{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0210896309314587, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.86144578313253, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Beyond the Two-Sciences Settlement

The Perestroika movement recently reopened longstanding debates about the scholarly and political implications of orienting political science research around a scientific ideal derived from the natural sciences. Many Perestroikans, like earlier critics of “naturalized” political science, turned to ontology, opposing the political world to the natural world to espouse what I call a two-sciences settlement: a separate-but-equal arrangement in which political science and natural science would each operate according to distinct methodological imperatives dictated by their distinctive objects. In this article, I critically appraise this divided settlement and the two-worlds ontology that underwrites it. I recover an alternative, less dualistic vision of politics and nature from Giambattisa Vico, challenging received views of him as an early architect of the two-sciences settlement. Vico’s vision of ontological hybridity, I argue, offers more robust support to the Perestroikan goals of methodological pluralism and political engagement than the two-worlds ontology Perestroikans often invoked.