A Dissenting Viewpoint on Comparative Government TextsComments on the Smaldone-Furniss Discussion

TLDR: In the context of comparative politics, this article argued that comparative government texts are bad and that the fault lies in the field, not just the authors, but also the discipline itself.

Abstract: Readers of the original Furniss article on comparative government texts (March 1974) and the Smaldone-Furniss exchange (March 1975) in International Studies Quarterly were treated to one of the rare pretenses of discussion of education to appear in any scholarly social science journal. Unfortunately, it was only a pretense because it did not discuss either what and how students should learn about comparative politics as Smaldone likes to define it or "good thinking about the world" as Furniss appears to have defined it. Instead, all three pieces seem to have concluded that comparative politics texts are bad and that the fault lies in the field. I should say that I found Smaldone's response to represent mnore scholarly competence than either Furniss's article or comments, and I am only sorry that Smaldone did not do what Furniss was supposed to have done in the first place, i.e., study existing comparative politics educational material for its substantive educational goals and approaches. Perhaps if he had, he could have discussed education without using the occasion to launch a critical review of the field. What is instructive to the profession, however, is the ease with which the blame for what both suggest is poor educational material is placed on the discipline. It is like blaming the United States for its foreign policy. While corporate responsibility might protect business executives legally, collective responsibility does not protect national leaders morally or politically for their foreign policy errors. Why should the "discipline"