Behavioural Approach to Political Science

Behaviouralism appeared mainly as a reaction against the shortcomings of the traditional approaches. It was an attempt by a group of mainly American political scientists to gather ‘scientific’ knowledge about politics. Two most important things about behaviouralism to be noted are – (i) that behaviouralists freely borrow lessons from the researches of other social sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. and (ii) that behaviouralism’s main focus is on ‘political behaviour.’ Behaviouralism takes the individual person as the unit for political analysis. In the behavioural view, group or collective actions are the results of individual behaviours. Political institutions are behaviour systems. Behavioural research does not emphasise the study of political institutions like the government or offices like that of the Prime Minister or the President. It analyses the behaviour of the individuals which shape these institutions and offices. To understand the behavioural patter of individuals, behaviouralism naturally had to probe into sociological, psychological or anthropological factors that go to shape individual behaviour. Thus this approach becomes inextricably bound up with other social sciences and has to borrow freely from the researches in those fields. Behaviouralism is basically a protest movement against the excessive formalism and value orientation of the traditional approaches and give a scientific character to researches in politics.

The principal characteristics of behaviouralism, according to Kirkpatrick are- 

(1) Not political institutions but behaviour of individuals is the basic unit of research in Political Science. 

(2) Political Science is a social science and, as a social science, it is behavioural science. 

(3) Observation, classification, collection and measurement of data and use of statistical method are the principal tools of research in Political Science, and finally, 

(4) construction of systematic empirical theory is the goal of political science.

This approach is not altogether absent in traditional studies. For example, Hobbes, Locke or Mill based their theories on their perceptions of human behaviour. In this sense, the modern behaviouralists only extend the basic concerns of the traditionalists.

Behaviouralism has been criticised on several counts. First, they do not do something new, something totally unknown to Political Science before them. Ever since Aristotle, political scientists observed and analysed human behaviour to arrive at political generalisations. Secondly, their zeal to raise Political Science to the status of pure science is doomed to failure for, there is not much scope in this field for the kind of experiments that natural scientists can conduct. Finally, it is vain to seek to make politics totally value free. Even the noted behaviouralists could not free themselves from their bias for liberal democracy.

But, then, it is not without value. Firstly, the attempt to adopt methods of science to obtain faultless results is itself laudable. Secondly, its integration of Political Science with other social sciences gives political science a new perspective and significance. And finally, behaviouralism has curbed excessive formalism and value orientation of the traditionalists and had given the subject an empirical base. That is why political scientists are today consulted by Presidents and Prime Ministers in matter of policy formulation. This approach has brought out political scientists from their academic grooves and has brought them face to face with real political situations.

Traditional Approaches to Political Science

Alan Ball comments: “Before 1900, the study of Politics was largely dominated by philosophy, history and law.” Thus traditional approaches include philosophical, historical and legal methodologies in the study to Political Science. Again as Alan Ball says “to use the label ‘traditional’ is neither a criticism nor a refutation of the obvious fact that they still play important roles in modern political studies, although no longer monopolising the avenues of approach.” Modern Political scientists still consider it necessary to study Plato or Hegel. However, modern political science emphasises ‘what is’ rather than “what ought to be.” In other words modern Political Science is not very concerned with universal values.

Traditional political philosophy is criticised on the ground that its conclusions are all a priori deductions. But even among traditional philosophers there were some who tried to reach conclusions on the basis of observed facts. Aristotle wrote his “Politics” after studying 158 constitutions. Machiavelli’s advice to the “Prince” was based on his observations of the Italian Renaissance states.

In spite of all criticisms against it, the philosophical approach has some points to its credit. Ancient political concepts like freedom, rights, liberty etc. provide a basis for communication, a sort of common ground we may say, among the political scientists of different countries. Secondly, the books of philosophers were the first explorations in the field of comparative government. Thirdly, works of classical philosophers provide a glimpse into the historical set up which inspired those works. Thus for example, Locke’s works were inspired by the historical circumstances leading to the Glorious Revolution in England, 1688.

There were similar weighty reasons why historical method continues to be useful to the political scientists of our time. Historians construct a coherent pattern out of the jigsaws of historical records. Many of our present day political institutions and practices have their roots in the past. But past records often leaves alarming gaps. Political history is often the records of the activities of kings and emperors. But modern Political scientists try to find out the process of the growth and development of political institutions. Thus for example, Jennings wrote extensively on the growth of the office of British Prime Minister, and parties.

Constitutional law forms the third major element of traditional political studies. The relationship between politics and constitutional law is very close. Any serious student and government must, for example read Deicey’s “Law of the Constitution” first published in 1885. Concepts such as a sovereignty of the Parliament, rule of the law, separation of powers etc. form essential parts of the course on Political Science and government.

The traditional approaches – philosophical, historical or legal are still very useful particularly in the examination of major political institutions like the legislatures, executives, civil-service or the judiciary. “From these examinations valuable insights as to their organisation can be drawn, proposals for reform discussed and general conclusions offered.”

However within the descriptive-analytic framework of the traditional approaches, different scholars focus the spotlight on different aspects of political institutions. Thus for example, while Edward Corwin focuses on the American President’s office and power, Richard Neustadt examines the informal processes of “Presidential Power.” In India also a new generation of political scientists, trained in the methods of old traditional school, are engaged in the examination of the informal process of government and politics through non-traditional approaches.

Finally, not all the scholars of the traditional approach have been University teachers. People engaged in other professions have also left their mark in this field. Thus, Walter Bagehot, a working journalist of the 19^th century or D.D. Basu, a sitting judge of the high court in India have produced classic works on the British and the Indian Constitutions.

Approches to Political Science

An approach is like a road leading to a destination. As one can reach a destination by different roads, one can try to explore political realities in various ways. Political Science is a highly complex, perhaps the most complex social science. Every other social science has a precise and well defined area of study. For example, economics is concerned with production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. History is concerned with the past activities of men. Political Science has no such well-defined area. Broadly speaking it studies the conflicts and ways of resolution of conflicts in the social arena. Where ever there is conflict, there is politics. Thus we have politics in the universities, in sports clubs or in trade unions. Politics does not necessarily mean a conflict with the state. The inherent complexity of the subject has compelled political scientists to follow different ways to explore political truths. For the convenience of analysis, the approaches adopted by the political scientists may be divided into three classes - (i) traditional, (ii) modern and (iii) Marxian approaches.

Scope of Political Science

As political scientists never arrived at a university accepted definition of political science, the scope and subject matter of political science have always remained a matter for debate. Scope of political science consequently depends on how one defines the subject.

The traditional or classical political thinkers defined political science as the science of the state. Political science to them had been primarily a study of the state. As Garner says “Political Science begins and ends with the state.” Consequently in classical political science, elements of the state, its origin, nature, structure, functions and ends remain the primary concern of political analysis. Study of political philosophy is also an integral part of this variety of political science.

Population, territory, government and sovereignty are accepted as basic constituents of a state. Analysis of population and territory involves analysis of citizenship. Rights, duties and liberties of citizens naturally fall within the jurisdiction of Political Science. Analysis of government makes different theories of governmental functions and organisations an integral part of the study of Political Science. Analysis of sovereignty of the state inevitably involves the study of power, both formal and informal. Laws through which state’s sovereign authority is expressed, also fall within the purview of Political science.

Analysis of the origin of the state leads to the study of different theories of state origin – both speculative and historical. Theories of Divine origin and social contract are examples of speculative theories whereas theories of force or evolution are historical theories of state origin.

Analysis of nature and structure of the state involves the study of different kinds of state, such as a monarchy or republic. It also is concerned with the study of government as an integral part of the state. Naturally, different components of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are also included in the study of political science. Different types of government such as the unitary or federal, Cabinet or Presidential fall within the scope of political analysis. Study of government is also intertwined with the study of such things as public opinion and political parties which are outside the formal structure of the state but which are very relevant to the operations of government.

Finally, classical political science deals with the ends of the state. As a result, study of political philosophy becomes an integral part of the study of political science, adding an ideal dimension to it.

Modern political scientists look upon the discipline as essentially a study of power relationships between individuals and groups within the state. Thus all mechanism such as pressure groups through which power is achieved, distributed and destroyed also become integral parts of political analysis. Thus modern political scientists add a new dimension to political science, which may be identified as power dimension. Modern political scientists look upon the state as basically a human grouping in the larger context of human society. Hence as inter-group bargain for power is a subject-matter of political science, similarly inter-state power relationship i.e. international relation also has become an inseparable part of political science.

In conclusion, one may say that the scope of Political Science is what the classical and modern political scientists consider it to be. The UNESCO has summed it up as consisting of (i) Political Theory (ii) Political Institutions (iii) Parties and Public opinion and (iv) International Relations.

Definition of Political Science.

Political speculation in the orient, though profound, could not separate politics from religion or mythology. Ancient Greeks were the first to divorce politics from religion. Greek thinkers were the first to develop the science of politics. Aristotle calls ‘Politics’ the study of ‘Polis’ or the city state. Since then Political Science has been regarded as the science of the state.

But ancient Greek Polis or city states and modern states are scarcely comparable entities. Modern states are bigger, more populous and far more complex entities than the ancient Greek city states. Hence modern political science is not a science of the state in the sense in which Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ had been a science of the state.

Again, any close identification of political science with the study of the state makes the study too rigid, formalistic and institutional. But the two terms ‘political’ and ‘science’ in the phrase ‘political science’ point to two distinct aspects of the study. As a science, it is essentially a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. But it is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge of what? The adjective ‘political’ clarifies that it is a study of man and his society in their political aspects as economics is a study of man and society in their economic aspects.

But what are the political aspects of man and society? The answer is to be found in Aristotle’s immortal observation that ‘man is a political animal’- “Anthropos Zoon Politikon.” This Greek phrase is wrongly translated by many eminent scholars as ‘man is a social animal.’

As a ‘political animal’, man has both animal and political propensities. Animality impels man to dominate over others. Politicality impels him to associate with others. This duality leads to the unique phenomenon that man lives in society and in society he is constantly engaged in the struggle for domination over others. This struggle for domination or power is politics. But this struggle takes place within the social structure. Politics thus involves two things- (a) a struggle for power and (b) a social structure in which it takes place. The struggle for power is the political process and the social structure in which this process occurs is the ‘state’.

Political Science as a study, a pursuit of knowledge, is concerned with both the process and the structure i.e., the state within which the process occurs. Any exclusive identification of political science with either of the two is bound to make the study one-sided. Classical political scientists made this mistake by over-emphasizing the structure i.e., the state. Modern behaviorists repeat this mistake by over-emphasizing the process i.e., the struggle for power within the state.

If political science is defined as a study of state only, societies which have not yet developed into state, like the primitive societies, are left out of the study. Similarly struggles for power occurring within the society but outside the state structure e.g. in the university or in trade unions- also remain outside the scope of the study though these struggles influence and are influenced by the state.

These limitations induced modern political scientist to find out a comprehensive definition of political science. Laswell and Kaplan define political science as “the study of shaping and sharing of power.” In this new definition emphasis is exclusively on power. In this sense politics is concerned with “who gets what, when and how.” “The study of politics is the study of influence and the influential. The science of politics states conditions and the philosophy of politics justify preferences.”

This approach is also subject to several limitations. It makes the scope of politics too broad. Politics in this sense is to be found in all inter-personal and inter-group relations. Politics in this sense occurs in clubs, business organizations, and students’ unions or even in intimate family relations. But all inter-personal or inter-group struggles for power cannot be a subject matter for political science. Only such struggles which arise within the state structure and which influence governmental decisions can properly become the subject-matter for political analysis.

Again, Politics, as David Easton points out, is concerned with “authoritative allocation of values.” This means that decisions of the state or government are binding because power exercised by the state is legitimate. Legitimacy of state power means that it is backed by willing acceptance by the majority of the society.

At any particular point in history, resources of any society are limited compared to demand. There is endless claim, competition and even conflict for greater allocation of resources among different sections of the society. State acts as the final arbiter and its decisions are accepted because its authority is accepted as legitimate. To define political science in terms of power and influence only is to overlook this crucial aspect of state power.

Thus, we may arrive at the conclusion that political science is the study of the political process within the political structure i.e. the state of a society,- the process and the structure mutually influencing and determining each other.