The climber pressure leads to the rise of the poor […]. It is assumed that the fiercely competitive Darwinism should enthrone excellent, not incompetent. But climbing races are full of supposedly objective tests whose results are not as easily measured […]. Evaluate a person for a position or award, evaluating the significance of a work may not be accurate. If, to avoid the discussion, it comes down to mechanical measurements, the result is absurd. The candidate with the most points can be a mediocre […]. The climbing competition does not always favor the most competent in this or that, but the most competent to compete, accommodate, manage their public relations, modeled himself as desirable product, pass exams, earn points, derail competitors, seduce or pressure on the jurors, get the microphone and the spotlight, made popular […]. Natural selection favors trepadero in the rise of a new Darwinian species: mediocris habilis.
We live in times where in the academic field of social sciences, cross through a severe crisis of thought. The activity of thinking, in the paths of knowledge is being relegated by the activity of introducing technology, deduct and intermarry through comparative methods, the ability to understand, analyze, observe and explain various phenomena arising from the conflict in the political path economic, social and cultural.
The activity of thinking is the constant possibility of being achieved and exercised by the individual, but this condition does not necessarily guarantee that the individual is able to carry it out.
Those in today’s research, development and teaching of political science are not exposed to this problem. The ability of thinking among political scientists that dominate the discipline traviesan a severe crisis of thought. While it is true that political science currently enjoys a huge and growing institutional manifested in various conferences, seminars, workshops, symposia are held in various parts of the world; and the birth of various research products originating in universities which teach through books, tracts, magazines and cyber space, where the results of the exercise exhibits from the many issues that now dominate the Politic science.
Its activity to generate knowledge is constantly being relegated by the informative. That is, the crisis of thought suffered today who exert political science, not only manifested by the constant creation of studies and informative diagnoses on political phenomenon, but this crisis is that our discipline originates irrelevant knowledge, dated expiration, but above all, it is causing both the institutionalization of the discipline as products originating from it are producing a scrapping of political science.
Political science, from birth, had never enjoyed both institutional splendor. Currently teaching grows increasingly more momentum. Public and private universities increasingly offer study programs aimed at training activity politics graduate programs are created with a tendency to academic “excellence” and offer more demand, courses and courses on some of the courses generated great expectations among the political science public most of them tend to professionalize public servants, students and stakeholders on various issues.
In addition they have never produced so many books, articles and research on topics that generate impact on the discipline and today are at the forefront of fashion epistemic political science.
Issues around the quality of democracy, transparency, accountability, parliamentary activity, management and public management, political marketing, election campaigns, public policy analysis, just to name a few, abound in bookstores and libraries where it teaches discipline and spreads.
Never before university presses had been given so much space in their collections to the production coming from the social sciences and humanities, and in this case, political science; Never before they had now been so many supporters and state resources for researchers of political science could present their works and their diagnoses, I reiterate, stay in the informative and often are panaceas that lack any intellectual effort to understand and explain politics.
Since political science is consolidated as a deductive discipline, logic, schematic and technique with the need to justify its usefulness, its importance and its social and educational value, slowly this discipline has been discredited, and thus plunging into a severe crisis, not only production of political knowledge, but also, this crisis is producing a plastic discipline that has ceased to be sensitive and so close to the subjects as political actors.
Although it seems that the above is a paradox, arguing that today more than ever political science maintains suitable methodological tools to more accurately explain political activity through statistical tools, diagrams and complex methods that arise from the mathematics, Today political activity is summarized for political scientists to a simple fact; seeking to project scenarios and if possible to solve the political problems from a desktop or a laboratory of public policies, as if summarizing political activity to simple deductions that appear to be rational and scientific.
Under this scenario, political science beyond being fashionable discipline all intend to study, that has become a discipline that has been usurped by a hegemonic elite that dominates the field of academics, and in its need to remain , be enhanced and strengthened in the field of academics; and thus achieve a certain intellectual prestige from research as these are cutting edge they generate this discipline is immersed in what Peter Sloterdijk calls “apparent death in thinking” (Sloterdijk, 2013).
Political science of our time implies being a driver and promoter of political explanation from the logical-deductive method with the need to demonstrate its scientific, but this condition evaluates to a discipline to be considered as dead by little usefulness of their research products and policy information generated in recent decades. In that sense, this discipline seems to enter the political thought to provide various solutions and / or explanations arising from political activity, but stays on the border of the inability to understand, but above all to understand the political phenomenon.
This argument is reflected not only in the methodology used discipline, but in the very language you use. The inability to think for themselves reconstructs and redefines the ways in which we communicate depends on the context of the current situation and the identity forms with which the individual develops. In the same way, our discipline lacks the adoption of other methodological and epistemological forms that is not a matter of inventing, but to resume there, such as hermeneutics, criticism or even the same phenomenological theory; redefine risk categories that are no longer useful for compression of our new social and political reality accelerating the processes of globalization and finally, explore and return to the main thing, learn to rethink the policy.
If in the past, the great political theorists had in their success was this extraordinary ability that not only stratified political activity or statistical data mapping, but understood it, the analyzed, the comparing, the described and explained with capacity and epistemological and philosophical rigor that to this day remain major reference for studying the political phenomenon. Just read Machiavelli’s The Prince to understand the attitude of politicians, Plato’s dialogues, the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau’s social contract or contemporary works of the glorious life of political science with important thinkers and policy that transcended for their contributions and their ability to comprehend and understand political action such as Rafael del Aguila; Mercedes Cabrera; Norberto Bobbio; Gianfranco Pasquino; Riccardo Petrella: Giovanni Sartori: Bruno Rizzi: John Rawls just to mention a few.
However, times where I thought, was explained and politics gradually were replaced by contributions not filed intellectual sustenance in an expressive way of thinking is understood, where the interpretation is made of hand and concealed by a plasticized science policy, less sensitive to situations that emerge from political conflict, makeup with the appearance of scientific rigor based on statistics or complex methods that arise from mathematics and deductive logic. Simply just search the net about any subject that is in the orbit of academic fashion and we realize the amount of “studies” of political scientists attempt to explain a phenomenon in common, but they do not explain anything, although we will, become a journalistic text of opinion which is lost early in time or become surface requirements a staff of numbers everywhere.
But how did we get to this situation?
While it is true that there are various factors that led to our discipline to a chronic terminal. Ubico an element that is essential and that caused the crisis of thought in political science, and therefore its scrapping.
The determining factor, in my perception, is the apparent encouragement for knowledge that is driven from the institutions that promote scientific research. These institutions usually rife with corruption within, generated all kinds of stimuli, simulations and perversions as research is concerned, a very comfortable situation for thousands of researchers who are in schools and universities where research, that eventually would be replaced research, courageous, professional and good living by insubstantial rolls. A custom among several researchers feasible because of the convenience of not questioning anything in return to live immersed in the mediocrity of the requirement.
The worst part is trying to criticize and display the mediocrity of the research produced in the country automatically makes you a misfit, a bitter, presumptuous, and I ostracized for life by your colleagues. Hence aspire to reassess the scientific work is so polluted in half by mediocrity is a battle in the desert (Cansino, 2012).
In this sense, the apparent death in the thinking of political science is reflected in the thousands of articles and books that do not have the slightest dynamic on a topic addressed also are informative papers highlighting a tremendous lack of capacity Analytical by the researcher.
Not that the attempt to belittle the researchers to generate important research, not only at the level of political science, but of all the disciplines that make up the social sciences, humanities and arts. But we must criticize all those professionals research and have prostituted chatarrizado with kilos of articles, books and publications our discipline with irrelevant knowledge.
In short, all those interested in research in all disciplines of the social, arts and humanities who are in training or who are already in this controversial, chaotic and fascinating field, we must return to research and condition think constant dedication, extensive training and academic preparation with a vocation and responsibility to knowledge, with great sacrifice and great intellectual honesty.
And learn to rethink politics, transcend trendy topics of our discipline and be more open to interpretation and criticism of what we produce as researchers, as well as what they produce colleagues. In the same way, be more sensitive to our political reality and approach again the subject and political actor. Do not stay in the projection of the statistical methods and complex, much less in the illustrated rationality conditional to the selfishness of those who observe and understand from the beginning of the academy.
It is certainly a major challenge, but it is an outstanding and necessary for anyone who wishes to be a committed, honest, professional investigator exercise, and if I may say, risky to say, thinking.
Cansino, C (2012), Caja sin Pandora. La clausura del saber en la universidad, México: UNAM.
Gabriel Z. (2010), El secreto de la fama, México: Lumen.
Sloterdijk, P. (2012), Muerte aparente en el pensar, Barcelona: Ciruela.