誠に遅ればせながら、Gabriel A. Almond, "Separate Tables: Schools and Sects in Political Science," PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1988、を読んでいる。
政治学の（当時の）現状を、４つに「分たれたテーブル」と捉え、しかし、本当は「分たれたテーブル」のどれかが正しいのではなくて、「方法論的に混合的で客観性を希求する（objectivity-aspiring)」 （p. 836)ことこそが政治学の「センター」なのだということを、古代ギリシャからの政治学の歴史を捉え直すことで主張する。
以下メモ。
It is not correct to argue that political science deviated from classical political philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and that it has been on the wrong path ever since. Nor it is correct to attribute to American political science the effort to separate political theory from political action.（中略）There is political sociological tradition going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, continuing through Polybius, Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Rousseau, Tocqueville, Comte, Marx, Pareto, Durkheim, Weber and continuing up to Dahl, Lipset, Rokkan, Sartori, Moore, and Lijphart, which sought, and seeks, to relate socioeconomic conditions to political constitutions and institutional arrangements, and to relate these structural characteristics to policy propensities in war and peace. (p. 836)
