There are Better Alternatives than Easton: A Critical Rejoinder to William J. Kelleher
In the last issue of this journal, Dr William J. Kelleher claimed that my earlier discussion of the intellectual origins of the CNPS has some serious misconceptions which may obscure the formation of a clear vision of the Caucus’s options for future endeavors. His main concern is that I misunderstand David Easton’s systematic political theory, which Kelleher argues may provide a bridge between official political science and a more radical political science. I appreciate Dr Kelleher’s willingness to critically engage the on-going discussion within the CNPS about what constitutes critical and radical political science, but I remain convinced that there are better (and more radical) alternatives to Easton’s systems analysis.
Clyde W. Barrow (2018) There are Better Alternatives than Easton: A Critical Rejoinder to William J. Kelleher, New Political Science, 40:1, 186-198, DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2017.1419120
New Political Science