IN THIS ARTICLE, JOHN DRYZEK AND STEPHEN LEONARD DEFEND THEIR EARLIER ESSAY EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HISTORIES OF THE DISCIPLINE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. IN THEIR VIEW, DISCIPLINARY HISTORY MUST GUIDE PRACTICAL INQUIRY IF IT IS TO BE MOST USEFUL. JAMES FARR, JOHN GUNNELL, AND RAYMOND SEIDELMAN CRITIQUE THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY DRYZEK AND LEONARD.
THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT IT IRONIC THAT STOLL UNDERMINES TESTIMONY AS A RESOURCE FOR HISTORY WHEN HIS OWN RECONSTRUCTIONS OF HISTORY LACK CREDIBLE SOURCES. TESTIMONY HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE THE PRINCIPAL AVENUE BY WHICH SEMILITERATE AND ILLITERATE PEOPLE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THOSE WHO WISH TO UNDERSTAND THEIR STRUGGLES. MENCHU NEVER CLAIMED TO BE APOLITICAL. TESTIMONY IS ITSELF INHERENTLY POLITICAL, AND STOLL ATTACKS THE VERY ESSENCE OF MENCHU'S BOOK, WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF THE MAYA IN GENERAL AND MAYA WOMEN IN PARTICULAR TO POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF-REPRESENTATION, AND POLITICAL ACTION.
SMITH'S (1984) CRITICISM OF OLLMAN (1976) IS WELL TAKEN, BUT HIS OBJECTION TO ALTHUSSER AND BALIBAR'S (1970) UNDERSTANDING OF DETERMINATION NEEDS TO BE QUALIFIED OR DEVELOPED IN GREATER DETAIL. THE AUTHOR'S CRITICISM OF COHEN (1978) IS AT TIMES SIMILARLY UNDERDEVELOPED, AT OTHER TIMES INACCURATE. THE SPECIFIC ISSUES OF REIFICATION AND DETERMINATION THAT SMITH RAISES ARE MUCH MORE COMPLEX, BOTH IN FACT AND IN COHEN'S WORK, THAN SMITH SEEMS TO ALLOW.
IT IS PROBABLY A REFLECTION OF THE MORE TOLERANT POLITICAL CLIMATE IN THE COUNTRY, THE LIBERALIZATION OF ACCESS TO THE RECORD OF ITS PAST HISTORY, AND THE GREATER APPRECIATION OF THE VALUE OF RECORDING THIS HISTORY THAT ENABLES A NEW GENERATION OF WESTERN SCHOLARS EASIER ACCESS TO THIS RECORD FOR THE WRITING OF A REVISIONIST-TYPE HISTORY OF EGYPT IN THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS, AND WHICH TAKES THE FORM SO FAR OF WHAT MAY BE LOOSELY REFERRED TO AS SOCIAL HISTORY. WORKERS, PEASANTS AND STUDENTS ARE THE MAIN SUBJECTS OF THIS NEW REVISIONIST SCHOOL OF MODERN EGYPTIAN HISTORY. ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS SCHOOL IS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF AND INDICT AS UNFAIR, INACCURATE AND BIASED WESTERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF MODERN EGYPT TO DATE. THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THIS NEW WESTERN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF MODERN EGYPT.
MANY QUESTIONS OF INTEREST TO POLITICAL SCIENTISTS MAY BE ANSWERED WITH EVENT HISTORY ANALYSIS, WHICH STUDIES THE DURATION AND TIMING OF EVENTS. THE AUTHORS DISCUSS THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF EVENT HISTORY DATA-DATA GIVING THE NUMBER, TIMING, AND SEQUENCE OF CHANGES IN A VARIABLE OF INTEREST. THESE METHODS ARE ILLUSTRATED BY EXAMINING THREE SUBSTANTIVE POLITICAL SCIENCE PROBLEMS: OVER MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, CHALLENGER DETERRENCE, AND CONGRESSIONAL CAREER PATHS; MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS ARE POSSIBLE. THE ARTICLE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROWING NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND TO ENCOURAGE GREATER USE OF THESE MODELS BY SHOWING WHY EVENT HISTORY MODELS ARE USEFUL IN POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND EXPLAINING HOW ONE SPECIFIES AND INTERPRETS THESE MODELS.
IT HAS SOMETIMES BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE MARXIST THEORY OF HISTORY SUFFERS FROM CIRCULAR REASONING WHEN IT POINTS TO THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY INSTITUTIONS IN REPRODUCING A GIVEN SET OF SOCIAL RELATIONS. THIS ESSAY IN HISTORICAL MATERIALISM ADVANCES THE ARGUMENT THAT A SPECIES OF SELECTION CAN BE SEEN AT WORK IN HISTORY, ELIMINATING OR MARGINALIZING INSTITUTIONS AND EVEN WHOLE FORMS OF SOCIETY THAT FAIL TO STAND THE TEST OF ECONOMIC OR MILITARY VIABILITY. INDEED, THE TIME MAY EVEN COME WHEN COMPETITIVE SELECTION IS A MORE TENABLE HYPOTHESIS IN THE SOCIAL THAN IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES.
THE AUTHOR OFFERS SOME GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT MEXICAN HISTORY IN THE NATIONAL PERIOD, STRESSING BOTH BROAD PATTERNS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC POLITICO-CULTURAL FACTORS. HIS PURPOSE IS TO EXPLAIN THE DISTINCTIVENESS, AS WELL AS THE COMMONALITY, OF MEXICO'S HISTORY COMPARED TO THE HISTORY OF LATIN AMERICA, IN GENERAL, DURING THE NATIONAL PERIOD.
SCIENCE INVOLVES THE ACCUMULATION OF KNOWLEDGE, WHICH MEANS NOT ONLY THE FORMULATION OF NEW SENTENCES ABOUT DISCOVERIES BUT ALSO THE REFORMULATION OF EMPIRICALLY FALSIFIED OR THEORETICALLY DISCREDITED OLD SENTENCES. SCIENCE HAS THEREFORE A HISTORY THAT IS MAINLY A CHRONICLE AND INTERPRETATION OF A SERIES OF REFORMULATIONS. IT IS OFTEN ASSERTED THAT POLITICAL SCIENCE HAS NO HISTORY. ALTHOUGH THIS ASSERTION IS PERHAPS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO IDENTIFY POLITICS WITH BELLES LETTRES, IT MAY ALSO HAVE A REASONABLE FOUNDATION, IN THAT POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS MAY CHANGE FASTER THAN KNOWLEDGE CAN BE ACCUMULATED. TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER PROPOSITIONS ABOUT EVANESCENT INSTITUTIONS CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY FALSIFIED AND REFORMULATED, I EXAMINE IN THIS ESSAY THE HISTORY OF THE RECENT AND NOT WHOLLY ACCEPTED REVISIONS OF THE PROPOSITIONS COLLECTIVELY CALLED DUVERGER'S LAW: THAT THE PLURALITY RULE FOR SELECTING THE WINNER OF ELECTIONS FAVORS THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. THE BODY OF THE ESSAY PRESENTS THE DISCOVERY, REVISION, TESTING, AND REFORMULATION OF SENTENCES IN THIS SERIES IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IN AT LEAST ONE INSTANCE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED AND A HISTORY EXISTS.
