A Fraction of Political Science: Behind the Masks of the Discipline’s Status Revue, an Unexpected (Primordial) Question Has Arisen: A Faculty or a Political School?

Abstract

Svjetska znanstvena literatura pokazuje da je politička znanost (u “jednini”) u takvom statusu već stoljećima, unutar (“množine”) političkih znanosti koje prethode današnjim društvenim znanostima. Unutar kojih je i politologija u trajnoj sinergijskoj “dvojini”. Kao politička znanost među drugim društvenim znanostima, uz blisku suradnju s humanističkim, pa i svim ostalim znanostima. “Izlazak iz množine” za politologiju je stoga moguć samo kao izlazak iz društvenih znanosti, za što Kasapović u osnovi i pledira. To nigdje u svijetu nije trend – jer bi značilo i izlazak iz znanosti uopće. Tako pokazuje znanstvena literatura koju Kasapović ne analizira ili to ne čini po etabliranim znanstvenim pravilima. Kao što ne analizira ni “stanje znanosti” prema uvriježenim pravilima struke i publicističkog žanra – u punom opsegu standardnih grana političke znanosti. Bez takvog opsega dobivamo zapravo “razlomačku” umjesto “jedninske” politologije. Pregled znanosti ne može biti zamijenjen komparativnom analizom politoloških obrazovnih institucija, osobito ne na njihovoj dodiplomskoj razini. I osobito ne kad je ona istrgnuta iz svoga kompleksnog znanstvenog, povijesnog i društvenog konteksta. Te konteksta “izgradnje institucija”. Niti ga mogu zamijeniti ideološke i političke objede kakvima se autorica služi umjesto znanstvenom argumentacijom. Usmjerenost autoričina i uredničina projekta kao politološki ideal konzekventno sugerira stvaranje de facto političke škole neke sljedbe umjesto fakulteta političke znanosti kojemu navodno teži. Fakultet na kojemu autorica djeluje može se dalje uspješno razvijati samo intenzivnijim razvojem nacionalne političke znanosti bolje uklopljene u svjetsku. I razvojem međusobno kritičke politologijske znanstvene zajednice. A ne “oslobađanjem” od navodnih “kolonizatora” i “okupatora” iz drugih društvenih i nekih humanističkih znanosti. Razvojem koji bi morao barem zadržati hrvatsku i svjetsku relativnu znanstvenu razinu kakvu Fakultet ima od svojih početaka, kakvu je imala i hrvatska politička znanost od svojih početaka u XVII. i XVIII. stoljeću. Nikako ovakvim projektiranim padom ispod te razine i izlaskom iz zajednice znanosti, pa čak i iz cjeline politologije. Ovako, autorica svjesno ili nesvje- sno lažno prikazuje svoju znanost, svoje profesore i kolege te svoj fakultet – kao i njihovu prošlost, aktualne probleme i perspektive. I krivo usmjeruje svoje i naše studente.The world academic literature shows that political science (in singular) has been in such status for centuries, within (the plural of ) political sciences preceding today’s social sciences, within which political science has also been in a permanent synergetic “duality”, as a political science among other social sciences, with close collaboration with humanistic and even all other disciplines. For political science, then, “the way out of the plural” is possible only as a way out of social sciences, which is essentially argued for by Kasapović. This is not a trend anywhere in the world – because this would imply a way out of science in general. This is suggested by the academic literature which was not analysed by Kasapović or was not analysed against established academic rules, just as she did not analyse the “status of the discipline” against the conventional rules of profession and non--fiction genre – in the full scope of standard branches of political science. Without such a scope, what we get is in fact a “fractional” instead of “singular” political science. A review of the discipline cannot be replaced by a comparative analysis of political science educational institutions, particularly not at their undergraduate level, and especially not when it is pulled out of its complex academic, historical and social contexts and the context of “the building of institutions”. It can neither be replaced by the ideological and political accusations used by the author instead of a scientific argument. The orientation of the author’s and editor’s project as a political science ideal consequently suggests the establishment of a de facto political school of some sect instead of a faculty of political science which she allegedly seeks. The Faculty at which the author works can further develop successfully only through a more intensive development of national political science which is better embedded in global political science and of mutually critical political science academic community, and not through “liberation” from purported “colonisers” and “occupiers” from other social and some humanistic sciences. It is possible only through a development that should at least maintain the Croatian and global relative academic level which the Faculty has had since its very beginning and which Croatian political science has had since its beginnings in the 17th and 18th centuries; surely not through such a designed decline under that level and the way out of the scientific community, even from the entirety of political science. In this way, the author, wittingly or not, falsely presents her discipline, her professors and fellow-scholars and her Faculty, their history, current problems and perspectives, and is misleading her and our students