No description available.

O presente trabalho faz uma análise do período formativo da Ciência Política nos Estados Unidos, com o objetivo de mostrar que o ideal científico que caracterizaria o Comportamentalismo como paradigma hegemônico da disciplina nos anos 1950-1970 já estavam presentes desde a fundação da American Polítical Science Association [APSA], em 1903. Portanto, a chamada “revolução comportamentalista” não foi um movimento abrupto e repentino, mas sim o resultado de uma longa disputa teórico e metodológica que se travou no interior da APSA, especialmente nas páginas de sua principal revista, a American Political Science Review [APSR]. Neste sentido, o argumento defendido neste estudo é o de que o conjunto de características que passaram a definir o Comportamentalismo já estava sendo debatido e gestado desde o início do século XX. Do ponto de vista teórico, o estudo adota a perspectiva institucional histórica, focando na formação institucional da APSA, mas também recorre a conceitos centrais da abordagem de Thomas Kuhn, tais como as concepções de paradigma, de ciência normal e revolução científica. O material analisado abrange dados bibliográfico-documentais, os discursos oficiais dos presidentes da APSA, de 1903 a 1969, e bibliografia primária [textos de debate teórico-metodológico publicados na APSR] e secundária [textos sobre a história da disciplina]. Os documentos e textos secundários são analisados por meio de interpretação documental; os discursos presidenciais são examinados por meio da técnica de análise de conteúdo. Neste último caso, a intenção era detectar a defesa do ideal científico [método e abordagem] e alguma postura científica para a Ciência Política. Os resultados dão suporte ao argumento central, qual seja, que as diretrizes científicas preconizadas pelo Comportamentalismo foram apresentadas muito antes do período de hegemonia reconhecido pela literatura especializada. / The present work analyses the period of formation of Political Science in the United States, aiming to show that the scientific ideal that would characterize Behavioralism as a hegemonic paradigm in the discipline between 1950-1970 was already present since the foundation of the American Political Science Association [APSA] in 1903. Hence, the so called "Behavioralist Revolution" was not an abrupt and sudden event, but rather the result of a long theoretical and methodological controversy within APSA, especially through its main publication, the American Political Science Review [APSR]. Therefore, this work defends the argument that the defining characteristics of Behavioralism had already been discussed and generated in the beginning of the 20th century. From a theoretical point of view, this work adopts a historical-institutionalist perspective, focusing in APSA's institutional formation, but also mobilizes central concepts from Thomas Kuhn's approach to the philosophy of science, such as paradigm, normal science and scientific revolution. The material hereby analyzed encompasses bibliographical-documental data, APSA's official presidential addresses from 1903 to 1969, and primary bibliography [texts on theoretical-methodological debates published in APSR] and secondary [texts on the History of the discipline]. Documents and secondary texts are analyzed through documental interpretation; presidential addresses are examined through the technique of content analysis. As for the latter, the goal was to identify the defense of a scientific ideal [method and approach] and a scientific position to Political Science. The results support the central argument that the scientific guidelines professed by Behavioralism were already present much earlier than the period of its hegemony as defined by specialized literature on the issue.

O presente trabalho faz uma análise do período formativo da Ciência Política nos Estados Unidos, com o objetivo de mostrar que o ideal científico que caracterizaria o Comportamentalismo como paradigma hegemônico da disciplina nos anos 1950-1970 já estavam presentes desde a fundação da American Polítical Science Association [APSA], em 1903. Portanto, a chamada “revolução comportamentalista” não foi um movimento abrupto e repentino, mas sim o resultado de uma longa disputa teórico e metodológica que se travou no interior da APSA, especialmente nas páginas de sua principal revista, a American Political Science Review [APSR]. Neste sentido, o argumento defendido neste estudo é o de que o conjunto de características que passaram a definir o Comportamentalismo já estava sendo debatido e gestado desde o início do século XX. Do ponto de vista teórico, o estudo adota a perspectiva institucional histórica, focando na formação institucional da APSA, mas também recorre a conceitos centrais da abordagem de Thomas Kuhn, tais como as concepções de paradigma, de ciência normal e revolução científica. O material analisado abrange dados bibliográfico-documentais, os discursos oficiais dos presidentes da APSA, de 1903 a 1969, e bibliografia primária [textos de debate teórico-metodológico publicados na APSR] e secundária [textos sobre a história da disciplina]. Os documentos e textos secundários são analisados por meio de interpretação documental; os discursos presidenciais são examinados por meio da técnica de análise de conteúdo. Neste último caso, a intenção era detectar a defesa do ideal científico [método e abordagem] e alguma postura científica para a Ciência Política. Os resultados dão suporte ao argumento central, qual seja, que as diretrizes científicas preconizadas pelo Comportamentalismo foram apresentadas muito antes do período de hegemonia reconhecido pela literatura especializada. / The present work analyses the period of formation of Political Science in the United States, aiming to show that the scientific ideal that would characterize Behavioralism as a hegemonic paradigm in the discipline between 1950-1970 was already present since the foundation of the American Political Science Association [APSA] in 1903. Hence, the so called "Behavioralist Revolution" was not an abrupt and sudden event, but rather the result of a long theoretical and methodological controversy within APSA, especially through its main publication, the American Political Science Review [APSR]. Therefore, this work defends the argument that the defining characteristics of Behavioralism had already been discussed and generated in the beginning of the 20th century. From a theoretical point of view, this work adopts a historical-institutionalist perspective, focusing in APSA's institutional formation, but also mobilizes central concepts from Thomas Kuhn's approach to the philosophy of science, such as paradigm, normal science and scientific revolution. The material hereby analyzed encompasses bibliographical-documental data, APSA's official presidential addresses from 1903 to 1969, and primary bibliography [texts on theoretical-methodological debates published in APSR] and secondary [texts on the History of the discipline]. Documents and secondary texts are analyzed through documental interpretation; presidential addresses are examined through the technique of content analysis. As for the latter, the goal was to identify the defense of a scientific ideal [method and approach] and a scientific position to Political Science. The results support the central argument that the scientific guidelines professed by Behavioralism were already present much earlier than the period of its hegemony as defined by specialized literature on the issue.

O presente trabalho faz uma análise do período formativo da Ciência Política nos Estados Unidos, com o objetivo de mostrar que o ideal científico que caracterizaria o Comportamentalismo como paradigma hegemônico da disciplina nos anos 1950-1970 já estavam presentes desde a fundação da American Polítical Science Association [APSA], em 1903. Portanto, a chamada “revolução comportamentalista” não foi um movimento abrupto e repentino, mas sim o resultado de uma longa disputa teórico e metodológica que se travou no interior da APSA, especialmente nas páginas de sua principal revista, a American Political Science Review [APSR]. Neste sentido, o argumento defendido neste estudo é o de que o conjunto de características que passaram a definir o Comportamentalismo já estava sendo debatido e gestado desde o início do século XX. Do ponto de vista teórico, o estudo adota a perspectiva institucional histórica, focando na formação institucional da APSA, mas também recorre a conceitos centrais da abordagem de Thomas Kuhn, tais como as concepções de paradigma, de ciência normal e revolução científica. O material analisado abrange dados bibliográfico-documentais, os discursos oficiais dos presidentes da APSA, de 1903 a 1969, e bibliografia primária [textos de debate teórico-metodológico publicados na APSR] e secundária [textos sobre a história da disciplina]. Os documentos e textos secundários são analisados por meio de interpretação documental; os discursos presidenciais são examinados por meio da técnica de análise de conteúdo. Neste último caso, a intenção era detectar a defesa do ideal científico [método e abordagem] e alguma postura científica para a Ciência Política. Os resultados dão suporte ao argumento central, qual seja, que as diretrizes científicas preconizadas pelo Comportamentalismo foram apresentadas muito antes do período de hegemonia reconhecido pela literatura especializada. / The present work analyses the period of formation of Political Science in the United States, aiming to show that the scientific ideal that would characterize Behavioralism as a hegemonic paradigm in the discipline between 1950-1970 was already present since the foundation of the American Political Science Association [APSA] in 1903. Hence, the so called "Behavioralist Revolution" was not an abrupt and sudden event, but rather the result of a long theoretical and methodological controversy within APSA, especially through its main publication, the American Political Science Review [APSR]. Therefore, this work defends the argument that the defining characteristics of Behavioralism had already been discussed and generated in the beginning of the 20th century. From a theoretical point of view, this work adopts a historical-institutionalist perspective, focusing in APSA's institutional formation, but also mobilizes central concepts from Thomas Kuhn's approach to the philosophy of science, such as paradigm, normal science and scientific revolution. The material hereby analyzed encompasses bibliographical-documental data, APSA's official presidential addresses from 1903 to 1969, and primary bibliography [texts on theoretical-methodological debates published in APSR] and secondary [texts on the History of the discipline]. Documents and secondary texts are analyzed through documental interpretation; presidential addresses are examined through the technique of content analysis. As for the latter, the goal was to identify the defense of a scientific ideal [method and approach] and a scientific position to Political Science. The results support the central argument that the scientific guidelines professed by Behavioralism were already present much earlier than the period of its hegemony as defined by specialized literature on the issue.

在政治研究以及一般社會研究的領域中，價值的科學分析一向都是極受重視並曾引起 長期爭論的問題。前人討論此一問題的專著，雖然曾出不窮，可是眾說紛紜，至今依 然沒有定論。因此，本文一方面想根據前人所獲致的某些結論作為背景，另一方面也 想憑藉現代方法論所發展出來的知識作為標準，來對此一問題從事全面性的澄清工作 ，並進而試作解答。 本文的主題是政治研究中的價值問題，在討論過程中，涉及的範圍，相當寬廣，但始 終圍繞著兩個重心而進行。這兩個重心即是：價值中立與價值的經驗研究。全文共有 六章，每章的主要內容，分別扼要說明如下。 第一章是導論。對傳統政治學及現代政治學中有關價值問題的重要論證，作一評論性 的分析，並進而企圖逐漸顯現出來價值分析及是政治研究領中的關鍵性課題。 第二章討論價值語句的認知。本世紀中，關於價值語句的認知，曾先後出現五種不同 的重要說法。其中以「規約說」較為健全。本文以「規約說」略加修正後作為基礎， 進而肯定兩個論點：（１）「政治科學著作中不得包含價值語句」的假定乃是多餘的 ；（２）後行為主義（post-behavioralism）強調人道主義的原則具有其合理的基礎 。 第三章討論價值語句的推論。從事實語句是否可能推論出價值語句，向來即有兩種對 立的答案：一種是肯定的，另一種是否定的。本文接受後者的答案，即支持「分離論 」的說法。 第四章討論經驗研究中免除價值判斷的可能性。關於此一問題，不僅產生爭論甚多， 而且招致曲解至深。本文以化繁為簡的方式，首先把各種不同的論點區分為兩大派： 一為「全方法論上的價值中立」。所謂「方法論上的價值中立」，即是一方面保留肯 定派的意圖，另一方面化除否定派的疑難。 第五章討論價值的經驗研究。首先指出「價值中立論」的被誤解及反行為主義（ antibehavioralism ）的武斷。並進而透過概念的系統意含及經驗意含之分析，以顯 現出價值的經驗研究之可能性及困難性。 第六章是結論。於政治研究中的價值問題，本文所肯定的重要論點，及提出的六項要 旨，均以概括性的方式，在結論中逐一加以說明。 /

This dissertation offers a genealogy of political theory as a subfield of American political science. Over five chapters, it traces the subfield’s development from late nineteenth-century America until the 1970s and asks how leading practitioners responded to a series of political conjunctions. The first chapter asks how political theory emerged from the progressive movement and was characterized by a racist, “Teutonist” intellectual framework that lasted until the First World War. The war led to the demise of this initial framework, leaving political theory without an anchor. The second chapter asks how a leading political theorist, Charles Merriam, sought to resuscitate political theory by making it more “scientific,” focusing on analyzing political behavior. This chapter demonstrates how interaction with the city of Chicago forced Merriam’s thought into more egalitarian directions. The third chapter charts political theory in “the age of fear.” It shows how Merriam and his student Harold Lasswell sought to thicken liberalism and conceptualize its totalitarian alternatives. The fourth chapter asks how leading behavioralists—including Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl, and David Truman, as well as Louis Hartz—deployed political theory to characterize, congratulate, and criticize the tenets of American liberalism in the context of the Cold War. In the project’s final chapter, I ask how political theory went its own way as a subfield. Amidst the tumult of the 1960s, its leading practitioners—including Sheldon Wolin and Leo Strauss—found themselves politically at odds with behavioralism. Their opposition to the practice of political science led them to associate humanism with radical political critique. By offering a history of political theory that puts behavioralism at its center, the dissertation unsettles conventional narratives within political science that characterize political theory as the other of “empirical social science.” Second, by highlighting a tradition of thought that married systematic empiricism and normative intent, the dissertation critically recaptures a realistic mode of political theorizing. Raymond Geuss has called for political theory to engage more with the facts of the political world. My dissertation offers a way forward. It reminds readers that empiricism can be a normative venture and highlights the close affinity between political science and theory. Many political scientists, I argue, were engaged in a project we can term “operational political theory.” They took theoretic concepts—such as democracy—and furnished them with empirical evidence. They asked how political theory worked in practice and then evaluated extant practices according to political theoretic norms.