A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back: David Laitin and Phronetic Political Science

Politics and Society, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 389-416, DOI: 10.1177/0032329204267290

28 Pages Posted: 14 Jun 2013 Last revised: 6 Jan 2016

Bent Flyvbjerg

University of Oxford - Said Business School

Date Written: September 2004

Abstract

This article addresses three main issues. First, it argues that David Laitin, in a misguided critique of Bent Flyvbjerg’s book, "Making Social Science Matter," for being a surrogate manifesto for Perestroika, misrepresents the book in the extreme. Second, the article argues that Laitin’s claim that political science may become normal, predictive science in the natural science sense is unfounded; the claim is a dead end that perestroikans try to get beyond. Finally, the article proposes that political scientists substitute phronesis for episteme and, thereby, avoid the trap of emulating natural science. By doing so, political scientists may arrive at social science that is strong where natural science is weak: in the reflexive analysis and discussion of values and interests aimed at praxis, which is the prerequisite for an enlightened political, economic, and cultural development in any society.

Keywords: phronesis, Perestroika, David Laitin, philosophy of social science, context, judgment

Suggested Citation

Flyvbjerg, Bent, A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back: David Laitin and Phronetic Political Science (September 2004). Politics and Society, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 389-416, DOI: 10.1177/0032329204267290. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2278337

Bent Flyvbjerg (Contact Author)

University of Oxford - Said Business School ( email )

Park End Street
Oxford, OX1 1HP
Great Britain

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
75
rank
295,743
Abstract Views
645
PlumX