Behavioural Approach

In the first half of the twentieth century, a visible shift in the study of political science was seen in the writings of those who stressed on the role of human nature and psychology in politics, the role of informal structures and their influence on formal political institutions, and the study of processes rather than institutions. This approach, called behaviouralism, may be understood in terms of two basic trends in the study of human (or animal) behaviour or psychology—behaviourism and behavioural science. Behaviourism is concerned with the study of psychology that concentrates exclusively on observing, measuring and modifying behaviour. Behavioural science is concerned with the ways in which people behave, and it uses scientific methods to study such behaviour. Behavioural science generally includes anthropology, psychology and sociology.²⁶ According to Charlesworth:

[Behaviouralists] … conclude that the only way to understand him [man] is to observe him and record what he does in the courtroom, in the legislative hall, in the hustings. If enough records are kept, we can predict after a while (on an actuarial basis) what he will do in the presence of recognized stimuli. Thus we can objectively and inductively discover what and where and how and when, although not why?²⁷

David Easton has differentiated between behaviourism and behaviouralism.²⁸ He suggests that behaviourism stands for observable behaviour as a result of external stimuli. This can be understood as the stimuli–response (S–R) paradigm where only observable data as a response to external stimuli is treated as valid. For example, the sudden touch of heat or fire produces a reaction by which one distances oneself from the source of it. The external stimuli being heat and the response being distancing, one may be concerned with only the reaction when one goes closer to heat. Behaviouralism, on the other hand, while observing behaviour as a result of external stimuli does not rule out subjective experiences such as motivation, feelings, purpose, desire, intention or ideas while observing responses (see Figure 1.1). Behaviouralism is understood as the stimuli–organism–response (S–O–R) paradigm where subjective experiences of human beings are also taken into account for political analysis. For example, the democratic process being a stimulus and voting a response, an electorate (organism) may be influenced by a variety of subjective and value factors such as caste, class or political affiliation.

Figure 1.1 Aspects of Subjective Awareness of Political Behaviour (Easton)

There appear to be two trends within the behavioural approach—one which focuses only on observable, countable, measurable behaviour that can be reduced to quantifiable and testable data, and the other that suggests that political analysis should not concern itself merely with measurement and quantification, but also with theory-building. To understand these trends, we may briefly discuss the growth of the behavioural approach. Some writers have traced three phases of the behavioral approach.²⁹ The first phase is identified with the pre-Second World War trend in political analysis when empirical and quantitative methods along with statistical tables were used, an improvement over the previous descriptive approach. However, these techniques and methods were only aimed at presenting description and analysis in a more refined way. Harold Lasswell’s use of content analysis and psychoanalytical theory constitute an important contribution in this phase. However, after the Second World War, a second phase was discernable. Political analysis during this phase was characterized by the use of empirical methods and quantitative techniques by Almond, Powell, Dahl, Easton, Deutsch, Lasswell and others. It was during this period that systems, decision-making, communication, structural–functional and other such models and approaches were developed. Further, this period also saw a great leap in the use of a variety of techniques of research, data-gathering and analysis. The idea in this phase was that empirical research would lead to formulation of hypothesis or propositions which, in turn, could be further tested rigorously by employing various research techniques. As a result, there was so much emphasis on scientific tools and techniques that the behavioural approach became identified with technique and method at the cost of theory-building. Behaviouralists became divided into two schools: one supporting theory-building with less emphasis on findings—theoretic behaviouralists; and the other concerned with methods and techniques at the cost of theory or even political science itself—positive behaviouralists. A balance was to be found in the form of research informed by theory and theory based on data.