IN REPLY

Although many of the points in Mr. Hoffmann's letter are true, none of them are relevant to my article.

First, the quotation--"We are graduating government majors who have not read Freud or Weber,"-- (whether or not it was meant as a criticism) gave factual evidence to my contention that the department was neglecting the approaches of political science making use of the insights of psychology and sociology. A reader would interpret the statement as a criticism only if he felt that such approaches were significant enough to merit attention in the Government Department.

Second, I was startled to find myself accused of having called Freud and Weber behaviorists. Since behaviorists make such extensive use of their work, however, I do think that it is necessary to read Weber and Freud to have any understanding of behaviorism.

Third, behaviorism is obviously not "the only conceivable approach to politics." But this does not mean that it does not have some insights to offer, or that it should be neglected. I was pleading for a more balanced approach, not for the replacement of one extreme with another.

Fourth, political philosophy, historical studies, and "empirical theory" are all, of course, indispensible parts of the study of government. The important point is that, indeed, "the Gov department may not give enough importance to the behavioral approach." This is the "sin" of which I accused the Gov department; Mr. Hoffmann's conclusion contradicts his own fourth point. Thomas C. Horne