Objections to Studying Political Psychology and Responses - Essay Example

The objections to studying political psychology and Responses Executive Summary This paper will base its argument from David Patrick Houghton’s ideas on Political Psychology to do a critique of the objections forwarded. It will also give offer solutions to such problems. Political psychology as an area in both political science and psychology attempts to merge the interdependence between the two disciplines to analyze both old and contemporary issues in politics. Political psychology analyzes the motivating factors for people to act in a given way to produce results that have political significance. For instance, Houghton analyzes behaviorism and human freedom, psychology of voting behavior, and psychology of racism and political intolerance amongst others (Houghton, 2008, p. 157). In doing so, Houghton establishes the connection between the political actions that the masses do and what motivates them to act in such directions as they choose to act. Houghton endeavors to give political decisions a psychological perspective that is evaluative based on theories of other psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, Skinner, Kristen Monroe, and Federico amongst others. Political Psychology and Objections Some of the people who have had objections to political psychology have various reasons for maintaining such opinions. Nevertheless, the main argument that has prompted scholars to have objections to political psychology is whether one can study personality and politics systematically. This has been a controversial area for a long time. Many people that subscribe to political psychology have found themselves at scholarly challenge with regard to how they propound some of their theories. It has been a scenario, in many cases, of political psychologists attempting to analyze historical occurrence with respect to what motivates individuals to act in a certain direction. Political scientists have found such methods of analysis questionable in many cases. Some political scientists tend to question the necessity of studying political psychology in the first place when their opinions fail to converge. To begin with, some scholars object the study of political psychology based on political action. They say there is more to the politician environment than the politician’s personal motives and behavior that political psychologists rush to analyze. Such opponents of political psychology claim that it will be wrong for political psychologist to study politicians for their political action when whatever makes them elicit such behavior appears to be an external factor. Individual predispositions, they say, has remarkably little in determining the outcomes of in any political environment. They, however, recognize that several individuals could act to cause an effect if they choose at a particular time to elicit a given behavior. Behavior, they say, is exceptionally dynamic, and as such, it becomes difficult to generalize from one observation. They argue that political situations change over a short period, making the politicians behavior subject to changes too. They, therefore, conclude that since the politician’s own individual characteristics do play much as assumed, then the results of such an analysis may never be empirical enough to warrant support and recognition (Houghton, 2008, p. 73). Additionally, these opponents of political psychology also claim that the personalities of politicians do cancel out owing to the fact that they hold unusually divergent views on certain issues. They point out that politicians may not always reason out in a similar fashion or tend to agree with one another on many issues. To emphasize on this they highlight the personalities of politicians are dispersed naturally in different ways that reflect the individual differences in everyone. Besides, there are other arguments that politicians alone are more salient than their psychological aspects and characteristics. Those opponents also highlight that a politician’s psychological characteristic has done with what they perceive that their supporters expect of them then they choose to act in such direction. This implies that in many circumstances a politician’s action only depicts the interests and aspirations of his/her supporters (Houghton, 2008, p. 162). Even so, proponents of political psychology have also underscored some importance of studying political psychology. According to Houghton, political psychology may be unusual as a new international enterprise in which political events go through a thorough analysis. According to Houghton, political psychology, like any other new school of thought, is just going through the test of time. He reveals is ideas about political psychology in his book titled Political Psychology and demonstrates that he can stand for that in which he believes (Houghton, 2008, p. 24). He observes that there has been a lot of criticism on how political psychology as an emerging school of thought. His defense through empirical analysis and illustrations is that political psychology is a new discipline that may only take a sober and keen mind to understand. One can deduce from observations that putting something into doubt especially when it is a new phenomenon is common practice. Houghton, therefore, offers a wide range of solutions on how we can respond to a few objections about political psychology. By subjecting the societal events in a different manner from Skinner-like contentiousness that was replaced with science and reason, (Houghton, 2008, p. 38), political psychology offers a solution to understanding some of the contemporary issues that modern societies face. For instance, political psychology analyses the motivating factor for terrorism and goes down to deeper psychological factors that motivate one to elicit such behaviors. According to political psychology, historical acts of terrorism could actually have started as psychological displacements where actions direct their frustrations to others who may not be party to the cause of their psychological trauma. Political psychology has so far defined terrorism in an agreeable manner. By considering terrorism as an aggression displaced on another object (Houghton, 2008, p. 203), political psychology offer solution to a long-time political challenge about terror that by proper guidance and counseling, someone who may have given in to terror activities may actually reform. Political psychology, therefore, offers to explain the potential reasons for the causes for events that have political significances, but which politics and ideologies may not explain sufficiently. Political psychology, therefore, analyses actions of individuals and attempts to offer reasons why such individual acted in such particular manner to produce such political effects. It does not necessarily analyze the politician. It analyzes what may have been the cause for certain political occurrences. This kind of analysis is what some political scientists interpret as attempt political psychologists to analyze politics from a behavioral perspective. In fact, political scientists should commend political psychology as a new light in which one gets to study causes of social, economic and political behaviors. As an activity designed to meet political end, political psychology may also offer a solution to objections about its study that the politician’s environment plays an crucial role in determining political decision. It does this through offering, for instance in internationals relations, how different drives may influence foreign policy making. In a related manner, it also shows how such policies will impacts on the political arena. By being able to analyze past political behaviors, political psychology enables one to draw the connections of why see and the reason why they happen so. For example, political psychology has explained the psychological relationships between nationalism, ethnic conflict and genocide. The discipline has been frank to explain that there is no psychological theory of nationalism since nationalism is primarily a social phenomenon (Houghton, 2008, p. 176). This offers solution for opponents of political psychology who contest that the discipline attempts to explain aspects about politics some of which it lacks competence to do so. However, one may observe that political psychology has remained committed to a course of analyzing causes of social, economic aspects of politics to the extent that they are behavioral. In short, political psychology brings the two disciplines together and analyses controversial issues that researchers have for a long time left to speculations. It harmonizes the contentious issues through empirical analysis and practical illustrations. By doing so, political psychology addresses all the issues of concern that have to do objections its study method. Probably with time, many scholars will come to appreciate the role of political psychology in shaping the world’s view and understanding about politics, behavior and contemporary issues under one package. Nevertheless, this may need the continued effort of scholars to continue their empirical studies and researches to market the discipline. This will serve to dispel bias and misconception that arise due to ignorance and lack of knowledge. Work Cited David, Houghton. Political Psychology: Situations, Individuals, and Cases. New York: Routledge. Read More