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.
