We
asserted earlier that political behavior shifted emphasis from
institutions to individuals and groups. It also changed approach and method
from descriptivism to empiricism. These two are done under certain principles
and foundations which a leading American behaviouralist has described as the
eight intellectual foundation stones of behaviouralism. These foundations
stones are what we shall, here in this article, examine in details.
Table of Content
As a
student of political science, not only are you expected to understand the
foundations upon which behaviouralism stands, you also need to be able to
discuss them in logical and sequential details.
Specifically,
the knowledge of this article will enable you:
(a)
Identify, describe and distinguish among the key principles or assumptions of
the behavioral revolution in politics
(b) Gain a
deeper understanding of the nature of the behavioral revolution in politics.
The key Principles or Assumptions of the Behavioral Revolution in Politics
(a)
Regularities
Behaviouralists
argued that the political behavior of individuals is governed by certain
general underlying assumptions and conditions which can be discovered through
systematic study. In other words, the political behavior of individuals is not
arbitrary is governed by certain discoverable factors.
For
example, if a group of individuals may continue to vote for the same party over
a long period of time. Through behavioral research we may be able to show, that
the behavior of these individuals is related to such factors as their
socio-economic status, ethnic identity or ideological orientation. On the basis
of this knowledge, the behaviouralist will not only be able to explain but also
predict the political behavior of these individuals and others.
In
short, therefore, behaviouralists argued that there are discoverable
uniformities or regularities in political behavior and that these can be
expressed in systematic generalizations or theories with explanatory and
predictive values.
(b) Verification
The behaviouralists
emphasized the need to make the study of politics as factual, empirical and
scientific as possible. They argued that just as the natural and physical
sciences are based on actual and observable events, political science most also
be based on factual or empirical processes. They, therefore, contended that all
statements, generalizations or theories about political behaviour must be based
on factual observation and must be testable or verifiable by reference to
actual political conduct. This process of empirical verification is the most
important criterion for assessing the validity, acceptability or utility of any
generalizations or statements about political behaviour.
(c) Techniques The
observation of political behaviour and the verification of statements and
generalizations arising from the observation must be based on the use of
reliable and sophisticated scientific techniques, including well-structured
interviews, sample surveys, statistical measurements and mathematical models.
In short, the behaviouralists argued that reliable and effective means must be
developed for observing, recording and analyzing political behaviour.
(d) Quantification
The use of
statistical and mathematical measurements can help to achieve adequate
precision or accuracy in observing, recording and analyzing political behavior.
There must, therefore, be a shift in methods from the qualitative judgments
that dominated the Normative-Philosophical Approach, to the quantitative
measurements that are usually associated with the natural and physical
sciences. Behaviouralists however, resolved that quantitative methods must be
used not for their own sake, but only where possible, relevant and meaningful
in the light of other objectives. This is why David Truman asserted that the
political scientist should perform his research in 'quantitative terms if he
can, and in qualitative terms, if he must'.
Read On: Definitions, Origin and Main Thrusts of Political Behavior
The Nature of the Behavioral Revolution in Politics
(a) Values Freeness
Values or ethical
evaluations are a feature of the Normative-Philosophical approach to the study
of politics and must be deemphasized in the scientific behavioral approach. The
behavioral approach is not guided by ethical evaluations. Rather, it is based
on empirical and scientific explanation. While the student of political behavior
may sometimes make ethical judgments or evaluations, he should for the sake of
clarity not confuse them with empirical observations or generalizations. In
other words, empirical political research must be kept analytically distinct
from ethical or moral philosophy.
(b)
Systematization
Any piece
of empirical political research, or any attempt at the observation of political
data, must not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to the development of
a systematic theory or generalization. In other words, empirical research
should be 'theory-oriented and theory-directed'. Indeed research and theory
should be 'developed as mutually indispensable parts of the scientific study of
political behavior.
As David
Easton put it, 'research untutored by theory may prove trivial, and theory
unsupported by data, futile'.
It is
important to note that a theory is an empirically testable statement that is
designed to explain certain events or facts. It is an important element of any
scientific enterprise or endeavor. At the most basic level, a theory can take
the form of such testable generalizations as: 'Issues do not have a significant
influence on the party preferences of the electorate ethnic affiliation is the
most important determinant of voting behavior’. ‘An electoral system based on
proportional representation encourages a multi-party system’. These are
hypothetical mainly, but they are also theoretical too.
In
essence, systematization means that any research on political behavior must be
pursued not as an end in itself but as a means to prove or disprove the kind of
generalizations indicated above.
(c) Pure
Science
Applied
research, or the application of scientific knowledge to the solution of social
problems, is as much a part of the scientific enterprise as is theoretical
understanding or explanation. However, the scientific explanation of political behavior
logically precedes and provides the basis for any efforts to utilize political
knowledge to the solution of urgent socio-political problems. To the
behaviouralists, this implies that greater importance should be attached to
pure research or scientific explanation than applied research, policy
formulation or 'political engineering'. Indeed the behaviouralists argued that
a political scientist should be contented with understanding and explaining
political behavior even if the resultant knowledge cannot be applied to solve
specific socio-political problems.
(d)
Integration
Finally,
the behavioral approach seeks to promote the unity of the social sciences,
namely political science, economics, sociology, psychology and geography. It
expresses the hope that someday the walls which separate political sciences
from the other social sciences will crumble. Behaviouralists argued that
because the social sciences deal with the totality of social existence,
political research can ignore the findings of other social science disciplines
only at the risk of undermining the validity and relevance of its own results
or generalizations. Assess the individual principles of behaviouralism and
justify their necessity in advancing the course of political studies.
Conclusion on Foundations of the Behavioral Approach in Political Science
The
principles upon which the behavioral school stands can be summed up in eight
places. As formulated by David Easton who refers to them as the foundation
stones of behaviouralist, they include regularities, verification, techniques,
quantification, values, systematization, pure science and integration. The
essence of standing on all these is to achieve objectivity and strong
generalization in the study of politics in such a way that will make political
science more modern and interactive towards other disciplines
0 Comments