ADVERTISEMENTS:
Post-behaviouralism is the next step or reform movement of behavioural revolution. Like behaviouralism, it was again propounded by David Easton in his presidential address to the American Political Science Association in 1969. It has two slogans ‘action’ and ‘relevance’. It calls on the behavioural political scientists to study urgent and emergent problems, attend to crises and challenges of the contemporary society, and commit themselves to find out proper solutions.
In other words, the behaviouralists should give up value-neutralism and irresponsible sitting on ivory tower. During behavioural heydays, they were neglecting, in the name of developing a ‘pure science of polities’, their responsibility towards society.
Easton has discussed three main sources for the incoming of post-behavioural revolution:
(a) Dissatisfaction with the efforts to make Political Science a natural science;
(b) Utmost desire to find out solutions to the crises and problems of society; and
(c) A movement by a group of political scientists and an intellectual tendency.
This post-behavioural resurgence includes various shades of scholars – behaviouralists as well as traditionalists. Both had criticised orthodox behaviouralism, which was unaware of the problems like nuclear threat, civil war, undeclared war in Vietnam, etc., and had failed in (i) developing methodological sophistication, (ii) doing basic research, and (iii) alienating all values. Easton regarded it as a genuine revolution, not a reaction; a becoming, not a preservation; a reform, not a counter-reformation.
Post-behaviouralism accepted the main tenets of behaviouralism but wanted to take Political Science towards new directions – making it more responsible and more utilitarian. It looks towards future both as a movement and an intellectual tendency; unlike behaviouralism, it is not related to any particular ideology or group. It included leftists, rightists, conservatives, classicists, methodologists, etc. However, it is a bit exaggeration to call it a ‘revolution’. It is but a prolongation or strengthening of behavioural movement towards newer horizons.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Some of the characteristic features of post-behaviouralism are given hereunder:
(1) Substance must come before any consideration of tools and techniques. Foremost attention should be paid to the choice of purposeful, relevant and meaningful problems of the society. It is better to be vague than non-relevant, or precise.
(2) Social change, and not preservation of the status quo, should be its motto. Previously, behaviouralism mostly confined itself to description and analysis of facts, and overlooked broader social context. As such, in many cases, they could not understand the contextual meaning of facts.
(3) Scholars should take up social conflicts, deepening fears, and worries about the future as their subjects of study, and try to find out their solutions. They have to face hard realities of politics, and not to run away from them.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(4) Unlike the past, values should be given a central place and made the basis of choice of problems, research, and evaluation. Scientism, value-neutrality, sophistication, etc., has to be given up. They merely transform the scholars into technicians of Political Science.
(5) The main task of scholars was now to protect and defend human values and seek welfare of the whole world. Failing which they degrade themselves merely to mechanics, technicians and propellers of the mechanical structure of the present society. They should rise above bare behaviouralism, and labour to defend human values.
(6) To know is to bear the responsibility for acting and to act is to engage in reshaping society. In place of sheer contemplation, the scholars must come forward with action to actualise the contents of their knowledge.
(7) It pleads for the politicisation of the professions. In other words, the intellectuals must discover proper goals for the society and make it move to realise them. They have a positive role to play, and organise themselves to undertake the tasks.
Thus, post-behaviouralism intends to transform the academic, professional and valuational contents of Political Science. The latter has to cater both to the social as well as academic needs of society.
Accordingly, the reoriented programme of the discipline imbibes a revolutionary change, namely:
(i) Immediate and urgent problems of the society have to be preferred to long-term or basic problems;
(ii) ‘Adequacy’ and ‘not perfection’ would be the criteria of the use of tools and techniques in research;
(iii) ehaviouralists remain publicly aware of the inadequacies and limitations of their studies, but they continue to keep up the behavioural perspective;
(iv) Going beyond description, explanation and understanding, the behaviouralist has to stand and support wider social values; and
(v) Post-behaviouralism recommends scholars to rejoin the ancients to stand and defend human values.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
They should take part in active politics in all or either of the three ways, as (a) a teacher, (b) a researcher, and (c) an activist. A scholar can perform his task either alone or in a team or group. A better programme than this cannot be available for the scholars of the Globalised World.
All the tenets of post-behaviouralism suit to the requirements of the growth of discipline for all developing and developed societies. But post-behaviouralism should not be regarded as a retrograde step or return to traditionalism. Post-behaviouralism is behaviouralism with its perspective of ‘human behaviour’. It does not deny the importance of scientific tools and techniques of empirical study, but wants to give priority to applied research over basic research. It continues to understand the importance of basic research, but is much worried about the critical problems of society.
The post-behaviouralist wants to see his discipline more purposive, more relevant, and more responsible. He calls for an action-oriented intellectual ready to make sacrifices for the good of society. But the goals of theory-making, quantification, techniques, regularities, etc., remain as they had been. Change or modification has been accepted only in case of its attitude towards values, pure science, and priority to basic research.
Post-behaviouralism brings Political Science closer to traditional or classical trend in the sense that it restores a central place to values and permits an active role to the scholar. Both agree on the integration and interdisciplinary approach in knowing political reality. Still, post-behaviouralism remains specific in its emphasis on scientific study, behavioural methods and techniques, and theory-orientation.
Michael Haas and Theodore L. Becker have rightly found the evolution of behavioural process in a dialectical process. The traditionalists up to 1950 represent the long process of thesis, whereas quantitative techniques and early behaviouralism subsume anti-thesis. Post-behaviouralism, in a broad manner, reflects the stage of Synthesis.