Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T18:23:15.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Origins of Interest-Group Theory: A Critique of a Process*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

G. David Garson
G. David Garson
Affiliation:
Tufts University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting with nineteenth-century jurisprudence, this essay traces the changing perceptions of the nature and role of groups in politics as affected in turn by scientific reformism, classic pluralism, and descriptive science orientations to the study of politics. The work of Laski and Bentley is highlighted.

The essay contends that political science has not grown by scientific study laid upon scientific study, but rather by a process of gradual encroachment of ideas in which basic premises, questions, and terms shifted without adequate examination. It is argued that this change is not properly portrayed as a trend from abstract legal metaphysics to ever more sophisticated approximations of reality. The forgotten contributions of past orientations are stressed, and the reasons that Bentley was ignored in his day discussed.

More specifically, the study concludes that the process of accretion of ideas was of some benefit to political science as a discipline, but the heritage left by this process was negative in two important respects: the neglect of a dynamic in favor of a static perspective, and the divorce of normative theory from empirical research on American politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 1505 - 1519
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1974

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

1 Avery Leiserson, rev. of The Governmental Process, by Truman, David, American Political Science Review (hereinafter APSR), 45 (December, 1951), 1192–1193Google Scholar.

2 Golembiewski, Robert J., “The Group Basis of Politics: Notes on Analysis and Development,” APSR, 54 (December, 1960), 971Google Scholar.

3 Graham Wootton, “Interest Groups in Britain and the United States: Contributions to Public Policy,” a paper prepared for the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, September 5–9, 1972, p. 1.

4 Zeigler, L. Harmon and Peak, G. Wayne, Interest Groups in American Society, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 5Google Scholar.

5 Bryce, James, “The Relations of Political Science to History and to Practice,” APSR, 3 (Feb., 1909), 6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Woolsey, Theodore, Political Science, or The State (New York: Scribner's, 1893), I, 203Google Scholar.

7 Woolsey, II, ch. 12.

8 Woolsey, I, p. 203.

9 Quoted in Mulford, Elisha, The Nation: The Foundations of Civil Order and Political Life in the United States (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1881; orig. 1870), p. 212Google Scholar. See also Woolsey, II, 292 ff.

10 Mulford, ch. 15.

11 Willoughby, W. W., An Examination of the Nature of the State (New York.: Macmillan, 1896), pp. 382–383Google Scholar.

12 Zeigler and Peak, p. 6.

13 Willoughby, p. 383.

14 Latham, Earl, “The Group Basis of Politics: Notes for a Theory,” APSR, 46 (June, 1952), 376–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Filler, Louis, The Muckrakers: Crusaders for American Liberalism (Chicago: Regnery, 1968; orig. 1950), p. 17Google Scholar.

16 Sparling, S. E., review of The Struggle for Self-Government, by Steffens, Lincoln, APSR, 2 (November, 1908), 658–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Ford, Henry Jones, rev. of The American Commonwealth, by Bryce, James, APSR, 5 (August, 1911), 476–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Macy, Jesse, “The Scientific Spirit in Politics,” APSR, 11 (February, 1917), 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Cited in Beard, Charles, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1913), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

20 Beard, Charles, The Economic Basis of Politics (New York: Vintage, 1957; orig. 1922), pp. 158–9Google Scholar.

21 Alvord, Clarence W., The Mississippi Valley in British Politics (Cleveland: Clark, 1917), vols. I and IIGoogle Scholar.

22 Laski, Harold, Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917)Google Scholar, excerpted in Leviathan in Crisis, ed. Browne, Walter R. (New York: Viking, 1946), p. 113Google Scholar.

23 Laski, , Studies, in Browne, , p. 120Google Scholar.

24 Shepard, Walter, rev. of Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty, by Laski, Harold J., APSR, 11 (August, 1917), 582–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The school to which Shepard alludes includes Figgis, Maitland, Duguit, von Gierke and others on whom Laski drew. Because of space limitations only Laski is considered here, because of his pre-eminence in interpreting pluralist theory to American political scientists.

25 Cf. Laski, Harold, “The Political Theory of the Disruption,” APSR, 10 (August, 1916), 437–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Laski frequently used church history for examples, generally as an analogue for the history of trade unions.

26 Russell, Bertrand, Political Ideals (New York: Century, 1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Shepard, Walter, rev. of Authority in the Modern State, by Laski, Harold, APSR, 13 (August, 1919), 493Google Scholar.

28 Ellis, Ellen Deborah, “The Pluralistic State,” APSR, 14 (August., 1920), 407CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Coker, Francis, “The Technique of the Pluralist State,” APSR, 15 (May, 1921), 194–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Coker, p. 197.

31 Cf. Laski, Harold, The Foundations of Sovereignty (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1921)Google Scholar; Shepard, Walter, rev. of The Foundations of Sovereignty, by Laski, H., APSR, 16 (February, 1922), 130–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Korff, Baron S. A., “The Problem of Sovereignty,” APSR, 17 (August, 1923), 404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Turner, Jennie McMullin, “Democracy in Administration,” APSR, 17 (May, 1923), 216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Carpenter, Niles, Guild Socialism: An Historical and Critical Analysis (New York: Appleton, 1922)Google Scholar.

35 Sabine, George, “Pluralism: A Point of View,” APSR, 17 (February, 1923), 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Sabine, 50.

37 Ellis, Ellen Deborah, “Guild Socialism and Pluralism,” APSR, 17 (December, 1923), 584CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Elliott, W. Y., “The Pragmatic Politics of Mr. H. J. Laski,” APSR, 18 (May, 1924), 259–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Elliott, W. Y., “Sovereign State or Sovereign Group?,” APSR, 19 (August, 1925), 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Laski, Harold, A Grammar of Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), p. 9Google Scholar.

41 Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971; orig. 1885), p. xvGoogle Scholar.

42 Small, Albion, The Cameralists: The Pioneers of German Social Policy (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1909)Google Scholar.

43 Wilson, 331–332, bk. 3, ch. 3.

44 Small, Albion and Vincent, George, An Introduction to the Study of Society (New York: American Book, 1894)Google Scholar.

45 Small and Vincent, bk. 4, ch. 4.

46 Small and Vincent, pp. 74, 239.

47 Small, Albion, Origins of Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), p. 285Google Scholar.

48 Moore, Frederick W., intro. to The Outline of Sociology (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1899), by Gumplowicz, Ludwig, p. 5Google Scholar.

49 Moore, p. 6.

50 von Jhering, Rudolf, Law as a Means to an End (New York: Macmillan, 1913; orig. 1877), p. 40Google Scholar.

51 Bentley, Arthur, The Process of Government, ed. Odegard, Peter (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. orig. 1908), p. 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Peter Odegard, intro. to Bentley, pp. xiii–xix.

53 Bentley, p. 211.

54 Rev. of The Process of Government, by Bentley, Arthur, The Nation, 87 (July 30, 1908), 94Google Scholar; Charles Beard, rev. of The Process of Government, by Bentley, Arthur, Political Science Quarterly, 23 (December, 1908), 739–741Google Scholar.

55 In addition to above, see Outlook, 89 (May 30, 1908), 263Google Scholar.

56 Bentley, p. 465.

57 Bentley, pp. 465–467.

58 Bentley, p. 244.

59 Bentley, p. 56.

60 Merriam, Charles, “The Present State of the Study of Politics,” APSR, 15 (May, 1921), 173–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Easton, David, The Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953), p. 177Google Scholar.

62 Bentley, 222.

63 Pateman, Carole, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), esp. chaps. 1 and 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Bachrach, Peter, The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967)Google Scholar.

65 Barnes, Harry E., “Some Contributions of Sociology to Modern Political Theory,” APSR, 15 (November, 1921), 487–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Dowling, R. E., “Pressure Group Theory: Its Methodological Range,” APSR, 54 (December, 1960), 951CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Golembiewski, Robert, “The Group Basis of Politics: Notes on Analysis and Development,” APSR, 54 (December, 1960), 963Google Scholar.

67 Dowling, pp. 949–50; Hale, Myron Q., “The Cosmology of Arthur F. Bentley,” APSR, 54 (December, 1960), 956CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Hart, Albert B., “Growth of American Theories of Popular Government,” APSR, 1 (August, 1907), 558CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Wilson, Woodrow, “The Law and the Facts,” APSR, 5 (February, 1911), 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Wilson, , “The Law …,” pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

71 Rev. of Principles of Social Psychology, by Williams, James M., APSR, 16 (November, 1922), 715CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Kallen, Horace M., “Political Science as Psychology,” APSR, 17 (May, 1923), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Merriam, Charles, “The Significance of Psychology for the Study of Politics,” APSR, 18 (August, 1924), 485–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Ellwood, Charles, The Psychology of Human Society (New York: Appleton, 1925)Google Scholar.

75 Lasswell, Harold, “Two Forgotten Studies in Political Psychology,” APSR, 19 (November, 1925), 707–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lasswell, Harold, “The Study of the Ill as a Method of Research into Political Personalities,” APSR, 23 (November, 1929), 996–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allport, Floyd, Social Psychology (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1924)Google Scholar; Sorokin, Pitirim, The Sociology of Revolution (New York: Lippincot, 1925)Google Scholar.

76 Lippman, Walter, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922)Google Scholar; Lippman, Walter, The Phantom Public (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1925)Google Scholar.

77 Bernays, Edward, Crystallizing Public Opinion (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1923)Google Scholar; Bernays, Edward, Propaganda (New York: Horace Liveright, 1928)Google Scholar.

78 Allport, Floyd and Hartman, D. A., “Measurement and Motivation of Atypical Opinion in a Certain Group,” APSR, 19 (November, 1925), 735–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Rev. of The Public Mind, by Angell, Norman, APSR, 21 (August, 1927), 695Google Scholar.

80 Eldridge, Seba, The New Citizenship (New York: Crowell, 1929)Google Scholar. Civic education ideas are traced in Garson, G. David, “Research on Policy Alternatives for America in the 1930's,” Political Inquiry, 1 (Winter, 1973–1974), 50–77Google Scholar. Garson, G. David, “Citizenship as Ideology,” Maxwell Review, 10 (Winter, 1973–1974), 25–38Google Scholar.

81 Catlin, George, “The Delimitation and Mensurability of Political Phenomena,” APSR, 21 (May, 1927), 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Catlin, 255.

83 Catlin, 262–268.

84 Ellis, Ellen Deborah, “Political Science at the Crossroads,” APSR, 21 (November, 1927), 789–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 W. Y. Elliot, rev. of The Modern State, by MacIver, R. M., APSR, 21 (May, 1927), 432–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Willoughby, W. W., “The Jurist Theories of Krabbe,” APSR, 20 (August, 1926), 509–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Sabine, George H., “Political Science and the Jurist Point of View,” APSR, 22 (August, 1928), 553–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Corwin, Edwin S., “The Democratic Dogma and the Future of Political Science,” APSR, 23 (August, 1929), 591CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Reeves, Jesse S., “Perspectives in Political Science, 1903–1928,” APSR, 23 (February, 1929), 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Munro, William Bennett, “Physics and Politics: An Old Analogy Revised,” APSR, 22 (February, 1928), 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Spencer, Richard, “Significance of a Functional Approach in the Introductory Course in Political Science,” APSR, 22 (November, 1928), 961CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Dickinson, John, “Social Order and Political Authority,” APSR, 23 (May and August, 1929), 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Dickinson, 619.

94 Dickinson, 625.

95 Zeigler and Peak, 12.

96 Catlin, George, The Science and Method of Politics (New York: Knopf, 1927), 210–211Google Scholar.

97 See Garson, “Research on Policy Alternatives …” for further discussion of social planning thought.

98 Rothman, Stanley, “Systematic Political Theory: Observations on the Group Approach,” APSR, 54 (March, 1960), 24, 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In a brief reply, Truman disclaimed followers who treated his work as a group theory of politics, stating the book's purpose was simply to “examine interest groups and their role,” not develop a general model of politics. Truman, David, “On the Invention of ‘Systems’,” APSR, 54 (June, 1960), 494–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Dowling, p. 953.

100 Dowling, 953.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.