In Memoriam in Memoriam

In Memoriam In Memoriam David Easton Easton’s agenda for behavioral and post-behavioral political science fi rst appeared in “An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems” (World Politics 1957 and reprinted in over 100 diff erent avid Easton, Distinguished Research Professor of Politi- publications). The fully-developed Eastonian theory was presented cal Science at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), most prominently in three books: (1) The Political System: An Inquiry past president of the American Political Science Associa- into the State of Political Science,1 (2) A Framework for Political Analy- D 2 3 tion, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, died July 19, 2014. sis, and (3) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. These works restruc- Born in Canada in 1917, Easton received his bachelor’s and mas- tured the conceptual landscape of 20th century political science and ter’s degrees (1939, 1943) from the University of Toronto, where he provided a fresh, new way to analyze political phenomena. Indeed, met and married Sylvia Johnstone. In 1943 David was appointed Easton’s success is evidenced by the fact that we routinely now speak a teaching fellow at Harvard University, earning his doctorate in of a political system, inputs and outputs, demands, system overload government in 1947. Easton joined the faculty in political science etc. without even recognizing that this vocabulary was developed at the University of Chicago in 1947 as an assistant professor and as part of an underlying theory about the political world, and that was promoted to professor in 1955. In 1969, he was appointed the Easton is the person who developed this theory. Easton’s contribu- Andrew McLeish Distinguished Service Professor at Chicago and tions extend into careful empirical work in socialization theory and from 1971 to 1980, was also the Sir Edward Peacock Professor of political psychology, as witnessed in Children in the Political System: Political Science at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, divid- Origins of Political Legitimacy, with Jack Dennis.4 ing his time between Chicago and Queens. He joined the faculty Easton’s work was critical in the development of behavioral and at University of California, Irvine in 1982. Elected to the Ameri- post-behavioral analysis, and in establishing empirical political theory can Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1962, Easton received three as a body of work in which theories of political life were examined honorary degrees, from McMaster University, Kalamazoo College, and tested using empirical data in a more systematic manner than and The Free University of Berlin. He served as past president of had heretofore been the case. Easton’s theory reoriented analy- the International Committee on Social Science Documentation sis of the discipline, helping promote links with other disciplines (1969–1971), vice president of the American Academy of Arts and and the blurring of disciplinary boundaries. (Easton agreed with Sciences, trustee and chairman of the Academy of Independent Charles Merriam in advocating social science as a single fi eld, tell- Scholars (1979–81), member of the Committee on Higher Educa- ing with delight how Merriam climbed a step-ladder late one night tion of the Royal Society of Canada (1978–80), and chairman of the to chisel off the “S” from “Social Sciences” on what Merriam and Committee on Scientifi c Information Exchange of the American Easton thought of as the Social Science building at the University Political Science Association (1972). of Chicago.) Easton’s theory attempted to simplify the whole of the political system and account for the diff erent factors that explain CONTRIBUTION political action. It moved the discipline away from its traditional Part of the behavioralist/post-behavioralist revolutions in social emphasis on constitutions and institutional or historical analysis science, Easton criticized existing political science for failing to both to forge strong bonds with other disciplines in social science, e.g., construct coherent theories of politics and to develop systematic tech- anthropology, sociology, psychology and economics. In the process, niques to gather and analyze data with which to test such theories. Easton re-conceptualized our most basic assumptions and concerns He pioneered the fi eld of empirical political theory, advocating the in studying politics. While David never repudiated what he took to development of a broad conceptual framework that would be a pro- be the cardinal virtue of behavioralism—its commitment to looking totype of something comparable to natural science. His arguments closely at how people acted and what they thought—his 1969 APSA touch on critical themes in the philosophy of science, the relation of Presidential Address established his later criticism of a number of political science to public policy, and the post-behavioral revolution. aspects of the behavioralist movement, including an antiquated view Easton addressed a question at the heart of political science as of science that equated the scientifi c enterprise with the principles a discipline: how do we defi ne politics itself? Easton’s defi nition of of what David termed “early positivism.” Unlike many champions politics as “the authoritative allocation of values,” and the way he built of behavioralism (both early and late), David remained attentive to his political system on this defi nition, revealed the strength of what many of the important developments in the history and philosophy he called empirical political theory and the continuing importance of of science and understood how much the philosophical bases under- integrating theoretical and empirical political science. His system’s lying scientifi c methodology shifts and changes over the years. He analysis of political life encouraged the adoption of a framework later supported the Perestroika movement’s attempts to open the for political analysis that was free of traditional Western-oriented discipline to new approaches and methodologies. conceptual approaches and terminology in favor of asking how political systems fulfi ll critical functions, such as inputs of political LEGACY demands and conversion of these demands into output and feed- Even after Eastonian systems analysis became commonplace, back. While this systems approach appeared in sociology and other Easton’s intellectual legacy continues to inspire for both its breadth social sciences, it was Easton who specifi ed how it could be applied and its depth. Is there a human nature on which we should construct to behavioral research on politics. our scientifi c theories of political life? What is the role of culture in 898 PS • October 2014 © American Political Science Association, 2014 In Memoriam shaping any such nature? In molding our political potential? Does the foundations of modern political science, and structural analy- political science have a central core, some unique defi nition and sis of politics until he was 94 years old. A critical fi gure in building conceptualization of the political that sets it apart as a discipline, UCI’s Department of Political Science, for nearly 25 years Easton separate and distinct from other branches of social science? How taught the introductory pro-seminar on the history of political sci- objective and value-free is our work? Is it science? Are there intrin- ence, required of all political science graduate students. In 1997, he sic and signifi cant diff erences between the micro-level analysis of received the Distinguished Faculty Award for Research from UCI’s rational choice theory and individualist theories of human behav- Academic Senate and was named the 2005-06 recipient of the UC ior on the one hand and the macro-level assumptions that need to system-wide Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award be made when we discuss collective behavior? Is it intellectually in recognition of his research and scholarly activities during retire- valid to speak of collective entities, such as the State, as if they exist ment. Prizes named to honor David include UCI’s Easton Award apart from the separate individuals that constitute them? These are for the Best Graduate Student Paper in Political Science, the David just some of the questions raised by Easton’s work. David had an and Sylvia Easton Lecture, established by UCI’s Ethics Center and unusual capacity to ask serious questions as a way of forcing others given every second year for creative, controversial and cutting-edge to think more clearly about what they were doing and why it mat- work in social science that relates to ethics, and the APSA’s David tered. Always interested in the work of his colleagues, he nonethe- Easton Prize, given by the Foundations of Political Thought Section less rarely, if ever, tried to suggest that others should follow in his for a book that “broadens the horizons of contemporary political research direction. science by engaging issues of philosophical signifi cance in politi- This lack of pretension was especially impressive given Easton’s cal life through any of a variety of approaches in the social sciences monumental position in political science. Easton’s central contri- and humanities.” bution—the development of a value-free and culturally unbounded Easton is survived by his devoted and loving family: his son vocabulary of politics that he then constructed into a general theory Stephen, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, his concerning the political system —constituted an intellectual innova- daughter-in-law,

Load more