Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Behaviouralism Eamonn McConnon LG601 Political and IR Theory 8/11/2010 Behaviouralism Sought to move away from historical analysis and “thick description” A more rigorous approach to political research based on the natural sciences Focused on “behaviours” that could be measured It presupposed that the social world is governed by laws of behaviour and action just as the physical world is. Robert Dahl (1961) “The Behavioural Approach in Political Science” The term “behaviouralism” is ambiguous and hard to define Will ultimately be subsumed into the mainstream of political research 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Dahl outlines 6 factors that led to the development of Behaviouralism in the US The appointment of Charles E. Merriam as head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and influence of the “Chicago School”. The influx of European scholars in the 1930’s, brought with them a sociological and psychological approach to the study of politics. World War II and the overriding need to engage in political realities Social Science Research Council setting up the Committee on Political Behaviour in the mid-1940’s. Sought to study the behaviour of individuals in a scientific way, formulating and testing hypotheses on the uniformity of behaviour The use of the survey method as a tool to study the behaviour of voters. Gave direct access to characteristics and behaviour of individuals. Funding from philanthropic foundations: Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford What is the Behavioural approach? Is Behaviouralism a distinctive approach in itself or is it just a reaction to dissatisfaction with conventional political science? Yes - Behaviouralism studies individuals rather than larger political units. No – Alfred de Grazia editor of PROD, denies that the term refers to a subject matter, interdisciplinary focus, new methods, a quantitative focus, empiricism, realism or voting behaviour. Only refers to “political science as people might like it to be” and the term should be dropped. Maybe? – David Truman (1951) says it should not be seen as a “field” in itself but an attempt to reform and rework the current political field with systematic and empirical research. Therefore Dahl calls it a “mood” or “scientific outlook” rather than a discipline. The positives of Behaviouralism In two decades (up to mid-1960’s) it altered the understanding of voter behaviour The studies have become progressively more comprehensive in that time – shows that the method is developing Increased the understanding of homo politicus – attitudes, beliefs, predispositions, personality factors Involves cross over of study between disciplines Prevented political science becoming isolated from other disciplines The weaknesses of Behaviouralism Too soon to tell if it can improve our understanding about how the decisions of individuals impact on political systems Treats values as empirical data and avoids moral judgements or prescription It is weak at drawing upon historical examples. The scientific outlook can only test small cases and is therefore cautious in making broad explanatory theories. Runs the risk of only producing trivial results. Morton A. Kaplan (1966) “The New Great Debate” Defends the scientific approach against the criticisms of the traditionalist approach Aims to show how the traditionalist arguments have confused the most important issues Intuition The relationship between science and intuition has been misrepresented Cases are cited where a scientists results are correct because of intuitive understanding but the reasons given in support of their theory are incorrect. But communicable knowledge can be tested and replicated Therefore the difference is not between the physical and human world but between subject matters of theoretical knowledge and warranted belief or precision Intuition is also a product of previous study and knowledge – eg. Einstein drawing on non-Euclidean geometrics and Lorentz transformation. Newton could not have had the same intuition as Einstein Motivation Traditionalists: motives are better observed through introspection than scientific methods Kaplan: tools of scientific method are invaluable to assess hypotheses regarding motivation But group, social or political behaviour does not result directly from individual motivations. Too many variations in group dynamics to isolate the role of individual motivation so it is not relevant to studying group behaviour. The important distinction is not between the unconscious designs of nature vs conscious designs of people but the type of systems in which they operate. Scientific research is better able to deal with this distinction than traditionalist The important questions of IR cannot be answered by the scientific approach The complexity of International Relations is not amenable to precision, rigour, quantification and general theory But, Kaplan shows how his System and Process model can be used to analyse International Relations Within this framework ideas can be tested and falsified due to its systematic nature Not as precise as studies of the physical sciences but still allows greater depth to the study of theoretical questions Hedley Bull’s criticisms group Kaplan, Deutsch, Russet and Schelling together but their approaches are all different If these criticism are justified “it is again the empirical scientific evidence and not the abstract literary considerations that will establish this point” (Kaplan 1966 p.13) Models will be mistaken for reality Scientific method accused of applying simple assumptions to complex events But traditionalists make implicit assumptions about events without reference to context Because they are not explicit as in the scientific method these assumptions are more likely to confuse a model with reality In models assumptions are explicit and can be reexamined and tested unlike in traditionalist approaches Eg. George Kennan on the effectiveness of US aid to the Eastern Bloc. New methods have failed to engage with philosophy The systems approach is based upon philosophical assumptions Whereas traditionalists themselves have failed to engage with philosophy – only use speculation The scientific method will allow correction and improvement of theories The traditionalist approach has not clarified important issues in its method which will lead to confusion. David Easton (1969) “The New Revolution in Political Science” “Post-Behaviouralism” a reaction to the conservative Behaviouralism A greater sense of urgency A normative agenda to deal with immediate problems “Credo of Relevance” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Substance over technique: more nb to be relevant to immediate social problems Behaviouralism is too conservative, description of facts hampers understanding them in context Behaviouralism is too abstract. Needs to be more focused on realities. Needs to be more aware of values, research is never neutral Intellectuals have a responsibility to promote humane values Intellectuals are obliged to act based on their knowledge Professional organisations and universities are obliged to act too. The dilemma of Behaviouralist research The aim of scientific research is to gather data over a long period of time to ensure more reliable knowledge. But “Time is no longer on our side” (Easton 1969 p.1053). Nuclear threat, population explosion, environmental problems and civil unrest in the US. The nature of behaviouralist research is unable to deal with these threats. Post-behaviouralists argue for focusing research on immediate short term problems, but Easton maintains that long term research is still needed. Short term research may be inadequate to understand complex causal mechanisms. Therefore the advice given may be based on unsound knowledge and do more harm than good. Behaviouralism has failed to question the underlying values of its research and how this has effected its results Eg. From 1958-1968 The American Political Science Review published 3 articles on urban crises, 4 on racial conflicts, 1 on poverty, 2 on civil disobedience and 2 on violence in the US. All major issues and all underrepresented. No account of how pluralist democracy has failed to meet domestic and political pressures in the US. Solution offered by PostBehaviouralism Academics need to be more proactive in promoting courses of action based on their work Rather than being at the service of elites, the military, the government or businesses, research should seek to help groups in society with the least power which are underrepresented. “The Federation of Social Scientists” should be set up to bring sociologists, economists, psychologists and political theorists together mobilise resources on specific issues Points for discussion Was Behaviouralism a research agenda in its own right? Or was it a reaction against the established approach that was ultimately subsumed into the mainstream? Does Kaplan adequately defend the scientific approach against the traditionalist approach? Or does he just highlight the shortcomings of both? Is Easton’s call for more politically active research making normative judgements realistic? Are researchers obliged to offer prescriptive judgements?