Hello, welcome back to my online class. This
is Dr. S. Thianlalmuan Ngaihte, Assistant
Professor of Political Science, University
and Higher Education Department, Government
of Manipur, India, Presently posted at C.I.
College, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
This is in continuation of the last class
where I talked in brief about, What behaviouralism
is? We discussed there the definition, understanding
of behaviouralism and in this class, we shall
focuss on the factors responsible for emergence
of behaviouralism in Political Science. We
will just briefly discuss about this one and
then we will also see some of the prominent
behavioural political thinkers, in order
to make our discussion clearer.
Now, coming to the factors responsible for
behavioural revolution in Political Science.
In fact, behaviouralism could be traced back
to the concept of system theory, which had
its origin in the writings of Bertallanty,
a biologist in the 1920s.
However, in Political Science, it was only
after the Second World War that a serious
attempt made by political scientists had been
witnessed. Many political scientists were
not happy with the kind of discipline they
had, with the kind of method and techniques
that they had been undergoing, and they realised
that they could not keep up with the
time, they could not keep up with the social
reality, they were detached from the social
reality, and they lacked behind in
discipline, in sophistication of techniques,
they lack behind other discipline.
This was the time when a number of writers
in diverse disciplines propagating about the
need for unification of science also came
up, and this concept, as i have said already,
lay at the root of the general system theory.
Gettel wrote, open quotation "By the opening
of the 20th century Political Science began
to be influenced by progress made in many
other phases of intellectual inquiry" close
quotation.
The resultant outcome was a demand for greater
use of scientific method to political analysis And with all the search for better methods
and tools of research, the real breakthrough
came with the advent of behaviouralists.
The rapid progress of behavioural political
science after the Second World War was, in
fact, primarily due to the widespread disatisfaction
among the political scientists with the state
of the discipline and their determination
to forge new lines of development.
Points that should be noted is that, political
science and political scientists had failed
to keep themselves abreast with time, and
with the social reality.
And also, they primarily did research in or
from the library. Sitting there, making use
of the hitherto methods and techniques of
analysis, they interpret the world. They interpret
social reality. They, by and large, remain
detached or untouched with the outside world,
with what was actually happening around them.
Preoccupied with the comfort of their
world, they failed to see or predict the rise
of fascism, communism, or explain the continuation
of these regimes in power for long period.
Dissatisfied with the state of political science
had catapulted political scientists to look
for better functional, scientific, reliable
and applicable methods and techniques of analysis.
This dissatisfaction, in the words of Kirkpatrick,
open quotation "produced ferment, and ferment
change", close quotation. This ferment change
or new outlook resulted in the behavioural
approach in political science.
In order to make more clear the discussion that
we had so far, I will take up some illustrations
by reading the views or the contributions
of prominent behaviouralists such as Arthur
F. Bentley, Charles E. Merriam, Harold D.
Lasswell, and David Easton.
To start with Arther F. Bentley, Arthur F.
Bentley was an American political scientist
and philosopher known for his work in epistemology,
logic and linguistic and for his contributions
to the development of a behavioural methodology
in political science. His concept of process
largely determined behavioural approach.
His book, THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT, published
in 1908 greatly influenced the development
of political science from the 1930s to the
1950s. Bentley rejected statist abstractions
in favour of observable facts and identified
groups and their interactions as the basis
of political life.
Group acctivity, he argued, determined legislation,
administration, and adjudication. In emphasising
behaviour and process, Bentley sounded themes
that later became central in political science.
In particular, his insistence that "all social
movements are brought about by group interactions"
is the defining feature of contemporary pluralist
and interest group approaches.
Bentley's efforts to develop an objective,
value-free analysis of politics had no initial
takers.
Now, coming to Harold D. Lasswell
We know that power is the essence of politics
and behaviouralist like Catlin, contented that
any analysis of power cannot favour any particular
value system. Lasswell also elaborately dealt
with this issue in his work.
Lasswell was an influential political scientist
known for his seminal studies of power relations
and of personality and politics and he is
also known for other major contributions to
contemporary behavioural political science.
He is a member of Chicago group.
His book, POLITICS: WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN, HOW,
published in 1936 articulated the basic definition
of politics, gave a central place to the phenomenon
of power in the empirical study of politics.
Laswell focused on "influence and influential"
became the basis for subsequent elite theories
of politics.
Lasswell viewed political science as the study
of changes in the distribution of value patterns in
society, and because distribution depends
on power, the focal point of his analysis
was power dynamics.
He defined values as desired goals and power
as the ability to participate in decisions,
and he conceived political power as the ability
to produced intended effects on other people.
The title of his 1936 book served as the standard
lay definition of politics. In this book,
he viewed the elite as the primary holders
of power.
In, POWER AND SOCIETY: A FRAMEWORK FOR POLITICAL
INQUIRY, which was published in 1950, which
he wrote with Abraham Kaplan, the discussion
was broadened to include a general framework
for political inquiry that examined key analytic
categories such as person, personality, group
and culture.
Lasswell also displayed a moralistic posture,
calling for the social and biological sciences
to reorient themselves toward s science of
social polity that would serve the democratic
will for justice.
With this we have come to the end of today's class. In the next class, I will take
up David Easton and we will discuss about
his contributions which he called "intellectual
foundation stones" of behaviouralism, which
became one of the defining markers of behaviouralism
in political science.
