Politics as a Vocation-Praxis and Political Engagement

Were one to ask the typical, sophisticated American voter what it is that political scientists do, he or she might respond, "Why, they study politics!" Were one to ask the same of the somewhat more sophisticated congressional or campaign staffer, a likely response would be, "they study politics in the abstract," accompanied by a faintly condescending smile. Lastly, were one to pose the question to the rather more sophisticated subject of this inquiry, the political science practitioner, among the range of amorphous, if not conflicting, responses one might expect would be the following: "We study the how and why of politics, the exercise of power, the underlying patterns and contexts of political and governmental behavior." Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. The following contributions, from significant scholar/practitioners, are characterized by an abiding realism as to the hazards of crossing the line, of venturing beyond the tower, towards the enchanted forest of politics. They are marked by an awareness of the distinctiveness of the two life worlds, of knowledge and power, heirs to a reflective tradition traceable to the Platonic Epistles, Hume, Weber (above all), the Frankfurt School, and Foucault. They stand in a line of intellectual activism, from Plato's tutelage of Dionysius to the examples of Sartre, Camus, Malraux, or of Vargas Llosa and Havel in our day. An unsettling feature of contemporary societal trends is the everincreasing division of techne and paideia, of the concrete 'realities' of governmental and political engineering, as opposed to reflective concerns with the art and ends of governance. One could ponder the role of sophisticated polling techniques, and public opinion analysis, as factors contributing to the conflation of means and ends in the era of spin doctors and media bites. One might even reflect upon the apparent decline of normative theory in the academy, which in fact has served only to mark the continuing epistemological elevation of neopositivism, neo-foundationalism and of neo-pluralist political thought as reigning, legitimizing ideologies (despite periodic assaults). These warrant concern, but take us too far afield. What is and ought to be a clear and present concern is the sheer paucity of scholar/practitioners (defined as those who are active in both respects), a phenomenon which grew readily apparent to Norm Ornstein and myself as we organized this symposium. By and large, the academy is hardly a breeding ground for active public service or political practice, at least for young, working scholars. Certainly, significant trends towards policy-centered studies, institutes, departmental subfields and postgraduate degrees are already evident within our discipline, as in other social science fields. Numerous counterexamples, of scholars (typically senior, long-tenured professors with well-placed contacts) serving as policy advisers, political or issue consultants, and, on occasion, regular staffers or appointees (in government, campaigns, interest groups or associations), may be adduced, though, again, these patterns are far more evident among economists and law professors. Moreover, the very face of postmodern politics has been shaped, if indirectly, by decades of voting studies and opinion analysis. Yet, in practice, few academic incentives, and numerous disincentives, flow from policy and/or political consulting, let alone full-time staff work on a sabbatical or leave basis (not always available). For nontenured professors, or tenured faculty seeking promotion, such activities are at best counterproductive, rendered difficult by often burdensome teaching loads and publication expectations, and are generally accorded absolutely no weight in tenure or promotion decisions. In addition, faculty members who regularly participate in such activities are frequently resented, or regarded with suspicion, by their colleagues, for various reasons; actual recriminations are not unknown, whether in the form of research or travel funds denied, course scheduling penalties, diminished teaching or research assistance, or even salary reductions. Departmental solicitude or flexibility with respect to young scholar/practitioners is, on the whole, exceptionally rare. A sense of irony lingers. Despite the significant contributions to public life and policy which have been made by academics, praxis continues to be treated, both institutionally and attitudinally, as distinctly subordinate, even exogenous, to the sphere of conventional activities expected of active teachers/scholars. The critical difference in orientation and outlook as between denizens of the academy and those of the outside world, and the natural estrangement of intellectuals as "outsiders" in society, account for some of these patterns. Nonetheless, the deemphasis of praxis, and the admixture of condescension and suspicion with respect to practical experience, is somewhat more perplexing in the case of departments of government and political science, committed at least partly to empirical examination of political/governmental phenomena, which may be greatly facilitated and enriched by experien-