IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v51y1957i04p933-942_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope

Author

Listed:
  • Schattschneider, E. E.

Abstract

I want to sketch a line of reasoning about politics, a way of looking at politics. Every point of view must stand on its own legs; it is not something that can be proved. An analysis is a way of looking at something, a way of seeing something we could not see before we made it. We adopt a point of view because it is suggestive and persuasive in its own inner logic.More specifically, I want to examine politics as a strategic concept. The concept of political strategy is itself a point of view loaded with implications for the study of politics.Strategy is the heart of politics, as it is of war.What are the implications of the concept? Any strategy of politics assumes that there is something that we can do about politics, that we have choices, and that what we think and do and want makes a difference. It assumes that we have something to talk about and that what we think and say and do is likely to have consequences. Without these conditions there can be no political strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Schattschneider, E. E., 1957. "Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 933-942, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:51:y:1957:i:04:p:933-942_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400071951/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Swen Hutter & Edgar Grande, 2014. "Politicizing Europe in the National Electoral Arena: A Comparative Analysis of Five West European Countries, 1970–2010," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1002-1018, September.
    2. Henk W. Houweling & Jan G. Siccama, 1991. "Power Transitions and Critical Points as Predictors of Great Power War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(4), pages 642-658, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:51:y:1957:i:04:p:933-942_07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.