From: Ozodi Osuji <ozodiosuji@yahoo.ca>
Date: 5 February 2012 03:04
Subject: [NaijaPolitics] IS THIS ALL THAT POLITICAL SCIENCE CAN BE?
To: naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com
There is a presidential election going on in the USA. One has paid attention to what the candidates for the two political parties are saying regarding why they want to be given the opportunity to become the next United States President. Their ideas are usually shaped by what their political consultants tell them. Political scientists are missing in all these activities. Political scientists, apparently, stay in the Ivory Tower and write the history of what politicians do but do not participate in the discourse on how to govern society. This piece asks whether that is all that political scientists can do.
IS THIS ALL THAT POLITICAL SCIENCE CAN BE?
Ozodi Thomas Osuji
At present political science is a descriptive science; it is not interpretive or prescriptive; the practitioners in the field merely describe the activities of political actors and do not inject their opinions as to how they should behave or how society ought to be governed (that would be called political idealism, normative not descriptive behavior). So, is all there is to political science for political scientists, supposedly adult human beings, to sit around describing the behaviors of other adult human beings, even when those behaviors are patently stupid and leave it at that and not say anything regarding how they should behave lest they are seen as engaging in prescriptive recommendations hence no longer acting as impersonal scientists. If this is all political science is the question then is: how different is political science from journalism; how different are political scientists from reporters who report the activities of political actors in newspapers? Political scientists, journalists and historians are reporters of politicians' activities. In my opinion only impotent men, eunuchs can become political scientists for they have to accept their powerlessness to affect political life to do what they do. Those who distance themselves from expressing their opinions as to how their society should be governed are socially powerless. They are so impotent that they might as well be mere animals who have no impact on their society. They are living dead persons. No wonder they tend to be alcoholics and drug addicts and eventually die young; they are doing nothing to make a man want to live long. What are political scientists living for anyway, to document the activities of men in power? This is no real reason to live long, so they might as well die young! Real men express opinions as to how their societies ought to be governed and sometimes go into politics and participate in governing their societies and not detach and let others decide what to do. For example, if there is slavery and discrimination against certain people you do not just write about it, you participate in politics to change the situation and make society respect all people and in doing so feel like you are doing something worthwhile hence truly alive. Political scientists and historians cannot feel alive; they live vicariously by talking about the activities of other men; they are living dead persons. Indeed, they are so useless that they can only interact with young students but not with adult politicians, for the later do not find their views and writings useful and do not even bother reading their books or seeking them out to listen to their views. Political scientists have totally marginalized themselves; apparently, they did so in the foolish belief that you can make the study of politics a science. Man studying man cannot be totally objective and one might as well give the desire to be totally objective up and go do what needs to be done in one's world. Was Plato (Republic) Aristotle (Politics), Machiavelli (The Prince), Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan), Hobbes (Second Treaty on Government), and Jean Jacque Rousseau (Social Contract), Montesquieu (The Spirit of Laws), Madison, Hamilton and Jay (Federalist Papers), Johns Stuart Mill (On Representative Government)…the so-called founders of political science objective in their writings about the human polity? Allowing the king and all the king's men, that is, politicians to rule and make a mess of society while you detach and write about their activities is unmanly. One must man-up by wading into the political fray and do the right things by our fellow human beings.
Political scientists claim to do what they do because they are scientists of politics but not politicians. So, what exactly is science? The scientific method is a methodological approach to phenomena that attempts to understand things as they are without injecting human wishes as to how they should be into the study(especially if our wishes are not in accord with how they are in nature). In the physical sciences this translates into observing things, describing them as they are in fact, trying to understand them, and positing hypotheses (conjectures) as to why they are the way they are; trying to verify those hypotheses (through experiments); accepting only conjectures that can be verified and discarding others. An idea is accepted as scientific if it has not been refuted (falsified) but the moment it is shown to not be verifiable it is discarded. Francis Bacon and Karl Popper are recognized as authorities on delineating the scientific method. Clearly, the scientific method has enabled physical scientists to study nature as it is and device technologies to exploit its working and in the process improve human living. We are all beneficiaries of the scientific method. One is therefore not knocking the scientific method. The real question is whether the scientific method applies to the study of human behaviors? Perhaps, up to a point we can detach from our feelings and dispassionately study ourselves. That been said can we really totally separate our preconceptions about who we are in studying us?
Sigmund Freud said that he studied people's psychology scientifically. Did he? Was his writing not in line with his Jewish folks approach to knowledge? Could any non-Jew take Freud's conjectures as the study of him? Freud, Alfred Adler, Otto Rank, Erich Fromm and the other Jews who initiated psychoanalysis were continuing the Jewish scholastic tradition. That is fine but the point is that they were exhibiting a methodological approach to phenomena that was in accord with their people's particular manner of seeing reality; they were by no means being impersonal social scientists. Watson and Skinner and other Behaviorists said that they were studying human behavior. They described how people learn and retain behaviors (via operant and classical learning). There is some truth to their views but is that all there is to people? All we are is learned, really? We do not think? Behaviorists approach to knowledge is in line with British empiricism; in line with Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill etc. Of course empiricism is useful but it is hardly the only correct epistemology. Is German idealism, such as Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Nietzsche etc. not useful approach to knowledge? Cognitive psychology tried to rectify the excesses of behaviorism by concentrating on thinking, cognitions. People do think and sometimes their thinking can be screwed up so you show them how to think properly. But who decides what constitutes proper thinking, man or god? Albert Ellis, a famous cognitive behavior therapist, quoting Epictetus, a Roman slave stoic philosopher, said that it is not what happens out there that makes one sad, or angry or anxious etc. but how one thinks about it, how one processes it. In his therapy he tried to show people how they can overlook other peoples intended psychological attacks and not let them bother them and retain mental equanimity. Good for him. But the fact remains that if a Hitler came along and decided that he did not like Albert the Jew, arrested him and sent him to a gas chamber, Albert would be gassed to death. What happens out there, after all does affect the individual and he had better pay attention to them rather than try to be happy by ignoring environmental dangers to his life. Neuroscience studies the behavior of neurons and how messages are sent from one neuron to another via neurotransmitters and electrical ions and then concludes that thinking is purely biological in nature. Where is the evidence for this epiphenomenalism? In surgery the individual is given anesthetics and he is knuckled out and does not know what the surgeons are doing to his body, does not feel pain or fear so his brain must be purely biological and there is nothing else to him. Really? Biology asked me to write this paper? There is no consciousness, no independent will in people? Man as a robot is another delusion with which psychologists delude themselves until someone arrests them and gasses them to death, and they stop talking rubbish about the nature of people. People are creatures that have the freedom to make choices, to love or hate; to respect or abuse their fellow human beings. That choice is always there. I can choose to respect you or to kill you, you can also do the same to me; the choice is mine and yours to make. The point is that whereas people are obviously animals but they are unique animals and evolutionary biology and other biological reductionism cannot fully explain their behaviors.
People do make political choices. Politicians do decide on what to do for their society. Their choices may serve society well or badly. Some politicians deliberately go out to serve public interest; others deliberately go out to do evil. For example, some white American politicians serve evil by enacting public policies that discriminate against black folk. As I watch the current presidential candidates jostling for opportunity to become the president of the United States I can see that some are appealing to racism. Newt Gingrich is doing so. Ron Paul used his so-called libertarian philosophy to make nasty statements about black folks. Rick Santorum is skating very close to racism. Now, if politicians can deliberately do evil what good does it do society for an adult to call himself a political scientist and merely report on what evil politicians do? What would serve society well is if the lazy bums that call themselves impersonal political scientists got up from their ivory towers and did something politically to make sure that all people are socially served well. Political activists are more useful than political scientists.
Consider the American constitution and its worship by American political scientists. That document was written in 1787. At the time it was written black folks were slaves of white folks. Many of the writers of that constitution actually owned slaves. The constitution they wrote clearly was meant to serve their slave owning interests. They had no desire to serve black folks interests. Now, if that is the case is that American constitution black folk's constitution? Are black folks not part of America and as such don't their interests need to be represented in the constitution that supposedly governs them? If the US constitution was written by white men to serve white men's interests what would seem to make sense is that now that black persons are seen as human beings they and white folks sit down and write another constitution that serve their mutual interests. There is no use making the constitution written to serve white interests seem divine whereas it is not. Clearly, the US constitution has some useful aspects to it but that does not mean that it cannot be improved to save all Americans interests. Good political scientists ought to make suggestions as to how to improve that document. This is the twenty first century, not eighteenth century an agricultural, preindustrial world. Things have changed and changes ought to be made in the basic document governing the land. On a personal level, I must admit that I like the US constitution, although I tend to think that there are too many elections in America. The presidency ought to be one term of, say, ten years; Congress ought to be unicameral and have term limits, say, five year terms not to exceed five terms; the Supreme Court ought to be limited to twenty five years etc. On the whole the US constitution is admirable but it could be improved rather than deified, and made to seem of divine origin; it is the product of flawed human beings; it can be improved. Political scientists can lead the way on how to improve it rather than talk as if human political thinking ended with Thomas Jefferson (a slave holder who was cowardly enough not to acknowledge his children by his black concubine). Obviously, we need the professions of political science, history and journalism; we need folks to report on political activities; all that I am trying to say is that sometimes it is appropriate to recommend what seems appropriate behavior by the leaders of society rather than merely write about their behaviors under the guise of impartial science. It is difficult to be scientific while writing about human behaviors. It is a lot easier to be scientific while talking about matter, space and time, as physicists do but when it comes to human behavior we may try but we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we could detach ourselves from doing what is right. I understand that political scientists are not elected by the people to articulate and represent their wills and make public policies and therefore should not meddle in making public policies; they should leave that to elected politicians and give impartial advice on things but that been said sometimes political scientists ought to vigorously assert the truth their studies of politics has shown them. Studying economics, for example, led me to believe that a mixed capitalist and socialist economy is the best for all human societies. By the same token, I am led to believe that democracy is good for all people but a democracy where not only the rich and powerful are represented, as is the case in America, but where all people's interests are represented. In sum, I think that we must revamp the nature of political science and make it socially useful; as it currently is organized it can only attract and retain cowards who merely describe the activities of politicians but say nothing about how their society ought to be governed. Courageous men not only describe real life politics as it is but have a say so on how their societies ought to be governed. Every citizen must participate in making public policies and not leave it to politicians only.
RECOMMENDATION
Recently, I took a look at the list of courses offered by typical political science departments at American universities. They are mostly academic subjects. Very few are relevant to the real world. There are no courses on leadership (how to use men and materials in accomplishing organizational goals); no courses on management (how to organize those doing work); no courses on public finance (how governments generate their revenue and spend it); no courses on business or corporate finance (how business obtain and spend money); no courses on accounting (such as information on accounts receivable, accounts payable, budgets, monthly financial reports etc.); and no courses on basic economics. I looked at these curricula and shook my head in dismay. What are the foolish professors teaching students about politics if they do not teach them about what actual politicians do? Politicians levy taxes on the people, collect revenue and divide them up (recurrent and capital budgets). Politicians deal with the spending of public money; they decide who gets what part of public money and who does not get it. Politicians deal with leadership and management; that is, setting public policies (goals) and using human and capital resources to attain them. If those teaching students about politics do not teach them about what politicians do are they really teaching them anything useful? Are political scientists teaching students what they could use in obtaining jobs? They are not. They are wasting students' times. It is now time someone told these idle professors to teach something about the real world of politics and stopped teaching students to become mere reporters of other persons' political activities. Schools of journalism do a good job producing reporters so schools of government ought to teach students how to govern societies. Political science needs to reinvent itself and make itself useful; at present it is a scholastic discipline; we need few scholars and many political doers. Physics and the physical sciences triumphed because they study nature as it is and device technologies to exploit what they know about the functioning of nature and in so doing improve the human condition. Scientists study theory but generally their theories are useful in the real world. (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Huygens, Tyco Brahe, Dalton, Young, Clerk Maxwell, J.J. Thomson, Max Plank, Pierre and Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Neil Bohr, Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli, Dirac, Lemaitre, Friedman, Hubble, Gamow, Fred Hoyle, Fermi, Chadwick, Otto Hahn, Meitner, Wheeler, Murray Gell-Mann; Flaming, Pauline, Watson and Crick etc. the admitted best contributors to science had theories that translated into useful technologies that helped improve the human living condition.) Political scientists ought to study politics and show us how (device technology) we can use their knowledge to improve the human polity.
PS:
What a man writes about other persons says a lot about him. What I wrote above reflects my own personal psychology. I see myself as a member of society. I believe that I am entitled to participate in how society is governed rather than detach from it and merely describe the activities of those governing it. I could never be a mere reporter of other human beings activities. I must wade into social, political activities and help shape the direction of my society. It takes power to shape public policies so I seek power and am not ashamed that I desire power, power to do something, to improve my society. I admire militants and social activists and have contempt for mere scholars, although I understand that someone has to be a scholar; someone has to report on the activities of politicians but that someone is not me. Each person must be truthful to his nature. The truth about me is that I want to be one of those in charge of doing things in society; I have a dominant personality; no human being born of woman can tell me what to do; he must ask for my input before he does what concerns me or else I feel justified in going to war with him or at least ignoring him and his policies. I am an alpha male; I am not some bureaucrat who implements other men's policies.
Ozodi Thomas Osuji February 4, 2012
|
Forum members are reminded that NaijaPolitics is established to be a moderated forum for gavel-to-gavel discussion of political developments in Nigeria, Africa's largest democracy. Freedom of opinion/expression is inherent in NaijaPolitics. Views and opposing views expressed in NaijaPolitics forum are the rights of individual contributors. Mutual respect for people's views is the corner stone of our forum. Freedom of speech applied responsibly within the guiding parameters of Yahoo! Inc (our hosts) and NaijaPolitics Rules and Guidelines (broadcast monthly and accessible to all subscribers in our archives) is our guiding principle. Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
NaijaPolitics is division of Afrik Network Groups.
Latest Version of Disclaimer released (December 15, 2005)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment