Behavioralism - Lecture Notes

BEHAVIORALISM INTRODUCTION: Behavioralism is one of the most innovative approaches to the study of political science that has emerged in recent years. The evolution of this technique, on the other hand, took place over the course of the twentieth century. Towards the close of the nineteenth century, political scientists began to recognise the shortcomings of traditional approaches to political analysis. Early on, in 1908, Graham Wales and A. F. Bentley declared that the study of psychological phenomena in the person is a waste of time and effort. The actions and reactions of individuals have an essential part in all political processes. Bentley stressed the importance of the groups in the process. In other words, he pushed for the study of an individual's conduct as a part of a group rather than as an individual. Individuals' 'style of functioning' in the polity was emphasised by Charles, E. Miriam, and other scholars. According to him, studying political science will be more scientific if one examines the behaviour of the individual rather than the behaviour of the institution. Through his presentations at numerous international conferences between 1923 and 1925, he contributed to the development of behaviourism as a movement. BEHAVIORAL REVOLUTION: It was only after World War II that Behaviouralism as a revolutionary concept made its way into the field of political science research and teaching. Political scientists, influenced by sociologists such as Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, and many others, came to see the necessity of resolving social problems in their respective fields. In the field of behavioural research, several distinguished researchers such as Lasswell, David Easton, G.A. Almond and Powell as well as Herbert Simmon produced numerous respectable pieces of work that were grounded in behavioural principles. The American Political Association's committees on 'political conduct' and 'comparative politics,' which were established in the 1960s, also contributed significantly to the implementation of the behavioural revolution. These initiatives aided in the rapid development of behaviourism in a relatively short period of time. The following is the definition of behavioralism: Behaviouralism emphasises the scientific, objective, and value-free examination of political phenomena as they are conditioned by the environment, and more specifically, the behaviour of the individuals who are involved in the phenomena under consideration. As a result, it emphasises the importance of individual conduct at all levels, as well as scientific study. Traditional political science, which did not take into consideration the role of human behaviour as an actor in politics, was met by a backlash called behavioralism. Behaviouralism differs from behaviourism in several ways. Behaviourism has a limited range of applications. It refers to the response of an organism to a stimulus that causes it to become active. It does not take into account the role performed by the sentiments, ideas, and prejudices of the individual in determining his or her responses. Behaviouralism, on the other hand, takes into consideration the role played by emotions, beliefs, and prejudices in one's actions. David Easton makes a distinction between behaviourism and behavioralism by using a paradigm to do so. According to him, the behaviourists have adopted the S-R paradigm (Stimulus-Response). However, the behavioural lists have made it more S-O-R-e, which is a significant improvement (Stimulus-Organism-Response). David Easton considers the behavioural revolution to be an intellectual trend among political scientists who are interested in studying empirically the political conduct of persons in politics. Characteristics of Behaviouralism: Some characteristics of Behaviouralism are universally acknowledged, including the following: 1. It is a protest against the abstract nature of classical political theory. Traditional theorists were concerned solely with the institutions involved, rather than with the behaviour of the individuals who were involved. Behaviouralism, on the other hand, is concerned with the study of both institutions and behaviour. Institutions, on the other hand, are only ignored to the extent that they are described in a theoretical framework. When institutions provide a clue to the political behaviour of the persons involved, the institution gains significance in the eyes of behaviouralists who study political behaviour. Furthermore, they define institutions as "patterns of individual conduct that are more or less regular and uniform in their activity." They are seen as sources of influence that have the ability to impact political conduct." 2. When it comes to examining political issues, behavioralism employs the scientific method. It is more empirical in nature. It consists of approaches such as observation, interviews, survey research, case studies, data gathering, statistical analysis, quantification, and so on. It is also known as quantitative research. Model construction is another strategy used by behaviouralists, such as Easton's and Almond's model of the political system and Karl Deutsch's Cybernetics model of cybernetics. Behaviouralism has the following characteristics: 1. Empirical research 2. Research involving multiple disciplines 3. Development of Scientific Theories As a result, according to Easton, behavioralism possesses notable characteristics such as:1. Regularities 2. Verification 3. New methods and strategies 4. Quantification 5. Values – Value is not required. 6. Systematization 7. The theory is put into practise. 8. Integration. Regularities represent discernible uniformities in political behaviour that can be articulated in theory-like assertions that aid in the understanding and prediction of political phenomena. Regularities can be defined as: Verification indicates that only knowledge that can be empirically tested and verified is accepted as legitimate. The term technique refers to the importance placed on the deployment of proper tools for data collection and analysis. Abolition of quantitative analysis in political analysis is synonymous with the promotion of rigorous measurement and data manipulation. According to behaviouralists, values must be distinguished from 'facts.' The distinction between ethical evaluation and empirical explanation is important. It is necessary for objective scientific inquiry to be value-free or value-neutral. Behavioral systematisation refers to the purposeful effort made by a behaviouralist to construct causal theories on the basis of a logically interconnected structure of concepts and propositions. The pure science advocacy is aimed at establishing a link between theoretical understanding of politics and the application of theory to practical problemsolving situations in politics. Integration is the process of bringing together political science and other social sciences. It represents an intentional effort to facilitate the crossfertilization of ideas across the borders of different social sciences disciplines. The following are some of the accomplishments of behavioralism: 1) The application of procedures such as context analysis, case studies, sample surveys, interviews, and other complex quantitative techniques. 2) The development of theories. Criticisms: 1) Behaviouralism places an excessive emphasis on tactics. 2) It is referred to as Pseudo-politics since it attempts to defend solely American institutions as the greatest in the world, rather than any other. 3) Places an emphasis on the behavioural influence at the expense of the institutional effect. 4) Places greater emphasis on static situations rather than current ones. 5) The value of research is that it is not feasible to conduct for free, as it claims. Post-Behaviouralism: Introduction: For more than a decade, the study of political science was dominated by behavioralism. The behaviourists, on the other hand, began to stray from the route they had set out for themselves. They became completely absorbed in the process of discovering new strategies and methods for its investigation. They lost sight of the true subject matter in the process. Their work was divided into two groups: those who believed in theoretical behaviour and those who believed in positive behaviour. While the former placed a strong emphasis on theory development, the latter were more concerned with developing new tools for the study of political phenomena. Some behavioralists became disillusioned with behaviourism as a result, particularly toward the latter half of the 1960's. David Easton, one of the world's foremost behaviouralists, was the target of the most vicious attacks on the discipline. As he puts it, we are witnessing the beginning of a "postbehavioral revolution," which is the result of widespread unhappiness with the attempt to transform political research into a field based after the methods of the scientific sciences. The behaviouralists had strayed far away from the realities of social behaviour in their pursuit of knowledge and application of scientific method in their research. As a result, political science has lost touch with the issues of the day and the current political climate. Factors contributing to the expansion of Post-Behavioralism include: The primary causes for the rise of post-behaviouralism are the inability of behaviouralists to approach social problems in pursuit of answers, the overemphasis placed on research methods and tools, and the need for more time spent conceptualising and developing theories than was previously available. Characteristics of Post-Behavioralism: The following are the distinguishing characteristics of post-behaviouralism: 1. It is a protest movement. In other words, it is a protest against the incorrect route that behaviouralists have taken political science in. As a result, the postbehavioralists emphasised the need of "Relevance and Action." They believed that political science should be aimed toward the solution of real-world difficulties. As a result, it would be more relevant to the general public. Attempting to see the political situation as a whole and in the proper context, they believe, is something political scientists should do again. They should discourse about the fundamental issues of society, such as justice, liberty, equality, and democracy, amongst other things. 2. Opposition to the concept of "value-free" goods and services: The author of the modification, David Easton, asserts that "value and the study of politics are inextricably linked together". Despite claims to the contrary, science cannot and has never been evaluatively impartial in its findings or conclusions. As a result, in order to comprehend the limits of our knowledge, we must be aware of the value premises on which it is founded as well as the alternatives for which this knowledge could be applied." 3. Predictability (the ability to look to the future): Post-behaviouralism advocates for behaviouralists to collaborate on empirical research methodologies and approaches in order to develop theories that may be applied to current and future social challenges. As a result, it must be focused on the future. According to Easton, "Although the post-behavioural revolution may appear to be merely another reaction to behaviourism, it is in fact a markedly different phenomenon." Behaviouralism was regarded as a danger to the status quo, whereas classicism and traditionalism were regarded as positive attributes... ......the post-behavioural revolution, on the other hand, is focused on the future. It does not strive to revert to some past era of political research, nor does it seek to preserve rather than demolish a specific methodological approach. In contrast, it tries to "properly guide political science in a new path." 4. It is a tendency that is intellectual: It is both a political movement and an intellectual predisposition to be postbehavioralist. As a protest movement, it has supporters in all areas of political science, "in all generations from young, recent graduates to more senior members of the profession." In the words of Easton, it was a "real revolution, rather than a reaction; a becoming, rather than a preservation; a reform, rather than a counter reformation." It would be incorrect to associate post-behaviouralism with a certain political ideology or political philosophy. All of the unexpected diversity – political, methodological, and generational – was linked together by a single sentiment: a severe dissonance with the path of current political investigation. As a result, David Easton identifies the following characteristics of postbehaviouralism as being particularly significant: One of the most important things to remember is that substance is more important than method. According to post-behaviouralists, having advanced means of study is beneficial, but the more important element to consider is the aim for which these tools are being used. Research on modern societal problems should only be undertaken if it is relevant and meaningful. Otherwise, it is not worth the effort. 2. The emphasis is on social transformation rather than social preservation. 3. A greater emphasis on Reality. Political science should respond to the demands of mankind by recognising future social problems and proposing solutions to these problems, as well as addressing the needs of individuals. In the opinion of post-behaviouralists, unless values are recognised as the driving force behind knowledge, knowledge risks losing its meaning. If knowledge is to be used for the appropriate purposes, it is necessary to restore values to their proper place in society. The protection of human values is necessary. 5. It is action-oriented: knowledge must be put to use in order to be effective. The ability to "know" is, as Easton points out, "to bear responsibility for acting, and the ability to act is to engage in the restoration of society." As a group, the post-behaviouralists argue that action-science should take the place of contemplative-science. Observers of post-behaviouralism believe that once it is recognised that intellectuals have a positive role to play in society, and that this role entails attempting to determine appropriate goals for society and directing society in the direction of these goals, it becomes inevitable to politicise the profession; all professional associations, as well as universities, become not only inextricably linked, but also highly desired. Conclusion: In their view, political science should be linked to important social concerns, as advocated by post-behaviouralists. As a result, it should have a specific purpose. Solution-seeking political scientists should seek to understand and resolve contemporary issues. The findings of the research should contribute to a better understanding of societal concerns. Political scientists must take the lead in advocating for post-behavioral change once a crisis has occurred. "The post-behavioural trend in political science is presenting us with a fresh image of our discipline and the requirements of our profession," to paraphrase Easton. "