O e-mail de Mr. Perestroika

O texto abaixo provocou algum abalo, se bem não chegou a terremoto, no terreno da Ciência Política. Basicamente, o texto questiona o fechamento cognitivo e a ausência de pluralismo metodológico naquela ciência. Foi publicado há mais de uma década, mas vale a pena dar uma conferida. Até porque, no caso da UFRN, a mensagem abaixo foi a inspiração de uma mensagem igualmente anônima questionando a fossilização do curso.


On Globalization of the APSA and APSR: A Political Science Manifesto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions:

1)Why do people like Benedict Anderson and James C. Scott find APSA and APSR
irrelevant? These are probably the most famous political scientists in the world.
They are equally famous abroad and in other disciplines compared to the "stars" of
Political Science:Hey, Hey, Vee (look at their classic book on literary
methodologies).
2) Related to above is the question: Why do a majority of political scientists who
do comparative politics ignore APSA and APSR and go to their regional meetings and
read regional association journals--such as those associated with East Asia, Latin
America, Hispanic Studies etc?
3) Why does a "coterie" of faculty dominate and control APSA and the editorial board
of APSR--i scratch your back, you scratch mine. I give award to your student from
Harvard and you give mine from Duke or Columbia. In short why do the "East Coast
Brahmins" control APSA?
4) Why are a few men who make poor game-theorists and who cannot for the life-of-me
compete with a third grade Economics graduate student---WHY are these men allowed to
represent the diversity of methodologies and areas of the world that APSA "purports"
to represent?
5) Why are FAILED Africanists and Economists allowed to dominate a discipline which
has a rich history of intellectual contributions from the likes of:James Scott,
Charles Tilly, Aristide Zolberg, Leanard Binder, Benedict Anderson, R. Bendix,
Susanne Rudolph, Theda Skocpol etc.
6)Have we learned any lesson from the thousands of pages of research that was funded
by APSA in the name of political science to examine the former Soviet Union and make
"predictive" models? What happened to those models and why did they fail? How is it
that those esteemed colleagues failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Empire
while Sovietologists from Korea, Japan, India and even one from Tanzania could
predict the fall of the empire. Are we making the same mistake by ignoring diverse
knowledges and methodologies present in the study of Politics?
7) Why isn't APSR subscription made separate from the APSA membership so that APSR
becomes truly representative of a "coterie" that rules APSA while the rest of the
true political scientists can devote their money to buying the more important
regional journals. Either reform the APSR board and have more political historians,
area specialists, political-sociologists and constructivists on the board or let the
market decide--you will find a sharp drop in APSR's subscription as soon as APSR is
delinked from the membership of APSA.
8) Why are the overwhelming majority of Presidents of APSA or editorial board
members of APSR WHITE and MALE? Where are the African-Americans, Hispanics, Women,
Gays, Asians---in short, where is the diversity of United States and the world that
APSA "pretends" to study--is somebody afraid that APSA will slip out of their
hands???
9) Why are all the articles of APSR from the same methodology--statistics or game
theory--with a "symbolic" article in Political Theory that is often a piece that has
been rejected by the journal "Political Theory. " Where is political history,
International history, political sociology, interpretive methodology,
constructivists, area studies, critical theory and last but not the least---post
modernism. Why can't you have 5 per cent of the articles in APSR allocated under the
category:incomprehensible. Then just go ahead and publish game theory, statistics
and post-modernism under the category.
10) At a time when the free market models of economics are being challenged in IMF
and World Bank, discredited in much of Asia, and protested by numerous groups; why
are simple, baby-stuff models of political science being propogated in our
discipline. If these psuedo-economists know their Maths so well--let them present at
the University of Chicago's Economics Workshop--I assure you every single political
science article will be trashed and thrown into the dustbin. Then why are these
people allowed to throw their weight around based on undergrad maths and stats--an
Econ 101. We are in the business of Political Science and not failed Economics.
Lastly,
11)When are you going to offer the APSA presidentship to Benedict Anderson or
Charles Tilly or Richard Falk or Susanne Rudolph or Ari Zolberg or James C. Scott or
Theda Skocpol who are more representative of our discipline then the "coterie" that
runs APSA.
I hope this anonymous letter leads to a dismantling of the Orwellian system that we
have in APSA and that we will see a true Prestroika in the discipline.

Mr. Perestroika