Akar Pemikiran Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

BEHAVIOURALISM AS AN APPROACH TO CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL

ANALYSIS: AN APPRAISAL

Nama : Siti Fauziah Rizqi Amanah

NPM : 203507516110

Prodi : Hubungan Internasional

 Review

https://www.ijern.com/journal/December-2013/35.pdf

Some studies (Brown and Ainley, 2005), Lindblom, (1977), conducted towards finding
pathways for further understanding modern political thought and behavior, revealed that trends
of thoughts in political science have moved from the traditional approaches which initially
dominated discussion amongst political analysts and thinkers. Some of the approaches in
perspective include: the elitists approach, the institutionalists approach and the pluralists
approach. These approaches to certain extents reflect the various epistemological and ontological
positions in the analysis of the political phenomena.

This same approach was also perceived to assume functionalists roles and tendencies in
that, there were some assumptions that principal institutions were always perceived to be present
because they help the political system to work well. Recent studies (Finer, 1970), and (Bentley,
(1908) however, now indicate that understanding the constitutional and institutional basis of
different forms of government is not a bad starting point when it comes to the question of
analyzing political issues in political science. The problem is that the whole approach has
increasingly been found to be ridden with so many challenges.

It was already clear that thedivision within political science has gotten more varied and
more profound. They had moved beyond the status of analytical differences to take into account
different ontological and epistemological positions. These differences were mostly in the areas of
(1) what to study, (2) How to study, (3) and the why of the study. Therefore in responding
positively to the contemporary questions that now looms political scientists in the face, thinkers
and political analysts are of the the opinion that “ In other to explore these broad approaches
which political scientists adopt in their studies, we will need to step outside the confines of the
earlier mentioned approaches: (Institutionalism, Pluralism, and Elitism) which were known to
have so many challenges, Cerny, (2009)to explore the new approaches which political scientists
are beginning to adopt in their daily analysis and investigations.

Behaviouralism rose partly as a reaction against the traditional approaches of political

inquiry and partly as a result of the quest in search for a more ‘Scientific Method’ of acquiring
empiric knowledge during the political analysis. Consequently, political scientists have in recent
times, proposed a variety of approaches to meet the needs of emerging paradigms in political
thought. The first breakthrough came with the emergence of the ‘Behavioralists Movement’ in
political science. Behaviouralism, or the behavioral approach to the analysis and explanation of
political phenomena are particularly associated with the work of American political scientists
after the Second World War, but its origins can be traced back to the works of Graham Wallas
(Human Nature in Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government), both published as
early as 1908. The new psychology had revealed that man was not totally a rational creature and
that his political actions were not totally guided by reason and self-interest.

Wallas, therefore, insisted on exploring facts and evidence for understanding human
nature and its manifestations in human behavior. Charles E. Merriam was another pioneer of the
behavioral approach. He is famous as the founder of the ‘Chicago School’ which made a
substantial contribution to the behavioralists movement. In the article ‘The Present State of The
Study of Politics’ published in American Political Science Review (1921) and in his book ‘New
Aspects of Politics’ (1925), Merriam criticized contemporary political science for its lack of
scientific rigor. In his presidential address to the American ‘Political Science Association’
(1925), Merriam exhorted political scientists to look at political behavior as one of the essential
objects of inquiry.

Behaviouralism is not a clearly defined movement for those who are thought to be
behaviouralists. It is more clearly definable by those who were opposed to it because they were
describing it in terms of the things within the newer trends which they found objectionable.
Consequently, some would define behaviouralism as an attempt to apply the methods of natural
sciences to human behavior. Others would define it as an excessive emphasis upon
quantification. Others conceive of it as individualistic reductionism. From the inside, the
practitioners were of different minds as to what it was that constituted behaviouralism. By this,
we can see that from inception, behaviouralism resisted a single definition. Waldo, 1975:58).
Behaviouralism, it is much easier to say what behaviouralism does or seeks to achieve.

Behaviouralism for Walton seeks to examine “the behavior, actions, and acts of
individuals – rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures, executives, and
judiciaries – and groups in different social settings and explains this behavior as it relates to the
political system. For BritannThey also insist that any explanation offered for that behavior
should be susceptible to empirical testing. In all these diverse contexts, the central questions
which the behaviouralists seek to answer are quite clear and simple. While we know that these
are not just the only questions that behaviouralist tackle, they however in fact believe that as far
as behaviouralists are concerned, they believe that these two questions are the most important
ones when it comes to analyzing issues in political science.

The distinguishing characteristics for which the behaviouralists approach is known for,
has in recent times, attracted various criticisms from all and sundry. One of the major criticisms
of the behaviouralist approach rests on the fact of association and influence which the Logical
Positivist School of thought exerts on the behaviouralists approach. Thus, the first criticism rests
on the positivist influence claim which holds that: (1)“statements which are neither definitions
nor empirical are meaningless” in its entire ramification. By implication, it has been argued by
certain scholars that since the behavioral approach shares the same mode of thought with logical
positivism, it invariably becomes vulnerable to any weakness inherent in positivism.

Where positivism seeks to exclude these forms of reflections as means through which
human behavior can be analyzed, it will amount to great error. As such, in these recent times, we
have had contemporary behaviouralist researchers reject the notion that there can be no role for
normative theory, aesthetics, or hermeneutics in political and social analysis. They would argue
instead that these approaches yield a different form of knowledge or understanding but not that
they are ‘meaningless’. In essence, modern behaviouralists openly acknowledge this particular
criticism of positivism. Modern behaviouralists simply prefer to subject their own theoretical
claims to empirical tests.

The distinguishing characteristics for which the behaviouralists approach is known for,
has in recent times, attracted various criticisms from all and sundry. One of the major criticisms
of the behaviouralist approach rests on the fact of association and influence which the Logical
Positivist School of thought exerts on the behaviouralists approach. Thus, the first criticism rests
on the positivist influence claim which holds that: (1)“statements which are neither definitions
nor empirical are meaningless” in its entire ramification. By implication, it has been argued by
certain scholars that since the behavioral approach shares the same mode of thought with logical
positivism, it invariably becomes vulnerable to any weakness inherent in positivism.
Where positivism seeks to exclude these forms of reflections as means through which human
behavior can be analyzed, it will amount to great error. As such, in these recent times, we have
had contemporary behaviouralist researchers reject the notion that there can be no role for
normative theory, aesthetics, or hermeneutics in political and social analysis. They

Would argue instead that these approaches yield a different form of knowledge or
understanding but not that they are ‘meaningless’. In essence, modern behaviouralists openly
acknowledge this particular criticism of positivism. Modern behaviouralists simply prefer to
subject their own theoretical claims to empirical tests. Later positivists like Hempel, (1966) and
Popper were known to have argued strongly that “inquiries could only proceed if the researchers’
effort to observe ‘relevant facts’ were guided either by clear theoretical expectations or, at a
minimum, by some kind of explanatory hunch” Hempel, (1966:11-12). The positivist by this
position moves away from Inductivism as a method of science.