P.N. This is not an organised essay or paper.

It just attempts to provide the main points

and issues of concerning behaviouralism derived from various source and as discussed in
the class. So please do not quote any section and also do not use the expression that notes
were provided to you. This is jut to provide an outline guiding you to the study of
behaviouralism to help you to substantiate your essay/answer.)
Behaviouralism which has been defined as a mood of methodological rebellion against the
older philosophy of traditional political science came as challenge to the field of political
science. The rise of behaviouralism which is indicative of this challenge would be briefly
explained before actually analysing what behavioral approach is and what it has done or
has been seeking to do to political science.
Even though, it can be logically deduced from the foregoing discussion that behavioral
approach or behaviouralism is a creature of the quantitatively oriented political scientists
who were opposed to or dissatisfied with the tenets of traditional political scientists due to
their emphases on the prescriptive nature of political science and, lack of adherence to
scientism, many factors have been identified as equally responsible for the rise of this
scientific orientation within the field of political science. Robert Dalh, a reputable political
scientist has noted six inter-related factors which influenced the rise of the behavioural
movement. One was the evolution of the university of Chicagos Department political
Science under the leadership of Charles Meriam (Meriam, 1926). who in 1925 before the
American political Science Association called for a Science of Political behaviour or a
science of social behaviour (Ibid). Which will do for political science what science has
done for the hard core sciences. The second factor cited by Dalh was the influx of the
European Scholars into the U.S. These scholars whose backgrounds were in the hardcore
science came to the U.S and occupied the chairs in most of the political science
departments in American universities. As a result of their background these scholars
encouraged the use of sociological and even psychological theories for the understanding
of politics (Dahl, 1961). Another factor was World War II. Dalh explained that the
outbreak of the war forced many American political scientists to deal with day to day
reality of social life and also reveal to them for the first time the inadequacies of the
conventional approaches of political science for describing reality much less for predicting
in any given situation what is likely to happen (Ibid).
The fourth factor was the creation of the Social Science research committee and the
subsequent creation of an adjunct committee on political behavior. The evolution of this
special committee helped shift the entire focus of the discipline to the behavior of
individuals as the empirical unit of analysis (Ibid). The fifth factor Dalh pointed out was
the development of the survey method a as tool in the study of politics. Other factors
included the influence of the philanthropic foundations and the nature of the American
polity and culture. As a result of the wealth the philanthropic foundations controlled and
the dominant position they occupied in the American educational structure they were able
to encourage through the educational institutions and independent scholars researches that
were geared toward the behavioral methodology (Ibid). The American polity and culture

influenced the growth of behaviouralism because of the nature of political economic

institutions, its arrangements, and the nature of the American political experiences. For
what has been referred to as the specific nature of the American Political experience, see
for example Dwight Waldo, Political Science Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science,
Enterprise, in Vol. 1 of Greensten and Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science, Pp. 130. See especially the section on the Development of American Political Science. All
the above factors combined created a political culture that
was committed to what Dahl referred to as pragmatism, fact mindedness, confidence in
science etc. (Ibid).
In addition to the above factors, Truman has noted two other factors: the change in the
character of world politics after Potsdam, the breakup of the colonial systems. And the
subsequent emergence of the new nations. Both factors which required a new and a broad
approach to the study of political institutions (Truman, 1973
Easton assumptions/objectives (intellectual foundational stone on which the movement
rest)
1) Regularities: Certain discernible uniformities in political behaviour which can be
expressed in generalisations / theories which is capable of explaining and
predicting political phenomenon. Voters found to vote for the same
individual/political party through successive elections and if this can be linked up
with their social status, economic position, professional loyalties, caste affiliations;
a pattern may very well emerge.
In light of generalisation made on the basis of observation of regularities of
behaviour political phenomenon can be explained and even predicted. In so doing,
political science can approximate at least biology/astronomy if not exact social
science.
2) Verification: Knowledge in order to be valid, should consist of propositions that
have been subjected to empirical tests and that all evidence must be based on
observation. PS concerned primarily with observable phenomenon, pol aggregates
ad/or behaviour of evidence.
3) Techniques: Adoptin of correct techniques for acquiring/interpreting data and the
use of research tools/methods which generate valid, reliable and comparative data.
Use of sophisticated tools multi-variate analysis, sample surveys, mathematical
models, simulation etc., would enable research to discount his own value
preferences in planning, executing and assessing his research work.
4) Quantification: Imprecise qualitative judgements to be replaced by vigorous
measurement and data manipulation procedures. All findings should be based on
quantifiable data.
5) Values: Ethical evaluation different from empirical explanation. Values/facts
should be kept analytically distinct. PS is a scientific study of politics in its
functional aspect carried through empirical methods and has nothing to do with
moral/ethical questions.
.

6) Systematisation: Research should be systematic i.e., should be theory oriented and

theory directed. Interested not in evolving value theory but a casual theory. Theory
does not consist of speculation/introspection but of analysis, explanation and
prediction. Goal to build over arching theories.
7) Pure Science: Understanding and explanation of political behaviour logically
precedes and it alone provides the basis for efforts to utilise it in the solving of
urgent practical problems. Would be content with pure science even if it cannot be
applied to specific/minimum societal problems downgraded medioratary,
programmatic venture do not produce any valid scientific knowledge.
.
8) Integration: Integration of Ps with other social science. Man is a social animal and
boundary lines cannot be drawn between various facets of society. None of the
seemingly separate activities can be understood without placing them in the wider
context of his entire life. Inter disciplinary approaches is required to understand
the holistic nature of man.
Summing up: The conflict is not very deep. It do not take exactly contradictory stands. In
most cases the quarrel is semantic though the differences are fundamental. Controversy
could be understood better if we recognise that PS in recent years has been moving along
the same times as other social science. a) effort in all social sciences to be scientific, b)
growing realisation to be more inter-disciplinary.
Political Science does not so much show striving towards science as an effort to become
inter disciplinary thus a revolution both in techniques and substance.
The kind of consensus now emerging is that if a political phenomenon has to be correctly
understood on may have to look at it from various points of view and thus for the better
understanding of the observable part of the political phenomenon, interaction between
political system and its socio economic, cultural parameters will also have to be studied,
not only blending of both approaches but also of the techniques of other subjects.
While agreeing that behaviouralism in its several forms has important contributions,
behaviouralism adequate in itself for an understanding of politics. Behaviouralism tools
may help us in understanding relationship between parts and parts, but cannot explain the
realities of the whole. AIf-then behaviouralism science takes us far out of the world of
macro cosmic political reality into the universe of important political speculation.
The debate in fifties and sixties essentially a methodological debate and has lost vigour by
now.
Traditionalist: Behaviouralism have made the discipline more self critical and self
conscious, opened it to vital inter disciplinary influences and considerably refined its
research techniques/methodologies
Behaviouralism: more aware of the restrictiveness of their field of operationality and of
their conceptual framework of references.
Consequently both have learnt to co-exist in harmony and understanding.

Post-Behavioural Revolution: Towards the end of the 1960s a powerful attack was made
on behavioural position by Easton. It arose out of a deep dissatisfaction with the kind of
political research/teaching in the American universities in 1950s/60s which was trying to
convert the study of Ps into a more rigorously scientific discipline based on methodology
of natural sciences.
The Behavioural turned post- Behavioural admitted that there were acute social, economic
and cultural crisis when they were building models/theories in ivory towers.
Fear of nuclear bout, mounting internal cleavages in US in which civil war and
authoritarian rule had become frightening possibilities, an undeclared war in Vietnam that
shook the conscience of the world were conditions which neither
traditionalist/behaviouralist scientist had predicted.
Post- Behaviouralism and traditional not identical thought both critical of behaviouralism.
Difference traditional derived the validity of behaviouralism and reiterated its faith with
classical tradition of PS. Post- Behavioural accepts the achievements of behavioural
critically but wants to push PS farther and towards new horizon.
PB was further oriented seeking to add rather than deny past heritage of PS. German
revolution not a reaction. Becoming not a preservation, a reform not a counter
reformation.
Both movement and an intellectual tendency. Wrong to identify PB with any particular
political ideology since its advocates included PS of all hues and rank. Conservative and
extreme leftist of all methodological constituents. Rigorous scientific as classicist the
whole improbable diversity pol methodological and generational was bound together by
one sentiment alone, a deep dissatisfaction with the direction of contemporary political
research.
Two main demands:
a) relevance and action
b) Credo of relevance/ a distillation of maximal image. In PS research, substance
must come before technique.
The behavioural image of PS had so far been associated with a) techniques proficiency in
research for reliable knowledge; b) the pursuit of basic understanding with its necessary
divorce from practical concerns and ; c) the exclusion of value sophistication as something
beyond the competence of science.
PB did not deny the importance of technique proficiency but did not agree that research
for basic and reliable knowledge necessarily implied that scientist should not cut himself
adrift from practical concerns of society nor did they believe that values could be kept out
of scientific pursuit.
Research was to be related to urgent social problems and was to be purposive, duty of PS
to find out solutions for contemporary problems.