Introduction

The emergence of Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism represents one of the most important intellectual episodes in the evolution of modern Political Science. Together, these movements transformed the discipline’s methodological orientation, epistemological assumptions, and understanding of its social purpose. Behaviouralism emerged during the mid-twentieth century as a reaction against traditional political studies dominated by institutional, legal, historical, and philosophical approaches. Advocates of Behaviouralism sought to make Political Science a genuine science by emphasizing empirical observation, quantification, verification, and theory-building. By contrast, Post-Behaviouralism arose in the late 1960s as a critique of Behaviouralism’s excessive preoccupation with methodology, value-neutrality, and scientific formalism. Led principally by David Easton, Post-Behaviouralists argued that Political Science must become more socially relevant, normatively engaged, and responsive to urgent public problems.

The relationship between these two movements has been interpreted in divergent ways. Some scholars regard Post-Behaviouralism as a fundamental rejection of Behaviouralism, while others view it as a corrective reform movement operating within the behavioural tradition itself. The question acquires additional significance when examined through Thomas Kuhn’s concept of scientific revolutions. Kuhn argued that scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts in which one dominant intellectual framework is replaced by another fundamentally different and largely incommensurable framework.

Whether Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism constitute such paradigm revolutions remains a matter of scholarly debate. A careful analysis reveals both substantial continuities and significant discontinuities between the two movements. While Behaviouralism may be regarded as a partial paradigmatic challenge to traditional Political Science, Post-Behaviouralism appears more accurately as a reformulation and expansion of Behaviouralism rather than a fully-fledged Kuhnian revolution.

---

Behaviouralism: The Quest for a Science of Politics

Behaviouralism emerged 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, and David Easton.

Its rise reflected dissatisfaction with what behaviouralists regarded as the descriptive and speculative character of traditional Political Science.

Traditional approaches focused upon:

• Constitutional structures.
• Formal institutions.
• Legal doctrines.
• Political philosophy.
• Historical narratives.

Behaviouralists argued that such approaches failed to explain how politics actually functioned.

Instead, Political Science should investigate:

• Political behaviour.
• Voting patterns.
• Public opinion.
• Group activity.
• Elite behaviour.
• Political participation.

David Easton identified several intellectual foundations of Behaviouralism:

Regularities

Human political behaviour exhibits recurring patterns that can be systematically studied.

Verification

Political propositions must be tested against empirical evidence.

Quantification

Measurement and statistical analysis improve scientific precision.

Value Neutrality

Scientific inquiry should remain separate from normative judgments.

Systematization

Political Science should seek general theories capable of explaining political phenomena.

Interdisciplinarity

Political inquiry should draw upon sociology, psychology, economics, and anthropology.

Behaviouralism thus sought to transform Political Science into an objective and predictive social science.

---

The Rise of Post-Behaviouralism

Historical Background

The emergence of Post-Behaviouralism cannot be understood apart from the turbulent political environment of the 1960s.

Major events included:

• The Vietnam War.
• The Civil Rights Movement.
• Student revolts.
• Racial conflicts.
• Nuclear tensions.
• Decolonization.
• Growing social inequalities.

Many scholars became dissatisfied with a Political Science that produced sophisticated statistical analyses while seemingly ignoring pressing social and political crises.

In his 1969 Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association, David Easton declared the need for a “new revolution” within Political Science.

This movement came to be known as Post-Behaviouralism.

Easton argued that Political Science had become:

• Methodologically sophisticated.
• Socially irrelevant.
• Politically detached.
• Normatively sterile.

The discipline needed not merely scientific rigor but also public relevance.

---

Core Principles of Post-Behaviouralism

Post-Behaviouralism introduced several new emphases.

Relevance

Research should address significant social and political problems rather than merely technical questions.

Action

Knowledge should contribute to social transformation.

Political scientists should not simply observe political realities but also seek solutions to public problems.

Value Commitment

Post-Behaviouralists rejected the possibility of complete value-neutrality.

All research involves value choices regarding:

• Research topics.
• Conceptual frameworks.
• Interpretation of evidence.

Responsibility

Scholars possess obligations toward society.

Political Science should serve humanity rather than exist solely for academic purposes.

Integration of Facts and Values

Empirical analysis and normative concerns should complement one another.

Political inquiry should combine scientific rigor with moral and social responsibility.

---

Continuities Between Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism

Despite claims of revolution, substantial continuities exist between the two movements.

Commitment to Empirical Inquiry

Post-Behaviouralism did not abandon empirical research.

David Easton repeatedly emphasized that Post-Behaviouralism was not anti-scientific.

Post-behaviouralists continued to employ:

• Surveys.
• Statistical methods.
• Quantitative analysis.
• Comparative studies.
• Empirical observation.

The scientific tools developed by Behaviouralism remained central.

---

Retention of Behavioural Methodology

Post-Behaviouralists accepted most behavioural research techniques.

They did not advocate a return to purely philosophical or speculative inquiry.

Rather than replacing behavioural methods, they sought to redirect them toward more socially relevant concerns.

Consequently, methodological continuity remained strong.

---

Shared Search for Theory

Both Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism valued theory-building.

Behaviouralists sought explanatory theories grounded in empirical regularities.

Post-Behaviouralists similarly valued theoretical frameworks but insisted that theory should contribute to addressing practical political problems.

Theory remained an indispensable component of both approaches.

---

Interdisciplinary Orientation

Behaviouralism encouraged borrowing from other social sciences.

Post-Behaviouralism retained this orientation while broadening the range of relevant disciplines to include ethics, philosophy, and development studies.

Thus, intellectual openness continued across both movements.

---

Common Concern with Political Reality

Both movements sought to understand real political processes rather than abstract constitutional arrangements.

Although their priorities differed, both rejected purely formalistic approaches to political analysis.

---

Discontinuities Between Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism

Notwithstanding these continuities, significant differences distinguish the two movements.

Value Neutrality versus Value Relevance

This constitutes the most important point of divergence.

Behaviouralism

Behaviouralists maintained that Political Science should separate facts from values.

The objective was scientific objectivity.

Post-Behaviouralism

Post-Behaviouralists argued that such separation is both impossible and undesirable.

Research is inevitably shaped by normative assumptions.

Political Science should therefore openly acknowledge its value commitments.

This shift represents a major epistemological departure.

---

Knowledge for Knowledge versus Knowledge for Action

Behaviouralism often pursued knowledge for its own sake.

Post-Behaviouralism insisted that knowledge must contribute to solving social problems.

Easton’s famous slogan was:

“To know is to bear the responsibility for acting.”

The purpose of Political Science was thus redefined.

---

Scientific Detachment versus Social Engagement

Behaviouralists frequently emphasized scholarly neutrality.

Post-Behaviouralists stressed:

• Activism.
• Engagement.
• Social responsibility.

Political scientists were encouraged to participate in public debates and contribute to policy solutions.

---

Methodological Sophistication versus Human Relevance

Behaviouralism often prioritized methodological refinement.

Post-Behaviouralism argued that relevance should take precedence over methodological perfection.

Easton famously declared:

“Better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong.”

This reflected dissatisfaction with research that was technically impressive but substantively insignificant.

---

Conceptions of Political Science

Behaviouralism viewed Political Science primarily as a scientific enterprise.

Post-Behaviouralism viewed it as both:

• A scientific discipline.
• A socially responsible vocation.

This broadened understanding of the discipline’s mission.

---

Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Revolutions

Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) introduced the concept of paradigms.

A paradigm consists of:

• Shared assumptions.
• Conceptual frameworks.
• Research methods.
• Standards of evidence.

Scientific development proceeds through:

Normal Science

Research conducted within an accepted paradigm.

Anomalies

Problems that existing paradigms cannot adequately explain.

Crisis

Accumulation of anomalies undermines confidence in the dominant framework.

Revolution

A new paradigm emerges and replaces the old one.

Incommensurability

Competing paradigms employ fundamentally different assumptions and standards, making direct comparison difficult.

Examples include:

• Copernican astronomy replacing Ptolemaic astronomy.
• Einsteinian physics replacing Newtonian physics.

The crucial feature of a Kuhnian revolution is paradigm replacement.

---

Was Behaviouralism a Kuhnian Revolution?

Many scholars regard Behaviouralism as approximating a paradigm shift.

Behaviouralism challenged traditional Political Science by replacing:

Traditional Approach	Behavioural Approach
Institutions	Behaviour
Normative theory	Empirical analysis
Legal studies	Scientific inquiry
Historical description	Theory-building
Philosophical speculation	Verification

Behaviouralism transformed:

• Research questions.
• Methodologies.
• Standards of evidence.
• Professional training.

In this sense, it resembles a Kuhnian revolution.

However, important qualifications remain.

Traditional political philosophy, constitutional studies, and historical analysis never disappeared.

Instead, they coexisted alongside behavioural research.

Thus, Behaviouralism was not a complete paradigm replacement in the strict Kuhnian sense.

---

Was Post-Behaviouralism a Kuhnian Revolution?

The argument for viewing Post-Behaviouralism as a Kuhnian revolution is considerably weaker.

No Fundamental Methodological Break

Post-Behaviouralists retained behavioural methodologies.

There was no rejection of:

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

The methodological core remained intact.

---

Lack of Incommensurability

Behaviouralists and Post-Behaviouralists shared many assumptions regarding scientific inquiry.

They disagreed primarily about:

• Relevance.
• Values.
• Purpose.

Such disagreements do not constitute paradigm incommensurability.

---

Reform Rather Than Replacement

David Easton explicitly described Post-Behaviouralism as a corrective movement.

Its objective was:

• To supplement Behaviouralism.
• To humanize Behaviouralism.
• To make Behaviouralism socially relevant.

It did not seek to abolish behavioural research.

---

Coexistence Rather than Displacement

Contemporary Political Science incorporates both behavioural and post-behavioural insights.

Researchers routinely combine:

• Quantitative methods.
• Normative concerns.
• Policy relevance.
• Empirical analysis.

The absence of paradigm displacement weakens the Kuhnian interpretation.

---

Charlesworth and Methodological Pluralism

Charlesworth’s observation provides a particularly useful framework:

“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 challenges both behavioural exclusivism and revolutionary interpretations.

Charlesworth suggests that:

• No single methodology can monopolize Political Science.
• Different approaches illuminate different aspects of political reality.
• Political inquiry requires methodological pluralism.

Political phenomena involve:

• Behaviour.
• Institutions.
• Ideas.
• Values.
• History.
• Culture.
• Power relations.

Consequently, Political Science benefits from the coexistence of multiple methodologies.

From this perspective, the transition from Behaviouralism to Post-Behaviouralism represents intellectual diversification rather than paradigmatic replacement.

---

Critical Evaluation

Behaviouralism undoubtedly revolutionized Political Science by introducing empirical rigor, scientific methodology, and systematic analysis. It transformed the discipline’s self-understanding and significantly expanded its analytical capabilities.

Post-Behaviouralism, however, did not overthrow the behavioural paradigm. Rather, it emerged as an internal critique highlighting the limitations of excessive scientism and value-neutrality. Its central objective was to reconnect Political Science with substantive human concerns without abandoning scientific standards.

The relationship between the two movements is therefore dialectical rather than revolutionary. Post-Behaviouralism preserved the methodological strengths of Behaviouralism while expanding its normative and practical horizons.

Unlike Kuhn’s paradigm revolutions, where one framework displaces another, Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism have become integrated within contemporary Political Science. Modern research frequently combines behavioural methods with post-behavioural concerns regarding democracy, justice, public policy, and social relevance.

---

Conclusion

The relationship between Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism is characterized by both continuity and discontinuity. Continuity exists in their shared commitment to empirical inquiry, scientific analysis, theory-building, and interdisciplinary research. Discontinuity emerges in their differing attitudes toward values, relevance, social responsibility, and the purpose of political inquiry.

When examined through Kuhn’s framework, Behaviouralism may be regarded as a partial challenge to traditional Political Science, though not a complete paradigm replacement. Post-Behaviouralism, however, falls short of a Kuhnian revolution because it neither rejected behavioural methodologies nor established an incommensurable alternative paradigm. Instead, it functioned as a corrective and reformist movement that sought to restore relevance, value-awareness, and social engagement to an increasingly technical discipline.

Ultimately, Charlesworth’s principle of methodological pluralism offers the most convincing interpretation. Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism should not be viewed as mutually exclusive paradigms but as complementary approaches that together enriched Political Science. Their enduring legacy lies not in paradigm warfare but in the creation of a more comprehensive discipline capable of integrating empirical rigor with normative significance and social responsibility.