Post- behaviouralism

The growth of behavioural movement in Political Science is one of the important landmarks in the
history of Political Science. The rise of behaviouralism clearly introduced a scientific vigour in the
study of political phenomena. However, after sometime, it began to be realized that unlike natural
sciences, generalizations could not be made in the field of social sciences, as the study of man in
the societal context was a far more complex pursuit than the study of objects in the natural
sciences. Therefore, a new thinking emerged among the behaviouralists for modifying
behaviouralism.

David Easton who was a staunch supporter of behaviouralism later became a strong critic of
behaviouralism. In his presidential address to the Annual Convention of the American Political
Science Association held in 1969, David Easton declared that he felt dissatisfied with the political
research and teaching made under the impact of behaviouralism. He further said that because of
too much use of mathematics, Political Science looked more of mathematics than of social science
and that it had lost touch with the current and contemporary world. Behaviouralism also
dissatisfied people as it failed to offer solutions to many social and political problems. Such
dissatisfaction has led to the emergence of post- behaviouralism. This new approach believed that
mere use of sophisticated techniques and research tools would not solve the social and political
problems of the world. Therefore post behaviouralists opposed the idea of behaviouralists to
make Political Science a value-free science like other natural sciences. Therefore, post-
behaviouralists made an effort to make Political Science relevant to the society. However, it must
be remembered that post-behaviouralism cannot be separated from behviouralism as it has
emerged out of behaviouralism. Through using different techniques and methods post-
behaviouralists try to overcome the drawbacks of behaviouralism and make the study of Political
Science more relevant to the society.

LET US KNOW

David Easton first pointed out the intellectual foundations of

Post-behaviouralism believed that the use of scientific tools is beneficial if it can solve the various
problems of the society. Behaviouralists gave too much emphasis on methods and techniques and
believed that it was better to be wrong than vague. Post-behaviouralists on the other hand,
believe that it is better to be vague than non-relevantly precise. The post-behaviouralists criticized
behaviouralism on the ground that the latter had lost touch with the realities of the society
because of over emphasis on techniques. Thus, post-behaviouralists may be regarded as the
reform movement within behaviouralism. This new approach emphasizes identifying and solving
the major issues of political and social life. According to post-behavioralism, the political scientists
should find out different alternatives and means to solve the social problems. Thus, the main
thrust of post-behaviouralism has been to make Political Science relevant to the society. However,
it must be remembered that it is only a continuation of behaviouralism. It does not altogether
reject the ideas of behaviouralism. It acknowledges the achievement of behavioralism and
appreciates its effort to do objective research in Political Science. It only tries to bring research in
Political Science closer to reality to make the subject more relevant to the society.Accordingly, the
post-behaviouralists opposed the efforts of the behaviouralists to make Political Science a value-
free science.It was argued by the post-behaviouralisrs that Political Science in oreder to be
relevant to the society must consider basic issues of society such as justice, liberty, equality,
democracy, etc., The post-behaviouralists have described behaviouralism as a ‘mad craze for
scienticism’. Thus, the post-behavioralism is a reformation of behavioralism as it shifts its focus
strictly from empirical research to resolving problems confronting the society.

OTHER MODERN APPROACHES

Some of the other modern approaches are discussed as follows:

Systems Approach

This approach belongs to the category of modern approach. This approach makes an attempt to
explain the relationship of political life with other aspects of social life. The idea of a system was
originally borrowed from biology by Talcott Parsons who first popularized the concept of social
system. Later on David Easton further developed the concept of a political system. According to
this approach, a political system operates within the social environment. Accordingly, it is not
possible to analyze political events in isolation from other aspects of the society. In other words,
influences from the society, be it economic, religious or otherwise, do shape the political process.

The systems approach as developed by David Eason can be analyzed with the help of a diagram as
follows:
The political system operates within an environment. The environment generates demands from
different sections of the society such as demand for reservation in the matter of employment for
certain groups, demand for better working conditions or minimum wages, demand for better
transportation facilities, demand for better health facilities, etc.. Different demands have different
levels of support. Both ‘demands’ and ‘supports’ constitute what Easton calls ‘inputs.’ The political
system receives theses inputs from the environment. After taking various factors into
consideration, the government decides to take action on some of theses demands while others are
not acted upon. Through the conversion process, the inputs are converted into ‘outputs’ by the
decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules, regulations and laws. The ‘outputs’ flow
back into the environment through a ‘feedback’ mechanism, giving rise to fresh ‘demands.’
Accordingly, it is a cyclical process.

Structural-Functional Approach

This approach treats the society as a single inter–related system where each part of the system
has a definite and distinct role to play. The structural-functional approach may be regarded as an
offshoot of the system analysis. These approaches emphasize the structures and functions. Gabriel
Almond is a supporter of this approach. He defines political systems as a special system of
interaction that exists in all societies performing certain functions. According to him, the main
characteristics of a political system are comprehensiveness, inter-dependence and existence of
boundaries. Like Easton, Almond also believes that all political systems perform input and output
functions. The Input functions of political systems are political socialization and recruitment,
interest-articulation, interest-aggression and political communication. Again, Almond makes three-
fold classifications of governmental output functions relating to policy making and
implementation. These output functions are- rule making, rule application and rule adjudication.
Thus, Almond believes that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs into outputs.
This approach tries to investigate how one segment of a system affects another by sending
messages or information. It was Robert Weiner who first spoke about this approach. Later on Karl
Deutsch developed it and applied it in Political Science. Deutsch believes that the political system
is a network of communication channels and it is self regulative. He further believes that the
government is responsible for administering different communication channels. This approach
treats the government as the decision making system. According to Deutsch, the four factors of
analysis in communication theory are – lead, lag, gain and load.
 

Decision Making Approach

This approach tries to find out the characteristics of decision makers as well as the type of
influence the individuals have on the decision makers. Scholars like Richard Synder and Charles
Lindblom have developed this approach. A political decision which is taken by a few actors
influences a larger society and such a decision is generally shaped by a specific situation.
Therefore, it takes into account psychological and social aspects of decision makers also.

LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have discussed the traditional and modern approaches to the study of Political
Science. Therefore, after going through this unit we have learnt the characteristics of traditional as
well as modern approaches as well as the various types of traditional and modern approaches.
This unit has also helped us in learning the modern approaches like behaviouralism, post-
behaviouralism, structural functional approach, system approach, communication approach and
decision making approach etc. It has also enabled us to distinguish between traditional and
modern approaches. Both traditional and modern approaches have their merits and demerits, but
they have contributed a significantly to the study of Political Science.