Behavioralism and post-behavioralism

Behavioralism and post-behavioralism are two important approaches in the field of political science that emerged in the mid-20th century. They represent different ways of studying and understanding politics and have had a significant impact on the discipline.

Behavioralism:

Behavioralism, also known as the behavioral revolution, arose in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to traditional approaches in political science that heavily relied on normative analysis and philosophical speculation. Behavioralists sought to bring a more scientific and empirical approach to the study of politics. They believed that political science should be grounded in observable human behavior and should adopt methods and tools from the social sciences, such as psychology and sociology.

Key features of behavioralism include:

• Empirical focus: Behavioralists emphasized the importance of gathering and analyzing empirical data to understand political phenomena. They believed that political behavior could be studied and measured through systematic observation and experimentation.
• Quantitative methods: Behavioralists favored the use of quantitative methods, such as surveys and statistical analysis, to collect and analyze data. They aimed to uncover patterns, regularities, and correlations in political behavior.
• Value-neutrality: Behavioralists advocated for value-neutrality in political science. They argued that political scientists should focus on describing and explaining political behavior objectively, without imposing their own normative judgments.
• Predictive capacity: Behavioralists aimed to develop theories and models that could predict political behavior. They sought to identify general patterns of human behavior that could be applied across different political contexts.

Post-Behavioralism:

Post-behavioralism emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s (propounded by David Easton in 1969) as a critical response to the limitations and assumptions of behavioralism. Post-behavioralists argued that behavioralism's exclusive focus on observable behavior and quantitative methods neglected important aspects of politics and limited the scope of inquiry. They sought to reintroduce normative and interpretive approaches into political science.

Key features of post-behavioralism include:

• Critique of value-neutrality: Post-behavioralists criticized the idea of value-neutrality, arguing that it was impossible to separate values and norms from the study of politics. They emphasized the importance of understanding the normative dimensions of political behavior and examining the underlying values and beliefs that shape political action.
• Contextual analysis: Post-behavioralists stressed the significance of historical, cultural, and contextual factors in understanding political phenomena. They argued for a more interpretive approach that took into account the complexities and nuances of political processes.
• Pluralism and diversity: Post-behavioralism encouraged a more diverse range of theories, methods, and approaches in political science. It recognized the value of multiple perspectives and advocated for interdisciplinary research that incorporated insights from various social sciences and humanities disciplines.
• Relevance and engagement: Post-behavioralists emphasized the need for political science to engage with real-world issues and make practical contributions to society. They encouraged scholars to address pressing social and political problems and to bridge the gap between academia and the public.

Easton 7 credo of relevence of post-behviouralism:

• Substance.
• Change.
  
• Brute reality
  
• fact-value synthsis.
  
• protect human values.
  
• action orientation.
  
• Political scientists as actors of social chnage.
  

Overall, behavioralism and post-behavioralism represent two contrasting approaches in political science. While behavioralism sought to make the discipline more scientific and empirical, post-behavioralism critiqued its limitations and reintroduced normative and interpretive aspects into the study of politics. Both approaches have influenced subsequent developments in the field and continue to shape contemporary political science scholarship.