THE GOV. DEPARTMENT

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Mr. Horne's article about the Gov. Department raies different issues that he has falled to distinguish. One, what I mentioned as a reason for the social studies program (the study of Freud or Weber) is not necessarily a criticism of the Gov. Dept--merely a suggestion that there are various ways of studying society and polity.

Two, Weber and Freud would be startled to find themselves listed as behaviorists. Three, not all empirical studies are behavioral, nor is behaviorism exclusively empirical. Many areas of politics do not lend themselves to the kinds of generalizations (often quantitative) which behaviorism favors. The methods and concepts used by behav are based on a theory of politics (which emphasizes processes rather than structures, individuals and groups rather than institutions). This theory is to put it mildly, not the only conceivable approach to politics, or the only possible framework for observation.

Four, the Gov department may not give enough importance to the behavioral approach, but its offerings are not predominantly "traditional," if one means by this either political philosophy or historical studies. Rather, they are on the side of empirical theory, i.e. the systematic analysis of political data, based on observation and aiming at valid general propositions. Obviously, history must be our raw material and our touchstone; and naturally, the issues raised by political philosophy of ten provide us with the questions our observation tries to answer, or even with the conceps with which we try to organize the results of our empirical research.

Anyhow, neither in the area of American politics, nor in the study of political development, nor in that of international relations are we guilty of hostillty toward empirical social science. We have our sins, God knows--but not that one. Try again. Professor of Government   Stanley Hoffmann

Two, Weber and Freud would be startled to find themselves listed as behaviorists. Three, not all empirical studies are behavioral, nor is behaviorism exclusively empirical. Many areas of politics do not lend themselves to the kinds of generalizations (often quantitative) which behaviorism favors. The methods and concepts used by behav are based on a theory of politics (which emphasizes processes rather than structures, individuals and groups rather than institutions). This theory is to put it mildly, not the only conceivable approach to politics, or the only possible framework for observation.

Four, the Gov department may not give enough importance to the behavioral approach, but its offerings are not predominantly "traditional," if one means by this either political philosophy or historical studies. Rather, they are on the side of empirical theory, i.e. the systematic analysis of political data, based on observation and aiming at valid general propositions. Obviously, history must be our raw material and our touchstone; and naturally, the issues raised by political philosophy of ten provide us with the questions our observation tries to answer, or even with the conceps with which we try to organize the results of our empirical research.

Anyhow, neither in the area of American politics, nor in the study of political development, nor in that of international relations are we guilty of hostillty toward empirical social science. We have our sins, God knows--but not that one. Try again. Professor of Government   Stanley Hoffmann

Four, the Gov department may not give enough importance to the behavioral approach, but its offerings are not predominantly "traditional," if one means by this either political philosophy or historical studies. Rather, they are on the side of empirical theory, i.e. the systematic analysis of political data, based on observation and aiming at valid general propositions. Obviously, history must be our raw material and our touchstone; and naturally, the issues raised by political philosophy of ten provide us with the questions our observation tries to answer, or even with the conceps with which we try to organize the results of our empirical research.

Anyhow, neither in the area of American politics, nor in the study of political development, nor in that of international relations are we guilty of hostillty toward empirical social science. We have our sins, God knows--but not that one. Try again. Professor of Government   Stanley Hoffmann