Advertisement

Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem

  • Peter AllenEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Jeremy Corbyn’s continued leadership of the Labour party has been contrary to the publicly stated expectations of many pundits and political scientists. This punditry has underpinned coverage of Corbyn and his Labour party that continually plays out in print, broadcast and social media. My claim is that the manner in which Corbyn and his supporters were discussed by prominent political scientists and pundits was reflective of a dismissive underlying attitude towards the political dynamics that his candidacy and subsequent leadership represent. In this paper, I do three things. First, I identify a group of intensely politically involved individuals who collectively hold the power to shape shared political meanings and understandings and locate some British political scientists within it. Second, I outline five points of opposition that this group had to Corbyn, demonstrating that although these maintain an appearance of objectivity, they are nonetheless normative in nature and largely conform to a dominant ideological standpoint seemingly shared among the group. Third, I reflect on the role of British political science in this context, raising concerns that our inculcation into this group might be affecting our academic endeavours as well as how we present ourselves and our work to the wider public.

Keywords

Political science Jeremy Corbyn British politics Power Epistemic snobbery Political punditry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are offered to Nick Clarke, Jonathan Dean and David S. Moon for providing written comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks are also due to audiences at the University of Bath, University of Leeds, the John W Kluge Center at the Library of Congress, and the 2018 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting for comments on various presented versions of these ideas.

References

  1. Allen, P. 2018. The Political Class: Why It Matters Who Our Politicians Are. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, P., and P. Cairney. 2017. What Do We Mean When We Talk About the ‘Political Class’? Political Studies Review 15 (1): 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S.J., and S. Exley. 2010. ‘Making Policy with ‘Good Ideas’: Policy Networks and the ‘Intellectuals’ of New Labour. Journal of Education Policy 25 (2): 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry, B. 2005. Why Social Justice Matters. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, T. 2010. A Journey. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  6. Blumler, J.G., and S. Coleman. 2010. Political Communication in Freefall: The British Case—and Others? The International Journal of Press/Politics 15 (2): 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairney, P. 2007. The Professionalisation of MPs: Refining the ‘Politics-Facilitating’ Explanation. Parliamentary Affairs 60 (2): 212–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cammaerts, B., B. DeCillia, J. Viera Magalhães, and C. Jimenez-Martínez. 2016. Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press: from “watchdog” to “attack dog”. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/projects/corbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf.
  9. Christiano, T. 2003. An Argument for Democratic equality. In Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology, ed. T. Christiano, 39–67. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chubb, J., and M.S. Reed. 2018. The Politics of Research Impact: Academic Perceptions of the Implications for Research Funding, Motivation and Quality. British Politics 13 (3): 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, N., W. Jennings, J. Moss, and G. Stoker. 2018. The Good Politician: Folk Theories, Political Interaction, and the Rise of Anti-politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, S. 2018. The Elusiveness of Political Truth: From the Conceit of Objectivity to Intersubjective Judgement. European Journal of Communication 33 (2): 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Criddle, B. 2015. Variable Diversity: MPs and Candidates. In The British General Election of 2015, ed. Philip Cowley and Dennis Kavanagh, 336–360. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, A. 2018. Reckless Opportunists: Elites at the End of Establishment. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, A., and E. Seymour. 2010. Generating Forms of Media Capital Inside and Outside a Field: The Strange Case of David Cameron in the UK political field. Media, Culture and Society 32 (5): 739–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dean, J. 2016. Do Academics Have a Corbyn Problem? https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/do-academics-have-corbyn-problem [last accessed 02-06-2018].
  17. Dean, J. 2017. On Corbyn, Book-Eating and the Future of UK Political Science. https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/corbyn-book-eating-and-future-uk-political-science [last accessed 02-06-2018].
  18. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of political economy 65 (2): 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duff, A.S. 2008. Powers in the Land? British Political Columnists in the Information Era. Journalism Practice 2 (2): 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Earle, J., C. Moral, and Z. Ward-Perkins. 2016. The Econocracy: The Perils of Leaving Economics to the Experts. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, G., and J. Tilley. 2017. The New Politics of Class: The Political Exclusion of the British Working Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finlayson, L. 2017. With Radicals Like These, Who Needs Conservatives? Doom, Gloom, and Realism in Political Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 16 (3): 264–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fleck L. 1986. Scientific Observation and Perception in General [1935]. In: Cognition and Fact. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 87. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Flinders, M. 2013. The Tyranny of Relevance and the Art of Translation. Political Studies Review 11 (2): 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flinders, M., and P. John. 2013. The Future of Political Science. Political Studies Review 11 (2): 222–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friedman, S., D. Laurison, and A. Miles. 2015. Breaking the ‘Class’ Ceiling? Social Mobility into Britain’s Elite Occupations. The Sociological Review 63 (2): 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman, S., D. Laurison, and L. Macmillan. 2017. Social Mobility, The Class Pay Gap and Intergenerational Worklessness: New Insights from The Labour Force Survey. London: Social Mobility Commission.Google Scholar
  28. Giddens, A. 2013. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Goodin, R.E. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Green, J. 2016. The Shadow of Unfairness: A Plebeian Theory of Liberal Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International organization 46 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayton, R. 2018. The Impact Agenda and the Study of British politics. British Politics 13 (3): 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Issenberg, S. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  34. Jennings, W., and C. Wlezien. 2018. Election Polling Errors Across Time and Space. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 276–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, O. 2015. The Establishment: And How They Get Away with It. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  36. Karlsen, R., and S. Jo. 2017. Party bureaucrats, independent professionals, or politicians? A study of party employees. West European Politics 40 (6): 1331–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lees-Marshment, J. 2001. The Product, Sales and Market-Oriented Party - How Labour Learnt to Market the Product, Not Just the Presentation. European Journal of Marketing 35 (9/10): 1074–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindert, P.H. 2000. Three Centuries of Inequality in Britain and America. Handbook of income distribution 1: 167–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mair, P. 2006. Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy. New Left Review Nov-Dec 25–51.Google Scholar
  40. Nagel, T. 1989. The View From Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pearce, S., and D. Evans. 2018. The Rise of Impact in Academia: Repackaging a Long-Standing Idea. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Pettitt, R.T. 2006. Rebellion by the Seaside: How Single Member Plurality has Affected Membership Dissent at the Labour Party Conference. Representation 42 (4): 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter, T.M. 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reeves, A., S. Friedman, C. Rahal, and M. Flemmen. 2017. The Decline and Persistence of the Old Boy: Private Schools and Elite Recruitment 1897 to 2016. American Sociological Review 82 (6): 1139–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romzek, Barbara S., and Jennifer A. Utter. 1997. Congressional Legislative Staff: Political Professionals or Clerks? American Journal of Political Science 41 (4): 1251–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shogan, C.J. 2006. ‘The Senate School of Public Policy. PS Political Science and Politics 39 (3): 581–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sleat, M. 2016. Realism, Liberalism and Non-ideal Theory or, Are There Two Ways to do Realistic Political Theory? Political Studies 64 (1): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stears, M. 2007. Review Article: Liberalism and the Politics of Compulsion. British Journal of Political Science 37: 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sturgis, P., B. Nick, C. Mario, F. Stephen, W. Jennings, K. Jouni, L. Ben, and S. Patten. 2016. Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British General Election Opinion Polls. London: Market Research Society and British Polling Council.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics, Languages and International StudiesUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations