Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics Isher-Paul Sahni Nasser Behnegar , Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005, 216 pp. First published in 2003, Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics has now been released in paperback. The title is somewhat misleading, inasmuch as Weber is only invoked in connection with Strauss' critique of social science. The book's stated objective is to show that 'Leo Strauss is a friend, perhaps an indispensable friend, of the scientific study of politics' (1). Relativism above all galvanized Strauss' belief that returning to classical political philosophy is 'a necessary step in achieving clarity about preferences of any kind' (3). Thus Part I assesses the viability of contemporary alternatives to his conception of a genuine science of politics. The conclusion is announced at the onset: the history of positivism is largely one of 'social science's dissatisfaction with its own achievements' (9). In this vein, the unraveling of Comte's progressive expectations with the advent of the First World War and the ascent of mass democracy, and their ultimate disappointment at the hands of behaviourist and rational choice paradigms, is chronicled. And this lamentable process, it is argued, culminates in political science's steadfast refutation of universally valid moral laws. According to Strauss, however, natural right is a perennial human need; it alone enables judgments about injustice. Hence the rejection of natural law occasions nihilism. But he warns there is no guarantee this repudiation is unwarranted and, therefore, that we must not 'embrace natural right in a spirit of fanatical obscurantism' (59). Rather, deliverance from our present-day sense of despair requires an acute appreciation of the fact that 'only the full awareness of our own perplexity can lead to the realization of the possibilities that remain open to us' (61). [End Page 379] The rest of the book is devoted to Strauss' critique of positivism. The demise of natural right, he avers, occurred with the triumph of historicism on the one hand and a fact/value distinction on the other. Part II concentrates on the latter and, for this reason, deals with his chapter on Weber in Natural Right and History because of its 'thematic treatment' of this issue (5). For Strauss, reading Weber is vital to a full understanding of the modern condition, insofar as the idea of irreconcilable value conflicts gives rise to philistine conformism which, in conjunction with an untenable commitment to value-neutrality that vitiates the ascendancy of ultimate principles, undermines moral concerns. This nihilistic Weltanschauung has its origins in the theory of natural causality behind his model of science and allied notion of disenchantment. What is more, it discloses his opinion that conflict is a necessary condition for morality and, it follows, his 'preference for the tragic life' (114). All told, Weber hauntingly illuminates the abiding and seemingly insoluble tension between philosophy and revelation, between human and divine guidance. Strauss hopes that openness to the prospect of faith will put an end to this stand-off and cultivate earnest moral sensitivity. An examination of this aspect of his longing to recapture the responsiveness of a pre-scientifically mediated world, though, is subordinated to that of his call for 'a comprehensive analysis of social reality as "it is known to 'common sense,'" that is, as we know it in actual life (136). Part III discusses the esteem for this faculty expounded in Strauss' polemical epilogue to Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. Foregrounding his debt to Aristotle, Behnegar elucidates Strauss' vindication of the everyday language first born of the intrinsic complexity of political life and his aligned contention that politics is 'sovereign over other practical sciences' (154). Owing to its understanding political things in political terms, the commonsensical vocabulary of old political science makes possible the refinement of moral judgments. Consequently, new political science's denigration of its purported ambiguity and ensuing substitution of evaluative expressions by scientific terminology impedes this facility; the factual discourse of the disinterested observer subjugates the voice and practical acumen of the committed citizen. Classical political thought, moreover, understands that the political regime is...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".