Hello, welcome back to class. This is Dr. S. Thianlalmuan Ngaihte, Assistant Professor of Political Science
Today, we'll discuss post-behavioralism.
In the last classes, we learned that behaviouralism had dominated political science
from the middle of the 1950s up to the 1960s.
The question that came to our mind is, why post-behavioralism?
What led to the decline of behavioralism? or What are the factors responsible
for the
emergence of behaviouralism? or what are the limitations of
Behaviouralism? And then, what is post behaviouralism?
Who are its main advocators?
What are its main characteristic features?
These are some questions that we will try to cover in this class. Just
by looking at the term
post-behaviouralism, we know that
it refers to after/later behaviouralism.
But
the term has a deeper meaning,
applications and wider connotations.
First, coming to the main advocators of post-behaviouralism.
Advocates off post-behaviouralism could not be identified with any particular political
ideology.  It included political scientists from all backgrounds of
all methodological
commitments, rigorious
scientists and
dedicated clasisicts. Its followers can be found from all generations
from young graduates to all members of the profession.
Please keep in mind that post
behaviorism accepts the achievement of the behavioral era, but
they seeks to farther political science towards a new horizon.
In a sense, post-behaviouralism
synthesizes between
traditionalism and
Behaviouralism.
In order to understand the meaning and the characteristic features of post-behaviouralism, we have to
know
the limitations or
criticism of behaviouralism, which is also the factors responsible for emergence of
post-behaviouralism.
Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism was the main reason that had catapulted intellectual movement
within and
among political scientists.
There was a dissatisfaction
with behaviorism with regards to -
their intentions, the methods and even the achievements. In the previous classes,
we learned that the two major
achievements of behaviouralism was in areas of (a) theory making/theory building and
(b) technique of research.
There was nothing wrong in the building up of various paradigms,
conceptual framework, models, theories, and meta-theories.
But, what is also important in social and political science research has been,
research activities should not only add to new theory, new methods and techniques.
Research should also be relevant to society.
It should also lead to solving urgent socio-political
problems of society.
However, behavioralists detached themselves from the social reality. It was alleged that
under behaviouralist,
political science had become too narrowly
defined, too professional, too much identified with the established order.
So,  there was a movement of protest or
intellectual movement against
behaviouralism.
Behaviouralism was questioned and
criticized for failing to look to the practical problems of society, and
for over-emphasizing on research methods and tools.
What kind of research was that
which did not take note of problems and crises in the society? What was the benefit of
developing
sophisticated research tools and  methods
that has no connection with the needs of society?
Political scientists should be able to comprehend social and political problems of society,
and also make some contributions towards resolving them. Other-ways,
the role of research and political scientists is futile.
Many political scientists felt that behaviouralism had failed to convert and transform political science into a
problem-solving science.
Behavioruralism was criticized for giving too much time on trivial and
often on irrelevant research.
They were criticised for completely
becoming unaware of the
acute social, economic and cultural crisis on the world, and
they were also criticized for becoming irrelevant to society.
We have learned from the previous classes that the behaviouralist were trying to
convert the study of politics into a discipline based on the methodology of
natural sciences.
This had generated some serious criticism.
David Easton, lamented that the behaviouralist
were taking refuge in their "ivory tower",
seeking to perfect their methodology, as if they were not at all concerned with the outside world.
In his presidential address to the Annual Convention of the American Political Science Associations in 1969,
he narrated how he felt dissatisfied
with the political research and
teaching made under the impact of behaviouralism.
Easton criticized the behavioralist for turning political science even to look more of
mathematics than the science related to the realities of social life.
In their efforts at research and application of scientific methods,
the behaviouralists had gone far away from the realities of social behavior,
thereby political science had
lost in touch with the current and contemporary world.
The post-behaviouralists were strongly against behaviouralists'
attempt to make political science a "value free" science
David Easton, observes that
values were inextinguishable part of the study of politics.
To understand the limit on our knowledge,
we need to be aware of the value premises on which it stands and an
alternative for which this knowledge can be used.
The role of intellectuals
in society is not to cut off themselves from the realities of life -
academic detachment- but to protect human values of
civilizations.
Dwight Waldo, has also asserted that
political scientists should be more concerned with values, with issues of justice, equality,
freedom
with
political activity. In a period of stress,
turmoil and
gross inequalities, it is irresponsible to carry on as usual
academic detachment.
At minimum, political scientists need to be concerned with issues of
public Policy and political reform, and also with issues of radical social, political reconstruction.
That is, political science must be relevant to society and it must
deliberate over basic issues of society.
In a post-behaviouralism,
values came to be accepted as
"facts" and "given".
Now, we can attempt to define post-behaviouralism.
Post-behaviouralism represented no complete departure from behaviouralism. Yet,
it was an intellectual movement and protests against
behaviouralism.
Post-behaviouralists were critical of
behaviorism for failing to turn political science into
problem-solving science, and for giving too much time on research methods and tools.
While seeking to consolidate the gains of behaviouralism,
post-behaviouralism seeks to further reorient the subject and research towards
problem-solving and crisis management.
Relevance and action was the two main slogan of post-behaviouralism.
And the major post-behavioral
tenets and tendencies are an emphasis on values, on issues of justice, freedom, and
equality.
According to David Easton,
post-behavioruralism was future oriented,
seeking to propel political science in new directions,
and
to add, rather than to deny its past heritage. It was a genuine revolution,
and not a reaction, a
becoming, not a preservation, and reform and not a counter-reformation.
It was both a movement and an
intellectual tendency.
We will close the class here for today, and
in the next class, we will take up the
 
characteristic features of
post-behaviouralism
focusing on the contribution of David Easton, which he called as the "Credo of
relevance".
Until then, have a good time and take care, bye
