. His followers today form what is arguably the most cohesive intellectual fraternity in the discipline. They constitute a highly influential opposition to the empirical–quantitative course taken by political science and political philosophy. This study explores Strauss's ideas highlighting the unconventional mixture of substance and style that gives them an arrestingly idiosyncratic character. Substantively, Strauss belonged to the pre-modern intellectual tradition that understood Truth as accessible and knowable through philosophical contemplation. The form of his argumentation, however, his relentless critique of modernity and the moderns, is conducted with all the cognitive weaponry provided for by the modernist intellectual style.

In His Day: Awareness of Wilson’s Duplicity

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 762-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Jagmohan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
History Of ◽  
Complex Landscape ◽  
American Political Science

Woodrow Wilson is the only American political scientist to have served as President of the United States. In the time between his political science Ph.D. (from Johns Hopkins, in 1886) and his tenure as president (1913–21), he also served as president of Princeton University (1902–10) and president of the American Political Science Association (1909–10). Wilson is one of the most revered figures in American political thought and in American political science. The Woodrow Wilson Award is perhaps APSA’s most distinguished award, given annually for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs published in the previous year, and sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation at Princeton University.Wilson has also recently become the subject of controversy, on the campus of Princeton University, and in the political culture more generally, in connection with racist statements that he made and the segregationist practices of his administration. A group of Princeton students associated with the “Black Lives Matter” movement has demanded that Wilson’s name be removed from two campus buildings, one of which is the famous Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (see Martha A. Sandweiss, “Woodrow Wilson, Princeton, and the Complex Landscape of Race,” http://www.thenation.com/article/woodrow-wilson-princeton-and-the-complex-landscape-of-race/). Many others have resisted this idea, noting that Wilson is indeed an important figure in the history of twentieth-century liberalism and Progressivism in the United States.A number of colleagues have contacted me suggesting that Perspectives ought to organize a symposium on the Wilson controversy. Although we do not regularly organize symposia around current events, given the valence of the controversy and its connection to issues we have featured in our journal (see especially the September 2015 issue on “The American Politics of Policing and Incarceration”), and given Wilson's importance in the history of our discipline, we have decided to make an exception in this case. We have thus invited a wide range of colleagues whose views on this issue will interest our readers to comment on this controversy. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor.

How International Is Political Science? Patterns of Submission and Publication in the American Political Science Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 789-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Breuning ◽  
Ayal Feinberg ◽  
Benjamin Isaak Gross ◽  
Melissa Martinez ◽  
Ramesh Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
The United States ◽  
Science Review ◽  
Global North ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTHow international in scope is publishing in political science? Previous studies have shown that the top journals primarily publish work by scholars from the United States and, to a lesser extent, other global-north countries. However, these studies used published content and could not evaluate the impact of the review process on the relative absence of international scholars in journals. This article evaluates patterns of submission and publication by US and international scholars for the American Political Science Review—one of the most selective peer-reviewed journals in the discipline. We found that scholars from the United States and other global-north countries are published approximately in proportion to submissions but that global-south scholars fare less well. We also found that scholars affiliated with prestigious universities are overrepresented, irrespective of geographic location. The article concludes with observations about the implications of these findings for efforts to internationalize the discipline.

A Discussion of Jessica Blatt's Race and the Making of American Political Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 808-809
Author(s):  
James Farr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Racial Difference ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Racial Hierarchy ◽  
Civic Discourse ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
American Political Science

In Race and the Making of American Political Science, Jessica Blatt argues that the professionalization of the discipline was deeply entwined with ideas about racial difference, and the concomitant attempt by leading scholars to define and defend a system of racial hierarchy in the United States and beyond. Although it focuses on the period from the late nineteenth century through the 1930s, the book also raises fundamental questions about the historical legacy of racialist arguments for professional political science, the extent of their continuing resonance, and contemporary implications for both academic and broader civic discourse. We have asked a range of leading political scientists to consider and respond to Professor Blatt’s important call for scholarly self-reflexivity.

Findings and Recommendations of the Special Committee on Service Voting

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 512-523 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Special Committee ◽  
Recent Letter ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Science Association

The review is republishing below the findings and recommendations included in the Report recently prepared by the Special Committee on Service Voting of the American Political Science Association and presented to the President of the United States, who submitted it to Congress. The Committee was composed of the following members: Paul T. David, chairman, Robert Cutler, Samuel J. Eldersveld, Bertram M. Gross, Alexander Heard, Edward H. Litchfield, ex officio, Kathryn H. Stone, and William B. Prendergast, secretary.In a letter of April 7, 1952, to Luther Gulick, President of the Association, President Truman expressed his appreciation for the work of the Committee and of the Association in the following words:I wish to thank you, and the members of the Special Committee on Service Voting of the American Political Science Association, for the outstanding report on “Voting in the Armed Forces” which you sent me with your recent letter. This report more than fulfills my request to the American Political Science Association for an analysis of the progress made on soldier voting, and recommendations for steps to be taken to see that a maximum number of servicemen vote this year.

Leo Strauss and American Democracy: A Response to Wood and Holmes

1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lewis Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Media ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
American Mind ◽  
York Review ◽  
Judaic Studies

Although Leo Strauss spent the better part of his scholarly career in the United States, his name remained essentially unknown in this country during his lifetime outside the rather restricted academic circles of political science and Judaic studies. Only in recent years — owing, positively, to the best-selling status achieved by a book by one of his students, Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind; and negatively, to several critical reviews of his thought and influence in the semi-popular media —has Strauss's name been publicized to a somewhat wider audience. This article is a response to two of the critiques: Gordon Wood's relatively moderate “The Fundamentalists and the Constitution,” published in the New York Review of Books (18 February 1988), and Stephen Taylor Holmes's less restrained “Truths for Philosophers Alone?”, which appeared in the Times Literary Supplement (1–7 December 1989)

Education and Transparency: Changes in Campus Iconography

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 766-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne Pinderhughes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
History Of ◽  
Complex Landscape ◽  
American Political Science

Woodrow Wilson is the only American political scientist to have served as President of the United States. In the time between his political science Ph.D. (from Johns Hopkins, in 1886) and his tenure as president (1913–21), he also served as president of Princeton University (1902–10) and president of the American Political Science Association (1909–10). Wilson is one of the most revered figures in American political thought and in American political science. The Woodrow Wilson Award is perhaps APSA’s most distinguished award, given annually for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs published in the previous year, and sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation at Princeton University.Wilson has also recently become the subject of controversy, on the campus of Princeton University, and in the political culture more generally, in connection with racist statements that he made and the segregationist practices of his administration. A group of Princeton students associated with the “Black Lives Matter” movement has demanded that Wilson’s name be removed from two campus buildings, one of which is the famous Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (see Martha A. Sandweiss, “Woodrow Wilson, Princeton, and the Complex Landscape of Race,” http://www.thenation.com/article/woodrow-wilson-princeton-and-the-complex-landscape-of-race/). Many others have resisted this idea, noting that Wilson is indeed an important figure in the history of twentieth-century liberalism and Progressivism in the United States.A number of colleagues have contacted me suggesting that Perspectives ought to organize a symposium on the Wilson controversy. Although we do not regularly organize symposia around current events, given the valence of the controversy and its connection to issues we have featured in our journal (see especially the September 2015 issue on “The American Politics of Policing and Incarceration”), and given Wilson's importance in the history of our discipline, we have decided to make an exception in this case. We have thus invited a wide range of colleagues whose views on this issue will interest our readers to comment on this controversy. —Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor.

A Discussion of Jessica Blatt's Race and the Making of American Political Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 807-807
Author(s):  
Natalie Masuoka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Racial Difference ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Racial Hierarchy ◽  
Civic Discourse ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
American Political Science

In Race and the Making of American Political Science, Jessica Blatt argues that the professionalization of the discipline was deeply entwined with ideas about racial difference, and the concomitant attempt by leading scholars to define and defend a system of racial hierarchy in the United States and beyond. Although it focuses on the period from the late nineteenth century through the 1930s, the book also raises fundamental questions about the historical legacy of racialist arguments for professional political science, the extent of their continuing resonance, and contemporary implications for both academic and broader civic discourse. We have asked a range of leading political scientists to consider and respond to Professor Blatt’s important call for scholarly self-reflexivity.

A Discussion of Jessica Blatt's Race and the Making of American Political Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-804
Author(s):  
Ange-Marie Hancock Alfaro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Racial Difference ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Racial Hierarchy ◽  
Civic Discourse ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
American Political Science

In Race and the Making of American Political Science, Jessica Blatt argues that the professionalization of the discipline was deeply entwined with ideas about racial difference, and the concomitant attempt by leading scholars to define and defend a system of racial hierarchy in the United States and beyond. Although it focuses on the period from the late nineteenth century through the 1930s, the book also raises fundamental questions about the historical legacy of racialist arguments for professional political science, the extent of their continuing resonance, and contemporary implications for both academic and broader civic discourse. We have asked a range of leading political scientists to consider and respond to Professor Blatt’s important call for scholarly self-reflexivity.

What Did They Wish For? Party Government, Polarization and the American Political Science Association

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK WICKHAM-JONES
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
Party Government ◽  
Core Issue ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Responsible Party

In tracing the development of increased polarization in the United States, numerous scholars have noted the apparent importance of the American Political Science Association's (APSA's) Committee on Political Parties. The committee's influential (and often criticized) report, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, called for a wholesale transformation of political parties in the United States. On its publication in October 1950, political scientists quickly concluded that, taken together, the committee's recommendations represented a reworking of a distinct approach, usually known as “party government” or “responsible party government.” (The origins of responsible parties dated back to Woodrow Wilson's classic 1885 text Congressional Government.) Since then, the notion of party government has become a core issue in the study of American political parties, albeit a contentious one. A recent survey ranked the APSA document at seventh as a canonical text in graduate syllabi concerning parties.

A Discussion of Jessica Blatt's Race and the Making of American Political Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 801-802
Author(s):  
Rogers M. Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Racial Difference ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Racial Hierarchy ◽  
Civic Discourse ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
American Political Science

In Race and the Making of American Political Science, Jessica Blatt argues that the professionalization of the discipline was deeply entwined with ideas about racial difference, and the concomitant attempt by leading scholars to define and defend a system of racial hierarchy in the United States and beyond. Although it focuses on the period from the late nineteenth century through the 1930s, the book also raises fundamental questions about the historical legacy of racialist arguments for professional political science, the extent of their continuing resonance, and contemporary implications for both academic and broader civic discourse. We have asked a range of leading political scientists to consider and respond to Professor Blatt’s important call for scholarly self-reflexivity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document