Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T04:17:38.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Political Theory, the Humanities, and the Social Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

Joshua Foa Dienstag
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sometimes political theorists like to imagine that they are lonely humanists misplaced in social science departments. In fact, political theory was created as part of a political science composed of both humanistic and social-scientific elements. Rather than trying to locate political theory somewhere between the humanities and the social sciences, we should instead dismantle the boundary between the two and create a unified discipline of questioning that embraces both kinds of inquiry.

Information

Type
Reflections
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 1083 - 1089
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnold, Kathleen R. 2004. Homelessness, Citizenship and Identity (Albany: SUNY Press).Google Scholar
Burgess, John W. 1890. Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. New York: Baker and Taylor Co.Google Scholar
Dienstag, Joshua Foa. 1997. Dancing in Chains: Narrative and Memory in Political Theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dienstag, Joshua Foa. 2012. “A Storied Shooting: Liberty Valance and the Paradox of Sovereignty.” Political Theory 40(3): 290–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilts, Andrew. 2014. Punishment and Inclusion. New York: Fordham Press.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2012. “Democratic Representation and the Constituency Paradox,” Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Truth and Method. 2d ed. New York: Continuum Publishing.Google Scholar
Gettell, Raymond Garfield. 1910. Introduction to Political Science. Boston: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar
Guenther, Lisa. 2013. Solitary Confinement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leacock, Stephen. 1906. Elements of Political Science. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Lieber—see n. 2.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought.” American Political Science Review 103(2): 214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2010. “Offensive Political Theory.” Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1968. The Social Contract. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2008. Representative Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon. 1960. Politics and Vision. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar