Compatibility, Consensus, and an Emerging Political Science of Adaptation

When the laws of social dynamics are codified, surely the First will be that people see what they want to see. Given its universality, the First Law is no less applicable to scholars than anyone else. As political scientists, seeing what we want to see in a colleague's work, we find it "insightful," "constructive," and "important"; alternatively, not seeing in it what we want to see or, even worse, seeing what we don't want to see, we find it "turgid," "misleading," and "trivial." So it is with Hanrieder's formulation. Since it is only a bare outline and contains no data, no one is likely to regard his article as a definitive statement, but reactions to it are likely to be quite varied and conflicting. Some readers, especially those who worry about the prevalence of a malady they call "methodologism" in political science, will see in Hanrieder's effort to develop the concepts of compatibility and consensus yet another case of the quibbling over words that is the prime symptom of this affliction. After all, such critics will point out, compatibility and consensus are, respectively, only thirteenand nine-letter words and to claim great explanatory power for them without elaboration is to substitute the form of language for the substance of thought. In a similar manner those long committed to a particular framework for examining foreign policy phenomena will preserve their commitment and wonder why Hanrieder makes so much fuss about the need for a new formulation when the available conceptual equipment seems capable of handling the convergence of national and international politics. After all, these analysts will conclude, Hanrieder himself says that researchers should be less inclined to create new schemes and more ready to build on existing ones; why, then, does he not follow his own advice? On the other hand, analysts who are themselves perplexed by the convergence of national and international politics are likely to be more sympathetic to Hanrieder's effort, if not to its result. They may have doubts as to whether Hanrieder's unqualified claims for the concepts of compatibility and consensus are justified, but they will see his article as a serious attempt to confront a genuine and difficult problem. Some might also wish that he had been more explicit as to how and by whom "a standard of feasibility" is applied, but will nevertheless respond favorably to the effort to bridge the gap between action and outcome. Others might wonder what phenomena are encompassed by his concept of compatibility and what ones are excluded by his formulation of penetrative politics, but even so they will see virtue in the endeavor to link what is desired at home with what is possible abroad. Still others will regret the absence of operational definitions, but will stress that a subject must be comprehended before its terms can be operationalized and that therefore it is premature to expect Hanrieder to specify the empirical referents for his key concepts. Two other responses to Hanrieder's article can be anticipated on the basis of the First Law. Faced with the probability of such conflicting reactions to the article, the Editor of this REVIEW will see in it what he wants to see, namely, a chance to carry forward the policy of stimulating progress in the discipline by fomenting controversy in the pages of its journal. Since the policy has yielded lively results in the recent past,' why not continue it? After all, the Editor will reason, Hanrieder finds fault with Rosenau's view of the state of progress in the field and with his concept of a penetrated political system, so perhaps a controversy over these and related matters can be engendered, thereby provoking thought and fostering clarification. To be sure, the letter to Rosenau will have to acknowledge that "this article is in no sense an attack upon your analysis of the general questions," but the letter can note that "it does refer to your work a good deal" and therefore "there might well be an exchange between Hanrieder and you comparable to the LaPalombara-Lipset and WalkerDahl exchanges." The last predictable reaction to Hanrieder's article demonstrates the pervasive power of the