1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 19, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 19, 2016

Re-imagining the Cambridge School in the Age of Digital Humanities

Abstract

Recent work on the history of political thought, exploiting digital resources, is challenging the idea that empirically and hermeneutically minded political scientists must work independently in silos. Work by students of the Cambridge School and work by textual data miners are showing the way toward a new hermeneutical circle—one in which empirically and hermeneutically minded political scientists can use digital resources to analyze diverse texts and make groundbreaking discoveries on relationships between textual uses of language and political change. I analyze this new trend toward different sorts of political scientists using digital resources to study ideas, to outline underlying paradigms relating language and politics in these respective fields, and to consider how they could be brought into productive conversation. I then consider how such conversation would enrich subdisciplinary understandings of the role of language in politics. Ultimately, I use this analysis to generate a broader model for how empirically and hermeneutically inclined political scientists can benefit from collaboration in the age of digital humanities.

Keyword(s): automated text analysis, discourse and politics, history of political thought, language, political theory, text as data
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061513-115924
2016-05-11
2025-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/19/1/annurev-polisci-061513-115924.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061513-115924&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Al-Qāī W. 1994. The religious foundation of Late Umayyad ideology and practice.. Saber religioso y poder politico en el Islam: Actas del Simposio Internacional, Granada, 15–18 Octubre 1991 M Marin, M Garcia-Arenal 231–73 Madrid: Agenda Espanola de Cooperacion Internacional [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen D. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen D. 2010. Why Plato Wrote Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennett J. 2009. Vibrant Matter: a Political Ecology of Things Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Bevir M. 2011. The contextual approach. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy G Klasko 11–23 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Blaydes L, Grimmer J, McQueen A. 2015. Mirrors for princes and sultans: advice on the art of governance in the medieval Christian and Islamic worlds Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Stanford Univ. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boydstun A. 2013. Making the News: Politics, the Media and Agenda Setting Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Browers M. 2006. Democracy and Civil Society in Arab Political Thought Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Connolly W. 2005. The evangelical-capitalist resonance machine. Polit. Theory 33:6869–86 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Bolla P. 2013. The Architecture of Concepts: the Historical Formation of Human Rights Bronx, NY: Fordham Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Dunn J. 1968. The identity of the history of ideas. Philos. J. R. Inst. Philos. 43:16485–104 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldie M. 2006. The context of The Foundations. Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought A Brett, J Tully 3–19 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Grimmer J. 2013. Representational Studies in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Grimmer J. 2015. We're all social scientists now: how big data, causal inference and machine learning work together. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 48:180–83 [Google Scholar]
  15. Grimmer J, King G. 2011. General purpose computer-assisted clustering and conceptualization. PNAS 108:72643–50 [Google Scholar]
  16. Grimmer J, Stewart B. 2013. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit. Anal. 21:31–31 [Google Scholar]
  17. Guldi J, Armitage D. 2014. The History Manifesto Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Hall A, King G. 2015. What's the big idea? Statistical methods for idea generation with application to ancient Greek and Latin texts Work. pap., Dep. Gov., Harvard Univ. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hamilton-Bleakley H. 2006. Linguistic philosophy and The Foundations. Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought A Brett, J Tully 20–33 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Israel J. 2014. Book review: The Architecture of Concepts by Peter de Bolla. Crit. Inq. http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/jonathan_israel_reviews_peter_de_bolla/ [Google Scholar]
  21. Jenco L. 2015. Changing Referents: Learning Across Space and Time in China and the West New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. London J. 2008. How to do things with fables: Ibn al-Muqaffa‘’s frank speech in stories from Kalīla wa-Dimna. Hist. Polit. Thought 29:189–212 [Google Scholar]
  23. McClure K. 2001. Between the castigation of texts and the excess of words: political theory in the margins of tradition. Democracy and Vision: Sheldon Wolin and the Vicissitudes of the Political A Botwinick, W Connolly 193–231 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. McQueen A. 2015. Mosaic Leviathan: religion and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes Work. pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Stanford Univ. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moretti F, Pestre D. 2015. Bankspeak: the language of World Bank reports. N. Left Rev. 92:75–99 [Google Scholar]
  26. Moretti F. 2011. Network theory, plot analysis. N. Left Rev. 68:80–102 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nacol E. 2011. The risks of political authority: trust, knowledge and political agency in Locke's second treatise. Polit. Stud. 59:580–95 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nacol E. 2016. An Age of Risk: Politics and Economy in Early Modern Britain Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Nelson E. 2011. The Hebrew Republic Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Panagia D. 2014. A theory of aspects: media participation and political theory. N. Literary Hist. 45:4527–48 [Google Scholar]
  31. Parrish J. 2007. Paradoxes of Political Ethics: from Dirty Hands to the Invisible Hand New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Pocock JGA. 1989 (1971). Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Pocock JGA. 2009. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Reynolds N, Saxonhouse A. 1995. Hobbes and the horae subsecivae. Three Discourses: A Critical Modern Edition of Newly Identified Work of the Young Hobbes3–22 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosen M. 2011. The history of ideas as philosophy and history. Hist. Polit. Thought 32:4691–720 [Google Scholar]
  36. Scarry E. 1999. On Beauty and Being Just Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Sculley D, Pasanek B. 2008. Meaning and mining: the impact of implicit assumptions in data mining for the humanities. Literary Linguist. Comput. 23:4409–24 [Google Scholar]
  38. Shklar J. 2004. Squaring the hermeneutic circle. Soc. Res. 71:3655–78 [Google Scholar]
  39. Skinner Q. 1969. Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. Hist. Theory 8:13–52 [Google Scholar]
  40. Skinner Q. 1988. Introduction. Machiavelli: The Prince Q Skinner, R Price ix–xxiv Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Skinner Q. 2002. Visions of Politics I Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Steinberger P. 2009. Analysis and history of political thought. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 103:1135–46 [Google Scholar]
  43. Taylor C. 1971. Interpretation and the sciences of man. Rev. Metaphys. 25:13–51 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tuck R. 2008. Free Riding Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Turner J. 2016. Thinking historically. Theory Event 19:1 In press [Google Scholar]
  46. von Vacano D. 2015. The scope of comparative political theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 18:465–80 [Google Scholar]
  47. Woodly D. 2015. The Politics of Common Sense Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Yano T, Smith N, Wilkerson J. 2012. Textual predictors of bill survival in congressional committees. Proc. 2012 Conf. North Am. Chap. Assoc. Comput. Linguist.: Hum. Lang. Technol.793–802 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061513-115924
Loading
Re-imagining the Cambridge School in the Age of Digital Humanities
Annual Review of Political Science 19, 351 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061513-115924
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061513-115924
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061513-115924
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Supplemental Figure 1. An Ngram is a way to trace the frequency of a word or phrase across various texts or books. Google Ngram Viewer provides a way to graph how often a given concept or word appears across all the books in Google Books. Below is a graphic representation of an Ngram of mentions of "the Cambridge School" across works on Google Books from 1950 onward, to offer an example of such quantitative representation of a phrase.

    Download a larger version of the Supplemental Figure as a PDF.

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error