This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mathiowetz, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

"Interest" Is a Verb

Arthur Bentley and the Language of Interest

University of California, Santa Cruz, dpmath{at}ucsc.edu

The hundredth anniversary of Arthur Bentley's The Process of Government is an occasion to recover his distinctive but forgotten view of interest, namely, that an appeal to "interest" is an activity of provoking political identity and agency—an activity exemplified by the "group process" of politics. Bentley's insight has been lost as students of politics, as diversely inclined as David Truman, Bill Connolly, and many others, approach interests instead as a psychological bulwark and expression of sovereign agency. Reading Bentley prompts us to see how the language of "interest" undercuts such a picture, encouraging instead a critical theory of interests—and of politics more generally—that is sensitive to the active provocation of identity at sites of contestation.

Key Words: agency • action • Bentley • concepts • Connolly • contestation • grammar • groups • interest • language • political theory • social science • Truman

References

• Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Balbus, Isaac D. 1971. The concept of interest in pluralist and Marxian analysis. Politics and Society 1 (2): 151-77.[CrossRef]
• Ball, Terence. 1979. Interest-explanations. Polity 12 (2): 187-201.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Barber, Benjamin. 2006. The politics of political science: "Valuefree" theory and the Wolin-Strauss dust-up of 1963. American Political Science Review 100 (4): 539-45.[Web of Science]
• Bentley, Arthur. 1908. The process of government. Evanston, IL: Principia Press.
• Connolly, William. 1993. The terms of political discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Crick, Bernard R. 1959. The American science of politics: Its origins and conditions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Downs, Anthony. 1962. The public interest: Its meaning in a democracy. Social Research 29 (1): 1-36.
• Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An introduction. New York: Verso.
• Flathman, Richard E. 1966. The public interest: An essay concerning the normative discourse of politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Forster, Michael N. 2004. Wittgenstein and the arbitrariness of grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Frank, Thomas. 2004. What's the matter with Kansas? How conservatives won the heart of America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
• Friedrich, Carl J., ed. 1962. Nomos V: The public interest, vol. V, Nomos. New York: Atherton Press.
• Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The idea of a critical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• ---. 2002. Liberalism and its discontents. Political Theory 30 (3): 320-38.[Free Full Text]
• Gunnell, John. 2004. Imagining the American polity: Political science and the discourse of democracy. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Held, Virginia. 1970. The public interest and individual interests. New York: Basic Books.
• Hoy, David Couzens. 2004. Critical resistance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Katznelson, Ira. 2003. Desolation and enlightenment. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Kress, Paul F. 1970. Social science and the idea of process: The ambiguous legacy of Arthur F. Bentley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Laclau, Ernesto. 2000. Identity and hegemony: The role of universality in the constitution of political logics. In Contingency, hegemony, universality. New York: Verso.
• Laski, Harold J. 1917. Studies in the problem of sovereignty. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• ---. 1919. Authority in the modern state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• LaVaque-Manty, Mika. 2006. Bentley, Truman, and the study of groups. Annual Review of Political Science 9:1-18.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Markell, Patchen. 2003. Bound by recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Nicholls, David. 1974. Three varieties of pluralism. New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Parks, Robert Q. 1982. Interests and the politics of choice. Political Theory 10 (4): 547-65.[Free Full Text]
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1993. Wittgenstein and justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Rogin, Michael. 1987. Ronald Reagan, the movie, and other episodes in political demonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The origins of American social science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Rush, Fred. 2004. Conceptual foundations in early critical theory. In Cambridge companion to critical theory, ed. F. Rush. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Schaar, John H., and Sheldon S. Wolin. 1963. Essays on the scientific study of politics: A critique. The American Political Science Review 57 (1): 125-50.[CrossRef]
• Schubert, Glendon. 1961. The public interest: A critique of the theory of a political concept. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
• Small, Albion. 1905. General sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Smith, Rogers. 2004. Identities, interests, and the future of political science. Perspectives on Politics 2 (2): 301-12.
• Sorauf, Frank J. 1962. The conceptual muddle. In Nomos V: The public interest, ed. C. J. Friedrich. New York: Atherton.
• Topper, Keith. 2005. The disorder of political inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Truman, David B. 1953. The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Ward, James F. 1984. Language, Form, and Inquiry: Arthur F. Bentley's Philosophy of Social Science. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
• Weinstein, Leo. 1962. The Group Approach: Arthur F. Bentley. In Essays on the scientific study of politics, ed. H. J. Storing. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.
• ---. 1963. Reply to Schaar and Wolin: V. American Political Science Review 57 (1): 157-59.
• Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• White, Stephen K. 2004. The very idea of a critical social science: A pragmatist turn. In The Cambridge companion to critical theory, ed. F. Rush. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical investigations. New York: MacMillan.
• Wootton, Graham. 1970. Interest-groups. In Foundations of modern political science, ed. R. A. Dahl. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

This version was published on December 1, 2008

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4, 622-635 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1065912908317029


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mathiowetz, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?