Introduction

The twentieth century witnessed profound transformations in the nature, scope, and methodology of Political Science. Among the most influential developments were the Behavioural and Post-Behavioural movements, both of which sought to redefine the discipline’s objectives and methods in response to perceived shortcomings of existing approaches. Behaviouralism emerged during the mid-twentieth century as a powerful challenge to the traditional institutional, legal, historical, and philosophical study of politics. Advocating scientific rigor, empirical investigation, quantification, and theory-building, behaviouralists sought to establish Political Science as a modern social science capable of explaining and predicting political behaviour. Post-Behaviouralism, which arose in the late 1960s, represented a critical response to the limitations of Behaviouralism, particularly its excessive concern with methodological sophistication, value-neutrality, and academic detachment from urgent social problems.

Both movements have often been described as “revolutions” because they significantly altered the discipline’s intellectual orientation. David Easton famously referred to Behaviouralism as an intellectual revolution and later described Post-Behaviouralism as a “new revolution” intended to restore relevance and responsibility to Political Science. However, the use of the term “revolution” remains controversial. While these movements undoubtedly transformed research priorities, methodologies, and professional standards, they did not completely replace preceding approaches. Rather, they coexisted with and often supplemented traditional forms of political inquiry.

A critical examination suggests that Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism were indeed major milestones in the evolution of Political Science, but whether they qualify as genuine revolutions depends upon the criteria employed. They may appropriately be regarded as intellectual and methodological revolutions within the discipline, though they are perhaps more accurately understood as transformative methodological shifts that expanded rather than entirely displaced existing traditions.

---

Traditional Political Science Before Behaviouralism

To understand the significance of Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism, it is necessary to examine the character of Political Science prior to their emergence.

Traditional Political Science was largely concerned with:

• Political philosophy.
• Constitutional law.
• Institutional structures.
• Historical development.
• Normative questions.

Prominent scholars focused on:

• The state.
• Government institutions.
• Sovereignty.
• Rights.
• Justice.
• Constitutional arrangements.

The dominant methods were:

• Historical analysis.
• Legal interpretation.
• Philosophical reasoning.
• Descriptive institutional study.

Although these approaches generated valuable insights, critics argued that they often neglected how politics actually functioned in practice. They described institutions rather than explaining political behaviour.

It was this dissatisfaction that created the intellectual conditions for Behaviouralism.

---

Behaviouralism as a Milestone in Political Science

Origins and Intellectual Context

Behaviouralism developed primarily between the 1930s and 1960s under the influence of scholars such as:

• Charles Merriam.
• Harold Lasswell.
• Gabriel Almond.
• Robert Dahl.
• David Truman.
• Heinz Eulau.
• David Easton.

The movement drew inspiration from developments in:

• Psychology.
• Sociology.
• Anthropology.
• Economics.

Behaviouralists sought to transform Political Science into a scientific discipline comparable to other social sciences.

---

Central Features of Behaviouralism

David Easton identified several key characteristics of Behaviouralism.

Empirical Orientation

Political inquiry should be based upon observable facts and verifiable evidence.

Search for Regularities

Political behaviour exhibits patterns that can be systematically studied.

Quantification

Measurement and statistical techniques increase precision.

Verification

The validity of propositions should be tested empirically.

Theory-Building

Political Science should develop general explanatory theories.

Value Neutrality

Facts and values should be analytically separated.

Interdisciplinary Research

Political Science should borrow concepts and methods from related disciplines.

---

Contributions of Behaviouralism

Shift from Institutions to Behaviour

Behaviouralism redirected attention from formal structures to actual political behaviour.

Research increasingly focused on:

• Voting behaviour.
• Public opinion.
• Political participation.
• Group dynamics.
• Elite decision-making.

Scientific Rigor

Behaviouralism introduced:

• Survey research.
• Sampling techniques.
• Statistical analysis.
• Quantitative methods.

These innovations significantly enhanced methodological sophistication.

Theory Development

Behaviouralists sought explanatory frameworks capable of identifying causal relationships and recurring political patterns.

Expansion of Comparative Politics

The works of Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba transformed comparative political analysis by emphasizing political culture and behavioural variables.

Professionalization of Political Science

Behaviouralism contributed substantially to the institutional development of Political Science as a professional social science.

---

Limitations of Behaviouralism

Despite its achievements, Behaviouralism attracted considerable criticism.

Excessive Scientism

Critics argued that Behaviouralism often imitated natural science inappropriately.

Political phenomena differ from natural phenomena because they involve:

• Conscious agents.
• Values.
• Meanings.
• Historical contingencies.

Neglect of Normative Questions

Behaviouralists frequently marginalized issues such as:

• Justice.
• Equality.
• Freedom.
• Rights.

These concerns had traditionally occupied a central place in Political Science.

Methodological Fetishism

Some critics argued that behavioural research became excessively concerned with technique rather than substance.

Research often focused on questions that were measurable rather than politically important.

Limited Practical Relevance

During periods of social upheaval, many scholars questioned whether behavioural studies adequately addressed real-world political challenges.

These criticisms laid the foundation for Post-Behaviouralism.

---

Post-Behaviouralism as a Milestone

Historical Background

Post-Behaviouralism emerged during the late 1960s amid:

• The Vietnam War.
• Civil Rights struggles.
• Student protests.
• Decolonization movements.
• Growing social unrest.

Many political scientists became dissatisfied with a discipline that appeared methodologically sophisticated yet socially detached.

David Easton’s Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association in 1969 became the defining statement of Post-Behaviouralism.

---

Core Principles of Post-Behaviouralism

Relevance

Political Science should address significant public issues.

Action

Knowledge should contribute to social improvement.

Value Commitment

Political inquiry inevitably involves normative considerations.

Responsibility

Scholars possess obligations toward society.

Integration of Facts and Values

Empirical research and normative analysis should complement each other.

---

Contributions of Post-Behaviouralism

Restoration of Relevance

Post-Behaviouralism redirected attention toward pressing social and political problems.

Revival of Normative Theory

Political philosophy regained legitimacy within mainstream Political Science.

Bridging Science and Ethics

The movement challenged rigid distinctions between empirical and normative inquiry.

Greater Social Engagement

Political scientists increasingly participated in public debates concerning democracy, justice, development, and public policy.

Broadening the Discipline

Post-Behaviouralism encouraged methodological diversity and intellectual openness.

---

Why Behaviouralism Was Called a Revolution

Several factors justify describing Behaviouralism as a revolution.

Transformation of Subject Matter

The focus shifted dramatically from institutions to behaviour.

New Research Methods

Quantitative techniques and empirical investigation became dominant.

New Standards of Evidence

Scientific verification replaced purely descriptive approaches.

New Intellectual Culture

Behaviouralism altered:

• Academic training.
• Research funding.
• Publication standards.
• Professional expectations.

David Easton described it as a revolution because it fundamentally changed how political scientists approached their discipline.

---

Why Post-Behaviouralism Was Called a Revolution

Post-Behaviouralism also possessed revolutionary elements.

Critique of Behaviouralist Orthodoxy

It challenged the dominance of value-neutrality and methodological formalism.

Reorientation of Disciplinary Goals

The purpose of Political Science expanded from explanation to social engagement.

Intellectual Rebalancing

Normative concerns regained importance.

Easton himself described Post-Behaviouralism as a “revolution of relevance.”

---

Arguments Against the Revolutionary Interpretation

Despite these transformations, several considerations suggest caution in using the term “revolution.”

No Complete Displacement

Neither movement completely replaced earlier approaches.

Political philosophy, constitutional studies, and historical analysis continued alongside behavioural research.

Methodological Continuity

Post-Behaviouralism retained most behavioural methods.

It did not reject:

• Surveys.
• Quantification.
• Empirical inquiry.
• Theory-building.

Instead, it modified their purpose.

Coexistence Rather Than Replacement

Contemporary Political Science incorporates:

• Behavioural approaches.
• Institutional analysis.
• Historical inquiry.
• Normative theory.
• Rational choice models.

The discipline evolved through accumulation rather than wholesale replacement.

Charlesworth’s Perspective

Charlesworth observed:

“Behavioural studies are highly desirable to supplement other studies, but like all identifiable methodological approaches they are part of the whole study of Government and Politics.”

This statement suggests that Behaviouralism should be understood as an important methodological contribution rather than a complete intellectual revolution.

---

Are They Revolutions or Methodological Shifts?

The answer depends largely on the meaning assigned to the term “revolution.”

If Revolution Means Complete Paradigm Replacement

Then neither Behaviouralism nor Post-Behaviouralism qualifies fully.

They did not eliminate alternative approaches.

Nor did they establish exclusive dominance.

If Revolution Means Fundamental Transformation of Research Orientation

Then both movements may reasonably be described as revolutions.

Behaviouralism transformed:

• Methods.
• Subject matter.
• Standards of evidence.

Post-Behaviouralism transformed:

• Disciplinary priorities.
• Conceptions of relevance.
• Attitudes toward values.

Thus, each movement substantially altered the intellectual trajectory of Political Science.

Most Appropriate Characterization

A balanced interpretation views them as transformative methodological and intellectual movements rather than absolute revolutions.

They reshaped Political Science without completely replacing earlier traditions.

Their significance lies in expanding and enriching the discipline rather than monopolizing it.

---

Critical Evaluation

Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism should be understood as complementary rather than antagonistic developments.

Behaviouralism contributed:

• Scientific rigor.
• Empirical methods.
• Systematic analysis.

Post-Behaviouralism contributed:

• Relevance.
• Normative awareness.
• Social responsibility.

Together they helped create a more comprehensive Political Science capable of integrating empirical investigation with ethical and practical concerns.

Contemporary Political Science reflects this synthesis. Modern scholars frequently combine:

• Quantitative analysis.
• Qualitative methods.
• Historical research.
• Normative theory.

This intellectual pluralism represents the enduring legacy of both movements.

---

Conclusion

The Behavioural and Post-Behavioural movements constitute major milestones in the development of Political Science. Behaviouralism transformed the discipline by introducing scientific methods, empirical inquiry, and theory-building, thereby shifting attention from formal institutions to actual political behaviour. Post-Behaviouralism emerged as a corrective response, emphasizing relevance, value-awareness, social responsibility, and the integration of empirical research with normative concerns.

Although both movements profoundly altered the character of Political Science, they did not completely displace earlier traditions or establish exclusive paradigms. Consequently, describing them as absolute revolutions may exaggerate the extent of intellectual rupture. They are more accurately understood as transformative methodological and intellectual shifts that significantly expanded the discipline’s scope, methods, and objectives. Nevertheless, because they fundamentally reoriented the study of politics and reshaped the discipline’s self-understanding, the term “revolution” retains considerable explanatory value when used in a qualified sense. Their enduring contribution lies in creating a Political Science that is simultaneously empirical, theoretically informed, normatively aware, and socially relevant.