Behaviouralism as Valuable Approach to the of Politics - Case Study Example

Is Behavioralism Still a Valuable Approach to the Study of Politics? Introduction People argue about nearly everything—race, gender, religion, sports, health, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and so on. This pattern of behavior is known as politics (Kingdom n.d.). In relation to this, a point of contention is whether behavioralism is still a valuable approach to the study of politics. Politics and Political Science Confusion oftentimes surrounds ‘Politics’ and ‘Political Science’. Politics is considered by a number of scholars as the science and art of government while Political Science is the part of social science which deals with the foundations of the state and the principles of the government. Derived from “polis”—a Greek word—which refers to city-state, politics is identified in terms of the state or government and denotes power. Thus, politics deals with both the state and power. On the other hand, Political Science deals with the power that is customarily the legitimate power (National Institute of Open Schooling n.d.). Politics and the state have been traditionally associated with each other—a fact that differentiates politics from other social sciences, for instance, sociology and economics; consequently, subfields of politics—political sociology and political economy, for instance (Garner 2009). On the other hand, Political Science deals with those aspects of individuals in society which relate to their activities and organizations devoted to seeking of power, resolution of conflicts and all these, within an overall framework of the rule and law as laid down by the state (National Institute of Open Schooling n.d.). The systematic study of politics was started by Greeks philosophers in the 4th century BC. Aristotle referred to politics as a “master science” that encompass not only of the state or government but also of families, properties and other social institutions. On the contrary, the ancient Romans take into account the legal aspect of politics more crucial for their power which eventually lead political science to become a part and was subordinated by religious order of the Church during the Middle Ages. A German philosopher of the 19th century named Karl Marx introduced the Marxist approach which observes politics as a study of two conflicting social classes—the rich and the poor or the exploiters and the exploited. However, the Marxist approach has another view—the liberal view—which considered politics as an as endeavor for resolution and adaptation to result in rule of order and justice. Moreover, in the 20th century when the Second World War was over—most probably in the 1920’s, Political Science had taken a new dimension—the ‘behavioral approach’. Then, in the 1950s and the 1960s, the behavioral movement in American Political Science put a great deal of weight on the scientific aspect of politics. Moreover, politics is perceived as a process whereby persons, organizations or communities work to accomplish certain goals, however conflicting (Dahl 1961; Johnston March 2007; National Institute of Open Schooling n.d.; Garner 2009). The Behavioralism Approach The development of behavioralism in political science is deemed a unique contribution of American scholars. This is an approach in political science which aims to present an objective and quantified methodology in the rationalization and calculation of political behavior (Guy 2000). In addition, this approach aims to broaden the perception about political science by inviting attention towards neglected areas on political research and by treating them behaviorally (Kim 1965). This was the so-called ‘behavioral’ revolution in which number crunching, particularly in relation to the study of electoral behavior, was the gold standard. In this climate, pontificating on what kind of society and polity we ought to have—the basis of normative analysis—was regarded as, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, meaningless (Garner 2009). Interestingly, behavioral approach has an inherent ambiguity and somehow synonymous to political behavior (Dahl 1961; Kim 1965). Behavioralists, in particular, suggest that politics can have the scientific rigor of the natural sciences (Gamer 2009). An investigation of political behavior research implies that the seeming behavioral resolution is neither due to its epistemological principles nor its methodology. It is rather due to its unmethodical, anti-theoretical nature and restricted scale of research topics and the incorrect theory of human nature on which research lies. Technically, political behavior research continues to be pre-behavioral in comparison with both the proven principles of contemporary bio-behavioral science and the comprehensions of human struggles of earlier political science (Wahlke 1979). Kim (1965) identified three major assertions. Initially, he identified that individuals comprise proper units for analyses more so than groups. Secondly, he stated that reality should be detached from values. And lastly, legitimate explanations constantly run in terms of laws or generalizations, but certainly not in terms of explanatory or graphic statements of specific occasions. Riemer (1997) cited the eight intellectual foundation stones of behavioralism as defined by Easton. These include the regularities which refers to the simplification and rationalization of constancy; the commitment to verification or the ability to validate generalizations; techniques which deals with the experimental attitude toward set of methodologies; quantification which conveys results as possible or meaningful numbers; values which denotes keeping the distinction of ethical evaluation and empirical description; systemization which considers the significance of theory in research; pure science rather than applied science; and integration which refers to the incorporation of social sciences and values. Political Analysis According to Garner (2009), at least three major kinds of political analysis are utilized in the study of politics that employs behavioral approach—the normative analysis, empirical analysis and semantic analysis. Normative Analysis. This is the type of political analysis that deals with valuational questions and craves to classify bad and good with a regard to endorsing what people should want like when and why should people value freedom or equality. Although normative analysis was the poor relation it entails crucial, logical argument on the subject of the ends of human life—goals (Garner 2009). Normative indicates that the principles held or judgments made concerning how an ideal political world should be or how inadequate the current political system is. Normative discussion searches for justification and reformation of a state of affairs. The difference between empirical and normative should not be confused with the disparity between fact and theory since empirical and normative inquiries are both essentially theory laden. Facts and theory should work together because although the first refers to the raw data; however, in order to illustrate, document, or interpret the data (phenomena), theories are organized body of concepts (Johnston March 2007). Empirical Analysis. Huge emphasis was given to empirical political science in the academic world as well as ‘analytical’ political philosophy whereby the definition and relation of concepts was considered—the so-called ‘behavioral’ revolution (Garner 2009). Empirical points to the data of experience which means that events that occur are subject to observation and evaluation an example of which is the presence and operation of institutions, and the reality of thoughts, behaviors and morals (Johnston March 2007). Also, empirical analysis is intended to recognize apparent phenomena in the real world in view of reality rather than what should be. This type of analysis is the foundation of the natural sciences, and numerous self-professed positivist political analysts yearn to bring to bear what relatives see as the unbiased and value free methods of the natural sciences to the study of political phenomena (Garner 2009). Semantic Analysis. Though not frequently mentioned in research studies, the third type of commonly used analysis in politics is of a semantic foundation. Semantic analysis basically implies expounding the definition of the employed concepts which plays important role in the political studies as various concepts utilized in politics have no generally accepted classification—such as democracy and freedom. To site a specific example, democracy can only succeed in societies with an identifiable market economy and private possession (Gamer 2009). Political Methods Gamer (2009) comprehensively discussed that the most pertinent approaches to the experiential study of politics can be divided into those that employ deductive reasoning and those that employ inductive reasoning. Deductive Method The deductive method is allied with rational choice theories of politics wherein the center of attention is set on politics as a response to the issues of collective action that has functions applied in the study of political institutions and processes as well as in the study of international relations. Generally speaking, rational choice approaches set off by making definite underlying principles about human behavior from which propositions or theories are construed before being tested versus the factual ideas of reality. Such approach has been applied in the ‘game theory’ wherein particular motives are planted on individuals in order to predict outcomes (Université Paris1 n.d.). Also, individual behavior is employed to specific situations coined as ‘games’ which unveil the difficulty experienced by rational individuals in order to arrived at optimal outcomes due to the existence of ‘free-riders’ or actors who assesses their ability to freely reap the benefits of collective action. The best-known application of this theory is in the case of elections. A disadvantage of the deductive method is specifically stated that its elemental assumptions simple remain just that—assumptions. This important s regarded by many as either reasonable simplifications or entirely inaccurate descriptions of human behavior. Additionally, the rational choice theory is saturated with hypotheses concerning an assortment of aspects of the political process yet come short in terms of empirical tests of these hypotheses (Gamer 2009), On the other hand, still according to Gamer (2009) the inductive approach is usually partnered with behavioralism approach which subjugated Western political studies during the 1950s and 1960s—particularly the US. Contrary to deductive approaches, inductive approaches to politics begin with empirical observation which generates explanatory generalizations. The behavioralists are persistent on political topics which are deemed to be quantifiable. A very specific example is the empirical data gathered on British voting behavior wherein a generalization that voting is class-based—the working class being inclined to vote in favor of Labor while the middle and upper classes are inclined to vote for Conservative. One disadvantage the inductive method is similar to those of the deductive method. While latter approach is mainly focused on building theories and disregarding empirical testing, the opposite is true of the former approach as it tends to give more attention on collecting empirical data than it does on the coming up with theories. Another disadvantage of the inductive method is that the kind of hypotheses produced by inductivism is more likely to be simply patterns of statistical correlations. For instance, the recognition of a statistical correlation between social classes and voting behavior does not justify why this correlation exists. The Positivism Approach The emergence of positivism in the political science world resulted to the decline of normative analysis. Positivism is an approach that required the utilization of scientific methodology of the natural sciences to the analysis of social facts. An acute translation of positivism was a school of knowledge called logical positivism. Logical positivists believe that only empirically verifiable statements and those express the meaning of concepts and the relations between them are lawful (Gamer 2009). Positivism approach refers to a positive analysis of regulation design—actual, potential, or lack thereof—which would credit for classifying the interests and incentives of diverse stakeholders and their organizational ability as well as their relations within current decision-making assembly and the evolution of institutions. Other legal positivists respect moral statements as social resolution that may be regarded at the rank of legal rules (Kimakova August 2007). Conclusion Behavioralism is a unique contribution of American scholars in political science which truly had a great impact on political science especially during the 1950s and the 1960s. This is an approach builds on objectives and quantified methodologies in terms of rational and calculated political behavior. This was the so-called ‘behavioral’ revolution as it seeks focus on neglected areas on political research through behavioral treatment. There are three major kinds of political analysis these are—the normative analysis which points to principles or judgments in relevance to ideals; the empirical analysis which deals with data as results of observation and evaluation; and the semantic analysis which implies that concepts plays important role in the political studies. In addition, politics can be divided two methods—deductive method which is allied with rational choice theories of politics wherein the center of attention is set on politics as a response to the issues of collective action; and the inductive method which is partnered with behavioralism approach which begin with empirical observation which generates explanatory generalizations. Based on the foregoing discussion, it is clearly articulated that behavioralism approach is still definitely applicable in the study of political science. As a matter of fact, this approach is very much associated with the normative analysis and deductive method. This is true despite the emergence of the positivism approach. References Dahl, 1961, The behavioral approach in political science: Epitaph for a monument to a successful protest, American Political Science Review, LV. Garner, RF, & Lawson, S 2009, Introduction to politics. UK: Oxford University Press.. Guy, J.J. (2000). People, politics and government: A canadian perspective. Pearson Education Canada. Johnston, L March 2007, An introduction to the modern democratic state, 3rd ed. Broadview Press. Kim, KW, 1965, The limits of behavioural explanation in politics, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 315-327. Kimakova, A August 2007, Teaching law and economics from a positive perspective: the political economy of law and policy design. The Canadian Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting September 28th and 29th, 2007 Kingdom, J. n.d. Government and politics in Britain: An introduction, 3rd ed. [Online] Accessed 20 November 2009 from http://www.polity.co.uk/kingdom/Contents.htm National Institute of Open Schooling n.d. Meaning and scope of political science. [Online] Accessed 20 November 2009 http://www.nios.ac.in/srsec317newE/317EL1.pdf Riemer, N 1997, The new world of politics: An introduction to political science. Rowman & Littlefield. Université Paris1 nd, Lecture on the nature of comparative politics. [Online] Accessed 20 November 2009 from http://www.univ-paris1.fr/IMG/pdf/Lecture_One.pdf Wahlke, JC, 1979, Pre-behavioralism in political science, American Political Science Review, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 9-31. Read More