Lowi suggested, “a clear and critical consciousness of political con-
sciousness.”
Charles Lindblom, who has devoted much of his work to under-
standing the role of knowledge in democratic politics, provides
encouraging considerations with respect both to the ubiquity of the
left–right opposition in political life, and to its prevalence in the social
sciences. In a democracy, Lindblom argues, people “cannot think
successfully about their volitions if they regard themselves as unique.
Instead, they look for clues in the situations, attitudes, and beliefs of
others whom they regard as like themselves.” At the same time,
“governments cannot respond to millions of diverse volitions...-
problem solving requires that people move their volitions toward
clusters of agreement.”^105 The left and right “clusters of agreement”
certainly do a good job in helping people think with others, and in
forcing governments to take notice. Most importantly, in our age of
global politics, this universal metaphor helps to link people across
time and space, and over a broad range of issues. In other words, the
left–right opposition makes globalpolitics intelligible. As for social
scientists, they have to come to terms with the fact, which may not
be so disturbing after all, that they partake, too, in this global debate.
“The waters,” Lindblom notes, “are less dangerous than they appear,
for social scientists have never sailed in any other waters and are still
afloat. They have always been partisan.”^106
(^105) Charles Lindblom,Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand
106 and Shape Society, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1990, p. 235.
Ibid., p. 260.
230 Left and Right in Global Politics