Behavioralism

Last updated

Behavioralism is an approach in the philosophy of science, describing the scope of the fields now collectively called the behavioral sciences; this approach dominated the field until the late 20th century. [1] Behavioralism attempts to explain human behavior from an unbiased, neutral point of view, focusing only on what can be verified by direct observation, preferably using statistical and quantitative methods. [2] [3] In doing so, it rejects attempts to study internal human phenomena such as thoughts, subjective experiences, or human well-being. [4] The rejection of this paradigm as overly-restrictive would lead to the rise of cognitive approaches in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Contents

Origins

From 1942 through the 1970s, behavioralism 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 behavioralism 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 behavior of individuals and groups rather than only considering how they abide by legal or formal rules. [7]

As a political approach

Prior to the "behavioralist 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] Behavioralists used strict methodology and empirical research to validate their study as a social science. [10] The behavioralist 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 behavioralism to comparative politics by creation of a committee in SSRC. [12] During its rise in popularity in the 1960s and '70s, behavioralism challenged the realist and liberal approaches, which the behavioralists called "traditionalism", and other studies of political behavior that was not based on fact.

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

Behavioralism 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 behavioralism from behaviorism in the 1950s (behaviorism is the term mostly associated with psychology). [15] 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: [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, behavioralism resisted a single definition. Dwight Waldo emphasized that behavioralism itself is unclear, calling it "complicated" and "obscure." [18] Easton agreed, stating, "every man puts his own emphasis and thereby becomes his own behavioralist" and attempts to completely define behavioralism are fruitless. [19] From the beginning, behavioralism was a political, not a scientific concept. Moreover, since behavioralism is not a research tradition, but a political movement, definitions of behavioralism follow what behavioralists wanted. [16] Therefore, most introductions to the subject emphasize value-free research. This is evidenced by Easton's eight "intellectual foundation stones" of behavioralism: [20] [21]

Objectivity and value-neutrality

According to David Easton, behavioralism sought to be "analytic, not substantive, general rather than particular, and explanatory rather than ethical." [22] In this, the theory seeks to evaluate political behavior 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 behavioralism dismisses "the task of ethical recommendation" [22] 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." [24]

Christian Bay believed behavioralism 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]

Behavioralism 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 behavioral 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 behavioralism:

  1. research can discover uniformities in human behavior,
  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, "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."
  2. ↑ 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."
  3. ↑ Petro, p. 6 says, "Behavioralists generally felt that politics should be studied much in the same way hard sciences are studied."
  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

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right. Its main branches include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.

In ethics and the social sciences, value theory involves various approaches that examine how, why, and to what degree humans value things and whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. Within philosophy, it is also known as ethics or axiology.

A prescriptive or normative statement is one that evaluates certain kinds of words, decisions, or actions as either correct or incorrect, or one that sets out guidelines for what a person "should" do.

Behaviorism is a systematic approach to understand the behavior of humans and other animals. It assumes that behavior is either a reflex elicited by the pairing of certain antecedent stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual's history, including especially reinforcement and punishment contingencies, together with the individual's current motivational state and controlling stimuli. Although behaviorists generally accept the important role of heredity in determining behavior, they focus primarily on environmental events. The cognitive revolution of the late 20th century largely replaced behaviorism as an explanatory theory with cognitive psychology, which unlike behaviorism views internal mental states as explanations for observable behavior.

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 argued that it has important implications in the fields of descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.

In ethics and social sciences, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining which actions are best to do or what way is best to live, or to describe the significance of different actions. Value systems are proscriptive and prescriptive beliefs; they affect the ethical behavior of a person or are the basis of their intentional activities. Often primary values are strong and secondary values are suitable for changes. What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethical values of the objects it increases, decreases, or alters. An object with "ethic value" may be termed an "ethic or philosophic good".

<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">Sociology of law</span> Sub-discipline of sociology relating to legal studies

The sociology of law, legal sociology, or law and society is often described as a sub-discipline of sociology or an interdisciplinary approach within legal studies. Some see sociology of law as belonging "necessarily" to the field of sociology, but others tend to consider it a field of research caught up between the disciplines of law and sociology. Still others regard it as neither a subdiscipline of sociology nor a branch of legal studies but as a field of research on its own right within the broader social science tradition. Accordingly, it may be described without reference to mainstream sociology as "the systematic, theoretically grounded, empirical study of law as a set of social practices or as an aspect or field of social experience". It has been seen as treating law and justice as fundamental institutions of the basic structure of society mediating "between political and economic interests, between culture and the normative order of society, establishing and maintaining interdependence, and constituting themselves as sources of consensus, coercion and social control".

<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 following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to ethics.

Psychological behaviorism is a form of behaviorism—a major theory within psychology which holds that generally human behaviors are learned—proposed by Arthur W. Staats. The theory is constructed to advance from basic animal learning principles to deal with all types of human behavior, including personality, culture, and human evolution. Behaviorism was first developed by John B. Watson (1912), who coined the term "behaviorism", and then B. F. Skinner who developed what is known as "radical behaviorism". Watson and Skinner rejected the idea that psychological data could be obtained through introspection or by an attempt to describe consciousness; all psychological data, in their view, was to be derived from the observation of outward behavior. The strategy of these behaviorists was that the animal learning principles should then be used to explain human behavior. Thus, their behaviorisms were based upon research with animals.

Science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality and ethics 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.

(R.) Andrew Sayer is Emeritus Professor of Social Theory and Political Economy at Lancaster University, UK. He is known for significant contributions to methodology and theory in the social sciences.

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.

Transactionalism is a pragmatic philosophical approach to questions such as: what is the nature of reality; how we know and are known; and how we motivate, maintain, and satisfy our goals for health, money, career, relationships, and a multitude of conditions of life through mutually cooperative social exchange and ecologies. It involves the study and accurate thinking required to plan and utilize one's limited resources in the fundamental mechanics of social exchange or trans-action. To transact is learning to beat the odds or mitigate the common pitfalls involved with living a good and comfortable life by always factoring in the surrounding circumstances of people, places, things and the thinking behind any exchange from work to play.

Economic ethics is the combination of economics and ethics that judges 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.