Advertisement

Classifications: Kings and Presidents

  • Philip Abbott
Part of the The Evolving American Presidency Series book series (EAP)

Abstract

James P. Pfiffner spoke for many scholars when he confessed that while he knew that ranking and rating presidents is “not very rigorous and does not tell us what we want to know,” he nevertheless finds the practice “irresistible.” 1 The problematical status of presidential rankings demands some resolution if one accepts Betty Glad’s a nalysis. In her 1990 address before the Presidency Research Group, she argued that the alleged low status of presidential studies was based in large part upon a model of science used in theoretical physics. Instead, she contended, if research in botany and some other sciences were employed as a model, other approaches, particularly classification, would be prominent. Presidential studies would be less preoccupied with a misplaced scientific status hierarchy and more capable of generating explanations and offering predictions. 2 But what if classification that ranks presidential performance as a research activity leads not to a rigorous and robust body of knowledge in presidential studies as Glad predicts but rather to a version of the emperor’s encyclopedia described by Jorge Luis Borges in which phenomena are cataloged in a completely ersatz fashion?

Keywords

Natural Kind Presidential Study Entry Problem Historical Constraint Presidential Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    James P. Pfiffner, “Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility,” in Menna Bose and Mark Landis, eds., The Uses and Abuses of Presidential Ratings ( Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Press, 2003 ), p. 27.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    Jorge Luis Borges, “John Wilkins’ Analytical Language,” in Eliot Weinberger, ed., Selected Non Fictions ( New York: Penguin, 1999 ), p. 230.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Nelson Goodman, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast ( Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973 ), pp. 122–24;Google Scholar
  4. Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 32–34, 103–8;Google Scholar
  5. Michael Ruse, Philosophy of Biology ( New York: State University of New York Press, 1988 ), pp. 51–62.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    See, Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962 );Google Scholar
  7. Robert Hollinger, “Aspects of a Theory of Classification,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3 (March 1976): 319–38;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. K. E. Holsinger, “The Nature of Biological Species,” Philosophy of Science 51 (1984): 293–307;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. John Dupré, The Disorder of Things ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993 ).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Philip Kitcher, Science, Truth and Democracy ( New York: Oxford University Press, 2001 ), p. 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 13.
    Todd S. Purdum, “MAKING HISTORY: Combing the Century for a President to Honor,” New York Times, February 19, 1995, p. 1.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Thomas A. Bailey, Presidential Greatness ( New York: Appleton-Crofts, 1966 ), p. 35.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    James David Barber, The Presidential Character ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972 ), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    Michael Nelson, “The Psychological Presidency,” in Michael Nelson, ed., The Presidency and the Political System ( Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1998 ), p. 219.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    Peter Saccio, Shakespeare’s English Kings ( Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1977 ), p. 158.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    All citations are from the Cambridge Shakespeare edition: Andrew Gurr, ed., King Richard II ( Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984 ), p. 117.Google Scholar
  17. 37.
    Samuel Schoenbaum, “Richard II and the Realities of Power,” in Kirby Farrell, ed., Critical Essays on Richard II (New York: G. K. Hall and Co., 1999), p. 54. Richard’s decision can be read as even more astute if, as Shakespeare hints, Mowbray was involved in the assassination of the Duke of Gloucester at the king’s request.Google Scholar
  18. 38.
    John Dover Wilson, “Introduction to Richard II,” in Jeane T. Newlin, ed., Richard II: Critical Essays ( New York: Garland, 1984 ), p. 15.Google Scholar
  19. 43.
    E. M. Tiyard, Shakespeare’s History Plays ( London: Chatto and Windos, 1948 ), pp. 244–63.Google Scholar
  20. 44.
    R. Morgan Grifflin, “The Critical History of Richard II,” in Kirby Farrell, ed., Critical Essays on Richard II ( New York: G. K. Hall and Co. 1999 ), p. 25.Google Scholar
  21. 45.
    Petr Ure, “Introduction,” King Richard II (London: Methuen, 1961), p. lxxi.Google Scholar
  22. 47.
    William Butler Yeats, Ideas of Good and Evil ( London: A. H. Bullen, 1903 ), p. 142.Google Scholar
  23. 49.
    Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare ( New York: Doubleday, 1965 ), p. 89.Google Scholar
  24. 50.
    Murray Krieger, “The Dark Generations of Richard II,” in Kirby Farrell, ed., Critical Essays on Richard II ( New York: G. K. Hall and Co., 1999 ), p. 152.Google Scholar
  25. 51.
    Ernest H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology ( Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957 ), p. 32.Google Scholar
  26. 53.
    See Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Westein, eds., King John (New York: Washington Square Press, 2002), pp. 31–36. All citations of King John are from this edition.Google Scholar
  27. 56.
    Margaret Webster, Shakespeare without Tears ( Minneola, NY: Dover Publication, 1955 ), p. 181.Google Scholar
  28. 61.
    See, for example, Michael Manheim, “The Four Voices of the Bastard,” in Deborah T. Curren-Aquino, ed., King John: New Perspectives ( Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 1989 ), pp. 126–35;Google Scholar
  29. Deborah T. Curren-Aquino, “King John: A Modern Perspective,” in Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Westein, eds., King John ( New York: Washington Square Press, 2000 ), p. 72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Philip Abbott 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Abbott

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations