Capital and Carbuncles: The “Great Books” Reappraised

Professor David Easton's widely discussed essay in academic psychoanalysis is indicative of the methodological trauma through which political science is now passing. Of particular interest is his chapter on political theory, which, according to his diagnosis, has suffered from a malady known as “decline into historicism.” His specific point of criticism is that the commentaries of Dunning, McIlwain, and Sabine have led students away from serious study of value theory. This kind of attack, however, does not get to the nub of the problem which surrounds political theory. For while political scientists seem to feel that political theory should be made the “heart” of their discipline, they will also have to acknowledge that the “heart” of political theory itself has been reading the “Great Books.” A far greater indictment than Easton's, then, is that it is an unquestioning reliance on the “Great Books” which has served to thwart any significant expansion of the scope and function of political theory—in terms of value theory or any other kind. Students are told to read the books with great care. But why they have to read them at all is a question which has seldom been squarely confronted. Hence both undergraduates and graduate students come away, perhaps somewhat pleased that they can now quote a few choice axioms from Burke, but nonethemore edified as to how the learned authors of yesteryear can aid them in understanding the science of politics.