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.
Adcock, Robert.2007. Interpreting behavioralism. In Modern political science: Anglo-American exchanges since 1880, ed. Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Adcock, Robert, and Mark Bevir.2007. The remaking of political theory. In Modern political science: Anglo-American exchanges since 1880, ed. Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Almond, Gabriel.1988. Separate tables: Schools and sects in political science . PS: Political Science and Politics21: 828-42.
4.
American Political Science Association.1968 . Biographical directory. Washington, DC : American Political Science Association.
5.
American Political Science Association.2004 . Report from the Task Force on Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association . http://209.235.207.197/imgtest/graduateeducation.pdf .
6.
American Political Science Association.2007 . Directory of political science faculty & programs, 2007-2008 . Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
7.
American Political Science Association.2009 . Constitution, Art. II, sec. 2. https://www.apsanet.org/content_2857.cfm .
8.
Anderson, Benedict.1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso .
9.
Barber, Benjamin.2007. Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, to Donna Bahry, Head, Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, October 12.
10.
Bender, Thomas.1997. Politics, intellect, and the American university, 1945-1995 . Daedalus126:1-38.
11.
Brown, Wendy.1997. The impossibility of women’s studies. Differences9:79-92.
12.
Brown, Wendy.2002. At the edge. Political Theory30:556-76.
13.
Brown, Wendy.2006. Power after Foucault. In The Oxford handbook of political theory, ed. John Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips.New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Collini, Stefan.2001. Postscript: Disciplines, canons, and publics. In The history of political thought in national context, ed. Dario Castiglione and Iain Hampshire-Monk.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Connolly, William.2008. Capitalism and christianity, American style. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16.
Dahl, Robert.1958. Political theory: Truth and consequences. World Politics11:89-102.
17.
Dahl, Robert.1961. The behavioral approach in political science: Epitaph for a monument to a successful protest. American Political Science Review55:763-72.
18.
Dryzek, John, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips.2006. Introduction. In Oxford handbook of political theory, ed. John Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips.New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Dunning, William.1902. A history of political theory, ancient and medieval. New York: Macmillan.
20.
Dunning, William.1905. A history of political theory, from Luther to Montesquieu . New York: Macmillan
21.
Dunning, William.1920. A history of political theory, from Rousseau to Spencer . New York: Macmillan.
22.
Easton, David.1951. The decline of modern political theory. Journal of Politics13:36-58.
23.
Easton, David.1953. The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Knopf.
24.
Easton, David.1969. The new revolution in political science. American Political Science Review63:1051-61.
25.
Farr, James.2006. The history of political thought. In The Oxford handbook of political theory, ed. John Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips.New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Foucault, Michel.1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, ed. G. Burchell , C. Gordon, and P. Miller.London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
27.
Fukuyama, Francis.1989. The end of history?The National Interest16:3-18.
28.
Gibbons, Michael.2007. Letter from Chair, Foundations of Political Theory, to Donna Bahry, Head, Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, October 8.
29.
Grant, Ruth.2002. Political theory, political science, and politics. Political Theory30:577-95.
30.
Gunnell, John.1983. Political theory: The evolution of a subfield. In Political science: The state of the discipline, ed. Ada W. Finifter.Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
31.
Gunnell, John.1986. Between philosophy and politics: The alienation of political theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
32.
Gunnell, John.1988. American political science, liberalism, and the invention of political theory. American Political Science Review82:71-87.
33.
Gunnell, John.1993. The descent of political theory: The genealogy of an American vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Habermas, Jürgen.1975. Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.
35.
Hadow, Anna.1939. Political science in American colleges and universities, 1636-1900. New York: D. Appleton-Century .
36.
Haraway, Donna.1997. The persistence of vision. In Writing on the body: Female embodiment and feminist theory, ed. Kate Conboy , Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury.New York: Columbia University Press.
37.
Hoxie, Gordon.1955. A history of the faculty of political science. New York: Columbia University Press.
38.
Kasza, Gregory.2006. Unearthing the roots of hard science. In Making political science matter, ed. Sanford F. Schram and Brian Caterino.New York: New York University Press.
39.
Kateb, George.1977. The condition of political theory. American Behavioral Scientist21:135-59.
40.
Kateb, George.2002. The adequacy of the canon. Political Theory30:482-505.
41.
Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy.2006. Dividing the domain of political science: On the fetishism of subfields. Polity38:41-71.
42.
Laitin, David.2004. The political science discipline. In The evolution of political knowledge, ed. Edward D. Mansfeld and Richard Sisson.Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
43.
Luke, Timothy.2005. Caught between confused critics and careerist co-conspirators . In Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science , ed. Kristen Monroe.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
Marx, Karl. [ 1852] 1963. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte . New York: International Publishers .
45.
Merriam, Charles.1903. A history of political theories. New York: Macmillan.
46.
Merriam, Charles.1925. New aspects of politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Mr. Perestroika. [2000] 2005. On the irrelelvence [sic] of APSA and APSR! In Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science, ed. Kristen Monroe.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
Pocock, J.G.A.2006. Theory in history: Problems of context and narrative. In The Oxford handbook of political theory, ed. John Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips.New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Randolph, Susan Hoeber.2002. In defense of diverse forms of knowledge. PS: Political Science & Politics35:193-95.
50.
Rawls, John.1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
51.
Rehfeld, Andrew.2010. Offensive Political Theory. Perspectives8: 465-86.
52.
Rorty, Richard.1987. Thugs and theorists: A reply to Bernstein. Political Theory15:564-80.
53.
Rothstein, Bo.2005. Is political science producing technically competent barbarians?European Political Science4:3-13.
54.
Sabine, George. [ 1937] 1948. A history of political theory. London: George G. Harrap.
55.
Schram, Sanford.2004. Beyond paradigm: Resisting the assimilation of phronetic social science. Politics & Society32:417-33.
56.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine.2003. Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements and offerings in method and methodology. PS: Politics & Political Science36:379-86.
57.
Seidelman, Raymond.1985. Disenchanted realists: Political science and the American crisis, 1884-1984. With Edward Harpham. Albany: State University of New York Press.
58.
Shapiro, Ian.2002. Problems, methods, and theories in the study of politics, or what’s wrong with political science and what to do about it. Political Theory30:596-619.
59.
Sigelman, Lee.2006a. Introduction to the Centennial Issue. American Political Science Review100: v-xii.
60.
Sigelman, Lee.2006b. The coevolution of American political science and the American Political Science Review. American Political Science Review100: 463-78.
61.
Smith, Rogers.2004. The politics of identities and the tasks of political science. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, ed. Ian Shapiro, Rogers Smith, and Tarek Masoud.New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Smith, Rogers, and David Miller, moderator. 2001. Colloquy live: The Perestroika movement in political science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 19. http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2001/09/perestroika .
63.
Wahlke, John.1979. Pre-behavioralism in political science. American Political Science Review73:9-31.
64.
White, Stephen.2002. Pluralism, platitudes, and paradoxes. Political Theory30:472-81.
65.
Wolin, Sheldon.1969. Political theory as a vocation. American Political Science Review63:1062-82.
