Abstract

"In the room the graduate students come and go, talking of Michel Foucault". Michael Shapiro presents an instructive critique of positivism in contemporary political science from the perspective of contemporary philosophy--including Husserl, Heidegger, several linguistic analysts, Habermas, and, principally, Michel Foucault, who in fact reviewed the manuscript. Shapiro describes his work as a "meta-politics," an inquiry into what makes phenomena political. He criticizes the social sciences for neglecting the extent to which language shapes thought. The regnant positivism "restricts the meaning of statements to the relationship between the utterance and that which the utterance is about, thereby ignoring the context that is involved in constituting what an utterance is about and the relationship between the speaker and the utterance". On the contrary, "to speak is... to be caught in the flow of that activity rather than to create or initiate a wholly new activity". Language makes men. Shapiro reiterates this contention in critiques of the positivist understanding of various issues in social science, such as the fact-value distinction, motive and intention in human action, political science models, and the relationship between theory or knowledge and ideology.