Struggling to be Noticed: The Civil Rights Movement as an Academic Agenda Setter

Abstract

While the study of Black politics in the American context has not been a top priority in political science, it is indisputable that this topic in general is more likely to be discussed in the discipline's journals in recent decades than in the more distant past. What accounts for this noticeable increase in prominence? How did the study of Black politics move from total obscurity to occupying a more significant (although still relatively marginalized) position within mainstream political science? To answer these questions, we draw a parallel between politics and political science. Specifically, we posit that the increased focus on African American politics is due to Black agency in the form of social movement activity, which reached its zenith during the civil rights movement. Before the civil rights movement, we note as numerous others have, that the racially conservative views of American society in the nineteenth century resulted in Black politics being an understudied area. We argue, however, that as social movement activity increased the salience of racial issues in America, so too did it raise the importance of race for political scientists.

Say our name (and say it right)! Extending Walton et al. on the evolution of race in political science scholarship

“…Given the timeframe covered here, there is no event more pertinent than the Modern Civil Rights Movement—hereafter referred to simply as the “Civil Rights Movement”—which is viewed by many historians as having occurred between 1955 and 1968 (Smith, 1996). Following McClerking and Philpot (2008), we classify articles published before 1956 as appearing before the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and the papers coming afterward should be shaped by these events. Like Walton (1997: Table 4.3), we trace racial discourse over time and across journals.…”

“… 4. Walton et al (1995: 149) choose articles and presidential addresses because they represent “two particularly important forms of disciplinary expression.” Since the peer-review demands for major journals are often more rigorous than the process for publishing political-science books, articles serve as ideal barometers of [mainstream] disciplinary norms (McClerking and Philpot, 2008: 814). …”

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: The Role of Collegiality and Normative Science in Our Profession

“…APSA has also made progress in the drive for inclusion of women in conferences (Gruberg 2007). There has also been an extension of interest in African American politics in political science journals (McClerking and Philpot 2008). Conferences serve as instruments for social networking for hiring (Fowler, Grofman, and Masuoka 2007) and intellectual exchange (Carter and Spirling 2008).…”

“… 4 For discussion, see McClerking and Philpot 2008; Alexander-Floyd 2008; “ISP Forum 2007; and Lavariega Monforti and Michelson 2008.…”

Gender Representation in the American Politics Canon: An Analysis of Core Graduate Syllabi

“…As Lowi (1992) observed more than two decades ago, political science often has shifted its focus in tandem with changes in the political and social environment. Just as gender equality has slowly but tangibly increased in recent decades, so has the study of gender politics in American political science (McClerking and Philpot 2008; Tolleson-Rinehart and Carroll 2006). At the same time, however, as Parenti (2006) observed, the discipline often has proved rigid against change and diversity of thought.…”