¹ Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1962)Google Scholar. Among the first wave commentaries on Kuhn's work by political scientists are included the following: Truman, David, “Disillusion and Regeneration: The Quest for a Discipline,” American Political Science Review, 59 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 866; Almond, Gabriel, “Political Theory and Political Science,” American Political Science Review, LX (1966), 869–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim; Holt, Robert T. and Richardson, John H. Jr, “Competing Paradigms in Comparative Politics,” in Holt, and Turner, , eds., The Methodology of Comparative Research (New York, 1970), pp. 21–72Google Scholar; and Landau, Martin, “Sociology and the Study of Formal Organizations,” Papers in Comparative Public Administration, Special Series, No. 8, pp. 37–50Google Scholar.

² See Gunnell, John, “Philosophy of Science and Political Science: An Overview” (paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 09 6–12, 1971), pp. 1, 32, and 41Google Scholar.

³ Ibid., p. 8.

⁴ A good example of this generalization is Landau's, Martin essay, “Objectivity, Neutrality, and Kuhn's Paradigm,” in his Political Theory and Political Science (New York, 1972), pp. 43–77Google Scholar. But see also Stephens, Jerome, ”The Kuhnian Paradigm and Political Inquiry: An Appraisal,” American Journal of Political Science, XVII (1973), 467–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ See, for example, the language analytic turn evident in recent essays by Euben, Wertheimer, and Strong: Euben, J. Peter, “Political Science and Political Silence,” in Green, Philip and Levinson, Sanford, eds., Power and Community (New York, 1970), pp. 3–58Google Scholar; Wertheimer, Alan, “Is Ordinary Language Analysis Conservative?” (paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 08 29-09 2, 1974)Google Scholar; Strong, Tracy, “Dramatic Audiences as Metaphor in Political Theory” (paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 08 29-09 2, 1974)Google Scholar. Wolfe's, Alan recent writings in the wake of the postbehavioral impasse have revealed a very ambivalent attraction to Althusserian structuralism which apparently has been transcended—compare his comments in his The Seamy Side of Democracy (New York, 1973)Google Scholar, with his essay, “New Directions in the Marxist Theory of Politics,” Politics & Society, IV (1974), 131–159Google Scholar. Among leading political theorists associated with the post-behavioral movement in the sixties, Ellis Sandoz has been a leading exponent of a return to classical political thought—Sandoz, “The Philosophical Science of Politics Beyond Behavioralism,” in Graham, and Carey, , eds., The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science (New York, 1972), pp. 285–305Google Scholar.

⁶ Easton, , “The New Revolution in Political Science,” American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969), 1052Google Scholar.

⁷ This agenda was advocated and prefigured in Reid, Herbert G., “American Political Science in the Politics of Time and the Crisis of Technocorporate Society: Toward a Critical Phenomenology,” Politics & Society, III (1973), 201–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and elaborated in greater depth in Reid, and Yanarella, , “Toward a Post-Modern Theory of American Political Science and Political Culture: Perspectives from Critical Marxism and Phenomenology,” Cultural Hermeneuties, II (1974), 1–76Google Scholar.

⁸ Jung, Hwa Yol, “A Critique of the Behavioral Persuasion in Politics: A Phenomenological View,” in Natanson, Maurice, ed., Phenomenology and the Social Sciences, vol. 2 (Evanston, 1973), pp. 133–173Google Scholar; Jung, , “The Political Relevance of Existential Phenomenology,” The Review of Politics, 33 (1971), 538–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jung, , “The Crisis of Political Understanding: An Insight into Subjectivity in Political Inquiry” (paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 08 29-09 2, 1974)Google Scholar; Strauber, Ira L., “Paradigms: Behavioralism, Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Science” (paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Saratoga Springs, New York, 11 4–6, 1971)Google Scholar; Ihara, Randal H., “The Inadequacies of Analytic Political Science: A Phenomenological Critique of Lester Milbrath,” Helderberg Review, III (Fall 1972-Winter 1973), 21–36Google Scholar; Surkin, Marvin, ”Sense and Non-Sense in Politics,” in Surkin and Wolfe, An End to Political Science, pp. 13–33Google Scholar; and Taylor, Charles, “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man,” Review of Metaphysics, XXV (1971), 3–51Google Scholar. See also, Kariel, Henry S., ”The Political Relevance of Behavioral and Existential Psychology,” American Political Science Review, LXI (1967), 334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Gunnell, “Social Science and Political Reality”; Gunnell, , “Political Inquiry and the Concept of Action: A Phenomenological Analysis,” in Natanson, , ed., Phenomenology and the Social Sciences, 2: 197–275Google Scholar; Dallmayr, Fred R., “Phenomenology and Marxism: A Salute to Enzo Paci,” in Psathas, George, ed., Phenomenological Sociology: Issues and Applications (New York, 1973), pp. 305–356Google Scholar; and Dallmayr, , ”Phenomenology and Social Science: An Overview and Appraisal,” in Casey, Edward and Carr, David, eds., Explorations in Phenomenology (The Hague, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁹ Thomas Spragens, a student of John Hallowell, develops his critique of scientistic trends in behavioral political science from the corpus of Michael Polanyi's philosophical and epistemological writings, while Ellis Sandoz's critique is inspired by the works of the neoclassical political philosopher, Eric Voegelin: Spragens, Thomas, The Dilemma of Contemporary Political Theory: Toward a Post-Behavioral Science of Politics (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; and Ellis Sandoz, “The Philosophical Science of Politics Beyond Behavioralism.” A recent Straussian critique has been offered by Miller, Eugene F. in his essay, “Positivism, Historicism and Political Inquiry,” American Political Science Review, LXVI (1972), 796–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ For valuable historical and philosophical insight into the essential background to this “war against positivism” (Windelband's term), see Hughes, H. Stuart, Consciousness and Society: The Reconstruction of European Social Thought, 1890–1930 (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Antoni, Carl, From History to Sociology: The Transition in German Historical Thinking (Detroit, 1959)Google Scholar; and Landgrebe, Ludwig, Major Problems in Contemporary European Philosophy: From Dilthey to Heidegger (New York, 1966), pp. 6 and 7Google Scholar.

¹¹ With regard to this theme, the following works might be profitably explored: Weber's, The Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans, and intro. Shils, E. A. and Finch, H. A. (New York, 1949)Google Scholar, especially his essay, “‘Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy,” pp. 50–112; also, Cahnman, Werner, “Max Weber and the Methodological Controversy of the Social Sciences,” in Cahnman, and Boskoff, , eds., History and Sociology (New York, 1964), p. 103–127Google Scholar. Weber, , The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Parsons, Talcott (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Marcuse's, Herbert incisive critique of Weber, ”Industrialization and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber,” Negations (Boston, 1968), esp. pp. 204, 214–215, and 225Google Scholar; and Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, Themes from, the Lectures, trans. O'Neill, John (Evanston, 1970), pp. 27–38Google Scholar; Merleau-Ponty, , “The Crisis of the Understanding,” Adventures of the Dialectic, trans. Bien, Joseph (Evanston, 1973), pp. 9–29Google Scholar; and Antoni, Carlo, “Max Weber,” pp. 119–184Google Scholar. For Lukacs, , see his History and Class-Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics (Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar; and, for two essays offering penetrating analyses of this theme in Lukacs’ work, see Arato, Andrew, “Lukacs' Theory of Reification,” Telos, No. 11 (1972), 25–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Jacoby, Russell, “Towards a Critique of Automatic Marxism: The Politics of Philosophy from Lukacs to the Frankfurt School,” Telos, No. 10 (1971), 110–146Google Scholar.

¹² Crucial to any understanding of this theme would be the following writings: Husserl, Edmund, The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. Carr, David (Evanston, 1970)Google Scholar, Piccone, Paul, “Phenomenological Marxism,” Telos, No. 9 (1971), 24–25Google Scholar. Enzo Paci's discussion is similarly clarifying—Paci, The Function of the Sciences and the Meaning of Man, trans, and intro. Piccone, Paul and Hansen, James E. (Evanston, 1972), pp. 19–122Google Scholar. Piccone, Paul, “Reading the Crisis,” Telos, No. 8 (1971), 121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Piana, Giovanni, “History and Existence in Husserl's Manuscripts,” Telos, No. 13 (1972), 86–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jordan, Robert W., “Husserl's Phenomenology as an Historical Science,” social Research, 35 (1968), 245–259Google Scholar.

¹³ Particularly germane to an elaboration of this theme are the following: Ludwig Landgrebe, “Knowledge and Action,” Major Problems in Contemporary European Philosophy: From Dilthey to Heidegger; Heidegger, , What Is Called Thinking? (New York, 1961)Google Scholar; Lingis, Alphonso F., “On the Essence of Technique,” in Frings, Manfred S., ed., Heidegger and the Quest for Truth (Chicago, 1968)Google Scholar; Hood, Webster F., “The Aristotelian Versus the Heideggerian Approach to the Problem of Technology,” in Mitcham, Carl and Mackey, Robert, eds., Philosophy and Technology (New York, 1972), pp. 347–363Google Scholar; Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition (Chicago, 1958)Google Scholar. For a Heideggerian (and post-modern) interpretation of Marx, see Blum's, Alan “On Reading Marx,” Sociological Inquiry, XLIII (1973), 23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ See Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W., Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. Gumming, John (New York, 1972)Google Scholar. For a good summary and overview of many of the themes in this seminal work, see Jay, Martin, The Dialectical Imagination (Boston, 1973), pp. 212–213, 253–266Google Scholar, and passim. Since we are cognizant of the ‘Frankfurt thinkers’ antipathy to Heidegger's thought in various areas, we would caution the reader to be mindful of the level of generalization in forming the above discussion. Also, very helpful in clarifying the basic themes of this work is Wohlfarth's, Irving “Presentation of Adorno,” New Left Review, 46 (1967), 65–67Google Scholar.

¹⁵ vanPeursen, C. A., “Phenomenology and Ontology,” Philosophy Today, III (1959), 39Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ The substance of these complex relationships, sympathies, reactions, and critiques can be uncovered in the following works: Adorno, Theodor W., “Husserl and the Problem of Idealism,” Journal of Philosophy, XXVII (1940), 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adorno, , The Jargon of Authenticity (Evanston, 1973)Google Scholar; Adorno, , Negative Dialectics (New York, 1973), pp. 61–131Google Scholar; Marcuse, Herbert, “Contributions of a Phenomenology of Historical Materialism,” Telos, No. 4 (1969), 3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marcuse, , “The Concept of Essence,” Negations, pp. 43–87Google Scholar; Marcuse, , One-Dimensional Man (Boston, 1964), pp. 162–166Google Scholar; and Marcuse, , “On Science and Phenomenology,” in Cohen, Robert S. and Wartofsky, Max W., eds., Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2 (New York, 1965), 279–290Google Scholar. See also, for an overview and interpretation of Marcuse's ambivalent attitude toward Heidegger and phenomenology, Piccone, Paul and Delfini, Alex, ”Marcuse's Heideggerian Marxism,” Telos, No. 6 (1970), 36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though we feel compelled to warn the reader that the thesis of this essay is overdrawn and neglects to take into account Marcuse's practical reconciliation with phenomenology evident in Marcuse's last two books and particularly his Counter-Revolution and Revolt (Boston, 1972)Google Scholar, esp. his chapter, “Nature and Revolution,” pp. 59–78.

¹⁸ Virtually the whole corpus of Merleau-Ponty's work could be justifiably cited here. But, to be selective, in addition to the works already noted above, we would mention: Merleau-Ponty, , “Preface,” Phenomenology of Perception (New York, 1962), pp. vii–xxiGoogle Scholar; Merleau-Ponty, , Humanism and Terror (Boston, 1969)Google Scholar; Merleau-Ponty, , The Visible and the Invisible (Evanston, 1968)Google Scholar; Merleau-Ponty, , The Prase of the World (Evanston, 1973)Google Scholar; Merleau-Ponty, , “The Philosopher and His Shadow,” Signs (Evanston, 1964), pp. 159–181Google Scholar. For a penetrating and insightful paper infused with a deep appreciation for Merleau-Ponty's critical phenomenology, especially as it engages the problem of truth, see Dallmayr, Fred, “Marxism and Truth” (Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 08 29-09 2, 1974.)Google Scholar

¹⁹ Paci, Function of the Sciences; Paci, , “The Phenomenological Encyclopedia and the Telos of Humanity,” Telos, No. 2 (1968), 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Paci, , “Toward a New Phenomenology,” Telos, No. 5 (1970), 58–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ We present only that selection of Berkeley school writings of most value to the discussion which follows. It must also be emphasized that we are dealing with only some of the Berkeley political theorists and part of the work for the period focusing our attention. Wolin's, SheldonPolitics and Vision was published by Little, Brown & Co. in 1960Google Scholar. See also Jacobson, Norman, “Political Science and Political Education,” American Political Science Review, LVII (1963), 561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, Kirk, “Constitutional Theory and Political Action,” Journal of Politics, 31 (1969), 655–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schaar, John, “Legitimacy in the Modern State,” in Green, and Levinson, , eds., Power and Community, pp. 276–327Google Scholar; in the same volume, “Political Science and Political Silence,” by Euben, J. Peter, at pp. 3–58Google Scholar; Baskin, Darryl, American Pluralist Democracy: A Critique (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Drukman, Mason, Community and Purpose in America (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Pranger, Robert J., The Eclipse of Citizenship (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Marini, Frank, “John Locke and the Revision of Classical Democratic Theory,” Western Political Quarterly, XXII (1969), 5–18Google Scholar; Kress, Paul, “Self, System, and Significance: Reflections on Professor Easton's Political Science,” Ethics, LXXVII (1966), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schaar, John, “The American Biases of American Political Science” (paper delivered at the 1968 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association)Google Scholar; Gunnell, John, “The Idea of the Conceptual Framework: A Philosophical Critique,” Journal of Comparative Administration, I (1969), 140–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gunnell, John, “Political Science and the Philosophy of Science: An Overview and Argument” (paper delivered at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association)Google Scholar; Wolin, Sheldon, “Paradigms and Political Theories,” in King, P. and Parekh, B. C., eds., Politics and Experience (New York, 1968), pp. 125–153Google Scholar; Wolin, Sheldon, “Political Theory as a Vocation,” American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969), 1062–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schaar, John and Wolin, Sheldon, The Berkeley Rebellion and Beyond (New York, 1970)Google Scholar.

²¹ For an expanded version of the Berkeley school critique and the arguments above, see our article, “Toward a Post-Modern Theory of American Political Science and Culture: Perspectives from Critical Marxism and Phenomenology,” pp. 34–49.

²² Wolin, , “Paradigms and Political Theories,” 151, 149Google Scholar. This formulation of the Berkeley school critique and the next (and concluding) section of the text are tentative phases of a larger project aiming at a work now called A Critique of American Political Reason by Herbert G. Reid.

²³ For Hartz's, theory of the “fragment,” see The Founding of New Societies (New York, 1964)Google Scholar. For Wolin's references to Locke and Hartz, see “Paradigms and Political Theories,” p. 141. See also Wolin, , Politics and Vision, p. 140Google Scholar and generally pp. 331–351.

²⁴ Baskin, , American Pluralistic Democracy, p. 134Google Scholar.

²⁵ The quotation is from MacPherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (New York, 1964), p. 3Google Scholar.

²⁶ This discussion is based partly on chapter 3 in Reid, Herbert G., “Ontology, Technology, and Democracy in American Political Theory and Culture” (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1968)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Wolin, , Politics and Vision, p. 312, pp. 332–333Google Scholar.

²⁸ See especially the book by Schaar and Wolin listed in footnote 20 and the articles by Jacobson and Thompson.

²⁹ Thompson, , “Constitutional Theory,” p. 673Google Scholar.

³⁰ Jacobson, , “Political Science and Political Education,” p. 568Google Scholar.

³¹ Horkheimer, Max, Eclipse of Reason (New York, 1947), pp. 21–30Google Scholar.

³² Johnson, Bruce C., “The Democratic Mirage: Notes Toward a Theory of American Politics,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 13 (1968), 104–143Google Scholar, and reprinted in Herbert G. Reid, ed., Up the Mainstream: A Critique of Ideology in American Politics and Everyday Life (New York, 1974).

³³ Schaar, and Wolin, , Berkeley Rebellion, pp. 140–141, 158, 116Google Scholar.

³⁴ SSchaar, , “Legitimacy in the Modern State,” p. 290, pp. 308 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Quotation is from Kosik, Karel, “The Concrete Totality,” translated in Telos, no. 4 (1969), 51–52Google Scholar. See our Cultural Hermeneutics article for an extension of the critique of Schaar.

³⁶ Jaerisch, Ursula, “Max Weber's Contributions to the Sociology of Culture,” in Stammer, Otto, ed., Max Weber and Sociology Today (New York, 1971), pp. 226, 229Google Scholar. This volume also contains Herbert Marcuse's well-known critique of Max Weber, also reprinted in Negations.

³⁷ Rogin, Michael Paul, The Intellectuals and McCarthy: The Radical Spectre (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), p. 32Google Scholar. See also chapter 2 on “Lockean Moralism and Conservative Ideology.” Rogin draws upon Hartz's, LouisThe Liberal Tradition in America (New York, 1955)Google Scholar.

³⁸ The “benchmark” for our discussion here is Sheldon Wolin's “Political Theory as a Vocation.”

³⁹ See Reid and Yanarella, “Toward a Post-Modern Theory of American Political Science and Culture.”

⁴⁰ See Cicourel's, Aaron important discussion of language, meaning, and measurement in Method and Measurement in Sociology (New York, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Cf. McWilliams, Wilson Carey and Cohen, Alan M., “The Private World of Political Science Journals,” Change (09, 1974), pp. 53–55Google Scholar.

⁴² Wolin, , “Political Theory as a Vocation,” p. 1078Google Scholar.

⁴³ Kockelmans, Joseph, Phenomenology and Physical Science (Pittsburgh, 1966), chapter 4Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Sonneman, Ulrich, “The Specialist as a Psychological Problem,” Social Research, 18 (03, 1951), 9–31, at pp. 29–30Google Scholar. See also Daly, Robert W., ”The Specters of Technicism,” Psychiatry, 33 (1970), 417–432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, and especially this psychiatrist's discussion of the case of “Colonel Z” in whom “faith in the specter of technicism found its ultimate expression.”

⁴⁵ Reid, Herbert G., “Contemporary American Political Science in the Crisis of Industrial Society,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, XVI (1972), 339–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ See Horkheimer's, MaxCritical Theory (New York, 1972)Google Scholar which has an introduction by Stanley Aronowitz.

⁴⁷ Jay, , Dialectical Imagination, p. 61Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Part of this discussion is a revised and expanded version of Herbert G.Reid's commentary on “Can Phenomenology Be Critical?” presented by O'Neill, John to The University of Kentucky Symposium on “Critical Perspectives in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences,” 04, 1971Google Scholar. O'Neill's, paper has been published in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2 (1972), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Quotation at p. 1.

⁴⁹ Merleau-Ponty, , Themes, p. 40Google Scholar; and O'Neill's, “Critical Perspectives in Philosophy,” p. 8Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Kariel, Henry S., “Creating Political Reality,” American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 1095–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Kariel's, discussion in The Promise of Politics (Englewood Cliffs, 1966), p. 10Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Merleau-Ponty, , Themes, p. 36Google Scholar.

⁵² See Ashcraft, Richard, “Marx and Weber on Liberalism as Bourgeois Ideology,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 14 (1972), 130–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ The reader is urged to consult the work of Karel Kosik for a deeper understanding of this theme of the “totality.” Various articles have been translated and published in Telos.

⁵⁴ Horkheimer, , Eclipse of Reason, pp. 81–82Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Blum, Alan, Theorizing (London, 1974), chapters 6 and 9Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ O'Neill, John, “The Responsibility of Reason and the Critique of Political Economy,” in Natanson, , ed., Phenomenology and the Social Sciences, p. 298Google Scholar. The same two-volume study contains a remarkably misleading and inadequate article on “Phenomenology and Political Science” by Carl J. Friedrich. At the same time, the article does pinpoint some confusions about phenomenology among political scientists.

⁵⁷ “The Dialectic of Language and Critical Political Theory of the Body Politic” represents a preliminary formulation of part of a work in progress by Herbert G. Reid now called A Critique of American Political Reason.

⁵⁸ Zashin, Elliot and Chapman, Philip, “The Uses of Metaphor and Analogy: Toward a Renewal of Political Language,” Journal of Politics, 36 (1974), 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Ibid., pp. 293–294.

⁶⁰ Paci, Enzo, Function of the Sciences, pp. 205–224Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Ibid.

⁶² Ibid., p. 214.

⁶³ Reid, Herbert G., “American Social Science,” p. 215Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ See Paci, , Function of the Sciences, chapters 8, 11, 16, 19, 20Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Rovatti, Pier Aldo, “Critical Theory and Phenomenology,” Telos, No. 15 (1973), 39Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 30.

⁶⁷ Husserl, Edmund, as translated and quoted by Jordan, Robert Welsh, “Husserl's Phenomenology as an ‘Historical’ Science,” Social Research, 35 (1968), 250Google Scholar. This is more adequate than Garr's, David translation of the passage from “The Origins of Geometry” at p. 371Google Scholar in Husserl's Crisis (Northwestern edition).

⁶⁸ Cf. Reid, “Contemporary American Political Science in the Crisis of Industrial Society.”

⁶⁹ Paci, , Function of the Sciences, p. 397Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Ibid., pp. 198, 208.

⁷¹ Ibid., p. 208. Cf. Ricoeur, Paul on the role of the political educator in the struggle to develop a democratic economy in “The Tasks of the Political Educator,” Philosophy Today, 17 (1973), 142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² Vidich, Arthur and Bensman, Joseph, “The Bureaucratic Ethos,” in The New American Society (Chicago, 1971)Google Scholar, reprinted in Reid, ed., Up the Mainstream, pp. 315–319, at p. 317.

⁷³ Raskin, Marcus, Being and Doing (New York, 1971)Google Scholar, introduction and chapter 1.

⁷⁴ Ibid., pp. 3–19.

⁷⁵ Paci, , Function of the Sciences, pp. 400–401Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 447.

⁷⁷ Cf. Reid, Herbert G., “The Politics of Time: Conflicting Philosophical Perspectives and Trends,” The Human Context, IV (1972), 476–478Google Scholar. Among political scientists there seems to be considerable misunderstanding of existential phenomenology. A concise view of the phenomenological approach to language will be found in “Language, Meaning, and Ek-sistence” by Kockelmans, Joseph in his edited collection On Heidegger and Language (Evanston, 1972), pp. 10–11Google Scholar. Paci's “dialectic of language” seems to invite comparison with Waldenfels', Bernhard discussion of the “interdominion of dialogue” in The Interdominion of Dialogue: Social Philosophical Investigations According to Husserl. Phaenomenologica 41 (Den Haag, 1971)Google Scholar. The reference here (to this work published in German) is to the review by W. Blankenburg, translated by Erling Eng and to appear in a forthcoming issue of The Human Context.