The National Academy of Sciences advises the government on scientific matters, and at the same time it is viewed as an honorific organization. The Academy is divided into five classes: (I) Physical and Mathematical Sciences (II) Biological Sciences (III) Engineering and Applied Sciences (IV) Medical Sciences and (V) Behavioral and Social Sciences. The inclusion of the social sciences in the NAS is a relatively recent event, dating back only to 1971. Many people do not realize that the social sciences in the NAS is a relatively recent event, dating back only to 1971. Many people do not realize that the social sciences, and in particular sociology and political science, are part of the NAS.

I myself was recently elected to the NAS under recommendation of Class I, in 1985. I had not been in for one year when I received the ballots for election to the Academy in March 1986. These ballots, as usual, present members with choices grouped by Classes. A member must vote for a minimum number of candidates in each class to fulfill certain quotas, otherwise the entire ballot is invalid. Thus each member is forced to take responsibility for candidates in entirely different fields, about whom one has no information except for a list of publication and honors contained in a booklet accompanying the ballot. However, I recognized one name under Class V, that of Samuel P. Huntington.

Huntington is currently director of the Center International Affairs and is also president of the American Political Science Association. He was formerly chairman of the Government Department at Harvard. According to the Social Sciences Citation Index 1981-1985, he is the most quoted political scientist in the field of International Relations. Some of his books are required reading in some political science courses in several universities (for instance Yale). Beyond the academic world, he has also consulted for the State Department and the CIA. From 1966 to 1969, he chaired the Vietnamese subcommittee of the U.S. government's Southeast Asia Development Advisory Group. He is one of three authors of a Report for the Trilateral Commission.

I have a long-standing interest in the area where the academic world meets the world of politics and the world of journalism. I have especially raised questions previously about what is produced in the social sciences, by some people and how this production affects "politics." This political motivation does not mean that I support some wing over another wing, say the left wing over the right wing, or that I support some "ism" ideology like socialism, communism or capitalism. I understand "politics" to mean in the broad sense how one deals with social organizations, how we arrive at decisions concerning society, the role of government, the role of education, the role of the press in informing the public, how information is processed (by the press, by individuals, by the educational system, by the government, etc.) In particular, I now have a direct responsibility for the political role of the NAS, which issues reports on scientific matters affecting political decisions. But the problems I deal with are invariant under"ism"transformations: they are in part problems of standards and accuracy, and the way political opinions are passed off as social "science." I developed the analysis on one concrete case in my book The File, triggered by Ladd-Lipset's "The 1977 Survey of the American Professiorate," and a review in the New York Review of Books of Education and Politics at Harvard by Lipset and David Riesman. As it happens, Seymour Martin Lipset is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

I also raise questions about the certification process available in our society concerning the quality of what is produced the social "sciences" ("studies" would be a better word), journalism, education, and political discourse. The NAS plays some role in this certification process. I object to the NAS certifying as "science" what are merely political opinions and their implementations.

I claim, and I shall give documentation, that much of Huntington's works makes it appear, falsely, as if certain political opinions, or his opinions, are rooted in scholarship and science.

II

My methodology is to start from a concrete case, nail it, and document it thoroughly. I shall now document some of the things to which I object in Huntington's works.

1. In one of his most famous books, Political Order in Changing Societies, we find the following passages in which Huntington discusses developing countries.

"The political backwardness of the country in terms of political institutionalization, moreover, makes it difficult if not impossible for the demands upon the government to be expressed through legitimate channels and to be moderated and aggregated within the political system. Hence the sharp increase in political participation gives rise to political instability. The impact of modernization this involves the following relationships:(1)Social mobilization / Economic development=Social frustration (2)Social frustration / Mobility opportunities=Political participation (3)Political participation / Political institutionalization=Political instability

The absence of mobility opportunities and the low level of political institutionalization in most modernizing countries produce a correlation between social frustration and political instability. One analysis identified 26 countries with a low ratio of want formation to want satisfaction and hence low "systemic frustration" and 36 countries with a high ratio and hence high "systemic frustration." Of the 26 satisfied societies, only six (Argentina, Belgium, France, Lebanon, Morocco, and the Union of South Africa) hid high degrees of political instability. Of the 36 dissatisfied countries, only two (Philippines, Tunisia) had high levels of political stability. The overall correlation between frustration and instability was .50."

When Huntington summarizes his own book elsewhere, he himself refers to the "relationships" as "equations," when the writes:

"The impact of modernization on political stability is mediated through the interaction between social mobilization and economic development, social frustration and nonpolitical mobility opportunities, and political participatiion and political institutionalization. Huntington expresses the relationships in a series of equations."

Thus Huntington writes of himself in the third person, and the "equations" are those listed as (1), (2), (3) above.

(a) As Koblitz has observed, "Huntington never bothers to inform the reader in what sense these are equations." How does Huntington measure "instability," "social frustration," "social mobilization?" Does he have a social frustration meter? Abbreviating the equations in the form A/B=C, C/D=E, E/F=G, are we allowed seventh grade algebra to conclude that A=BC=BDE=BDFG, i.e., that "social mobilization is equal to economic development times mobility opportunities times political institutionalization times political instability"? And Koblitz remarks: "Huntington's use of equations produces effects--mystification, intimidation, an impression of precision and profundity..." Huntington fails to define just what these terms mean, or how he dealt with them quantitatively. In particular, how is one to take the sentence: "The overall correlation between frustration and instability was .50." What is the meaning of the two significant figures?