Genocides in Africa, Indo-China, Tibet, Europe, North America. Again, the modern structures of domination and force lead inevitably to genocide.

Racism, sexism, hatred of homosexuals, anti-Semitism. Hatred is generally a product of fear. Communication, negotiation, closer acquaintance, clearer thinking, break down fear. Again, the structure of dialogue so emphasized by Gadamer can help to break down the climate of fear.

10. Rising expectations in third world countries and in the U.S. as television brings the American/European standards of living into the dwellings of peoples living on the very margins of existence. This raises questions of justice and unmet social needs in many parts of the world. Liberation theology, in particular, concerns itself with these problems. Enrique Düssel uses Gadamer’s hermeneutics in combination with conceptions of the Other from Levinas to show that the view of the Other in modernity lead to the unjust situations in the Americas. His book, Ethical Hermeneutics. dedicates itself to seeking a way out of these problems. Philosophical hermeneutics, with its analysis of how meaningful dialogue comes about, helps to deal with the situation. With insight and common desire for justice, means could be sought to remedying the inequities involved in this situation. Again, dialogue and solidarity are the keys to the resolution of problems of injustice.

11. Fundamentalism and narrowness, exclusivism, particularism, terrorism. These are major problems today, but how are we dealing with them? Fear, avoidance, military repression. Admittedly, it is hard to deal with religious fundamentalism with Gadamerian hermeneutics, but Gadamer is able to enter into dialogue with anyone who is willing to speak! He looks for common ground and sees whether a basis for working together instead of against would be possible, say, on the world problems we face. Secondly, he looks at the presuppositions of fundamentalism and asks where they come from. In some cases, fundamentalism is a rebellion against modernity; in this case they might even find common ground. Also, fundamentalism thrives on poverty, discrimination, and lack of education, so indirect approaches to alleviate these could serve in the long run to reduce the incidence of fundamentalism. Gadamer’s thinking breaks down barriers and enters into dialogue even with those claiming exclusive and particular favor from God, for instance. His appeal is always to reason and reaching an accommodation with respect for the Other and his/her/their claims, which are not necessarily religious matters but retreat from the world and fear of being manipulated.

12. Ethnic groups clinging to land, to resources, to sacred space, e.g., the struggle of Jews and Palestinians over Jerusalem. The problem of the Israelis and Palestinians seems insoluble. The Israelis were without homeland for 2000 years, whereas for the Palestinians it was only 50 years. Here is a case where the United Nations mandate of 1948 solved one problem but created another. It put the Palestinian people into camps on the border of land they formerly possessed. Again, the modern concept of sovereignty and sovereign rights over East Jerusalem is the key issue. One solution to this problem would be to revise the requirement each has of sovereignty, the presupposition of both sides, each claiming it, and instead to create a sacred space where neither side claims sovereignty. Again, the need is for Israelis and Palestinians to leap beyond a modern concept of sovereignty to something new. Also, in negotiations, when each side has more to gain by reaching a settlement than by holding out for a better deal, then progress can be made. It would seem, however, that when it comes to the sacred space we come to something non-negotiable. But it would seem that “shared” sovereignty might be possible. Here, again, some new structure that goes beyond the concept of competing claims for territorial sovereignty is needed.

Traditions in the development of political science.

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state,nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.^[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior, culture. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."^[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology,public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics,psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle. Behavioral revolution and new institutionalism

In the 1950s and the 1960s, a behavioral revolution stressing the systematic and rigorously scientific study of individual and group behavior swept the discipline. A focus on studying political behavior, rather than institutions or interpretation of legal texts, characterized early behavioral political science, including work by Robert Dahl, Philip Converse, and in the collaboration between sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld and public opinion scholar Bernard Berelson.

The late 1960s and early 1970s witnessed a take off in the use of deductive, game theoretic formal modeling techniques aimed at generating a more analytical corpus of knowledge in the discipline. This period saw a surge of research that borrowed theory and methods from economics to study political institutions, such as the United States Congress, as well as political behavior, such as voting. William H. Riker and his colleagues and students at the University of Rochester were the main proponents of this shift. Recent developments

In 2000, the Perestroika Movement in political science was introduced as a reaction against what supporters of the movement called the mathematicization of political science. Those who identified with the movement argued for a plurality of methodologies and approaches in political science and for more relevance of the discipline to those outside of it. ^[11]

Evolutionary psychology theories argue that humans have evolved a highly developed set of psychological mechanisms for dealing with politics. However, these mechanisms evolved for dealing with the small group politics that characterized the ancestral environment and not the much larger political structures in today's world. This is argued to explain many important features and systematic cognitive biases of current politics. ^[12]

[ edit ]Subfields

Most political scientists work broadly in one or more of the following five areas:

· Comparative politics, including area studies

· International relations

· Political philosophy

· Public administration

· Public law

Some political science departments also classify methodology as well as scholarship on the domestic politics of a particular country as distinct sub fields. In the United States, American politics is often treated as a separate subfield.

In contrast to this traditional classification, some academic departments organize scholarship into thematic categories, including political philosophy, political behavior (including public opinion, collective action, and identity), and political institutions (including legislatures and international organizations). Political science conferences and journals often emphasize scholarship in more specific categories. The American Political Science Association, for example, has 42 organized sections that address various methods and topics of political inquiry.