Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T11:36:22.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Nomenclature in Political Science*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Charles H. Titus*
Affiliation:
University of Californiaat Los Angeles

Extract

Confusion reigns almost supreme in the field of political science, particularly when the meaning of terms is involved. Some of our most commonly used words have so many meanings, shades of meaning, and connotations that hearers and readers are frequently at a loss as to the meaning and significance of terms used unless the speaker or writer defines them as he uses them. A cursory examination of the term “state” brought to light no fewer than one hundred forty-five different definitions, even though only a few writers were included who might be classed as radical. Less than half of the definitions were in general agreement. Even this statement is based on the assumption that when the same words were used by two writers they were used to mean the same thing; and I doubt whether the assumption is entirely justifiable. Furthermore, “state” is not the only term in political science which is defined in multifold ways. A similar situation was found when others, especially “law,” “government,” “political,” “administration,” were investigated.

The process of communication between political scientists, as well as between these scientists and laymen or between laymen and laymen, comes to be a guessing game. Consciously or unconsciously, it is suggested, we are spending much of our time guessing what the sender means when he uses even technical words.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1931

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.)

Footnotes

*

The contents of this article have been copyrighted by the author.

References

1 Brown, James C., The History of Chemistry from Earliest Times (2nd ed.), 153Google Scholar.

2 James C. Brown, op. cit., 310.

3 A History of Chemistry (in International Chemistry Series), 52.

4 Ibid., 104.

5 Smith, D. E., History of Mathematics, 330Google Scholar.

6 Ibid., 494.

7 Ibid., 389.

8 Cajori, Florion, A History of Mathematics, 232Google Scholar.

9 Cook, Walter W., “Hohfeld's Contributions to the Science of Law,” 28 Yale Law Journal 721 (1919)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also 23 Yale Law Journal 16 (1913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and 26 Yale Law Journal 710 (1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 P. 183.

11 Ibid., 190.

12 The Art of Thought, synopsis of Chap. I: “…. the human organism as an imperfectly integrated combination of living elements, each of which retains some initiative of its own, while coöperating with the rest in securing the good of the whole organism.”

13 This development of quantitative flexibility was suggested by Mr. Walter T. Bogart, of the political science department of the University of California at Los Angeles.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.