Množina, jednina, dvojina - Razlomak politologije: pod krabuljama revije stanja znanosti
A Fraction of Political Science: Behind the Masks of the Discipline’s Status Revue

Summary/Abstract: 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? 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.

• Details
• Contents