Behaviouralism, Post-Behaviouralism, and the Re-Politicisation of Political Science: Paradigm Shift or Corrective Response?
The mid-twentieth century witnessed the rise of behaviouralism as a dominant paradigm in political science, championed by scholars who sought to render the discipline more scientific, objective, and empirical. By prioritizing quantifiable data, observable behaviour, and value-neutral analysis, behaviouralism distanced political science from normative theorising, institutional formalism, and speculative philosophy. However, this very pursuit of scientific rigour has been critiqued for depoliticising the discipline—reducing politics to measurable behaviour while ignoring issues of power, justice, and ethical responsibility. Post-behaviouralism, emerging in the late 1960s and early 1970s, sought to remedy this perceived deficiency by reintroducing normative concerns, relevance to public problems, and a commitment to action-oriented research. The question remains whether post-behaviouralism constitutes a genuine paradigm shift, in Thomas Kuhn’s sense, or merely a corrective phase within the broader trajectory of political science.
This essay examines the depoliticising effects of behaviouralism, the re-politicising impulse of post-behaviouralism, and assesses the claim of whether the latter represents a paradigmatic rupture or a reorientation. By engaging with seminal works from David Easton, Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl, and David Ricci, the essay argues that post-behaviouralism was more of an internal corrective than a Kuhnian revolution, yet its normative and policy-oriented turn transformed the self-understanding of political science in lasting ways.
Behaviouralism and the Depoliticisation of Political Science
Behaviouralism emerged as part of the broader “behavioural revolution” in the 1940s and 1950s, drawing inspiration from the natural sciences and the methodology of empirical social science. David Easton, often regarded as one of its leading exponents, defined behaviouralism as “an attempt to improve the scientific character of political science” by emphasizing systematic observation, quantification, and theory-building based on empirical regularities. Easton’s The Political System (1953) and Almond’s comparative politics framework epitomized the approach: they sought to explain political phenomena in terms of input-output models, decision-making behaviour, and measurable attitudes rather than normative ideals.
The depoliticisation charge arises from several interrelated tendencies of behaviouralism:
- Value-Neutrality: Following Max Weber’s principle of Wertfreiheit, behaviouralists sought to exclude normative judgments from political analysis. Political science was to describe and explain, not prescribe or moralize. This stance, while increasing objectivity, alienated the discipline from urgent questions of justice, legitimacy, and public good.
- Reductionism: Behaviouralism privileged individual-level data, survey research, and micro-level analysis, sometimes at the expense of structural and institutional factors. Politics became a study of “who gets what, when, and how” (Lasswell) but stripped of its moral and philosophical dimensions.
- Technocratic Orientation: The emphasis on prediction, control, and systems analysis fostered an image of politics as a neutral mechanism rather than a contested arena of power. This produced what critics such as Leo Strauss decried as the “scientific” but morally vacuous study of politics.
- Neglect of Crisis and Change: Behaviouralism’s tendency to focus on stable patterns and equilibrium models made it ill-equipped to address revolutionary change, civil rights struggles, and crises of legitimacy in the 1960s.
In sum, behaviouralism depoliticised political science by transforming it into a detached, “scientific” discipline that prioritized methodological sophistication over substantive engagement with the political issues of its time.
Post-Behaviouralism and the Re-Politicisation of Political Science
Post-behaviouralism arose in response to the limitations of behaviouralism, particularly during a period of global turmoil—the Vietnam War, civil rights movements, decolonisation, and student protests of the 1960s. David Easton’s 1969 Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association marked a decisive moment in this shift. Easton called for a “relevance revolution,” urging political scientists to address pressing societal problems and re-engage with normative concerns.
The core features of post-behaviouralism can be summarised as follows:
- Relevance over Rigor: Post-behaviouralists argued that the pursuit of methodological precision must not overshadow the responsibility to address real-world problems. Political science had to be “relevant” to society’s needs, tackling issues of war, inequality, civil rights, and governance crises.
- Action-Oriented Research: Post-behaviouralism encouraged scholarship that was not merely descriptive but transformative, aimed at guiding policy and reform. The political scientist became a participant-observer, not merely a detached analyst.
- Normative Resurgence: By acknowledging the inescapability of values in political inquiry, post-behaviouralists re-legitimated normative theory. The discipline was tasked with clarifying public values and providing moral direction for democratic societies.
- Interdisciplinary Engagement: Post-behaviouralism broke down rigid boundaries between political science and philosophy, sociology, and economics, fostering a richer, multi-dimensional understanding of politics.
This re-politicisation restored political science’s vocation as a discipline concerned with power, justice, and civic responsibility. It did not entirely abandon the methodological gains of behaviouralism but supplemented them with a concern for moral and political relevance.
Paradigm Shift or Corrective Response?
Whether post-behaviouralism represents a Kuhnian paradigm shift is a matter of scholarly debate. According to Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a paradigm shift entails a wholesale replacement of one scientific framework by another, involving a fundamental change in concepts, methods, and standards of legitimacy. In this sense, post-behaviouralism may not fully qualify as a paradigm shift because it did not discard behaviouralism’s commitment to empirical research, hypothesis testing, and systemic analysis. Rather, it broadened the scope of behaviouralism by reintroducing normative and practical concerns.
Some scholars, such as David Ricci in The Tragedy of Political Science (1984), argue that post-behaviouralism represented a crisis response rather than a revolution. Behaviouralism had over-promised and under-delivered, and post-behaviouralism functioned as a “course correction” to make the discipline socially relevant again.
However, others contend that the shift was more than corrective, as it redefined the very purpose of political science—from value-neutral description to normative and prescriptive engagement. In this view, post-behaviouralism reconstituted the identity of the discipline, paving the way for the revival of political philosophy, critical theory, and interpretive approaches in the late twentieth century.
Implications for Political Science as a Discipline
The post-behavioural turn had enduring consequences:
- Revival of Normative Theory: The 1970s saw a resurgence of interest in political philosophy, exemplified by John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971), which reconnected political science with ethical and distributive questions.
- Policy Engagement: Public policy studies, development administration, and applied political research gained prominence, bridging academia and governance.
- Pluralism of Methods: Post-behaviouralism legitimised qualitative and interpretive methods, enriching the epistemic diversity of the discipline.
This pluralistic and engaged political science stands as a testament to the enduring influence of post-behaviouralism.
Conclusion
The assertion that behaviouralism depoliticised political science is largely valid: its value-neutral, empiricist orientation rendered the discipline technocratic and detached from moral and political crises. Post-behaviouralism, by contrast, re-politicised the discipline, restoring its normative and problem-solving dimensions. While it may not constitute a full Kuhnian paradigm shift, post-behaviouralism redefined the purpose and social responsibility of political science, ensuring its continued relevance in a rapidly changing world.
The relationship between behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism is best seen as dialectical: the former established methodological rigour, while the latter restored normative direction. Together, they have shaped a more balanced discipline that is both scientifically credible and politically meaningful.
PolityProber.in UPSC Rapid Recap: Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism in Political Science
| Dimension | Behaviouralism | Post-Behaviouralism | Comments / Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emergence / Era | 1940s–1950s; behavioural revolution | Late 1960s–1970s; response to social crises | Post-behaviouralism arose as a corrective to behaviouralism’s limitations |
| Core Objective | Scientific, objective study of political behaviour | Re-politicisation; relevance to social problems | Shift from methodological rigour to socially engaged research |
| Methodological Approach | Quantitative, empirical, value-neutral | Mixed methods; both empirical and normative; action-oriented | Maintains empirical rigor but reintroduces normative analysis |
| Concept of Politics | Politics as measurable behaviour, systems, decision-making | Politics as contested arena of power, values, and public concern | Moves from technocratic analysis to problem-solving engagement |
| Normative Orientation | Minimal; descriptive and explanatory | High; emphasizes ethics, justice, and public responsibility | Post-behaviouralism restores normative dimension |
| Role of the Political Scientist | Observer, analyst, detached researcher | Participant, policy advisor, morally responsible scholar | Re-engagement with civic responsibility and societal relevance |
| Key Proponents | David Easton, Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl | David Easton (later work), David Ricci, Theodore Lowi | Easton bridged both phases; Ricci critiqued behaviouralism’s excesses |
| Response to Social Change | Poorly equipped to address crises, social movements, civil rights | Actively engages with societal problems, public policy, reform | Post-behaviouralism emphasizes relevance to contemporary issues |
| Impact on Discipline | Established methodological rigor, systematized empirical research | Restored balance between methodology and normative relevance | Creates pluralism of methods, renewed interest in political philosophy |
| Paradigm Nature | Scientific, explanatory | Corrective, reformist, partially transformative | Debate exists: corrective response vs. Kuhnian paradigm shift |
| Legacy | Foundation for modern empirical political science | Influenced policy studies, civic engagement, normative theory revival | Discipline now combines scientific rigor with social relevance |
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.