Jason Royce Lindsey, Ph. D. (Political Science),

USA, St. Cloud State University

IDEOLOGY AND U. S. SOCIAL SCIENCE

The contemporary situation of American politics has spawned a large commentary on its ideological divisions.

Recent scholarship frequently attempts to place the U. S. ideological divide within a broader historical context and to

evaluate its impact on the current political system. In its efforts to take a step back from the current popular ideological

debates of U. S. politics, (and provide a broader perspective on both camps), the social sciences have also been driven

to seek a secure philosophical foundation. In its attempt to ground itself as an observer outside of the political fray,

social science in the U.S. has sought a level of certainty that is beyond ideology.

This trend is not confined to the United States. The social sciences in many countries are exhibiting a similar pattern of

behavior, despite their very different political contexts. This similarity could be read as the simple reflection of influence.

The social sciences internationally are still very influenced by trends in American scholarship. However, I argue that there

is a deeper thread running through much of the world’s current social science research agenda. Increasingly, we see various

branches of the social sciences attempting to import the methods and findings of biological science. The motivation for this

line of scholarship corresponds to a much broader change in the dominant political ideologies of the most developed

countries. In the face of growing risk, there is a new drive for scientific certainty in the social sciences.

What deeper cultural trends in the United States support this academic turn? Perhaps the first is simply that, in its

attempt to criticize the hardening political positions of left and right, social science seeks firmer ground. Without

a sure foundation of certainty, social science claims risk categorization as just more ideological commentary.

Especially in the United States which is experiencing a period of heated public rhetoric, the advantage of scientific

certainty is its grounding outside of the philosophical positions of the left or right.

However, there is another possible explanation for the latest turn in the quest for certainty. The longing for certain

foundations in political science, economics, sociology, and criminal justice reflects a larger misgiving. Increasingly,

we live in extremely complex societies with correspondingly complex systems of management. The risk that societies

now face from possible ecological and technological catastrophe is growing. Politicians and bureaucrats must shape

policies that now affect millions of people. These politics in today’s globalized world often have important

repercussions beyond the borders of an elected official’s nation state. As human beings attempt to cope with this

growing level of risk, it is logical that we would seek the most reliable information and guidance possible.

In this sense the latest turn in academic political science, economics, sociology, criminal justice, and the other

social sciences can be read as just another episode of a much longer history. The most recent, serious attempt to create

a science of politics has emerged from two fronts in contemporary US academia. The first of these is an attempt to

expand economics into more and more areas of the social sciences. Indeed, some claims made for economics now

extend far into the study of human behavior. To support this expansion, economics has attempted to ground itself in

biology. Thus, we see new emerging subfields in economics such as neuroeconomics. This latter field has arisen in an

attempt to explain why the gaps in rational actor theory exist.

The second front in this newest attempt to establish a science of politics is based on genetics. Examples here

include attempts to show that one’s ideological leanings are shaped in part by your genetic inheritance1. Already, the

initial studies into this question have led to two debates in American political science. The first of these debates is

whether the methodologies and findings of studies linking political attitudes to genetic inheritance are accurate. The

second debate has already moved on to the question of whether, even if this is true, should we philosophically ignore

this point because of the deep challenges it poses to our understandings of human freedom2.

1 For examples see: Smith, Kevin B., Douglas R. Oxley, Matthew V. Hibbing, John R. Alford, and John R. Hibbing. «Linking

genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology.» Political Psychology 32, no. 3 (2011): 369–397, and Alford,

John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. «Are political orientations genetically transmitted.» American Political Science

Review 99, no. 2 (2005): 153–167.

2 For a good summary of this argument, see: Charney, Evan. «Genes and ideologies.» Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 02

(2008): 299-319 and the responses of: Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. «Beyond liberals and conservatives

to political genotypes and phenotypes.» Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 2 (2008): 321–328 and Hannagan, Rebecca J., and Peter

K. Hatemi. «The Threat of Genes: A Comment on Evan Charney’s Genes and Ideologies». Perspectives on Politics (2008): 329–

335.

Globalization of the West’s political and economic systems brings with it two dilemmas. The risk of catastrophe

is much more profound as more and more of the world attempts to integrate states into one larger political system of

nation states. These states now include an increasing number of non-Western nations with nuclear weapons and other

advanced military technology. Also, globalization of the world’s economic system brings with it the increased risk of

scientific disaster. Dangers in this category range across fields such as genetically modified crops, nuclear power, man

made organisms, and genetic experimentation. Given these dangers, and the responsibility policy makers now have

for millions of people, it is not surprising that an ideology of scientific, social management is appealing.