Charles E. Merriam

The Present State of the Study of Politics.

The original plan of this paper included a general survey and critique of the leading tendencies in the study of politics during the last thirty or forty years. It was intended to compare the methods and results of the various types of political thought—to pass in review the historical school, the juridical school, the students of comparative government, the philosophers as such, the attitude of the economist, the contributions made by the geographer and the ethnologist, the work of the statisticians, and finally to deal with the psychological, the sociological, the biological interpretations of the political process. It would have been an interesting and perhaps a useful task to compare the scope and method of such thinkers as Jellinek, Gierke, Duguit, Dicey and Pound; the philosophies of Sorel and Dewey, of Ritchie and Russell, of Nietzsche and Tolstoi; to review the methods of Durkheim and Simmel, of Ward and Giddings and Small; of Cooley and Ross; and to discuss the developments seen in the writings of Wallas and Cole. It would have been useful possibly to extend the analysis to the outstanding features of the environment in which these ideas have flourished, and to their numerous and intimate relations and interrelations.

Progress in Political Research

It is now over twenty-one years since a group of scholastic adventurers meeting in New Orleans established the American Political Science Association, and started the organization upon its uncertain course. Looking back over the days that intervene between our infancy and this, the attainment of our twenty-first meeting, one may trace the lines of advance in our undertaking. As one of the charter members I may be permitted the liberty of reviewing briefly some of the more significant fields in this development. One of the most striking advances in research during the last twenty-one years has been that centering around the problem of the modern city. Research centers, some of them within and some of them without university walls, have sprung up all over the country, and municipal research workers have contributed materially to the intelligent analysis of urban phenomena and to the direction of the growth of our municipalities. In no field has there been more scientific and practical political research than here. Goodnow was most conspicuous in this field in the earlier days and Munro in the later. The study of political parties has been rescued from neglect and has been made an integral part of instruction and the object of many specific studies, notably those of Holcombe, Rice, and Gosnell. Along with parties, public opinion has been made an object of more intensive inquiry, as in the suggestive studies of Lippman and Allport.

The Significance of Psychology for the Study of Politics

As a part of its work, the committee on research of the American Political Science Association has undertaken a survey of the relation of politics to kindred types of inquiry, including psychology, anthropology, geography, biology, engineering and others. The purpose of such an inquiry is to explore the relationships that exist with kindred sciences, to facilitate cooperation with our fellow-workers, to improve our methods of investigation, and to promote the progress of political science. The committee is not responsible for this report, for its form or content, its scope or method, its sins of omission or commission. Probably the general sentiment of the committee toward psychology would be expressed by the phrase, con amore ma non troppo . It may be worth while at the outset to scrutinize some of the earlier relations of psychology to political science, for the friendship is one of long standing. In the earlier forms of political thinking, there are crude types of psychology that are of great interest and significance in the development of the art of political thinking. These philosophers evidently utilized all of the psychology that was current in the construction of their political systems.

The Possibilities of Planning

To plan or not to plan is no real issue. Planning even of economic affairs has existed at all levels of our national life, both public and private, since the beginning of our history. The only issue is who shall plan for what ends. The democratic formula seeks concrete mechanisms to guarantee the full participation of all in planning for the common good.

The Case for Home Rule

regulation. This home rule article was suddenly stricken out by the house. Upon public protest it was restored by the senate. On the last day of the session the house refused to concur in the senate amendment, and to the consternation of Chicago the act became a law. It swept away most of the powers Chicago had slowly wrung from the state legislature through a long series of efforts, and snatched away the hope of adding others. This act was not demanded by the state of Illinois. No party and no candidate urged it. The Chicago press, and people, had uttered the most vigorous protest against the measure. Unasked by the people of the state and denounced by the people of the city, this bill was passed in the interest of public utility corporations, and was the crowning climax of the corporation legislation of our state.

On the Agenda of Physics and Politics

On the agenda of physics and politics is a world bill of rights. It would provide the unimpeded exchange of ideas, as essential to the coming vast development of communication and transportation; the development of international agencies of government to safeguard social and economic life and social security in general; the creation of an atomic development authority, for atomic energy will be the powerhouse of the world; the full, world-wide development of human and material resources; and, finally, the establishment of national research foundations, here and elsewhere, to provide universal education, particularly in human relations. The alternative is a world war, probably universal destruction.

A Member of the University Community

SOPHONISBA PRESTON BRECKINRIDGE was a member of many different communities. May I speak first of her membership in the community of scholars, and particularly in the University of Chicago community. Already a full-fledged member of the bar, she became a University of Chicago Fellow in political science in 1898 and carried on her scholarly work here for half a century. To our community of scholars she made a rich and notable contribution?

Some Aspects of Loyalty

HERE are many kinds of loyalties in human life: loyalty to the family, loyalty to the neighborhood, loyalty to the group, loyalty to the city, the state, and the nation, loyalty to the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. These loyalties are usually in concert, but at times they are in conflict, often of the sharpest and most poignant type. What happens when the family is called upon to surrender a son who is a fugitive from justice? What happens when the church and state conflict? Galsworthy, Rebecca West, de Maupassant, Royce are full of incidents in the area of conflicting loyalties. A few years ago I undertook a study called The Making of Citizens in which a group of us examined the ways and means by which political allegiance is produced in some ten countries Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Russia, England, the United States, and in a primitive group, the Duk-Duks. I followed this up with a study of Civic Education in the United States and with other inquiries. I am not speaking now as a member of the Loyalty Review Board, but as a long-time student of political loyalty and fidelity.

Jefferson as a planner of national resources

E clue to the understanding of Jefferson is found in his idea of liberty. Jefferson was for freedom, not only from something but for something. Jefferson hated tyranny and demanded freedom from oppression, but he also demanded the pursuit of happiness. In his thinking, equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were real and inseparable parts of a world in which human beings might best develop. Underlying this was his confidence in the perfectibility of mankind, in the possibilities of continuing growth and development. Jefferson was against tyranny in any form, whether physical or mental, whether by public or private agencies, whether by state, church, land jobbers, or bankers. The tyranny of landlords and land speculators, the tyranny of central government or local government, the tyranny of ignorance-all these were the objects of his attack from time to time. What may seem inconsistent in the thinking of Jefferson arises from failure to observe his real objectives-the ends toward which he moved in the emancipation of mankind and in the equipment of men for the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson was not merely a philosopher; he was also a statesman and a social engineer-also a party leader, to be sure, but that is not our present topic. Jefferson not only set forth the ends but also planned constructively the means of attaining liberty, equality, the pursuit of happiness, and the consent of the governed.

Putting Politics in Its Place

T nHE modern world suffers from a lack of balance between what is called the political and what is called the economic; from a lack of working interrelationship between them, and between politics and economics and the larger social whole. This misunderstanding, obstructing the way to clear thinking and intelligent social action, is the result of a century of tragic misinterpretation of these relations, now producings its full effect in a period of sweeping change when adjustment is more than ever necessary. Failure to deal effectively with social maladjustments and the distress they bring to vast numbers of the human race is full of the very gravest threats for the continuation of our civilization. In the moment of the very greatest triumphs of the human race over the forces of nature, we face the grim reality of violent social dislocation, of civil and international wars, of Vesuvian eruptions so full of hatred, violence, unreason, and impatience as to threaten the stability not merely of a social or political order but of our civilization and the happiness of mankind. The paragraphs immediately following are designed to illuminate some of the dark spots of our discontent. The result of the clash between opposing doctrines seen in Hegelianism, Austinianism, collectivism, totalitarianism, on the one side, and anarchism, laissez faire, anarchistic socialism, governmental boycottism, on the other side, has been the setting-