Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T22:08:20.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Social Science of Democracy?

A Discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

Michael Munger
Affiliation:
Duke University

Extract

Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist. By Jon Elster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 212p. $80.00 cloth, $22.99 paper.

Alexis de Tocqueville is surely one of the most widely cited, discussed, and celebrated political theorists in the world. Jon Elster's book, Alexis de Tocqueville: the First Social Scientist proceeds from a provocative premise: that Tocqueville's major works were lacking in “system” and were “hugely incoherent,” and that Tocqeuville himself “was not a major political thinker” (xi). Elster argues that instead Tocqueville ought to be viewed as a penetrating historical sociologist and an exemplary social scientist who might well be considered the first true social scientist. Elster's argument is important for at least two reasons: first, because it offers a striking and challenging reading of Tocqueville; and second, because it expands on Elster's own contributions in the philosophy of social science, and develops interesting understandings of “causal mechanisms,” methodological individualism, and social explanation more generally. As Elster writes in his Introduction, “the main task of this book is to argue for the relevance of Tocqueville for social science in the twenty-first century (p. 5).” The purpose of this Perspectives symposium is to assess Elster's argument in broad terms. What are the strengths and limits of Elster's reading of Tocqueville? How ought we to assess Elster's understanding of Tocqueville's deficiencies as a “political theorist?” What is the relevance of Tocqueville for contemporary social science? And, most importantly, what are the challenges and possible trajectories facing social science in the twenty-first century, and to what extent does Elster's essay point us in the right direction?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Type
Review Symposium: The Social Science of Democracy?
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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.)

References

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Petit, Philip. 2004. The Political Economy of Esteem. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comte, August. (1819) 1998. “The General Separation of Opinions and Desires.” In Early Political Writings, ed. and trans. Jones, H.S.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comte, Auguste. (1848) 2006. A General View of Positivism. Translated by Bridges, J. H.. Boston: Kessinger Publishing.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Munger, Michael C. 2000. “Five Questions: An Integrated Research Agenda for Public Choice.” Public Choice 103(1-2): 112.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. (1759) 2009. Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc.Google Scholar
Stephen, James Fitzjames. (1873) 1991. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Swedberg, Richard. 2009. Tocqueville's Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. (1831) 2004. Democracy in America. Chicago: Library of America.Google Scholar