ADVERTISEMENTS:
Rise and Decline of Science of Politics:
Science of politics, empiricism of politics, application of scientific and sophisticated methods in political science convey almost the same idea and David Easton is the progenitor of all these concepts. Other persons, some of them his predecessors, were also associated with him but Easton, frankly speaking, championed empiricism. In 1953 his The Political System was published and almost instantly the attention of the academic world of political science was focused to it.
After the Second World War (1939-1945) some perceptible changes were taking place in the world of political science and The Political System was a response to those fundamental changes. In The Political System Easton proposed that “reliability must not rest on the development of a new technology of research alone, but on the self-conscious efforts to elevate one component of traditional political theory, the empirical part, to position of prime importance”.
The Political System inaugurated behaviouralism which is based on science. Political science is based on scientific and empirical analysis. Thus behaviouralism is accompanied by complete technology. By the 1970s there were louder rumblings of discussion. The cause of the rumblings was the deficiency of behaviouralism.
Even the supporters of traditional political science challenge the indiscriminate use of technology to the analysis of political science. In fact, the discontent was far and wide. The fact is that within a span of less than two decades the resentment against behaviouralism was quite profound and there was a tendency to a new wave.
Easton observed these criticisms and behaviour of a section of political scientists with a liberal mind. He strongly felt that replies be given to these criticisms. After studying the criticism he arrived at the conclusion that there were reasons in the criticism and a genuine opportunity appeared before him which he utilised to convey his feeling and viewpoint.
In September 1969 the annual meeting of American Political Science Association was held and he was invited to deliver the Presidential Address and his address was entitled “The New Revolution in Political Science”. Easton says that his address is clearly a response to what had already happened in between 1953 and 1969.
Easton realised that undue reliance on technology and denial of value judgment and castigation of traditional political theory were the most prominent drawbacks of his new doctrine—behaviouralism. He, for that reason, elaborated certain principles in his another new doctrine—Post-behaviouralism. Like behaviouralism, it earned forthwith popularity but this popularity was transitory.
From the middle of the 1980s a new wave in the arena of political science became perceptible. People’s apathy to empirical analysis was prominent. In their article Catherine Zuckert and Michael Zuckert make the following observation: “Where Easton had spoken in 1953 of the decline of modern political theory and others at the same time had gone to speak of the death of traditional political theory. By 1997 the situation has become quite different. The behavioural movement hardly exists as such”.
Classification of Post-Behavioural Political Theories:
In their above-mentioned article Zuckert and Zuckert has said. “Not only does political theory live, but more work that concerns or resembles Plato and Aristotle, Hegel and Nietsche, is being done than work that resembles systems theory or follows Easton’s structures in The Political System. The story of political theory from 1953 to 1997, then, is a story of the announcement, rise and steep decline of empirical theory”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism and other branches or sub-sections of political science based on empiricism faced with crisis and steep decline then we can say that there was created a vacuum in the field of political science. But this vacuum did not last for long time. Behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism were, to a large extent, replaced by several theories and these theories were advocated by political scientists whose scholarship and intellect were at par with those of Easton.
Zuckert and Zuckert have classified the post-behavioural theories in the following three categories. The first group is called revivalist doctrines. These doctrines support the going back to the traditional political theory. The second group is called restorationist political theories. The attempt was made to restore what once was live. The third group is called over-turner theories which contain radical innovations.
Revivalist Doctrines:
Background of Revivalist Doctrine:
Though David Easton flamboyantly announced in the annual meeting of American Political Science Association that his new doctrine was designed to combat the criticism, in final analysis it was found that post-behaviouralism was faced with a formidable challenge.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
First onslaught came from the revivalist group comprising Hannah Arendt, Hans Morgenthau, and Leo Strauss etc. The interesting thing about these renowned scholars is that they were all emigres and German educated scholars. In order to escape from the physical and mental torture of Hitler and his associates many of them fled to USA and settled there. But while they were migrating to the USA they carried with them the ideas and knowledge which they gathered in their life time in Germany.
Leo Strauss and Hannah Arendt were serious readers of philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger. These two philosophers were great exponents of phenomenology. The phenomenology is a great critique of empiricism or realism. It does not lay great stress on facts and data and for that reason phenomenology does not think it proper to apply scientific methods to arrive at conclusion.
Phenomenology and Empiricism:
The central idea of phenomenology is phenomena or any occurrence or incident. It can be studied and should be studied subjectively and not objectively. So we see that to phenomenology data, facts and matter are not very important. What subjective conceptions we form about them that should be considered.
According to Husserl and Heidegger (1889-1976) empiricism is nothing but a theoretical concept and it is built up on pre-theoretical experience. Phenomenologists assume that without pre- theoretical experience empiricism or empirical conceptions cannot be formed.
Zuckert and Zuckert have said, “If science is to be firmly founded, it is necessary to go beyond this naturalistic fallacy, the mere acceptance of kinds of existence or being as given”. Phenomenology believes that what we call experience is not anything new, it has theoretical foundation and the theory was constructed in past. So forgetting our past or denial of that cannot enrich our present knowledge and ideas. Through continuous research and other protracted efforts human knowledge shall be expanded and this human knowledge is nothing but science.
Phenomenology further observes that what our predecessors have said in past shall be explored and analysed. This contention of phenomenologists is a clear indication of the fact that no present theory or conception can be built up by keeping aside the past theoretical knowledge and experience.
Leo Strauss’s theory:
Both Leo Strauss and Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) are two great political thinkers of post-behavioural period. Both share similar ideas about the nature of politics. Strauss has made a clear distinction between political theory and political philosophy. He observes that the function of political theory is to study phenomena or things which are political in nature. But political philosophy differs from political theory.
Philosophy denotes the continuous search for knowledge. In his famous essay Strauss says both political theory and political philosophy are indistinguishable from each other. Rather they are complementary to each other. Why? Strauss’s answer is while political theory attempts to analyse the political nature of a phenomenon, political philosophy makes an attempt to enter into the depth of the political phenomenon. We cannot take one excluding the other.
Explaining Strauss’s stand on the nature of political science as well as its aim Zuckert and Zuckert have said, “Political action aims either at preservation or change. Strauss observed preservation of the good, change of the bad. Political action is always guided by some notion of the good not only of the individual but also and preeminently of the community”. This view of Strauss is a clear indication of the fact that political science and political philosophy cannot neglect the concepts of value, goodness and badness, right or wrong.
In any political society both political theory and political philosophy prove their existence by travelling and working side by side. One is not complete without the other. When political theory begins to scan political action it must bring into its orbit what is good and bad; What is desirable or not.
In this mode of analysis value judgment creeps. Strauss has said that a political scientist (if he is serious about the common good of society) cannot neglect the value judgment. A true political scientist must seek the general welfare of community and for that purpose he will seek the ways how to change the society and this change is from bad to good.
Following Plato and Aristotle Strauss has said that society makes efforts to ensure good life. Aristotle had said, every society aims at some sort of good and state is the highest Political Organisation with Maximum Power and for that reason it seeks highest good. It is the function of political science to study good or general welfare in its finest perspective. “The most thoughtful advocates”.
Zuckert and Zuckert say of the scientific study of politics would gradually come to see that their own endeavour was the product or reflection of a certain set of values of a certain time and place, regime and “culture”. Strauss has further observed that while studying political theory political scientists must overcome the limitations of time and place, regime and “culture”.
We also find in Strauss’s observation that while studying political theory political scientists must overcome the limitations of time and place. Mere collection of data facts and application of scientific techniques cannot enrich a subject in the line of science. Analysis must be accompanied by values, principles and ideals.
Hannah Arendt:
Hannah Arendt, by birth, was a German. During the terrorist rule of Hitler she escaped from Germany in the mid-1930s. She went to USA and finally settled there. Arendt was also a follower of Husserl and Heidegger. Her important works include The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), The Human Condition (1958) and On Revolution (1963). Hannah Arendt introduced a different approach for the study of politics and in this regard she gratefully remembers Greek political philosophy.
The Greek philosophers suggested a clear distinction between economic sphere and political sphere. In the former, people want to collect necessary goods simply to maintain their day to day life smoothly and if they fail to do this their physical existence will be in great jeopardy. Naturally all individuals in economic sphere are quite busy with the task of collecting their common necessities.
But the sphere of politics is a very different one. Political sphere is an arena where individuals strive to make their names and performances permanent. They want to do something beyond mere self-preservation. They will perform those activities which will perpetuate their names. In the sphere of politics freedom, equality, liberty and other highly coveted political values receive utmost priority.
Zuckert and Zuckert say—”It was only in the public or the political arena that individuals distinguished themselves by trying to have an effect, to make a name for themselves and so to be remembered by others for doing not merely what was necessary to maintain existence but what was extraordinary and different”.
So according to Arendt political science or theory is not merely a collection of some data and facts and their analyses with the help of sophisticated scientific and statistical methods. It is far more than this. The objective of political science is noble. Like Strauss, Arendt pegged her position on the contention that a true and noble politics is a combination of political theory and political philosophy.
Needless to say that the Greek philosophers built up this type of theory in their pervasive, analyses. Both Plato and Aristotle elaborately analysed the various aspects including administration of ideal state though they were quite aware that the ideal state could never be achieved in reality.
Arendt says that the behaviouralists collect and scrutinise data to arrive at certain uniform and acceptable conclusions. “But statistical uniformity is by no means a harmless scientific ideal, it is the no longer secret political ideal of a society which entirely submerged in the routine of everyday living, is at peace with the scientific outlook inherent in its very existence”.
Arendt tells us that behaviouralism does not throw any light on the broader and ambitious objective of political theory or political science. It remains satisfied with collection and analysis of data. Individuals’ economic life is different from his political life. Politics is not to fulfill the transitory needs.
Conclusion:
Both Strauss and Arendt agreed that too much emphasis on empiricism or positivism is not good for political science because this excessive emphasis has ultimately obscured the objective of political science. The important feature of behaviouralism is mechanism or application of sophisticated techniques dominated it. The consequence is value judgment and ethical considerations were neglected. Strauss and Arendt strived hard to revive these. But both did not travel along the same highway.
In Strauss’s analysis we witness the revival of political philosophy which implies the combination of politics and philosophy. Philosophy means the search for knowledge and politics deals with the analysis of political phenomena. Once Socrates had urged young aristocratic Athenians not to go into politics in order to seek transitory goods such as wealth and honour but rather to strive to come to understand and enjoy contemplating the eternal verities. Arendt accepted this noble aim of politics. We can say both Strauss and Arendt emancipated politics from the narrow confinement and placed it in an open and vast field.
It is the objective of politics to fructify the eternal verities. What individuals do being influenced by temporary desires is not an important thing in political science. The eternal verities are to be placed before them and state will guide them. Following Greek ideal both Strauss and Arendt strongly emphasised the noble aim of politics and they thought that to do politics is also a noble profession.
The Restorationists:
Rawls and Restoration of Normative Value:
John Rawls (1921-2002) is a renowned American academician and political philosopher. He successfully played the role of a pioneer in restoring the value judgment or normative politics in the domain of political science. His thought- provoking work A Theory Justice (1970) deals with several aspects of the theory of justice. Many are of the view that Rawl’s, A Theory of Justice is the most influential work published after S. W. W. Views of Rawls have kindled the thought of both liberals and social democrats.
Rawls’s theory of justice throws light on certain aspects of political theory which challenge both behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism. His theory of justice redirected the attention of political scientists from empirical analysis to normative analysis. In the analysis of Zuckert and Zuckert we find a pertinent comment which is stated below. “Rawls’s major innovation was the claim that normative theory—or rather the knowledge of the norms—is compatible with the authority of science.
It shows that like the revivalists such as Strauss and Arendt he did not conclude that there was a conflict between political philosophy and science or empiricism. Rawls did not vehemently oppose empiricism and positivism. He believed that the arena of positivism is different from political science viewed in the light of norms or general principles of normative political theory. In his analytical system the dichotomy between value and fact, an important aspect of behaviouralism, has been relegated to insignificance.
Rawls’ Theory of Justice:
In order to understand how Rawls denied the dichotomy between value and fact and restored the normative character of political theory, it is necessary to make cursory study of his theory of justice which has been highly acclaimed by large number of political scientists of both the hemispheres.
He says, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as birth is of systems of thought……. A society is well-ordered when it is not only designed to advance the good of its members but when it is also effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. This version of Rawls about justice is a clear indication of the conception that he did not give any importance to Easton’s empirical concept of political theory. Easton based his theory on fact and data and rejected value judgment and norms.
On the other hand, John Rawls started his approach of analysis with values and norms. Rawls calls that society a well-ordered one which advances good and ensures justice. So Rawls believed that an empirical- based theory of politics can never be suitable and acceptable.
Not empiricism but values and justice shall be the real foundation of real political theory. Explaining Rawls’ conception Zuckert and Zuckert say—”Rawls’ major innovation was the claim that normative theory or rather knowledge or norms can be posited comfortably at par with the authority of science. That is science alone cannot explain political theory with utmost assertion”.
Justice, Morality and Science:
Rawls has said that institutions are just when no arbitrary distinctions are made among various individuals in the distribution of right. He wants to emphasise that while distributing rights among the citizens it is essential that certain well-established principles shall be maintained and the most important principle is justice. Rights, duties and privileges are to be distributed in such a manner that none will get the scope that he is deprived of his due share.
All the free and rational persons must feel that their interests are well-preserved in a society based on the principles of justice. Rawls further says that the principles of justice can suitably be called the justice as fairness. In this way Rawls has defined justice. He further adds morality to his central theme. It is immoral to deprive a citizen of his legitimate share of social benefit and privilege.
That is when a society generates privileges and benefits every rational citizen must have a share to it. No one can forcibly deprive him. Hence in Rawls’ theory of justice fairness, morality, value and norms are all mingled together. “Rawls’ attempted to show that moral theory is more or less isomorphic with theory in natural science and that moral knowledge stands on ground as soiled as that of empirical knowledge”.
Elsewhere Rawls said: ethical norms are the expressions of settled emotional dispositions and, being such; they are not the kind of things that can be submitted to rational criticism and reflection. They may not be validated or invalidated by reason.
Rawls makes an attempt to combine ethical theory and natural science in the following way. Behaviouralism and empiricism have heavily relied on data. Interpreters of Rawls’ theory also admit that there is ample use of data in his theory of justice.
But there is difference in the use of data in empiricism or natural science or behaviouralism and the use of data in ethical theory. “The data for science are empirical observations whereas the data for ethical theory are moral judgments.” But the analysts of moral theory cannot use any and all sorts of data. They must adopt caution and judgment while collecting and analysing data.
Enumerating the principles of justice Rawls has said that in any society there can exist social and economic inequalities but they are to be arranged in such a manner as everyone will be in advantage. Now in order to achieve this end the society will be restructured. Not only these data and facts are to be collected, opportunities are to be created and these are to be distributed among those who require them.
Two things are clear here—one is, the authority cannot neglect its responsibility in ensuring justice and the second is, this function requires a building up of clear picture of society based on reliable data and facts.
Over-turners: Feminism and Postmodernism:
Feminism:
We shall now turn to some political theories which were undreamt of in both traditional and behavioural periods. The dictionary meaning of overturn is to turn aside or invalidate established facts or concepts and to make way for the arrival of new ones. Analysing revivalists and restorationists we have witnessed that scientific methods and empiricism were downright rejected by some and others seriously attempted to effect a compromise between traditionalism and empiricism.
But a section of political scientists raised voice against injustice meted out to women’s role in academic affairs in general and political theory in particular. The supporters of women’s cause and importance generally came to be known as feminists. Their main argument revolves around the conception that women constitute one-half of the total population and in spite of this their importance and cause practically remain unattended. The sexual inequality is the dominant feature of all academic ideas.
The cause of the women constituted the core of a movement which ultimately assumed political character and this came to be known as feminism. Even behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism failed to give due recognition to it. “The distinction between private and public which was the hallmark of modern liberalism, carried over into the Eastonian definition of the political, functioning as an insidious (because largely invisible) source of subjection for women”.
The advocates of feminism showed no interest in empiricism or the application of sophisticated techniques for the analyses of political issues. The chief aim of empiricists is to enhance the acceptability and viability of political theory as a distinct and very important branch of social science. The feminists did not disown the collection of data and facts, but their chief concerns were to fully recognise the importance of women in structuring of political theories and concepts.
If political science is to be called a science then the thoughts and contributions of women shall be duly included into the entire body of political science. But this has not been done. “After surveying the history of Western thought and practice, feminists have concluded that the categories had been formulated exclusively by and for men, who used the categories not merely to organise but also to manipulate and control not only nature but other human beings—first and foremost women.”
It is the central theme of feminism that not to establish a new order or method of analysis in political science with the help of sophisticated techniques but to propagate the rights and legitimate demands of women, establish the fact that in all affairs especially in academic affairs women are at par with men, no gender inequality without reason and fact can be allowed to persist and physiological inequality cannot be accepted as a criterion of discriminatory behaviour. However, collection of data may be required and that can be allowed.
Postmodernism:
Definition and Nature:
Postmodernism is another post-behavioural outcome in political theory. It has been variously defined. Heywood defines—”As a tool of social and political analysis, postmodernism highlights the shift away from societies structured by industrialisation and class solidarity to increasingly fragmented and pluralistic information societies in which individuals are transformed from producers to consumers and individualism replaces class religions and ethnic loyalties”.
In another definition we find— “postmodernism is and ought to be as an extension of pragmatism”. The laconic definition of Oxford Dictionary of Politics is quite significant. It says: A school of thought which rejects what is called modernism. Finally we quote the definition given by Concise Oxford Dictionary.
A late twentieth century style and concepts in arts and architecture which represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of theories and ideologies as well as problematical relationship with the notion of art.
From the above definition we can frame certain basic features of postmodernism. In the first place, postmodernism is a twentieth century product and in that sense it is a very recent concept. Secondly, it originated to denote the tendency and movements in arts and architecture in Western world. Hence its origin is not in social or political science. Thirdly, a number of persons revolted against the prevailing concepts of political science.
Their objective was to introduce new ideas into the corpus of political science. This led them to revolt against many of the concepts of political science. Fourthly, postmodernism describes a shift from solidarity and unification of society to its fragmentation and to some extent balkanisation of society. Fifthly, post modernism is a product of industrialisation. It originated and thrived in industrialised society, but is not obliged to industrialisation. Finally, postmodernism is in a larger way influenced by the near-miraculous progress of science, reason and technology.
It utilises each of these developments. With their help postmodernism propagates its basic tenets. We can thus hold the view that postmodernism is pragmatism. It does not give any recognition to imagination and wishful thinking.
The progress of science, technology and reason created an impact upon the mind and thought system of thoughtful persons. They began to think, analyse and interpret every idea and concept in the way they think. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there emerged Enlightenment in Europe and America and they brought about a sea-change in the thinking world of men.
In the twentieth century there arose again an Enlightenment and this was again due to the tremendous impact of progress of science. Being influenced by it many people were about to challenge many of the existing concepts and this proclivity gave rise to a new concept called postmodernism. So the postmodernism is not without any root.
Central Idea of Postmodernism:
We have already pointed out that postmodernism is a twentieth century political doctrine and it has no faith on unified general doctrine or ideology. It looks at society and thoughts of people in a fragmented way. In other words, in it thoughts and ideas are never centralised and unified, rather they are localised and scattered.
Men of different religious beliefs, language and caste may hold and cherish ideas in their own way. Heywood observes “postmodernism or postmodern theories hold the view that there does not exist any grand scale theory: Knowledge and ideas, it has been found, are bound to be local, particular and decentralised.
This is due to several reasons and some of them are:
1. Progress of science has helped the rapid advancement of men’s knowledge and reason. Because of this they are inclined to see every academic and other issues in the light of their acquired reasons.
2. Many people are reluctant to exhibit obligation to the national and general issues and problems. Their main interest centres around local issues and problems. The diversification and fragmentation of interests have led to balkanisation of society. In other words, postmodernism can be called a form of parochialism. It ignores the overall interests of society.
3. The postmodernists believe that capitalism and globalisation have forcibly entered into the domains of state, society and many of the affairs which are predominantly called personal or private. For this reason the postmodernists are vociferously criticising capitalism and globalisation. This trend has been inflamed by persons like Noam Chomsky. The anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist trend of the last few decades has been vehemently opposed.
Some Exponents of Postmodernism:
Foucault (1926-1984) is an advocate of postmodernism. He has said that if we study history we shall find that it consists of a series of ideas which very frequently shift. In different periods people’s attention was directed and redirected to new ideas and concepts. Foucault from the study of history has found that science and improved methods have nothing to do with them.
He further says that human nature was chiefly concerned with life, labour and language and science fails to deal with them. New organic understanding of life, labour and language systems developed in new sciences which include psychology, anthropology and sociology. These are human sciences.
But behaviouralists, post-behaviouralists and other political scientists talk of sciences which do not encompass human science. Foucault has tried to convince his readers by saying that for many decades political theories have developed in their own ways. Of course, external factors have positive influence upon them.
But improved methods cannot claim that they have determined the scope of political theory. Because of this attitude of Foucault both behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism cannot invoke his special interest. He has also said that science is not capable of presenting an everlasting theory which will be acceptable to all.
The characteristic feature of thought and ideas is that they shift or change. It is the general contention of postmodernism that society is dynamic under the impact of psychological and material forces society is charging and that must be considered duly.
Two other names are prominently associated with postmodernism and these two persons have considerably highlighted another aspect of this concept. They are Naomi Klein (1970) and Noam Chomsky (1928). Naomi Klein is a Canadian journalist and anti-corporate activist. Her famous book No Logo was published in 2001 and immediately it created ripples in the academic circles.
Klein expressed her anti-corporate feeling unabashedly. In all the capitalist countries the theoreticians in general release their unstinted support to capitalism and Naomi Klein is an exception. She is really a spokesperson of the anti-corporate movement in many of the countries of North America. Even her influence spread to many states of Europe. Klein makes home the point that corporatism and unrestricted growth of capitalism are both responsible for the growing misery of common people.
Klein’s No Logo has been described by many as “The Das Kapital” of the growing anti-corporate movement. But this book has wider significance. It endorses and propagates the sovereignty of consumers. It says that the corporatism of modern world deliberately neglects the preferences and demands of consumers and not only this it imposes corporate’s decision upon the consumers.
So it is quite clear that Naomi Klein does not touch application of sophisticated methods for the study of political theory. In Klein’s concepts there is no place of data, facts, behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism.
We shall now turn to Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is a great American linguistic, theorist and a radical intellectual. For the last several decades Chomsky has been vehemently opposing American capitalism and imperialism. He has been propagating that the naked character of U. S. capitalism and worldwide imperialism were the chief factors of the growing miseries of the Third World people.
Even a large section of American is feeling under crushing poverty. These catchy ideas and words of Chomsky have drawn the attention of thinking community. So far as political ideas are concerned he is regarded by some as an anarchist. His faith centres around individualist belief and faith, moral and ethical sensibilities. Chomsky’s views about state, capitalism, imperialism have made us believe that he is an anarchist and individualist. But above all he is a great humanitarian.
His critique of American foreign policy has pushed him forward towards a front- ranking critic of American system of politics and economics. In no uncertain terms Chomsky has expressed his distrust on American political and social organisations. He says that American foreign policy is couched with neo-colonialism and her policy towards West Asia is a case at hand.
Both Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky can be called exponents of “New Politics”. Both believe that on the one side American system of politics and government is degenerating politics and political system. In their model of new politics both Klein and Chomsky had released their relentless criticism against political parties because they disengaged them from ideological traditions and mass contact.
The objective of the parties was chiefly to capture political power and for that purpose they were prepared to go any length. Chomsky is also a great critic of globalisation. In his opinion globalisation was an American sponsored gimmick to seize economic and political power.
A little thought about the ideas of Klein and Chomsky stresses that empiricism propagated by a score of political scientists in the second-half of the twentieth century finds no place in Klein’s and Chomsky’s “New Politics”. They are least interested in the application of higher techniques for the analysis of political problems and issues. Chomsky has targeted neo-colonialism, globalisation, and corporate character of economy, de-ideologisation and degradation of the standard of politics, political parties.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
All these, we can say, are the new threads of new politics for the twenty-first century. Students of political science of both the hemispheres are not demonstrating sufficient interests about behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism. Not only Chomsky, many other thinkers of the late twentieth century have desisted themselves from showing any allegiance to these doctrines which once captured the active thought of political scientists.
Conclusion:
The central feature of post-behavioural political theory is its vehement opposition to empiricism post-behavioural political theory does not deny the importance of empiricism in political science. It believes that empiricism is a potent way of making political science as a science. The application of empirical data and improved scientific methods will improve its status and ensure viability.
But it must not be forgotten that political science is a social science as well as a normative science. Values and judgments pass through all the aspects and corners of politics. It is not possible to deny their importance in political science. We denounce capitalism or imperialism because of their corrosive and anti-people effects upon society. We cannot offer our whole hearted support to globalisation because it has failed to solve many problems from which the people of Third World suffer.
All these are clear indications of values and judgments which political science hold very high. Rawls in his Theory of Justice admits in a round-about way the importance of empiricism. But his theory is more normative than empirical. Nozick’s State, Anarchy and Utopia are also a recognition of the influence of normative character upon politics.
Held in his Models of Democracy stresses that from ancient Greece to the twenty-first century democracy passes through various stages. What Held says is that democracy is still held as the most acceptable form of government because it preaches toleration, justice, liberty, equality and brotherhood among people. All these are eternal values and no force in the world can cause their degeneration. To sum up, post-behavioural political theory thus seeks a compromise between empirical approach and normative approach.