Behavioralism (not to be confused with the learning theory, behaviorism) is an approach in political science which seeks to provide an objective, quantified approach to explaining and predicting political behavior.[1][2] It is associated with the rise of the behavioral sciences, modeled after the natural sciences.[3] Behavioralism seeks to examine the behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals – rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatives, executives, and judiciaries[4] – and groups in different social settings and explain this behaviour as it relates to the political system.[5]
Contents |
Behavioralism as a Political Approach
Prior to the "Behavioralist revolution", political science being a science at all was being disputed.[citation needed] Critics saw the study of politics as being primarily qualitative and normative, and claimed that it lacked a scientific method necessary to be deemed a science.[6] Behavioralists would use strict methodology and empirical research to validate their study as a social science.[7]
To understand political behavior, behavioralism uses the following methods: sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling and statistical analysis.[8]
Meaning of behavioralism
David Easton was the first to differentiate behavioralism from behaviorism in the 1950s. In the early 1940s, behaviorism itself was referred to as a behavioral science and later referred to as behaviorism. However, Easton sought to differentiate between the two disciplines[9]:
Behavioralism was not a clearly defined movement for those who were thought to be behavioralists. It was more clearly definable by those who were opposed to it, because they were describing it in terms of the things within the newer trends that they found objectionable. So some would define behavioralism as an attempt to apply the methods of natural sciences to human behavior. Others would define it as an excessive emphasis upon quantification. Others as individualistic reductionism. From the inside, the practitioners were of different minds as what it was that constituted behavioralism. [...] And few of us were in agreement.[10]
Easton further defined eight "intellectual foundation stones" of behavioralism[11][12]:
- Regularities - The generalization and explanation of regularities.
- Commitment to Verification - The ability to verify ones generalizations.
- Techniques - An experimental attitude toward techniques.
- Quantification - Express results as numbers where possible or meaningful.
- Values - Keeping ethical assessment and empirical explanations distinct.
- Systemization - Considering the importance of theory in research.
- Pure Science - Deferring to pure science rather than applied science.
- Integration - Integrating social sciences and value.
A journal in this field is Political Behavior, described this way by its publisher, Springer:
Political Behavior publishes original research in the general fields of political behavior, institutions, processes, and policies. Approaches include economic (preference structuring, bargaining), psychological (attitude formation and change, motivations, perceptions), sociological (roles, group, class), or political (decision making, coalitions, influence). Articles focus on the political behavior (conventional or unconventional) of the individual person or small group (microanalysis), or of large organizations that participate in the political process such as parties, interest groups, political action committees, governmental agencies, and mass media (macroanalysis). As an interdisciplinary journal, Political Behavior integrates various approaches across different levels of theoretical abstraction and empirical domain (contextual analysis).[13]
Subsequently, much of the behavioralist approach has been challenged by the emergence of postpositivism in political (particularly International Relations) theory.
Objectivity and Value-Neutrality
According to David Easton, behavioralism sought to be "analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical."[14] In this, the theory seeks to evaluate political behaviour without "introducing any ethical evaluations";[15] Rodger Beehler cites this as "their insistence on distinguishing between facts and values."[16]
Criticism
The approach has come under fire from both conservatives and radicals for the purported value-neutrality. Conservatives see the distinction between values and facts as a way of undermining the possibility of political philosophy.[16] Neal Riemer believes behaviouralism dismisses "the task of ethical reccomendation"[17] because behavioralists believe "truth or falsity of values (democracy, equality, and freedom, etc.) cannot be established scientifically and are beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry."[18]
Christian Bay believed behavioralism was a pseudopolitical science and that it did not represent "genuine" political research.[17] Bay objected to empirical consideration taking precedence over normative and moral examination of politics.[17]
Radical critics believe that the separation of fact from value makes the empirical study of politics impossible.[16]
See also
Notes
- ^ Guy. p. 58. "Behaviouralism emphasized the systematic understanding of all identifiable manifestations of political behaviour. But it also meant the application of rigorous scientific and statistical methods to standardize testing and to attempt value free inquiry of the world of politics... For the behaviouralist, the role of political science is primarily to gather and analyze facts as rigorously and objectively as possible."
- ^ Petro. p. 6. "Behavioralists generally felt that politics should be studied much in the same way hard sciences are studied."
- ^ Guy. p. 58. "The term behaviouralism was recognized as part of a larger scientific movement occurring isimultaneously in all of the social sciences, now referred to as the behavioural sciences."
- ^ Walton. p. 2.
- ^ Walton. p. 1–2.
- ^ Guy. p. 57. "On the basis of the philosophical approach, traditionalists prescribe normative solutions to political problems. In their view, no political inquiry into social problems can remain neutral or completely free of normative judgements or prescriptions."
- ^ Guy, p. 58.
- ^ Petro. p. 7.
- ^ Berndtson, Erkki. "Behavioralism". http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/vol/tutkimus/julkaisut/verkko/behavior.htm. Retrieved 2009-04-20.
- ^ David Easton in Baer et al. (eds), 1991 : 207
- ^ "Introduction to Political Science. Exam 2 Study guide". http://staff.jccc.net/bwright1/Introreview2.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-18.
- ^ Riemer. p. 50.
- ^ "Political Behavior". http://www.springer.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,7-102-70-35711740-0,00.html?changeHeader=true. Retrieved 2006-03-03.
- ^ Riemer. p. 101.
- ^ Riemer. p. 102.
- ^ a b c Beehler. p. 91.
- ^ a b c Riemer. p. 51.
- ^ Somit. p. 176–180.
References
- Baer, Michael A. (1991). Jewell, Malcom E. and Lee Sigelman (eds). ed. Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0805-5.
- Beehler, Rodger; Drengson, Alan R. (1978). The Philosophy of Society. Routledge. ISBN 0416834906.
- Engeman, Thomas S. (1995). "Behavioralism, Postbehavioralism, and the Reemergence of Political Philosophy". Perspectives on Political Science 24 (4): 214. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=76959176.
- Guy, James John (2000-08-01). People, Politics and Government: A Canadian Perspective. Pearson Education Canada. ISBN 0130272469.
- Hanson, Jon D.; Douglas A. Kysar (June 1999). "Taking Behavioralism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation" (pdf). New York University Law Review 74 (630): 75–83. ISBN 0-8131-0805-5. http://web.archive.org/web/20030324150808/http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty/kysar/tbs1.pdf.
- Petro, Nicolai (1995). The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674750012.
- Riemer, Neal (1997). The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0939693410.
- Somit, Albert; Joseph Tanenhaus (1967). The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviouralism. Irvington Publishers.
- Walton, Hanes (1985). Invisible Politics. SUNY Press. ISBN 0873959663.
External links
- Brooks, David (2008-10-27). "The Behavioral Revolution". The New York Times.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
