Political Science and International

Relations
Political Theory- Meaning and Approaches

Definitions of politics vary

From Plato to David according to the variety of
The word politics has Easton it has been
different interpretations. activities that have been
interpreted in different
considered political from
ways. time to time.

Although the study of politics existed in some form Its independence as a field
since the time of Aristotle, the discipline was of study was established
indistinguishable from moral philosophy and the study only in the later part of
of society until early 19th century. 19th century.
According to the traditional political scientists from the early part of 20th
century such as James Garner, Henry Sidgwick, R G Gettel and others,
Politics deals mainly with study of state and government or related
institutions.

R G Gettel defined politics as “the

study of the state in the past,
According to James Garner,
present and future, of political
organization and political “Political science begins and ends
with state.”
function, of political institutions
and political theories.”

According to Laski “the

According to Stephen
study of politics concerns
Leacock, “Political
itself with the life of man
science deals with
in relation to organized
government.” states.”

Thus from above definitions it is clear that the

traditional view of politics was narrow, static and
limited and included only the study of state and
government, its structure and organisation etc.
 Our Objective in this chapter:

• To understand the debate whether nature of political theories is

scientific or philosophical or whether politics is science, arts or
philosophy.
• To quote FW Maitland, “When I see a question paper with the
title ‘political science’ I’m troubled not with the questions asked
but the title of the question paper.”
• The status of political science as a discipline and whether it
belongs to science or philosophy remains debatable. Politics
occupies a wide area and may be differently defined as science,
theory and philosophy.

— Political science: Seen as child of 20th century and is essentially empirical claiming to describe
analyse and explain government. Became popular during the behavioural revolution.
— Political theory: sub field of political science and involves analytical study of political ideas. It is
concerned with normative and ethical questions.
— Political philosophy: oldest of all these. Critically evaluates the political beliefs and attempts to
refine the political concepts. It is generally considered as second order discipline.
 Political
science

Political Political
philosophy theory

According to David Held

prior to 1970s ‘political’
mainly dealt with nature and
structure of government. It
was treated separate from
society and the personal.
However post 1970s political
is becoming more and more
diverse. This is becoming
interdisciplinary in nature.

According to Sabine, political

theory is simply man’s attempt
to consciously understand and
solve the problems of his
group life and organisation.
 According to Rajiv Bhargava,
political theory is a particular
form of language dependent
systematic expression different
from but related to other forms of
systematic reflections of the world
having 6 distinct features.
Features:
• Conceptual sensitivity
• Rational structure
• Aspiration for truth
• Degree of generality
• Committed to beliefs/values
• Not purely speculative

To understand
this debate, we
need to know Ancient Medieval Modern Behaviouralism
Post
the evolution of Behaviouralism
political science
as a discipline.
Ancient Times (Greece)

• Political science has its origin in ancient Greece. The term politics comes from
the Greek word “polis” which meant the “city-state”. All activities coming under
the purview of one city-state were called as politics.
• The study of Politics at that point in time was comprehensive and
multidisciplinary. All activities within the city-state became the area of study.
• Aristotle, called political science as “master science” because it deals with the all
aspects of human life.
• Master science can be interpreted in two ways:
• As discipline from which all other applied sciences have taken their queue.
• As a part of Ethics.

Medieval times

• We see the hegemony of religion.

• Religion shaped all spheres of life including politics.
• Politics became a sub-discipline of religious studies or scholastic.
• The prominent scholars of this time include St. Augustine, St.
Thomas Aquinas.
Modern times

• It was Machiavelli who separated politics from the clutches of

religion and ethics. He has established politics as an autonomous
field of study. Thus, with Machiavelli, the career of political
science as a discipline started.

Modern times

• Political science became more and more specialised.

• In this phase, political science became the study of the
state. During this phase, the legal institutional approach
has dominated.
• According to James Garner, political science begins & ends with
the state.
POST – WWII

• We see the beginning of the behavioural movement in political

science.
• Political science in its long career has seen development as well as
crisis. There was a time when the political theory was in the state of
decline.
• The decline of political theory is postulated by David Easton,
Robert Dahl and Alfred Cobban showing dissatisfaction with too
much emphasis to the state in the discipline.
• They held traditionalist and historians like Sabine & Dunning
responsible for the state of discipline.

Post – WWII Behavioural revolution

• These scholars were focussing attention on the interpretation of the

workers of classical political scholars. They believe that classical
scholars have not dealt with the problems of contemporary times.
• Karl Marx was the last great philosophers after which there were no
innovative thinkers. His ideas have become outdated to meet the
requirements of our times.
• Traditionalist also emphasised on the study of institution and
constitution. They were not dealing with the study of actual political
processes.
Post – WWII Behavioural revolution

• Traditional studies were normative. Traditionalist didn’t make

attempt to introduce the scientific methodology to produce
verifiable knowledge so that subject could gain credibility.
• Other disciplines like sociology have long back introduced scientific
techniques.
• Political theories were not treated as theories but just speculations
and individual preferences.
• David Easton called for the adoption of scientific technique to make
political science as pure science.

Post-Behavioural movements

• Political theory again witnessed the decline, this time because of the
behaviourist.
• Behaviourist wanted to make political science as ‘science’ so their
prime focus was on adoption of scientific techniques to produce the
result of their research in quantitative terms like in natural sciences.
• There is a limited scope of using mathematical techniques in social
sciences.
• Behaviourist produced huge no. of data related to election studies.
However, such studies have limited relevance.
Post-Behavioural movements

• In the 1960s there were social movements in the USA. There was
demand for justice. In the context of these movements and the
work of behavioural political scientists lacked relevance.
• Hence there was a call for post-behaviouralism. It was realised
that there is no use to make political science as pure science
rather lets make it an applied science.

Present status

• It is a vibrant discipline with expanding frontiers. There is a

growth in the scope of a subject. Now it’s not confined to the
public sphere only.
• Now the politics of family, issue of environment, human
rights, development, democracy etc have come within the
scope of the discipline. There is a revival of normative political
theory.
Scope Of The Political Science

• There is no unanimity among scholars regarding the scope of

political science. There is lack of precision in the definitions and
meanings of political science and that creates confusion regarding
the precise boundaries of the subject.
• According to Willoughby, political science has to deal with three
great topics: State, Government and Law.

Scope Of The Political Science

• According to Prof. Goodnow is that political science divided

itself into three distinct parts:
• the expression of the state will, the content of the state will as
expressed and the execution of the state will.
Scope Of The Political Science

• At the UNESCO conference held in 1948, distinguished political

scientists from the various parts of the world marked out the subject-
matter of political science which included
• 1) Political theory
• 2) Political Institutions
• 3) Political Dynamics
• 4) International Relations.

Scope Of The Political Science

• The importance of political science is increasing day by day , its scope is

also increasing and becoming wider. In general scope of political
science includes following things:
• 1) Study of State and Government
• 2) Study of Political Theory
• 3) Study of Political Institutions
• 4) Study of Political Dynamics
• 5) Study of adjustment of individual with the state
• 6) Study of international relations and international law
• 7) Study of disagreements and their resolution
 Scope Of The Political Science

• It depends upon the nature of the subject. If we emphasize the

scientific nature of the subject we will be studying those things
where observable and quantifiable data is available.
• If we consider normative issues like liberty, justice as the case
concern. At present, political science is again comprehensive and
multidisciplinary.
• Today, it is recognised as ‘the political theories are interpretation’
and the best way to describe political science is that it is
interpretative discipline.

Political Theory implies an

intellectual effort to attain a
systematic knowledge about the
goals and methods of politics. It
has a long tradition which is
spread over two and half
millenniums.
However in the middle 20th
century the exponents of new
political science began to question
the relevance of traditional
Political Theory.
David Easton in his work ‘political system
an enquiry into the state of political
science’ argued that traditional Political
Theory was simply a product of turmoil
of the past ages. It flourished in Greece,
in Italy in 15 century, in England in 16th
and 17th century. These ideas don't have
any contemporary relevance.
David Easton pointed out outstanding
political figure after Marx is not available.
While Economists and the sociologists
have produced systematic study of human
behaviour in the respective domain,
political scientists have lagged behind.
Eastern advocated for a behavioural
political science.

Alfred Cobban in his paper the decline of Political Theory, argues that Political
Theory has lost its significance in capitalist as well as communist world. Capitalism is
simply concerned about the libertarian democracy while Marx is concerned about
proletariat class. Political science must rely on political philosophy to remain
relevant.

Seymour Lipset argues that
the values of the contemporary
society has already been
decided. There is no relevance to
the contemporary political
theory.
Dante Germino in his work beyond ideology
the revival of Political Theory argues that
political Theory is going through decline and
there are two causes for it.
The craze of science and the prevalence of
political ideologies culminating in Marxism.
 However we see ascendancy in political ideas in the works of
Michael Oakeshott, John Rawls, CB Macpherson, Herbert
Marcuse and Michael Walzer.

In a nutshell the dispute between Political Science and political

philosophy has largely subsided. David Easton had shown
renewed concern about the importance of values in the post
behavioural approach and today we see the emergence of
political Theory through the works of John Rawls, CB
Macpherson and Michael Walzer.

CONTEMPORARY
TRADITIONAL METHODS
METHODS
• Philosophical approach • Postmodernism
• Historical approach • Post-colonialism
• Legal institutional approach • Feminism
• Empirical approach • Communitarianism
• Arendtism
• Critical School.
• Postmodernist
Philosophical Approach

• This method tells what to study and how to study.

• Philosophy is the study of the ideas & helps in understanding the
essence. Plato is known as the father of political philosophy. Plato
favoured the Dialectics and considered Philosophy is superior to
science.
• It has been the oldest approach and dominated political science for
long time.
• In contemporary times, the scholar like Leo Strauss, Dante
Germino and John Plamanetz support philosophical approach.
•

Philosophical Approach

• According to Leo Strauss political science and political

philosophy are coterminous. They denote an attempt to obtain
true knowledge of political things as well as standards of good.
• The philosophical approach is a perspective as it deals with
what ought to be rather than what is.
• The philosophical approach is the forward-looking approach.
It suggests how to solve the problems of human life.
Philosophical Approach - Limitation

• Philosophical approach suffers from limitations. Normative

theories without some very viable data become speculations.
• There is a possibility of discontent between the real world and
the world of ideas.
• The philosophical approach being normative may lead to
biased conclusions.

Philosophical Approach - Present status

• Once philosophical approach was in the state of decline but now it

is in the state of revival.
• The theories of John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Amartya Sen and
Martha Nussbaum can’t be rejected simply as speculation.
• There is also the revival in the Marxist political theory in the form
of critical school.
• At present postmodernism, post-colonialism, Frankfurt school,
phenomenology are some of the dominant philosophical
prospectuses.
Historical Approach

• One of the oldest approach and widely used.

• Machiavelli asserted that the Prince needs to know history rather
than philosophy. History is the best guide to politics.
• The closeness of history and politics can be understood through
the statement like “politics is present history, history is
past politics. Politics is root, history is fruit”.

Historical approach

• Láski
• “Every thinker is a child of his times”.
• “No political idea is ever intelligible save in the context of time”.
• Sabine
• He considers historical method as the most relevant method. Its strength
is its simplicity. He calls it as “common sense” based approach.
According to him, historical methods fulfil all the 3 requirements of a
sound method.
• Factual
• Causal
• Prediction
Historical approach - Limitation

• History is too vast and is a challenging task to sort out the data relevant
to our research. There are many political ideas which have never been
part of history.
• Ex: Philosopher king
• History writing itself is not scientific. Scholars may go for the selective
view of history the way Machiavelli did. He looked only those facts
which substantiated his assumptions rather than taking a balanced view
of history.
• History may not be future-oriented. It’s good to know history but one
should not be the prisoner of history at the same time one should not
forget the lessons of society.

Historical approach – Limitation

• Karl Popper described historical method as an approach of

historicism. Criticises historicism because it leads in a system
to discovering what is inevitable and then advocates
totalitarian method for its realisation.
• History can also be misused in the manner Hegel and Marx
did. Karl Popper criticised them for making ideological use of
history in the name of laws of history. Hence, Karl Popper
accused them of committing the guilt of historicism, history as
an ideology.
Present status of Historical approach

• The historical approach came under the crisis because of the behaviourist. However, at present, there is a revival of
interest in the study of classics.
• At present, a form of historical approach is known as “contextual approach” has developed.
• Contextual approach is a method of interpretation of the classic texts.
• The contextual approach developed under the influence of postmodernism. It believes that there is a need to
understand the context and it’s not possible to understand the entire meaning without understanding the context.
• Had Macpherson not looked at the historical contexts of the Hobbes he would not have concluded Hobbes as the
scholar of Possessive individualism and of emerging bourgeois class.
• Reading texts is never independent of the context of the reader. Even those who claim to give textual approach they
bring their context to text. There is no pure literal interpretation possible.
• Problems in contextual approach
• It’s important to understand the context of text easily.
• Cambridge school scholars Skinner and Pollock suggest that we need to know the linguistic context.
• Different terms have their contexts, it is necessary to know the linguistic context in which the thinker has used the
term for ex; Locke suggested that govt. is a ‘trust’. We need to know how Locke has defined the ‘trust’. If we go for
contextual interpretations it means texts do not contain such knowledge which is transcendental and so no relevance
of reading texts of our time. Gadamer suggests that “we believe in effective history” and he recommends ‘fusion of
Horizons”.

Legal/Institutional approach

• Traditional scholars have used their method in a big way and have been
using primarily in the field of comparative govt. & politics.
• The objective of study remains the focus on the study of institutions. Ex;
Parliament, Judiciary. The focus is also on the study of the constitution.
• This approach has been used by scholars like
• AV Dicey
• Ivor Jennings
• K C Wheare
• C F Strong
Legal/Institutional approach

• The institutional approach came under the crisis because of

behaviouralism.
• behaviouralism suggested that we should study behaviour rather than
rules & provisions.
• We should study processes rather than institutions. Behaviourist held
that institutionalist approach is static.
• Behaviourist proposed the system and structural-functional approach.

Legal Institutional method – Present Status

• Institutional approach is in the state of revival in the form of neo-institutional.

• It’s given by the scholars like ‘ James March’ and ‘Johan Olsen’. Their books
include
• “The neo-institutionalism – organisational factors in political life” – 1984.
• “Rediscovering institutions – organizational basis in political life” – 1989.
• For behaviourist, the study of institutions carries no relevance because
institutions are shaped by the behaviour of people. Hence, we’ve to focus on
the behaviour rather than formal institutions.
• Neo-institutionalist suggests that behaviour shaped the institution but
institutions also limit human behaviour. Humans are not free to shape the
institution. Institutional rules, culture etc constrain individual choices. Hence,
we can’t overlook formal institutional completely.
Empirical Approach

• It focuses on the observation of facts. Empirical approach is opposite to

normative approach.
• Origin of empirical approach is with Aristotle. In modern times, Machiavelli
also propounded empirical approach. He advises prince to look at the things as
they are and warns against living in the worlds of ideas.
• John Locke also supports Empiricism. According to Locke, experience is the
source of knowledge. Nothing is imprinted on the soul. In his words, mind is
“tabula rasa”.
• Difference in Empirical and Scientific approach

What Approach to be used?

• Politics is like a borderless and bottomless sea. We can’t

make sense of the political phenomena only by one
approach so multiple approaches and combination is
needed. – Michael Oakeshott
 This is associated with
Modern approaches depart
developments in American
from traditional approach and
political science after WWII
focus on the real character of especially in the works of
politics. They claim that they
Arthur Bentley and Graham
understand politics in totality.
Wallas.

Nature of Behaviouralism

• Some call it as a revolution ie: comprehensive change in

basic assumptions about politics and about the way of studying
politics.
• Some call it as the protest movement ie: Protest against
traditional approaches.
Behaviouralism

• Though it is not an easy task to define behaviouralism or

political behaviour in a very precise way, attempts, during the
last several decades, have been made to define it.
• “It is a movement in political science which insists on analysing
only observable behaviour of political actors”.
• In this definition there are two things which demand mention.
It is a movement, and behaviouralism is based on the
observable behaviour of individuals who are regarded as
political actors.

Intellectual origin of behaviouralism

• Machiavelli and Hobbes recommended to study politics as it is

and to analyse human behaviour.
• Hobbes tried to develop scientific method in the form of
resolutive-compositive method.
• Graham Wallas in “Human nature in politics”.
• Arthur Bentley in “Process of Govt.”
• Charles Merriam in “new aspects of politics”.
Origin of behaviouralism

• In the fifties and sixties David Easton, Gabriel Almond, Harold

Lasswell and many others devised new and improved schemes for
the analysis of political science.
• They introduced scientific techniques in analysing political ideas.

Credo of Behaviouralism

• David Easton in his famous work A Framework for Political

Analysis (1965) has said that the assumptions and objectives of
behaviouralism lay the intellectual foundation- stones for
political analysis.
• He defined, Behaviouralism as a protest movement which will
revolutionise the thought system of political science. He laid
down the intellectual foundation-stones called credo.
 Regularities Systematization Quantification

Verification Techniques Integration

Value neutrality Pure science

Contribution of Behaviouralism

• Large number of election studies were produced.

• Behaviouralists led to the new model of development and
conceptual frameworks like systematic approach,
structural-functional etc.
• Behaviouralists approaches have a lot of relevance in the
field of comparative govt. and politics.
• Field studies have thrown new light on existing social and
political problems.
Demerits or Criticisms of behaviouralism

• According to Christian Bay behaviouralism is not true or real

politics, it is pseudo-politics. Pseudo-political refers to activity
that resembles political activity but is exclusively concerned
with either the alleviation of personal neuroses or with
promoting private interest.
• Christian Bay also argues that behaviouralism fails to touch the
basic objectives of political science.

Demerits or Criticisms of behaviouralism

• The approach of the behaviouralists towards democracy is not

clear.
• Leo Strauss says that so far as the behaviouralist literature is
concerned it appears that the behaviouralists are supporters of
liberal democracy. Behaviouralism deliberately overlooks a
very important aspect of capitalist society.
• Behaviouralists have taken it for granted that the American
democracy performs quite satisfactorily.
Demerits or Criticisms of behaviouralism

• Neo institutionalists have objected to behaviouralism on the ground

that mere focusing the political behaviour of the individual is not
enough.
• Behaviouralists have already made the assumption that the
individuals behave rationally.
• Stephen Wasby argues that behaviouralism boastfully declare that
their application of improved and sophisticated techniques has
considerably enhanced the importance of the concept but its not
always true.

Demerits or Criticisms of behaviouralism

• David Easton who advocated for behavioural approach himself

suggested the post-behavioural approach. He gave the lecture to
APSA where he has highlighted the weaknesses of
behaviouralism, expressed dissatisfaction with the state of
discipline.
• According to him, political theory is again in the state of crisis.
This time crisis is because of the behaviourist. According to him,
political scholars sitting in Ivory towers perfecting their
techniques have lost touch with the hard realities and
compromised with the relevance.
Post Behavioralism

• Why it emerged?
• Demerits and change in interest of behaviouralists.
• Nearing of End of cold war.
• Social movements in USA
• Concepts like values, justice, equality, freedom earned new
meaning and importance in the 1970s-80s.

Credo of
Behavioralism

Credo of
Relevance
Post Behavioralism

• David Easton in his lecture “Credo of relevance” gave 7 ways for the revival
of post-behavioural:-
• The substance is more important than technique.
• The technique is important but the purpose for which technique is employed
is more important.
• Political scientists should not lose touch with hard realities of political
life.
• Political scientists should focus on social change and not preservation.
• Political theories need not be value-free. We must protect those values
which are necessary for the growth of human civilization.
• Political science should be action-oriented.
• Politicize the profession of political science to stay relevant and active.

Post Behavioralism

• David Easton recommended “Creative theory” which means political

scholars should use such theories which are guided by:
• Action
• Relevance
• David Easton concluded by saying that, “Politicisation of the professions
is inescapable, in fact it is desirable. The post-behaviouralists, scientists,
the intellectuals all are actors of the social change.”
Assessment of post-behaviouralism

• We should not think post-behaviouralism in any way the

rejection of behaviouralism and acceptance of traditionalism. Post-
behaviouralism is not the rejection of tradition rather the
modification of behaviouralism.
• It continues to share the assumptions with behaviouralism. The only
difference is that they do not attempt to make political science as a
pure science rather tries to make it applied science.
• Michael Haas and Theodore L. Becker have rightly found the
evolution of behavioural process in a dialectical process.