political science

If institutions are to be understood through the beliefs and actions of individuals

located in traditions, then historical analysis is the way to uncover the traditions
that shape these stories and ethnographers reconstruct the meanings of social

actors by recovering other people’s stories (see for example Geertz 1973 ; Taylor
1985 ). The aim is ‘‘to see the world as they see it, to adopt their vantage point on

politics’’ (Fenno 1990 , 2 ). Ethnography encompasses many ways of collecting
qualitative data about beliefs and practices. For example, Shore’s ( 2000 , 7 – 11 )
cultural analysis of how EU elites sought to build Europe uses participant obser-

vation, historical archives, textual analysis of oYcial documents, biographies, oral
histories, recorded interviews, and informal conversations as well as statistical

and survey techniques. The techniques are many and varied but participant
observation lies at the heart of ethnography and the aim is always to recover

other people’s meanings.
This ‘‘interpretive turn’’ is a controversial challenge to the mainstream. It is

probably premature and certainly unwise to claim we are on the threshold of a
postmodern political science. However, postmodernism does not refer only to

debates about epistemology. It also refers to the postmodern epoch and the idea
of a shift from Fordism, or a world characterized by mass production of consumer
goods and large hierarchically structured business organizations, toXexible spe-

cialization, and customized production (see for example Clegg 1990 , 19 – 22 ,
177 – 84 ). By extension, a postmodern political science may well be characterized

by a Fordist heartland in the guise of rational choice institutionalismandcustomi-
zed political science rooted in national political traditions. And among these

niches, old institutionalism will continue to thrive. Also, for the Fordist heartland,
it will remain the starting point.

Pondering the aphorism ‘‘what goes around comes around,’’ I conclude that old
institutionalism has not only stayed around but that its focus on textsandcustom
and its commitment to historical and philosophical analysis make it increasingly

relevant. Weighing the mounting criticism of rational choice institutionalism (as in
for example Green and Shapiro 1994 ;Hay 2004 ), I expect to listen to a new

generation of stories about actors and institutions. Interrogating the ‘‘interpretive
turn,’’ I conclude it is built on shifting sands because our notion of institutions

is variously constructed within competing, non-commensurable traditions. So,
we already live in a postmodern world with its tribes of political scientists. The

key issue is whether we talk past one another or whether we have a reasoned
engagement.
Bates et al. ( 1998 ) are distinguished proponents of rational choice who also argue

for political anthropology and attempt to synthesize rational choice and interpret-
ive theory. As Hay ( 2004 , 58 ) argues, and Bates et al. acknowledge, ‘‘the post-

positivist epistemology and post-naturalist ontology of interpretivism cannot be
easily reconciled with the positivist epistemology and naturalist ontology of

rational choice theory.’’ Interpretive theory has not been assimilated to the rational

104 r. a. w. rhodes