Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T22:47:06.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Opposition to Accommodation: How Rockefeller Foundation Grants Redefined Relations between Political Theory and Social Science in the 1950s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2006

EMILY HAUPTMANN
EMILY HAUPTMANN
Affiliation:
Western Michigan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this essay, I rely primarily on unpublished documents from the Rockefeller Foundation Archives as well as the annual reports of the Ford Foundation and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) to show that rather than being in a torpor, political theory in the 1950s was a large and eclectic field, marked by contest and rapid change. I focus on the Rockefeller Foundation's policy making for its program in Legal and Political Philosophy (LAPP), the largest grant program for political theory in the 1950s, both to see how the Foundation justified the creation of the program and how it defined its scope. I argue that when faced with the task of settling on a working definition of “political theory” for the purpose of awarding grants, the Foundation's officers and the academics who assisted them opted, after prolonged debate, for an eclectic definition of political theory. I read the emergence of this eclectic definition of political theory, however, not as evidence of pacific pluralism but as an attempt to contain some of the new challenges to the field by incorporating them into it, albeit in a subordinate position.

Type
“THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , November 2006 , pp. 643 - 649
Copyright
© 2006 by the American Political Science Association

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

Adcock Robert, and Mark Bevir. 2003. “The Remaking of Political Theory.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Amadae S. M. 2003. Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barry Brian. 1980. “The Strange Death of Political Philosophy.” Government and Opposition 15: 276– 88.Google Scholar
Becher Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines, 2nd edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Berlin Isaiah. [1963], 1979. “Does Political Theory Still Exist?” In Concepts and Categories, ed. Henry Hardy. Oxford: Penguin, 143– 72.
Brown Wendy. 2002. “At the Edge.” Political Theory 30 (August): 556– 76.Google Scholar
Connolly William. 2001. “Politics and Vision.” In Democracy and Vision: Sheldon Wolin and the Vicissitudes of the Political, eds. Aryeh Botwinick and William Connolly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1– 25.
Dahl Robert. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Movement.” American Political Science Review 55 (December): 763– 72.Google Scholar
Easton David. 1951. “The Decline of Modern Political Theory.” Journal of Politics 13 (February): 36– 58.Google Scholar
Eckstein Harry. 1956. “Political Theory and the Study of Politics: A Report of a Conference.” American Political Science Review 50 (June): 475– 87.Google Scholar
Ford Foundation Annual Reports. 1956–1957. New York: Ford Foundation.
Grants-in-Aid to Individuals, Legal and Political Philosophy. Series 200S (Social Science, United States), Record Group 1.2. Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Rockefeller Archive Center. Sleepy Hollow, New York.
Gunnell John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hauptmann Emily. 2005. “Defining ‘Theory’ in Postwar Political Science. In The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others, ed. George Steinmetz. Durham: Duke University Press.
Laslett Peter. 1956. “Introduction.” In Politics, Philosophy, and Society, 1st series, ed. Peter Laslett. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lowen Rebecca. 1997. Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Needell Allan A. 1998. “Project Troy and the Cold War Annexation of the Social Sciences.” In Universities & Empire, ed. Christopher Simpson. New York: The New Press, 3– 38.
Program and Policy Files, Legal and Political Philosophy. Series 910, Record Group 3. Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Rockefeller Archive Center. Sleepy Hollow, New York. Cited as RAC-1.
Reisch George A. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed the Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roelofs Joan. 2003. Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.
Simpson Christopher, ed. 1998. Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences during the Cold War. New York: New Press.
Slaughter Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Social Science Research Council Annual Reports. 1952–1961. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Social Science Research Council Fellowships in Legal and Political Philosophy, Series 200E (Fellowships), Record Group 1.2, Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Rockefeller Archive Center. Sleepy Hollow, New York. Cited as RAC-2.
Wolin Sheldon. 1960. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Boston: Little, Brown.
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.