 |
| Photo credit: Quinn for IL/Twitter |
It's time to review 2014! Dan Drezner argues that the year could have been worse, other sites review the best (and worst) words, books, gadgets, and events of the year. My contribution to this rich (if slightly ridiculous) genre is a look at the ideas that stood out in 2014. I'm far from an impartial observer, but here are three topics that I found challenging and engaging, with links to some of my favorite pieces here on Mischiefs and elsewhere.
The role of political science in the
world
In the past few years, political scientists have contended with questions - and no small measure of skepticism - about what it
is we do, what it means to study politics “scientifically,” and why the
insights we generate are valuable. This year, there were several public
conversations about the relationship between political science and the larger
political world.
Barely a month
into 2014, political scientists were trolled by New York Times columnist
Nicholas Kristof. As annoying and misguided as Kristof’s columns, and later
weird insults on Twitter were, they gave the political science community an
opportunity to publicly reflect on what it is that we do. On this blog, Seth Masket and Hans Noel explained why it makes sense for political science to be a specialized
discipline. Hans brought up the particularly important point that knowledge
isn’t just generated by being there – it’s acquired through deliberate methods
and rigorous testing. Tom Pepinsky made a nice argument for why academic research can’t
be as clear and punchy as a TED talk.
This question
was revisited after APSA. While Michael Barone criticized our APSA panels for
not having anything to offer on the Obama presidency or the 2014 elections (a
puzzling critique, since we did have panels on those things, as Seth pointed out), Ezra Klein praised us for having ideas that actually help explain
outcomes. (Some responses to Klein's piece.)
The next major controversy about political science in the world took a different form. Some political science researchers found themselves at the center of a controversy in part because of their decision to conduct a field experiment in non-partisan judicial elections in Montana. This controversy sparked discussion about a number of issues - about most of which we here at Mischiefs will reserve comment. But one of the more general debates that came out of the incident was about field experimentation. Political scientists were divided on this issue. For example, Jennifer Lawless was quoted in Talking Points Memo saying that influencing the outcome of an election amounted to “political science malpractice.” Meanwhile, our very own John Patty argued on his Math of Politics blog that “the field is supposed to generate work that might guide the choice of public policies, the design of institutions, and ultimately individual behavior itself. Otherwise, why the heck are we in this business?”
John’s comment
gets directly at what we can learn from examining the Kristof column and the
Montana controversy side by side. Taken together, the two incidents highlight
the unique position of political science as a field of inquiry. We’re trying to
understand events as they happen in real time. We also aim to conceptualize the
social world in theoretical terms and to come up with findings that generalize
across a range of situations. Yet our ability to produce this knowledge
requires us to study real human subjects, and real processes as they
unfold. As Macartan Humphreys observes, established protections for human subjects don’t really fit the social
sciences, especially the aggregate processes that political scientists often
study. The tensions inherent in the pressure to study problems of interest to
the “real world” and yet not to make people “feel like guinea pigs” defy
easy resolution. Similarly, the charge to generate useful information requires
us to focus less on the particular features of an individual situation, guiding
us instead to look for generalizable lessons. Treating an election or a group of voters as a "case" of something can really rankle for those who are being studied. But it's intrinsic to the way political scientists look at problems. In other words, it may not be possible
for political science to be both relevant and removed.
Race in American life
Ta-Nehisi Coates' provocatively titled article, "The Case for Reparations," shifted the focus of the race conversation from opportunity to transitional justice. Coming on the heels of Thomas Piketty's book about wealth inequality, Coates addressed how America's shameful legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, and redlining are still reflected in disadvantages - economic and otherwise - faced by contemporary African-American communities. Later in the summer, the race question became even more prominent after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and later, several other African-American men died during encounters with the police. (Read Mischiefs pieces on this topic here, here, here, here, and here.)
There's a great deal to say about these events, far more than space and the limits of my expertise allow. The academic response to these questions of policing and racial injustice have been dominated by sociology, history and other more humanistic disciplines with critical methodologies. But the political science approach has much to offer this debate. Although Coates is a journalist with history training, his piece offered a crucial social science insight (drawing heavily on sociological research) - that race operates as a distinct variable, separate from socio-economic status. This is especially important for politics, because the mainstream discourse about race from both parties has focused on economic opportunity. Clarissa Hayward at the Monkey Cage and Seth Masket at Pacific Standard point to the importance of two big political science concepts, institutions and representation.
Taken alongside the recently released "torture report," the race questions that confronted American politics this year speak to bigger issues of reconciliation and transitional justice, and to how we relate to a past that is still very much present. The narrative around both sustained racial hierarchy and the use of deplorable tactics in the war on terror shifted, at least in some circles, from "a few bad individuals" to "violence done in our name." For both issues, policy change will be a big part of moving forward, and political science has insights about how major changes are achieved. But our knowledge about institutions and public opinion might also be helpful to address questions about collective accountability, atonement, and reconciliation.
There's a great deal to say about these events, far more than space and the limits of my expertise allow. The academic response to these questions of policing and racial injustice have been dominated by sociology, history and other more humanistic disciplines with critical methodologies. But the political science approach has much to offer this debate. Although Coates is a journalist with history training, his piece offered a crucial social science insight (drawing heavily on sociological research) - that race operates as a distinct variable, separate from socio-economic status. This is especially important for politics, because the mainstream discourse about race from both parties has focused on economic opportunity. Clarissa Hayward at the Monkey Cage and Seth Masket at Pacific Standard point to the importance of two big political science concepts, institutions and representation.
Taken alongside the recently released "torture report," the race questions that confronted American politics this year speak to bigger issues of reconciliation and transitional justice, and to how we relate to a past that is still very much present. The narrative around both sustained racial hierarchy and the use of deplorable tactics in the war on terror shifted, at least in some circles, from "a few bad individuals" to "violence done in our name." For both issues, policy change will be a big part of moving forward, and political science has insights about how major changes are achieved. But our knowledge about institutions and public opinion might also be helpful to address questions about collective accountability, atonement, and reconciliation.
What do elections mean?
This was a gratifying year to be a scholar of election interpretation. Although the 2014 losses for the Democrats were pretty modest compared with previous years, the "wave" theme was a prominent one in the weeks following the midterms. (You can read our responses to the election results here, here, here, and here.) Although the idea that we can really determine the "will of the people" has been widely debunked, narratives still emerge around elections. My take on this has been that the narratives themselves become a systematic feature of politics, even if these narratives are based on flawed or subjective interpretations of the facts. The impulse to draw out lessons from election results has been part of presidential politics for a long time, especially in the last four decades or so. The turn toward interpreting Congressional elections likely reflects two developments: the flagging legitimacy of Congress and the resulting need to develop stories that link the institution with accountability and responsiveness to public opinion; and the growing nationalization of party politics.
In sum, my research on presidential mandate-claiming suggests that the more anxious we are about democracy and the health of our institutions, the more our elected officials stress their democratic legitimacy. Viewed in light of the research by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page that suggests that the United States has effectively become an oligarchy, our preoccupation with discerning the will of the people takes on a much different character. While scholars and pundits try to make a coherent story out of the public's preferences, policy-makers appear to respond to a much more narrow, and economically privileged, set of preferences.
As citizens, we're facing some heavy questions about American democracy - about the health of our institutions, about the weight of our past, and about the influences on our government. Although it has been a bumpy year for political science (it's not every year we also deal with an arsonist), it's also been one that highlights the need to understand politics. We've seen that data lead us to useful conclusions, but the things we learn through social science also open up more questions and tensions. I don't expect that we'll resolve all the contradictions in American democracy any time soon. But 2014 gave us plenty of opportunities to examine them. That's a start.
This was a gratifying year to be a scholar of election interpretation. Although the 2014 losses for the Democrats were pretty modest compared with previous years, the "wave" theme was a prominent one in the weeks following the midterms. (You can read our responses to the election results here, here, here, and here.) Although the idea that we can really determine the "will of the people" has been widely debunked, narratives still emerge around elections. My take on this has been that the narratives themselves become a systematic feature of politics, even if these narratives are based on flawed or subjective interpretations of the facts. The impulse to draw out lessons from election results has been part of presidential politics for a long time, especially in the last four decades or so. The turn toward interpreting Congressional elections likely reflects two developments: the flagging legitimacy of Congress and the resulting need to develop stories that link the institution with accountability and responsiveness to public opinion; and the growing nationalization of party politics.
In sum, my research on presidential mandate-claiming suggests that the more anxious we are about democracy and the health of our institutions, the more our elected officials stress their democratic legitimacy. Viewed in light of the research by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page that suggests that the United States has effectively become an oligarchy, our preoccupation with discerning the will of the people takes on a much different character. While scholars and pundits try to make a coherent story out of the public's preferences, policy-makers appear to respond to a much more narrow, and economically privileged, set of preferences.
As citizens, we're facing some heavy questions about American democracy - about the health of our institutions, about the weight of our past, and about the influences on our government. Although it has been a bumpy year for political science (it's not every year we also deal with an arsonist), it's also been one that highlights the need to understand politics. We've seen that data lead us to useful conclusions, but the things we learn through social science also open up more questions and tensions. I don't expect that we'll resolve all the contradictions in American democracy any time soon. But 2014 gave us plenty of opportunities to examine them. That's a start.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.