Specialization and Fragmentation of Political Science in the Southern Cone of Latin America

Transcription

1 Specialization and Fragmentation of Political Science in the Southern Cone of Latin America An evaluation of the path from its creation as a modern discipline to its current consolidation Cecilia Lesgart * From the 1960 s to the present in Latin America, political science has become a discipline with its own particular topics and institutions. During this period of time, it went from being taught in Law Schools and practiced by lawyers, to fighting for its own identity against modernized and ascendant Sociology, to being recognized as a social science that produces a specific type of knowledge 1. As an autonomous discipline and a profession, Political Science is relatively new. Since the 1960's it has been developing in this part of the world with the heterogeneous construction of its first institutions, following the theories on modernization and political development in Sociology, another rising discipline. The years of experience with oppressive forms of political power (military or authoritarian) and its theoretical developments were decisive. They were followed by the later process known as transition to democracy and the creation of models to interpret them, all of which generated an unprecedented esteem for democratic ideals 2. The establishment of politically democratic regimes gave Political Science its distinguishing subject matter and theory. This gave the discipline a framework for the rising interest in its institutional development which led to the creation and the reform of college degrees, as well as the stimulus to create research centers and programs related to it. Today, democracy is a political system, a stimulus for the discipline s strengthening and diversification and, at the same time, a subject of research. In the Southern Cone of Latin America, Political Science started the process of its construction as a modern discipline towards the end of the 1960 s. At the same time, critics began to speak up and argue against the "specialization" and "fragmentation" processes. This is clearly a striking fact. It was during the birthing period of political science, during its modernization phase, while it aspired to achieve autonomy from other fields of study (such as public law and, mainly, scientific sociology) and it specified its subject matter (modernization and political development), that some of its first exponents started to criticize this process because of its excessive specialization and fragmentation. The specialization they criticized partly had to do with the training of its first scholars in the US, the uncritical importing of themes and methods, and the international financing that led to prioritizing certain research subjects. All of this progressively distanced political science from emerging political situations in Latin America, which was ultimately the field where the knowledge from this science was to be applied. With fragmentation critics referred to the progressive distancing between political science, and other disciplines and the emergence of specific fields within it, which are specialized in particular subjects but were also sub-disciplines relatively connected with each other and with the broader field of political science. Among them, international relations would separate from public international law and more easily become a sub-discipline of political science than public administration. The latter s disputes continue even today, more so with economists than with political science or administrative law, and the accounting sections of Universities, where it originated. It was economists who, as public planners, have hindered the theoretical developments in the area of politics for civil servants since the 1960's. Also noteworthy was the disdain that existed for the outline of strategic policies within the State in order to strengthen itself and its bureaucracy, and the lack of discussions within

2 university courses about the link between the study programs to obtain degrees in Public Administration and the State 3. Since the beginning of the new millennium, renewed voices have risen at international, regional and national levels speaking against both the hyperspecialization and the fragmentation of the discipline, as well as its inability to communicate with the world of politics. In Latin America, there are different disciplinary and political contexts. The past saw the birth of the discipline itself and its progress towards autonomy from other social sciences, the search for a unique subject matter and the attempts to build its own institutions. In the current context of its consolidation, the diversity of issues derived from democratic stability led to the discussion of political science s shortcomings in their analysis. In addition, its institutions were heterogeneous and ha changed their aim of having regional scope to merely national aspirations, including the development and strengthening of programs and degree courses country-wide, and not just in capital cities. Criticisms today are varied but not necessarily different from what was put forth 50 years ago. It is said that we are in the presence of a political science that is stronger in the academic world and is recognized by its peers. But it is also noted that it has difficulties to communicate with public institutions and to build a professional field where its graduates can fully practice their trade. Moreover, it has been argued that there are problems because of its compartmentalized construction of knowledge. The fragmentation that resulted from specialization has gone so far that it no longer seems useful. What caused this situation is its institutional and thematic consolidation, at the same time and partially as a result of its research on transitions to democracy. Lastly, specialization and professionalization resulted in greater emphasis on method rather than political discussions. The problem is the link between science and politics and the significance of political science in its connection with the world of political experiences. The general aim of this paper is to attempt an overview of two phases of political science in the region. They are the two ends of its historical line: its creation in the 1960 s and its current consolidation. They are two different contexts, both politically and for the discipline, but they can be linked through diverse common criticism regarding the state of political science: its winding paths, its death sentence, its inconsistencies, and its crossroads. We will mainly focus on its birth as a modern discipline. However, one of our specific aims is to compare discussions that took place in the recent past with those taking place today. We suggest that these specialization and fragmentation processes, which in the 1960's were already perceived as a crossroads for Latin American political science, are currently taking place again as part of its constitution as a modern science. We suspect that the paradox is that fragmentation and specialization, which in the 60's were perceived as a crossroads for Latin-American political science and which are currently reappearing, are part of the constituting process of the discipline. In brief, these two processes are the paradox of the discipline's own path as a science about politics. Comparing the recent past with the present of political science in the Southern Cone of Latin America will help shed some light on the meaning of its "specialization" and "fragmentation". Even though we do not believe that history is the teacher and witness of times 4 ", we believe that showing a series of discussions that took place in two different contexts of the discipline -one during the birth of political science as a modern discipline and the other,

3 during its strengthening- can help us show that specialization and fragmentation do not improve nor diminish our ability to study politics but are rather its paradoxes. From Political Development to Dependence: the Process of Consolidation of an Autonomous Discipline Since the mid-20th century, following the American path after World War II, sociology became the modernizing force for social sciences 5. In Latin America, the intellectuals that contributed to this renewal were Gino Germani in Argentina, Florestán Fernándes in Brasil, and José Medina Echavarría between Chile and Mexico. Sociology set the pace for what was new: research over teaching, research institutes over the university lecture model 6. Given the lack of continuous formal postgraduate training, the possibilities of obtaining a doctoral degree or training abroad had to be taken into account. Even though all social sciences tried to distance themselves from the practice and profession of attorneys, political science fought with public law while trying to differentiate itself from this sociology that was becoming scientific. Given that, in the region, it was mainly young lawyers 7 who were interested in the development of the new political science, its object of study was constructed through the slightly differentiating association with what was new (Sociology) and through the subjects and methods found in the geographical locations where the first scholars were trained (mainly in American Universities). As we will later show, this process is far from linear. It is also strongly marked by political and ideological battles fought throughout the continent after the Cuban Revolution. First, the plan to create a new political science fluctuated between two preferences. One was to absorb and develop the theoretical, methodological and organizational innovations that took place mainly in the US. And the other was the will to produce something that may not have been completely native but was unique and linked to regional specificities. Second, just like other social sciences, but especially sociology 8, the construction of this very new political science was soon caught between arguments that came from field politics. During that time, it was strongly felt that there were two political agendas. At first, they were dual, but later, they became extremes: one supported reforms and the other, revolution. In social sciences this debate is translated into two tendencies: the scientistic and another one, committed to changing the existing political, economic, and social order. From political modernization and development to theoretical and political answers to dependency and revolution, political science started to build itself taking key elements from sociology but focusing on the issue of political change. First modernization and development, and then dependency -and eventually revolution as a means of transformation- could be understood in their various dimensions. They were two different ways of understanding political change and, at the same time, two opposing political plans for transformation. They were issues discussed between sociology and political science and, at the same time, responsible for the structuring of these two sciences in their modernized versions. They were both deeply influenced by politicization, ideologization, and the framework of mutually exclusive accusations. The military or authoritarian regimes that were gradually established in the region ultimately stopped these plans as both means of change and matters to be researched. This situation would temporarily stop the open, plural and continuous debate on what to expect, especially from the developing political science. It is worth noting that it was during this brief period of time during which the discipline started to develop, that the first comments were voiced regarding what it could be

4 and where it should be headed in order to become a social science. This means that even when political science was not yet completely established and practiced in the region, the first criticism started to arise, as if it had already been born. This, while a paradox, is also innovative. It is groundbreaking that as the science emerges, there are already questions about what it is and where it is going. The Search for the Development of Political Science as an Autonomous Discipline At this time, Latin America was a desert. Social sciences did not follow the rules of scientific research. This is why scholars turn to pre-existent traditions to build a sense of science, which is similar in some respects to the American definition of science. But it is also defined as opposed to what was pejoratively called "social thought", "interpretational essays" or, more specifically, "lecture sociology". The region was missing a generation of social scientists and even more so, of political scientists. The first steps were being taken in sociology courses within Schools of Humanities, History or Law. Also significant were the contributions that came from various European countries (e.g. Gino Germani) or from scholars in the field of law (which was also being renewed and becoming diversified). This occurred in many social sciences, but especially in political science. As a result, the production process was varied: modernized disciplines, their institutions, and their specialties, with their own bureaucratic bodies, and their scholars in training. This is obviously not a natural production process. They consider their field of action not so much national as regional. In this context, the first criticism gains significance. This first criticism was targeted against the structural part of the specialization process of social sciences in general, where the boundaries between subdisciplines started to be set 9. In opposition to this hyperspecialization, there was a demand for interdisciplinary knowledge and work. From this perspective, "specialization" and "professionalization" were part of the same problem. Specialization meant the institutionalization of scientific work. With it, various branches of traditional disciplines started to emerge (from Law and medicine, for example), which then merged with others in an endless process of joining and separating specialized areas. Professionalization was the bureaucratic organization of departments and programs that create their own regulations in their demand for autonomy. Survival instinct motivated a small group of people to joint in unconventional foundations that gave way to new disciplines, among them, political science. The part they plaid was significant yet not always acknowledged as such. They showed that dividing and fragmenting disciplines and subdisciplines was not at all the natural byproduct of scientific evolution or progress. It was an artificial process that could and should be planned and questioned. Second, there was a series of arguments put forth by scholars eager to build a political science with specific features and to train political scientists to be able to apply their knowledge to Latin American reality 10. They were not partisan points of view. It was understood that a cultural and political area should be established with its own characteristics and global relevance. In this area, the point of reference would not be a specific country but rather Latin America. It was in this critical moment when there was eagerness to question the fate of political science. This gave significance to the question about what direction to choose from the variety of possible paths. A key issue was that during the early stages of its constitution, political science followed the American example in various aspects: research topics, postgraduate training, and its model of science. This was a crossroads for the discipline, perceived as a moment of crisis. In any event, it was

5 still necessary to create or foster institutions that enabled the construction or strengthening of a Latin American framework. This need was due to the fact that, when various Latin American institutions were established, political science was loosing this frame of reference. Let us discuss this in detail. Between the end of the 50s and the beginning of the 60s, with the incentive of the United Nations, various regional institutions were founded and set their headquarters in Chile. Until the coup in 1973, this country gathered scholars from various countries (European and Latin-American), modernizing public policies, institutions to put them into practice, and formal areas (in public universities or combined with UNESCO's network) where numerous social sciences, such as political science, sociology, and economy, were modernized. These institutions offered a Latin American framework to solve problems and tried to serve as a guide for political science. Some of these institutions (e.g. ECLAC, ILPES) were founded during the Cold War and in the context of the Alliance for Progress promoted by President Kennedy, in order to introduce gradual reforms that would avoid revolutionary socialism. This is why during this time, and gradually until the 70's, these institutions created tensions shown in the duality "reform versus revolution", "revolutionary socialism versus free development". Thus, in 1949, the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA and ECLAC since 1984) was founded in order to guide the planning of regional economic development in a reformist way. In 1962, the Latin American Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) was founded as part of ECLAC. This entity was in charge of training professionals from various countries to make diagnoses, plans, and sector programs to obtain resources from the Alliance for Progress. Later on, its task was to support Public Sector management, budget, and sector planning offices. At that time, these institutions reduced the possibilities of strengthening Public Administration schools or specialties. They disrupted the process of keeping the training of public administrators within the scope of political science 11. However, the Latin American School of Social Studies (FLACSO) is the institution assigned to giving a Latin American framework to political science 12. It was created in 1956/57 to foster the development of social sciences in Latin America. During the '60s, two highly innovative programs were created with funding from the University of Chile, ECLAC, ILPES, and, eventually, its own graduates 13. They were the Latin American School of Sociology (ELAS) and the Latin American School of Political Science and Public Administration (ELACP) 14. The latter was an original regional program, which was groundbreaking for political science. Even though its objective was to develop the field of Public Administration, it was mainly confined to political science in a general sense. The head of this school between 1966 and 1971 was Horacio Godoy, a lawyer and international official with an academic background in law, administration, and education. At the beginning of the 1970's, there was a plan to renew political science in order to give way to discussions previously unheard of in the region and within the discipline: its curricular reform, its concern with Latin American issues, the combination of research and teaching, its interdisciplinary work, the combination of scientific rigor and theoretical, methodological, and educational pluralism, its teamwork. Theses resources found in Chile also stimulated the creation of innovative Political Science institutions in Argentina, such as the Bariloche Foundation 15, founded in Before the coup in Chile in 1973, FLACSO was increasingly politicized and political activism was substituting academic work. From that point on, the environment necessary for the program's development was found in Argentina and in other countries. But in both, it was still an experiment to try to

6 give a Latin American framework to research and train researchers not to copy foreign patterns included in American PhDs. The final result would be useful for postgraduate Masters training in Latin America. As regards research topics, development and modernization were the issues (and policies) that took precedence. As is well known, the ideas on these matters were conceived in the United States after the Second World War and were a priority for both political regimes that suffered the Second World War (Europe) and peripheral areas (generically called "Third World Countries"). The policies that they entailed could generate two predictable reactions: nationalism and orthodox Marxism. Efforts had to be directed towards building a social science (and a political science) that reflected on issues that were relevant for the region. This would also make it easier to obtain information on and about Latin America. Even the definition of science uncritically imported from American academic centers resulted in technology- loving empiricism that was hyperfactual because of its behavioral background. Third, there was a series of arguments that did not question the direction or the contents of political science. They were the result of theoretical work on modernization and development, known as dependency theories and the more radical theories on cultural colonialism. The latter criticized scientific research models that produced facts and information without knowing who for or that were a way to support policies applied in Latin America but that were mostly relevant for the United States. The aim was to argue for politically committed activism translated into political action. Theories on dependency were first discussed in Marxism study groups organized initially by Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil. They were later reproduced in Chile, outside ECLAC and FLACSO, with various scholars and intellectuals, among them, Enzo Faletto. They discussed Marx's Capital and the pamphlet they contributed to would become the now famous book entitled Dependency and Development in Latin America 16. The aim was not to destroy science but to reply to modernization theories within the context of the scientific method. In political terms, this could lead to a peaceful road to socialism. However, dependency thoughts became more radical in their various forms. The discussion was centered on the impossibility of overcoming underdevelopment within the capitalist regime of accumulation of wealth. Thus, politically, a peaceful road to socialism seems inefficient. Change had to be definitive and revolutionary. But it was methodologist Johan Galtung, with his denunciation of Project Camelot 17, who helped highlight the impossibility of the relationship between science and politics. The Project mentioned was designed by Lyndon Johnson and stated that the role of the US Department of Defense was to cooperate with the armies of friendly governments during a crisis and offer the help of the American government. In order to do this, social scientists should produce information useful to American State policies, pointing out nonconformist and insurgent movements. The commotion this allegation created resulted in the accusation that scientific research fostered by extra-regional countries was scientific colonialism. It became relevant to ask what this research was for and how this continuous production of data and information for Latin America would be used. This debate strove to show the relative autonomy of scientific knowledge. There was freedom to communicate information, but not to set an agenda nor to obtain resources and use the data and information that resulted from research. These issues marked the path from scientific production in social sciences to the substitution of committed activism for social sciences.

7 The final blow did not come from the left but rather from the military regimes, which prohibited any possible scientific production by closing academic centers and universities as well as persecuting scientists. Project Camelot showed that there were specific counterinsurgent policies against leftist insurgencies. While the left saw social research as political espionage, the right saw it as a Communist conspiracy. Lastly, there was criticism aimed at strengthening political science and supporting the scientific study of politics. This approach neither supported the dissolution of science nor the transformation of politics into political activism. Thus, they discussed scientific models and sought a definition of politics that was less concerned with its contents than its autonomy 18. It is pointed out that, in Latin America, political science was mentioned increasingly often but without an exact knowledge of what it comprised. First, its field of study was defined by setting boundaries that separated it from other social sciences. It would be different from public law and sociology. With the latter, the boundaries were less clear, but political science was older: its debates could be traced back to Classical Greece. Thus, sociology was a nonpolitical science and its subject matter was society, social factors, and the private arena. Meanwhile, politology was the study of the State, public factors, and politics. Second, it limited its scope based on its existing requirements to be scientific and its definition of science, which could be traced back to Hobbes. However, the demand for this field to become a science was very recent and limited to the 20 th century. In a way, it was a plan devised by the United States during its process of becoming a superpower. Even during the UNESCO summits in Paris 19, the definitions of political science were based on American pragmatism, which listed internal specialties. This school of thought accepted a notion of political science and the need for an objective and verifiable operational method. Political science should not import the concept of science from physics or the natural sciences nor construct itself by disdaining philosophy or artificially separating from political theory. It could instead search for trails that were already present in Machiavelli, in whose writings politics was already separated from Ethics and religion. From Dictatorship to Democracy: Revitalizing and Strengthening Political Science as an Autonomous Discipline Because of the gradual establishment of military regimes in the region, Chile's geographical significance as a field for the preliminary development of social sciences in general and political science in particular decreased and eventually disappeared (1973). In a way, it finalized what the coup in Brazil (1964) had already started to show: the stagnation of social sciences and the massive migration of intellectuals and scientists. First, they migrated to Argentina, where until the 1976 coup some institutions showed an innovative way of facing the challenges of the new political science in the context of the requirements of a modernized social science. These institutions included the FLACSO's Argentine branch, the Bariloche Foundation, the curricular reform at the Universidad del Salvador. Scholars subsequently migrated to any country where there life was not at risk. As a result, it was Mexican political science that started to develop as exiled intellectuals arrived from various countries. The fact is that during the reign of the military juntas and/or authoritarian leaders, political science was developed in the spaces where repression or prohibition of scientific though could not reach. This occurred mainly outside their geographically defined areas of influence (regional research centers such as CLACSO, research projects on Latin America carried out abroad, such as the WWICS). Another gap was found outside of public institutions and inside private research centers or non-

8 governmental public interest organizations 20. This phenomenon, known as the "university of the catacombs", dramatically changed with the processes generically referred to as "transitions to democracy", when professionalization started to come from the State. The fact is that political science was strongly marked by the time of the military and/or authoritarian regimes and the theoretical works about them, as well as the subsequent processes of transition to democracy and their models. The discipline mutated following the pace of political changes. The positive value given to democratic ideals was the regional framework for the growing interest in their institutional development, marked by a highly optimistic attitude uninterested in questions about where the region was and where it was headed. During this time, paradoxically, the urgency of politics dictated the way academic activities were developed. Meanwhile, with the discipline's professionalization, academic work was de-politicized, and politics and science were separated. During the 1990's, the academic world was gradually being established, along with state policies on higher education and professionalization of scientific and academic work. This was a heterogeneous process within each country, depending on its domestic policy 21, and it no longer had Latin America in mind. Disagreement, Science and Politics in the New Millennium Since the beginning of the new millennium, renewed voices can be heard at regional and national levels speaking up against both the hyperspecialization and the fragmentation of the discipline, as well as its inability to communicate with the world of politics. In a way, the debate started as a result of the controversial writings of Giovanni Sartori about the current path of political science as a scientific discipline. However, the assessment on where it is today and where it is headed in the Southern Cone of Latin America (basically, Chile and Argentina) and in Mexico is also due to other causes. The latter can be classified for analytical purposes. First, a series of ideas were triggered by the current boom of political science, which has long past its founding period. The discipline is now cemented in university courses and as an academic field among social sciences 22. Proof of this are the various programs and degrees created during the 1990's in public and private universities and their various specializations, the organization of and massive attendance to the various conferences held by national (Chilean, Uruguayan, Argentine), Latin-American (ALACIP) associations and the IPSA congress in Chile in However, these points are only partially promising. On the one hand, political science is acknowledged and respected by the academic world and social sciences. But this does not occur to the same degree outside its field. The discipline is consolidated within the academic world but its not able to successfully offer work for its graduates that is relevant to the field. This situation has been defined as insufficient professional fulfillment. Political science has made an effort since the 1990's to give graduates and postgraduates different professional profiles, but the alumni do not find a place for their professional development, even though they are available to work in various areas (such public and non-governmental institutions, private businesses, NGOs and foundations, the media). For example, a pending matter in many countries in the region is to form a qualified group of state officers can outlive changes in the Administration. In these countries, hierarchy is politically determined and officials leave with the politicians that appointed them, while bureaucracy grows without a strategic plan. In Argentina, for example, Public Administration selection processes have remained stagnant since Professional carriers in government at federal, province and city levels

9 are almost non-existent 23. Two reasons for the paradox -that political science is strong in the world of social sciences but cannot achieve a positive public image- may be that the public is disillusioned by politics and that there have been recurrent representation crises. In brief, its object of study does not have a "good name". Even though politologists attempt to communicate its potential for the public and/or private arenas of the State, the growing specialization of graduates is hindered by the professional aspirations of the State. There is also little contact between the degree courses created (for example, in Public Administration) and the needs or requirements of public administrations. Lastly, the problem may be that it is out of reach for the general public and that it is associated with the discredited world of politics as a professional activity. Secondly, political science can be criticized for its shortcomings in analyzing the recurring representative crises 24. Focusing on Argentina and its representative crisis in 2001, critics show how the political science designed during the beginning of the '80s and the crucial years of transition to democracy was responsible for its own limitations. We have mentioned that for the Southern Cone of Latin America, theoretical-political reflection during transitions to democracy was essential, both to find a key guiding principle for politics and to found current political science 25. Even though the assessments mentioned above were meant to analyze Argentina and its political science, they shed some light on the analysis of the situation in the region. Politics acquired relevance during those years both as an activity and as a type of discourse and emphasis was put in separating it from other analytical fields which in the recent past had undermined its autonomy. As a result, social and economic factors were considered reductionists and a threat to its specificity. Thus, sociologist was concerned with social factors and economists with economy. Politics was deeply connected to the idea of democracy and was defined specifically by institutional factors and basically understood as formal rules for democracy. Its is in this sense that the pluralist ideas fostered by American works in relation to polyarchy led to an emphasis on political systems instead of on the State. In the 1990's, the lack of interest in discussions about the State hindered works about its reform beyond that which was required by international credit agencies. This division between politics and society and social and economic factors is the reason for the lack of discussions about how, while civil rights and responsibilities became stronger, unprecedented indigence and poverty were spreading and becoming structural. In Argentina and the Southern Cone of Latin America, in the context of transitions to democracy, political science was cemented, comparative politics was renewed with research on transitions to democracy, and a political theory was created for political democracy. This discussion has shown so far that political science was subject to a paradox that other disciplines share as well. The paradox is this: while political science was being consolidated and institutionalized beyond private or foreign research centers, it attempted to create specialized areas that confined it to itself. Thus, it lost a great deal of the creativity acquired during the military regimes while it was trying to challenge them and reflect on non-oppressive ways to exercise political power. The discipline wasted its ability to look beyond academic trends and focus on political urgency. This was actually a problem with the limited concept of politics defined and used during the 1980's and the current deficiencies of a discipline which, during that same time, had strived to strengthen itself, become institutionalized and specialized while weakening its object of study. The main problems political science currently faces are its lack of connection with politics, its loss of the ability to establish a creative link with politics, to distance itself from academic trends,

10 and to understand the difficulty that lies in disregarding social facts. This is why it is challenging for it to understand the 2001 Argentine crisis. Third, a series of debates surfaced as a result of the critical writings of Giovanni Sartori 26. As is well known, the "old scholar" points out that the political science he himself helped develop has followed the American agenda regarding subject matters and has privileged method and quantification over thematic relevance and research. In its way, it has focused on making itself a science and not on questioning politics. Santori started a debate that found various answers. These answers focused on two questions: whether methodological aspects of science should be the only relevant ones and the whether the American model for Political Science should prevail. But there were more emotional responses than real attempts at introspection within the discipline. The debate also reached Latin America and led to the publishing of several arguments 27. The result was a critical and self-critical evaluation in relation to the liveliness or death sentence of current political science. Again, the trigger is the self-criticism of the results American political science currently provides. Some arguments assert that political science is young but specialized. While supporting the path it has led, they highlight the challenges Political science faces while trying to obtain its own identity. In order to accomplish this, the current conceptual and methodological fragmentation should be avoided. Even though political science has had to face many obstacles, these could be tackled by recovering its old project to become a universal science, based on the scientific method, but based on the example of economy. Just like it, political science should avoid debates about history, philosophy and the definition of concepts. It should foster quantitative research, causal hypotheses and explanatory theories. All in all, political science has too mucho theoretical research and too little applied research. This is evidenced by the fact that all-encompassing programs have started to grow at the expense of Public Administration and Policies programs. This side is certain about the scientific horizons political science should have: those of economy. This means emphasizing the elegance of method over discussions about meaning and sense in politics. What is certain is what the discipline is: a rational pursuit that can be explained in itself and is meant to build models to asses the results of political activity 28. On the other hand, other critics have presented arguments that are completely opposite to those described above. In contrast to those who consider the discipline has followed a winding course towards progress, another part considers that its current irrelevance is the result of the proliferation of data with hypotheses that cannot approach the liveliness of national and regional political situations. In political science, science has forgotten both politics and relevant political ideas or thought that can at least come close to the complexities of the social and political world. Reflection on politics beyond institutions, as a framework for human life can no longer be found in this field. Its concern is no longer political wisdom, as it was in the past, but rather the method, as form and substance. And, it is no longer concerned with local political experiences. These limitations could also result from uncritically importing theories, mainly from the United States (e.g. economic analysis of politics, systemic analysis of politics, and empirical knowledge of politics). These boundaries should be pushed and overcome by adding a social production of politics, the symbolic side of political action and other forms of democracy that are not limited to institutional aspects (e.g. deliberative, substantive, radical democracy). Even though this side does not support a specific science, the similarities with Sartori's arguments show that the Americanization of the discipline has lost sight of the individual problems of real

11 people. The death of political science is also the result of the excessive theoretical and methodological weight that the United States have over Latin-America's scientific work. But this situation could change 29. Conclusions In this paper we were considering two different periods in Political Science as a modern discipline. In both, a first moment in where it was emerging and the second of consolidation and in where it is now, critical explanations which rethink what is specialization and fragmentation, replenish. Instead the context in which those critical explanations grew is different, especially in the internal history and in the political and social context; we could match similarities in the argumentative nucleus of both periods. We could return to them. First, there is an intrinsic problem in the development of specialized knowledge in sciences in general, and in social and political sciences. In the meanwhile they were being building up, compartment knowledge expands. In these critical views, this fragmentation is far to present as a natural evolution of scientific progress. So in both moments it has had been criticized as an artificial separation between knowledge 30. As the same time this is a structural process, because it is the permanent search of every disciplinary to be autonomous within it, and between the different specialized brunches inside each of them. In this progression there is something substantive that every science loses. For example, in the case of Political Science, the production of artificial boundaries in respect with other social sciences has been successful. So the discipline capture it own object of study (politics, policies, public, and the state 31 ), but with the incapacity to recognize that in the XX century these object of study couldn t be separate from social sphere. In whereas social is not always private, and in several cases means politicize and public because interpenetration of State and Society that characterizes the last century, and it is still now. The origin of this fragmentation based in specialization goes far, so it is not more usefulness condemning Political Sciences to be blind in it analysis. The second problematic issue is the permanent conflict in the relation between science and politics. In Latin America Southern Cone there has been a close relationship between political order, the building of the political science object, and the ways to study it. Or what it is similar: between the political live of society and the conformation of an research agenda in Political Science as a discipline Through many years, this link connecting discipline with political change built both, it strengthen and it weakness. So at the finishing of XX century, the pressure of professionalization determinates the necessity to conclude this characteristic 32. So to go far away from political change, issue that was evaluated as an obstacle for it internal evolution but which draw the sense of it professionalization, Political Science begun to break the close relationship between science and politics. So it purposes to build a scientific sense of political science, taking away the possibility of politicizing science 33. This is also a problem on the specialization and autonomy of Political Science. This travel and closure the dialog between Political Science and the political activity or political action sphere 34. From the one hand, this has redundant in a legitimating of Political Science within Social Sciences in general. Political Science attach importance from it fellows, but with a low capacity to be a profession well-valued outside the academic world. In the second hand, this provokes what today is calling the dead of Political

12 Science or the poverty of the discipline. This means a growing disinterest with the sensible living of each women and men. This happens: because the necessities of drawing a close sense of science weaken the thinking of what is politics. As the same time, the association with other disciplines (ex. Economy), in which politics loose it own and classic sense of the common of all (today only rational choices or individual interested). Finally, the demand on the building of and autonomy object of study culminates in a poverty of itself. As the autonomy of Political Science has had went long, now the paradox is the bondless between science and politics. The same process is going on with specialization. In this case, the preoccupation is center in the method, and the less attention with those reflections about the political regimens and realities in which the discipline must think about. Autonomy and specialization shows the present incapability of Political Science to analyze the recurrent crisis of political representation (ex., in Argentina). The professionalization has had advanced too much, causing the traveling of methods and concepts that unify the particularity of specific political regimens. So, from the past calls to build a Latino American point of view, Political Science had travelled to each country or case, and had adopted international concepts and methods, putting up a Political Science that is blind to find nationals particularities. In such a way, the question could be if all these problems that in the sixties were seen as crossroads of Latino American Political Science, and today are appearing as it dead, poverty slow importance, are contextual or situational troubles. Perhaps, as the same time, there must be a dialogue with this entire crossroads that are an important part of it course as a modern discipline, which constitute and characterize Political Science from the middle of the century. General Bibliography Alimonda, Héctor: Sobre la historia del Programa Buenos Aires de FLACSO (sobre mi relación fuera-dentro con FLACSO). s/d. Almond, Gabriel: El desarrollo del desarrollo político. En Almond, Gabriel: Una disciplina segmentada. Escuelas y corrientes de las ciencias políticas. Colegio Nacional de Ciencias Políticas y Administración Pública y FCE. México, Arguello, Omar; Ayrton Fausto y Luis Ramallo: Enseñanza e Investigación en Ciencias Sociales. La experiencia de la ELAS. Revista Mexicana de Sociología. Vol 35 N 1. Enero-Marzo, Barrientos del Monte, Fernando: La Ciencia Política en América Latina, s/d Cansino, César: La muerte de la Ciencia Política. La Nación y sudamericana. Buenos Aires, Di Tella, Torcuato: La crisis de las Ciencias Políticas latinoamericanas. Desarrollo Económico. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. N 41. Volumen 11. Abril-Junio, Dos Santos, Guilherme Wanderley: Nuevas Profesiones, nuevas academias. Sugerencias para un debate pedagógico. Desarrollo Económico. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. N 41. Volumen 11. Abril-Junio, Franco, Rolando: La FLACSO clásica ( ). Vicisitudes de las Ciencias Sociales latinoamericanas. FLACSO-Chile y Editorial Catalonia. Chile, Kaplan, Marcos: La Ciencia Política latinoamericana en la encrucijada. Desarrollo Económico. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. N 37. Volumen 10. Abril-Junio, Ozslak, Oscar: Ciencia Política y Democracia. Diario Clarín. Buenos Aires, 15/9/1982.

13 Pérez Brignoli, Héctor: Los 50 años de la FLACSO y el desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en América Latina. Editorial Juricentro y FLACSO-Secretaría General. Costa Rica, Rinesi, Eduardo, Gabriel Nardacchione y Gabriel Vommaro (editores): Los lentes de Víctor Hugo. Transformaciones políticas y desafíos teóricos en la Argentina reciente. Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento y Prometeo Libros. Buenos Aires, Sartori, Giovanni: Where is Political Science going? Political Science and Politics. Number 4. Vol. 37. October, Sorj, Bernardo: A construção intelectual do Brasil contemporáneo. Da resistência a ditadura ao governo FHC. Jorge Zahar Editor. Rio de Janeiro, Strasser, Carlos: La idea de una ciencia política. Desarrollo Económico. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. N 46. Volumen 12. Julio-Septiembre, Strasser, Carlos: La razón científica en política y en sociología. Amorrortu Editores. Buenos Aires, Reviews Revista Mexicana de Sociología. Escuela Latinoamericana de Ciencia Política y Administración Pública FLACSO. Programación docente y de Investigación Revista Mexicana de Sociología. Vol 35 N 1. Enero-Marzo, Revista América Latina 9. Revista del Doctorado en Procesos Sociales y Políticos en América Latina. Universidad ARCIS. Dossier Discutiendo la Ciencia Política Latinoamericana. Editorial ARCIS. 1 er. Semestre, Revista Temas y Debates. Revista Universitaria de Ciencias Sociales. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Dossier: La muerte de la ciencia política. Año 11. Número 14. Diciembre, Revista Política y Gobierno. Revista del CIDE. Debate sobre el rumbo de la ciencia política. Volumen XI. Número 2. II Semestre. México, Revista Metapolítica. Dossier: La mirada limpia de la Ciencia Política. Volumen 10. Número 49. Dossier: Adiós a la Ciencia Política. México, Interviews Carlos Floria. Revista Post Data. N 8. Septiembre de Carlos Strasser. Cecilia Lesgart. Marzo, de * Cecilia Lesgart is Doctor in Political Science (FLACSO-Mexico, 2000). Researcher: National Scientific and Technical Consortium (CONICET-Argentine). Professor: National University of Rosario. 1 Lesgart, Cecilia: Pasado y presente de la ciencia política producida en Argentina. Apuntes para un debate sobre su porvenir. (Dossier: La muerte de la ciencia política). Temas y Debates. Revista Universitaria de ciencias sociales. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Año 11. Número 14. Diciembre, 2007 (English version Political Science in Argentina: Past and Present paper presented at the XXI Congress of Political Science. IPSA. Chili, 2009) 2 See Lesgart, Cecilia: Usos de la transición a la democracia. Ensayo, ciencia y política en la década del 80. Homo Sapiens. Colección Politeia. Rosario, In its constitution of a self sub discipline from Political Science, International Relations suffer less problems than Public Administration in it process of separation of International Public Law. In the past, it struggle was with Administrative Law and with the Accountancy Schools (in whereas it was born). And still now, this sub