Political Scientist as a Historian

Symposium “Personal Encounters with Serendipities”&nbsp

Jukka Kortti, Valtaan ja vastavirtaan. Helsingin yliopiston valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta 75 vuotta.

Kirja-arvio Helsingin yliopiston valtiotieteellisen tiedekunnan tilaamasta 75-vuotishistoriikista Valtaan ja vastavirtaan, jonka on kirjoittanut Jukka Kortti. Tiedekunnan oppiainevalikoima on vaihdellut vuosikymmenten varrella, mutta valtio-oppi on kuulunut siihen alusta asti. Kirjassa käydään läpi tiedekunnan vaiheita ja roolia suomalaisen hyvinvointivaltion ja yhteiskunnan rakentamisessa, yliopistoradikalismissa ja yliopistohallinnonuudistustaistelussa yleisen ja yhtäläisen äänioikeuden puolesta. Nykyvaihetta määrittävät historiikin mukaan talous ja tulosjohtaminen, ja Berndtson viittaakin myös yliopistodemokratian purkamiseen rakenteellisten muutosten seurauksena. Nykytilanteessa huomiota saavat lisäksi uusien oppiaineiden ja opintokokonaisuuksien synty, virkarakenteen muuttaminen, uudenlainen opetukseen panostaminen, kansainvälistyminen sekä tasa-arvokysymykset

SCHOOLS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND THE FORMATION OF A DISCIPLINE

Autor smatra da je vrijeme da politički znanstvenici ponovno ispitaju podrijetlo svoje discipline. Ocjenjuje da su dosadašnja proučavanja povijesti političke znanosti, začudo, zanemarila ulogu različitih “škola političke znanosti” u oblikovanju političke znanosti kao discipline. One se uobičajeno uzgredno spominju u povijesti političke znanosti, premda postoji nekoliko prigodnih spomen spisa koji opisuju razvoj tih institucija. Ne postoji međutim nijedna sustavna i komparativna studija o razvoju tih institucija, o njihovu utjecaju na pojavljivanje političke znanosti kao neovisnog sveučilišnog subjekta. Pa ipak, iskustvo Slobodne škole političkih znanosti iz Pariza (1871), Fakulteta političkih znanosti iz Firence (1874), Škole političkih znanosti na Sveučilištu Columbia (1880), Londonske škole za ekonomiju i političku znanost (1895), Njemačke visoke škole za politiku (1920) pokazuju da su te škole odigrale krucijalnu ulogu u rađanju političke znanosti kao legitimne akademske discipline. Autor pregnantno najprije prikazuje glavne značajke “modela američke političke znanosti” (i njezin razvoj kroz tri faze, pri čemu se osnivanje Poslijediplomske School of Political Science na Sveučilištu Columbia 1880. godine smatra simboličnim začetkom te discipline). Potom se osvrće na tri klasična europska modela visokog obrazovanja: engleski “njumenovski” liberalnog obrazovanja, njemački “humboltovski” istinskog učenja i jedinstva nastave i istraživanja te francuski “napoleonovski” model, prema kojemu su nastava i istraživanja međusobno odvojeni. Iz tih se triju europskih modela razvio novi američki sustav visokog obrazovanja. Novo se američko istraživačko sveučilište oslanjalo na ideju liberalnog obrazovanja, na stručne fakultete (pravo, biznis), na ideju povezanosti istraživanja i nastave. Pokazujući u kojem su smislu te europske škole političke znanosti utjecale i na razvoj američke političke znanosti, a zatim u kojem su smislu američke škole u kasnijoj fazi utjecale na razvoj političke znanosti u Europi, autor nudi skicu za reinterpretaciju povijesti političke znanosti.The author is of the opinion that it is time for political scientists to reexamine the origins of their discipline. In his judgment, the study of the history of political science, curiously, has neglected the role of different “schools of political science” in shaping political science as a discipline. They are usually mentioned only in passing in histories of political science, though there are a few commemorative writings describing the development of these institutions. There are no systematic and comparative studies, however, on their development and their impact on the emergence of political science as an independent academic subject. Still, the experiences of the Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques in Paris (1871), the Facolta di Scienze Politiche in Florence (1874), the School of Political Science at Columbia University (1880), the London School of Economics and Political Science (1895), and the Deutsche Hochschule f・ Politik in Berlin (1920) demonstrate that these schools have played a crucial role in the birth of political science as a legitimate academic discipline. The author begins with a pregnant account of the principal characteristics of the “model of American political science” and of its development through three stages (the founding of the graduate School of Political Science at Columbia University in 1880 is considered the symbolic inception of the discipline). Then he looks into three classic European models of higher education: the English “Newmanian” model of liberal education, the German “Humboldtian” model of true learning and unity of teaching and research, and the French “Napoleonic” model, according to which teaching and research were separated from each another. The new American higher education system developed out of these three European models. The new American research university relied on the idea of liberal education, on professional schools (law, business), and on the idea of the linkage between research and teaching. Through an analysis, firstly, of the influence of those European schools of political science on the development of American political science, and, secondly, on the influence of the American schools in a later stage on the development of political science in Europe, the author puts forward an outline for a reinterpretation of the history of political science