HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031900.jpg
1.96 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Interview transcript / congressional record
File Size:
1.96 MB
Summary
This document page appears to be a transcript of an interview between an individual named Shaffer and the political scientist Francis Fukuyama. They discuss Fukuyama's work (referencing 'Origins'), the restrictive structure of modern academia regarding specialization, and the dominance of economics over other social sciences like sociology and anthropology in understanding political order. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford |
Institution where Fukuyama works in an interdisciplinary institute.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' at the bottom of the page.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown
Interview between Shaffer and Fukuyama regarding political science and academia.
Unknown
Shaffer
Fukuyama
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Workplace of Fukuyama.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of democracy.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"There’s such a premium placed on specialization and narrowness that it’s very hard to think more broadly and to cross disciplinary boundaries."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031900.jpg
Quote #1
"Part of the problem is economics — it’s a very important discipline, but in a way it’s colonized the rest of the social sciences."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031900.jpg
Quote #2
"politics... is about dignity and values and ideas that can’t be explained in material terms."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031900.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,514 characters)
25
European countries, and which we therefore can’t take for granted.
So, as you see, the normative concern is separate from the empirical
question of whether democracy is inevitable.
So, as you see, the normative concern is separate from the empirical
question of whether democracy is inevitable.
SHAFFER: Origins incorporates economics, anthropology,
philosophy, and social psychology, for lessons about political order.
Is that kind of study too rare today?
philosophy, and social psychology, for lessons about political order.
Is that kind of study too rare today?
FUKUYAMA: This is partly the fault of the structure of academia.
There’s such a premium placed on specialization and narrowness that
it’s very hard to think more broadly and to cross disciplinary
boundaries. I work at Stanford in an interdisciplinary institute, and
I’ve been associated with these kinds of outfits for most of my years.
And those are where the most interesting research gets done.
There’s such a premium placed on specialization and narrowness that
it’s very hard to think more broadly and to cross disciplinary
boundaries. I work at Stanford in an interdisciplinary institute, and
I’ve been associated with these kinds of outfits for most of my years.
And those are where the most interesting research gets done.
SHAFFER: What field outside of political science has the most
important insights for understanding political order?
important insights for understanding political order?
FUKUYAMA: That’s hard to say. I don’t know if there is one. Part
of the problem is economics — it’s a very important discipline, but in
a way it’s colonized the rest of the social sciences. A lot of political
analysis in academia is driven by this model of everybody being a
rational decision maker driven by more or less material interests.
There’s obviously something to that, but it’s a very limited way of
looking about politics, which is about dignity and values and ideas
that can’t be explained in material terms. Other disciplines —
sociology and anthropology — have gotten at those things better than
economics has.
of the problem is economics — it’s a very important discipline, but in
a way it’s colonized the rest of the social sciences. A lot of political
analysis in academia is driven by this model of everybody being a
rational decision maker driven by more or less material interests.
There’s obviously something to that, but it’s a very limited way of
looking about politics, which is about dignity and values and ideas
that can’t be explained in material terms. Other disciplines —
sociology and anthropology — have gotten at those things better than
economics has.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031900
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document