Behavioralism

Last updated

Behaviouralism (or behavioralism) is an approach in political science that emerged in the 1930s in the United States. It represented a sharp break from previous approaches in emphasizing an objective, quantified approach to explain and predict political behaviour. [1] [2] It is associated with the rise of the behavioural sciences, modeled after the natural sciences. [3] Behaviouralism claims it can explain political behaviour from an unbiased, neutral point of view.

Contents

Behaviouralists seek to examine the behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals – rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries – and groups in different social settings and explain this behavior as it relates to the political system. [4]

Origins

From 1942 through the 1970s, behaviouralism gained support. It was probably Dwight Waldo who coined the term for the first time in a book called "Political Science in the United States" which was released in 1956. [5] It was David Easton however who popularized the term. It was the site of discussion between traditionalist and new emerging approaches to political science. [6] The origins of behaviouralism is often attributed to the work of University of Chicago professor Charles Merriam, who in the 1920s and 1930s emphasized the importance of examining political behaviour of individuals and groups rather than only considering how they abide by legal or formal rules. [7]

As a political approach

Prior to the "behaviouralist revolution", political science being a science at all was disputed. [8] 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. [9] Behaviouralists used strict methodology and empirical research to validate their study as a social science. [10] The behaviouralist approach was innovative because it changed the attitude of the purpose of inquiry. It moved toward research that was supported by verifiable facts. [11] In the period of 1954-63, Gabriel Almond spread behaviouralism to comparative politics by creation of a committee in SSRC. [12] During its rise in popularity in the 1960s and '70s, behaviouralism challenged the realist and liberal approaches, which the behaviouralists called "traditionalism", and other studies of political behaviour that was not based on fact.

To understand political behaviour, behaviouralism uses the following methods: sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling, and statistical analysis. [13]

Behaviouralism studies how individuals behave in group positions realistically rather than how they should behave. For example, a study of the United States Congress might include a consideration of how members of Congress behave in their positions. The subject of interest is how Congress becomes an 'arena of actions' and the surrounding formal and informal spheres of power. [14]

Meaning of the term

David Easton was the first to differentiate behaviouralism from behaviourism in the 1950s (behaviourism is the term mostly associated with psychology). [15] In the early 1940s, behaviourism itself was referred to as a behavioural science and later referred to as behaviourism. However, Easton sought to differentiate between the two disciplines: [16]

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. [17]

With this in mind, behaviouralism resisted a single definition. Dwight Waldo emphasized that behaviouralism itself is unclear, calling it "complicated" and "obscure." [18] Easton agreed, stating, "every man puts his own emphasis and thereby becomes his own behaviouralist" and attempts to completely define behaviouralism are fruitless. [19] From the beginning, behaviouralism was a political, not a scientific concept. Moreover, since behaviouralism is not a research tradition, but a political movement, definitions of behaviouralism follow what behaviouralists wanted. [16] Therefore, most introductions to the subject emphasize value-free research. This is evidenced by Easton's eight "intellectual foundation stones" of behaviouralism: [20] [21]

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, behaviouralism sought to be "analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical." [22] In this, the theory seeks to evaluate political behaviour without "introducing any ethical evaluations." Rodger Beehler cites this as "their insistence on distinguishing between facts and values." [23]

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. [23] Neal Riemer believes behaviouralism dismisses "the task of ethical recommendation" [22] because behaviouralists believe "truth or falsity of values (democracy, equality, and freedom, etc.) cannot be established scientifically and are beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry." [24]

Christian Bay believed behaviouralism was a pseudopolitical science and that it did not represent "genuine" political research. [25] Bay objected to empirical consideration taking precedence over normative and moral examination of politics. [25]

Behaviouralism initially represented a movement away from "naive empiricism", but as an approach has been criticized for "naive scientism". [26] Additionally, radical critics believe that the separation of fact from value makes the empirical study of politics impossible. [23]

Crick's critique

British scholar Bernard Crick in The American Science of Politics (1959), attacked the behavioural approach to politics, which was dominant in the United States, but little known in Britain. He identified and rejected six basic premises and in each case argued the traditional approach was superior to behaviouralism:

  1. research can discover uniformities in human behaviour,
  2. these uniformities could be confirmed by empirical tests and measurements,
  3. quantitative data was of the highest quality, and should be analyzed statistically,
  4. political science should be empirical and predictive, downplaying the philosophical and historical dimensions,
  5. value-free research was the ideal, and
  6. social scientists should search for a macro theory covering all the social sciences, as opposed to applied issues of practical reform. [27]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Guy, p. 58 says, "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."
  2. ↑ Petro, p. 6 says, "Behavioralists generally felt that politics should be studied much in the same way hard sciences are studied."
  3. ↑ Guy p. 58 says, "The term behaviouralism was recognized as part of a larger scientific movement occurring simultaneously in all of the social sciences, now referred to as the behavioural sciences."
  4. ↑ Walton, pp. 1–2.
  5. ↑ Devos, Carl (2020). Een plattegrond van de macht: inleiding tot politiek en politieke wetenschappen. Ghent: Academia Press. p. 61. ISBN   9789401469296.
  6. ↑ Eulau, pp 1-3
  7. ↑ Grigsby, p. 15
  8. ↑ Dahl, p. 763
  9. ↑ Guy, p. 57 says, "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."
  10. ↑ Guy p 58
  11. ↑ Kegley, p 48
  12. ↑ Institute, Kellogg (October 2006). "The Past and present of Comparative Politics" (PDF). kellogg.nd.edu. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
  13. ↑ Petro, p 7
  14. ↑ Grigsby, p 15
  15. ↑ Easton (1953) p 151
  16. 1 2 Berndtson. "Behavioralism: Origins of the Concept". Archived from the original on 14 May 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-20.
  17. ↑ David Easton in Baer et al. eds, 1991 p 207
  18. ↑ Waldo, p 58
  19. ↑ Easton (1962) p 9
  20. ↑ "Introduction to Political Science. Exam 2 Study guide". Archived from the original on 2005-03-08. Retrieved 2008-01-18.
  21. ↑ Riemer, p. 50
  22. 1 2 Riemer, p. 101
  23. 1 2 3 Beehler p 91
  24. ↑ Somit, pp 176–180
  25. 1 2 Riemer, p. 51
  26. ↑ Gilman, p 116
  27. ↑ "Crick, Bernard," in John Ramsden, The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-century British Politics (2002) p 174

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethics</span> Branch of philosophy concerning right and wrong conduct

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior". The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social science</span> Branch of science that studies society and its relationships

Social science is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among individuals within those societies. The term was formerly used to refer to the field of sociology, the original "science of society", established in the 18th century. In addition to sociology, it now encompasses a wide array of academic disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, economics, human geography, linguistics, management science, communication science, and political science.

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or earnestness of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy. It regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that people who hold apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter those values.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Normativity</span> Relating to an evaluative standard

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible. A norm in this sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. "Normative" is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in science, law, and philosophy try to restrict the use of the term "normative" to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical.

Positive economics is the part of economics that deals with positive statements. Positive economics, was originated from positivism and got introduced to economics by John Stuart Mill in his book Auguste Comte and Positivism in 1860's, reflecting upon Comte's positivism. Then, it was developed by John Neville Keynes in the 1890's and it became popular economical thought by elaborations of Lionel Robbins in the 1930's.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Applied philosophy</span> Branch of philosophy

Applied philosophy is a branch of philosophy that studies philosophical problems of practical concern. The topic covers a broad spectrum of issues in environment, medicine, science, engineering, policy, law, politics, economics and education. The term was popularised in 1982 by the founding of the Society for Applied Philosophy by Brenda Almond, and its subsequent journal publication Journal of Applied Philosophy edited by Elizabeth Brake. Methods of applied philosophy are similar to other philosophical methods including questioning, dialectic, critical discussion, rational argument, systematic presentation, thought experiments and logical argumentation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Postpositivism</span> Metatheoretical stance on scientific inquiry

Postpositivism or postempiricism is a metatheoretical stance that critiques and amends positivism and has impacted theories and practices across philosophy, social sciences, and various models of scientific inquiry. While positivists emphasize independence between the researcher and the researched person, postpositivists argue that theories, hypotheses, background knowledge and values of the researcher can influence what is observed. Postpositivists pursue objectivity by recognizing the possible effects of biases. While positivists emphasize quantitative methods, postpositivists consider both quantitative and qualitative methods to be valid approaches.

While the term "political science" as a separate field is a rather late arrival in terms of social sciences, analyzing political power and the impact that it had on history has been occurring for centuries. However, the term "political science" was not always distinguished from political philosophy, and the modern discipline has a clear set of antecedents including moral philosophy, political economy, political theology, history, and other fields concerned with normative determinations of what ought to be and with deducing the characteristics and functions of the ideal state.

Evolutionary ethics is a field of inquiry that explores how evolutionary theory might bear on our understanding of ethics or morality. The range of issues investigated by evolutionary ethics is quite broad. Supporters of evolutionary ethics have claimed that it has important implications in the fields of descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Participatory action research</span> Approach to research in social sciences

Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to action research emphasizing participation and action by members of communities affected by that research. It seeks to understand the world by trying to change it, collaboratively and following reflection. PAR emphasizes collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history. Within a PAR process, "communities of inquiry and action evolve and address questions and issues that are significant for those who participate as co-researchers". PAR contrasts with mainstream research methods, which emphasize controlled experimentation, statistical analysis, and reproducibility of findings.

Reflectivism is an umbrella label used in International Relations theory for a range of theoretical approaches which oppose rational-choice accounts of social phenomena and positivism generally. The label was popularised by Robert Keohane in his presidential address to the International Studies Association in 1988. The address was entitled "International Institutions: Two Approaches", and contrasted two broad approaches to the study of international institutions. One was "rationalism", the other what Keohane referred to as "reflectivism". Rationalists — including realists, neo-realists, liberals, neo-liberals, and scholars using game-theoretic or expected-utility models — are theorists who adopt the broad theoretical and ontological commitments of rational-choice theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systems theory in political science</span>

Systems theory in political science is a highly abstract, partly holistic view of politics, influenced by cybernetics. The adaptation of system theory to political science was conceived by David Easton in 1953.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Easton</span> Canadian academic (1917–2014)

David Easton was a Canadian-born American political scientist. From 1947 to 1997, he served as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

Scientific pluralism is a position within the philosophy of science that rejects various proposed unities of scientific method and subject matter. Scientific pluralists hold that science is not unified in one or more of the following ways: the metaphysics of its subject matter, the epistemology of scientific knowledge, or the research methods and models that should be used. Some pluralists believe that pluralism is necessary due to the nature of science. Others say that since scientific disciplines already vary in practice, there is no reason to believe this variation is wrong until a specific unification is empirically proven. Finally, some hold that pluralism should be allowed for normative reasons, even if unity were possible in theory.

Post-behavioralism also known as neo-behavioralism was a reaction against the dominance of behavioralist methods in the study of politics. One of the key figures in post-behaviouralist thinking was David Easton who was originally one of the leading advocates of the "behavioral revolution". Post-behavioralists claimed that despite the alleged value-neutrality of behavioralist research it was biased towards the status quo and social preservation rather than social change.

The science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world. It is sometimes framed as using the scientific approach to determine what is right and wrong, in contrast to the widespread belief that "science has nothing to say on the subject of human values".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pragmatic ethics</span> Theory of normative philosophical ethics and meta-ethics

Pragmatic ethics is a theory of normative philosophical ethics and meta-ethics. Ethical pragmatists such as John Dewey believe that some societies have progressed morally in much the way they have attained progress in science. Scientists can pursue inquiry into the truth of a hypothesis and accept the hypothesis, in the sense that they act as though the hypothesis were true; nonetheless, they think that future generations can advance science, and thus future generations can refine or replace their accepted hypotheses. Similarly, ethical pragmatists think that norms, principles, and moral criteria are likely to be improved as a result of inquiry.

The "argumentative turn" refers to a group of different approaches in policy analysis and planning that emphasize the increased relevance of argumentation, language and presentation in policy making. Inspired by the "linguistic turn" in the field of humanities, it was developed as an alternative to the epistemological limitations of "neo-positivist" policy analysis and its underlying technocratic understanding of the decision-making process. The argumentative approach systematically integrates empirical and normative questions into a methodological whole oriented towards the analysis of policy deliberation. It is sensitive to the immediate and the many kinds of knowledge practices involved in each phase of the policy process, bringing attention to different forms of argumentation, persuasion and justification.

A legal norm is a binding rule or principle, or norm, that organisations of sovereign power promulgate and enforce in order to regulate social relations. Legal norms determine the rights and duties of individuals who are the subjects of legal relations within the governing jurisdiction at a given point in time. Competent state authorities issue and publish basic aspects of legal norms through a collection of laws that individuals under that government must abide by, which is further guaranteed by state coercion. There are two categories of legal norms: normativity, which regulates the conduct of people, and generality, which is binding on an indefinite number of people and cases. Diplomatic and legislative immunity refers to instances where legal norms are constructed to be targeted towards a minority and are specifically only binding on them, such as soldiers and public officials.

Economic ethics is the combination of economics and ethics that uses judgements from both disciplines to predict, analyze, and model economic phenomena.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.