PSIR, PAPER I - POLITICAL THEORY: MEANING AND APPROACHES

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 1: Political Science is a master science, “architectonic” in its character, from which all other practical
sciences take their cue. (Earnest Barker). Discuss. (1991/I/2/60)

Answer: Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, heralded political science as a master science, considering
its nature and scope. And Earnest Barker, an English political scientist, termed it architectonic, as he
perceived it as the foundation from which other practical sciences emerged.

Political Science is about polis or city-state. It was born in the intellectual capital of the past - ancient
Greece. Political Science continued to evolve along with human society. Even as other practical
sciences kept on building legitimacy, political science acted as the basic structure, holding all of them
together. The state is the backbone of society and political science begins and ends with the state
(Garner).

Political Science explains and guides public policies formulation, implementation and evaluation. It
can be said that statecraft handles all practical aspects of society and human life. Thus, it is believed
that all practical sciences borrow from the science of the state. The clear indication is of the integral
nature, pervasive scope and wide application of the discipline. It is with reference to this centrality in
public sphere, that Aristotle called political science a master science.

In shaping our lives, political science inspired the practical sciences such as psychology, sociology,
public administration, and economics inter alia. It projects the indispensable character of this subject.
Not only is it one of the oldest disciplines, it remains widely and deeply relevant in the present times.
Perhaps, in the complex globalised polity of today, this master science is needed more than ever.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 2: Discuss the normative and behavioural approaches to the study of the political science. And
examine the limitations of the behavioural approach. (1991/I/3/60)

Answer: Normative or philosophical approach was one of the traditional approaches to study, analyse
and evaluate political science. Later evolved the modern behavioural approach or employing scientific
methods in political analysis. But, due to limitations such as limited relevance and ignoring values, it
passed the baton to post behaviouralism.

The traditional normative approach seeks what ought to be. Political philosophy evolved as a part of
philosophy. Plato, the father of political philosophy, sought idea behind the apparent, to discover
ideal state. Other norms such as liberty, equality, justice, rights etc. were focused on. Leo Strauss
considered philosophy and politics identical. Rawls, Habermas, Hannah Arendt etc used this approach
to build theories.

The modern behavioural approach focused on actual behaviour, rather than philosophical ideas.
behavioural approach bloomed after World Wars. Political science was in crisis as it had become
armchair theories, divorced from contemporary reality. It set out as a movement of purification of
techniques, a ‘protest movement’ (Robert Dahl). David Easton gave 8 intellectual foundation stones
(features) of the behavioural approach, which included: (1) Regularities; (2) Verification; (3)
Techniques; (4) Quantification; (5) Value-neutrality; (6) Systematisation; (7) Pure Science; and (8)
Integration.

Limitations of the behavioural approach, as mostly pointed out by traditionalists, include the limited
relevance of scientific approach in political science, introduction of unnecessary and complicated
terms and techniques. Also, they claimed that human behaviour can be predicted and that new
techniques were for sake of purity. Additionally, they believed that scientific techniques are not
universally applicable, such as for justice, rights etc. Later, behaviouralism led to the crisis. The
scientific approach could not deal properly and fully with 1960s movements and conflicts.

Normative and behavioural approached were important stages in the journey of political theory-
building. Easton believed behaviouralist scholars ‘sitting in ivory towers’, purifying their techniques,
caused the crisis, which led to further developments in political science.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 3: Examine the limitations of behaviouralism as an approach to the study of politics. (1992/I/2/60)

Answer: Behaviouralism, as an approach to the study of politics, was a modern political methodology.
It started as a scientific analysis of political behaviour, in response to the crisis caused by value-based
traditional approaches. Due to its own limitations such as undermining ethics, limited relevance and
applicability etc. Behaviouralism caused another crisis in political science.

After norm-based traditional approaches emerged reality-based empirical approaches. Subsequently,

behaviouralism was born in the 1940s. Its scientific nature of political analysis was described in
Easton’s ‘8 intellectual foundational stones’. Around the 1960s and 1970s, behaviouralism itself began
to be criticised, which led to the emergence of post behaviouralism.

Limitations of behaviouralism listed were: that it was obsessed with methods (Wolin), undermined
ethical and political philosophy (conservative critics), became ‘pseudo – political science’ (Bay) and
propagated ‘naïve scientism’ (radical critics), and insistence on fact-value dichotomy (R. Beehler).
Easton pointed out the need for ‘credo of relevance’ and announced the next phase – post
behaviouralism (or neo–behaviouralism) in a 1969 lecture.

Post behaviouralism sought to correct behaviouralism, by claiming that it was biased towards status
quo and social preservation. It was further stressed that the bias towards observable and measurable
phenomenon meant emphasis placed on trivial issues at the cost of more important topics. Post
behaviouralism stressed that research should be relevant to society and applicable towards desired
political change. Post behaviouralism also challenged the idea that academic research had to be value
neutral. The content of decision making had to be judged as per values, which keeping ground
realities in mind.

Thus, as behaviouralism emerged to fix previous deficiencies, its own limitations were reformed by
further developments in political science.
**********************************************************************************

Qn. 4: Estimate the utility of systems theory in social sciences. (1993/I/2/60))

Answer: Social sciences are the studies of human society and social relationships, e.g. political science,
economics, human geography, psychology, sociology, anthropology, jurisprudence, history etc. In
general, systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. entities with interrelated and
interdependent parts and which are more than the sum of their parts (subsystems). In political
science, systems theory is a liberal model of modern political analysis, given by David Easton, a
Canadian-American political scientist. He sought to
yield explanations for the interacting components of
political processes, such as inputs (‘demands’ and
‘supports’), outputs (‘decisions’ and ‘policies’) and
‘feedback’. Systems theory can be utilised in social
sciences for interdisciplinary studies, comparative
analysis of diverse political systems and international
politics, serving as a starting point for other models of
political analysis etc.

Systems theory was forwarded by David Easton, a Canadian-American political scientist. He sought to
yield explanations for the interacting components of political processes, such as inputs (‘demands’
and ‘supports’), outputs (‘decisions’ and ‘policies’) and ‘feedback’. Easton goes beyond stability and
equilibrium as goals of political systems and finds them as dynamic systems capable of coping and
adapting with the stresses and crises arising from the environment. As his ‘theory’ is analytical or
conceptual, it seems to be not inclined towards any particular ideology, system or culture. The
‘Systems Theory’ gives a complete set of categories which can be utilised for the analysis of any
particular system as well as for making a comparative study of political systems. Kaplan employed
systems theory to study international relations.

The application of systems theory in political science is particularly useful as a conceptual framework
to analyse, understand, and compare politics. System theory influenced other significant models such
as Gabriel Almond’s structural-functional analysis, Karl Deutsch’s communications theory, interest
group theory and elite theory.

Systems theory has importance in the social sciences (or humanities) as it studies and explains human
behaviour. Naturally, it tends to be interdisciplinary For instance, results in a particular election can
involve individual and group psychology, economics and market analysis, history and religion etc.
Systems theory is particularly prominent in psychology, management, social work etc.

Systems theory in politics can seem different from other systems in the sense that a political system
has its own dynamism and its operations are purposive and goal-directed. But ultimately systems
theory finds application throughout the social sciences, as it is a philosophical worldview arising from
the belief that various aspects of the world are interdependent.

**********************************************************************************
Qn. 5: What is the nature of the crisis in political theory? Suggest remedies to overcome it.
(1994/I/3/60)

Answer: Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that are used to describe, explain,
evaluate and predict political phenomenon. As political theorising evolved, two phases of crisis are
broadly marked out – first, after the World Wars, ending the monopoly of traditional normative
thinking and second, in the 1960s, when the obsession with techniques was charged with
compromising subject matter.

The first crisis was characterised by dissatisfaction with traditional normative thinking, which was
accused of being divorced from reality. In Easton’s account, the influence of moral theory was so
pervasive and powerful that political theory, in past, could not get any scope to establish to own
identity. This caused its decline. According to Dante Germino (Beyond Ideology: The Revival of
Political Theory), one of the major causes of the decline of political theory is the colourful emergence
of ideology or ideological reductionism. Demand was made for re-establishing political studies. Thus,
rose the behavioural approach, where political thinking was redefined in terms of empirically
verifiable political behaviour, by introducing scientific methods for political analysis. Methods
employed were: sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling and statistical analysis. It was led by
scholars like David Easton, Robert Dahl, Laswell etc.

However, a second crisis was precipitated by behaviouralism itself, when it was found that subject
matter was getting compromised for the sake of techniques. Rawls’ theory of justice highlighted that
the empirical approach can neither explain all the aspects of political theory nor produce a viable
theory of politics. Leo Strauss also upheld that morality cannot be ignored. David Easton called for
“credo of relevance” to revive the discipline of political science. Moreover, the 1960s witnessed a
chain of civil rights movements in the USA which sought to resurrect norms in political studies.
Herbert Marcuze’s ‘One-dimensional Man’ called for social change. The suggestion was to prioritise
the responsibility of a social scientist rather than having “obsession with methods”. Thus, the subject
was revived. Thus, emerged post-behaviouralism, which had the goals of “relevance” and “action.”
This approach pursued desirable social change through action, packaging values with facts and
utilising political knowledge for social welfare.

The crises in political theory were integral parts of its evolution. They contributed to making political
analysis more comprehensive, effective and relevant.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 6: Examine the fact-value dichotomy in political science. To what extent has post-behaviouralism
resolved the conflict in the dichotomy? (1995/I/2/60)

Answer: The fact-value dichotomy in political science refers to the (erstwhile) compartmentalization
of approaches to political analysis, as descriptive versus prescriptive, quantitative versus qualitative
and empirical versus normative. The later, contemporary approach of post behaviouralism sought to
reconcile the dichotomy, by seeking relevance and action on political and social issues.

Values based approaches were the traditional methods such as philosophical and normative ones.
Plato, the father of political philosophy, was driven to understand ideas and prescribing what ought to
be. Value based political theorising gained popularity as Leo Strauss, Habermas, Rawls, Hannah Arndt
et al built on it. Values pursued were the ideal state, justice, liberty, rights, equality etc. Later, value-
based approaches were criticised for being divorced from reality, biased and limited to armchair
theories espoused by those sitting in wary towers (Easton). It was considered a crisis. This paved the
way for fact-based methods such as empiricism and behaviouralism. These methods focused on facts
or what is. Empiricism, founded by Locke, had been furthered by Mill, Laski, Weber, Marx etc.
Empiricism grew into behaviouralism.

Fact-based approach behaviouralism, born after World wars, fuelled by American political scientists,
deviated from values and adopted scientific research and survey methods to explain and predict
political behaviour. Focus concentrated on factual analysis. Easton, Wallace, Bentley, Laswell,
Merriam, Catlin etc. were prominent pilots in this movement. Behaviouralism intensified on
techniques and scientific interpretation of facts to explain and describe political behaviour.

Later, post-behaviouralism emerged as behaviouralism was criticised for becoming obsessed with
methods (S. Wolin), dismissing ethics (M. Reimer), undermining political philosophy (conservatives)
and becoming a pseudo political science (C. Bay). Robert Dahl suggested ending the dichotomy
between facts and values. Thus, neo- or post-behaviouralism sought applications of methods and
knowledge to derive relevant and actionable solutions to pertinent political problems. It held that
facts and values are not dichotomous, but are a continuum. Post-behaviouralism re-employed both
facts and values in political theory building.

Political methods evolved by tilting towards values, then facts and finally climbed to a compromised
equilibrium. Thus, post-behaviouralism settled the conflicts to a large extent, although later,
traditionalists, Marxists, post-modernists and critical theorists have pointed out some areas of
improvement in post behaviouralism also.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 7: Discuss the basic assumption of behaviouralism. In what way does post-behaviouralism differ
from behavioural theory? (1996/I/2/60)

Answer: Behaviouralism is a political methodology which sought to purify techniques and

compensate for (perceived) deficiencies in traditional methods by inculcating quantitative science
into political analysis. Later, while propounding the subsequent methodology: post behaviouralism,
David Easton judged that behaviouralism was ‘analytical but not substantive, general rather than
particular and explanatory rather than ethical’.

Behaviouralism emerged as theories and ideas of traditional approaches were deemed as armchair
theories’ and insufficient around the time of World Wars. Behaviouralism got the impetus to deal with
the (perceived) crises in politics. It grew out of empiricism, which in turn, was conceived by Locke,
Mill, Laski, Weber, Marx, Wallace, and Bentley and so on. As behavioural scientists flourished
(especially in U.S.A), psychologists such as B.T. Skimmer rejected that philosophy could produce
desired social behaviour, by conditioning. Economists, favouring behaviouralism believed that real
preferences of political actors were revealed by their actual choices, rather than what they said.

Behaviouralism assumed the role of making political science a pure science by purifying its
techniques. It further assumed that this would re-establish the credibility of the discipline (allegedly)
lost due to the (claimed) divorce of traditionalists from reality. Easton blamed the armchair theories
weaved from “ivory towers” for the crisis. American political scientists marched behind the
behavioural approach, demanding verifiable quantitative data, to observe and predict political
behaviour. They discounted the worth of values and institutional studies. They promoted the study of
mass political behaviour instead of elites.

Further, Easton’s 8 intellectual foundations stones predicted regularities in political behaviour

through quantification, verification, systemization and integration. N. Reimer held that since ethics
and values could not be established scientifically, they were beyond the scope of legitimate enquiry.
British scholars such as Bernard Brick pointed out that behaviouralism sought to make political
science empirical and predictive, and that value-free research is the ideal. Rodger Beehler pointed out
that behaviouralists insisted on distinguishing between facts and values.

Post behaviouralism differed from behaviouralism in the sense that it sought to amend behavioural
approach. Easton called for ‘credo of relevance’, ‘creative theory’ and action for theory building.
While retaining scientific methods, the focus was to be on substance, applicability and choices of
decision making. Objective shifted from the purification of techniques to precipitating necessary
social change. Post-behaviouralism sought to raise the status of political science even higher than
what behaviouralism targeted.

David Easton put forward 7 pointers for post-behaviouralism: (1) Substance is more important than
technique. (2) Social change to have priority over status-quoism. (3) Stay in touch with brute realities.
(4) Not to be value-free. (5) Protect human values. (6) Be action oriented. (7) Protect and promote the
discipline.

If traditional methods were the thesis, and behavioural approach was the antithesis, then post-
behaviouralism is the synthesis.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 8: Discuss the importance of systems theory in modern political analysis. (1997/I/2/60)

Answer: Political analysis can be described as a deduction of the nature of the process of politics,
which is done by identifying the interacting components in political processes and extracting
explanations from collected data. Systems Theory is an information processing model of political
analysis propounded by David Easton and developed by others. It describes inputs from the
environment (‘demands’ and ‘supports’) into the political system, yielding outputs (‘decisions’ and
‘policies’), further producing ‘feedback’ in the environment, influencing subsequent inputs. Systems
theory was important as it represents a substantial advance in the direction of constructing a
theoretical framework within the discipline of political science. It was used for comparative analysis of
political systems, deeper study of international relations and also served as a platform for other
important models.

Traditional political analysis stemmed from works such as Aristotle’s classification of governments,
Machiavelli’s cost-benefit analysis et al. However, in the modern times, political analysis flourished
with the adoption of scientific methods. The scientific revolution (behavioural and post- behavioural
movements) in politics was spearheaded and oriented by, among others, David Easton. Easton also
forwarded ‘System Theory’ - his model of political analysis. It became a stepping stone for other
models of modern political analysis such as Gabriel Almond’s structural-functional analysis and Karl
Deutsch’s communications theory. Interest group theory and elite theory can be subsumed in political
systems analysis.

Political analysis consists of the following major steps – determining nature of politics, identifying
interacting components in political processes, collect data on the inter-relationships and derive
explanations. A suitable example can be Easton conceptualising politics as “authoritative allocation of
values”, through his System Theory. The theory is a framework in which various human behaviours
and actions either create input or are affected by output within a system of political actions, with
loops of feedback in between. The components, through interactions, assign varying levels of
authority to various values. Thus, Easton was the first to study political system as an information
processing system. It became useful for comparative analysis of diverse political scenarios and
international relations. “A nation’s behaviour is a two-way activity taking from and giving to the
international environment.” (McClelland). Morton Kaplan utilised systems approach in studying
international relations.

In the evolution of political analysis, systems theory, with its sensitivity to input-output exchange
between a system and its settings, offers a fruitful approach. By enabling organisation of presently
disconnected political data, it promises interesting insights.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 9: What is meant by ‘behavioural approach’ to politics? Is it a fool-proof approach? How far is it
correct to say that behavioural approach to political analysis appeared in order to counteract the
Marxist approach. (1998/I/2/60)

Answer: The behavioural approach to politics is a modern political methodology, derived from
empiricism, which pursues an objective, quantified and scientific approach to observe, explain and
predict micro political behaviour. It is not a fool-proof approach and political approaches are
perpetually evolving. The Marxist approach is a political methodology which assumes that economics
is the primary basis of politics and society, and that communism will prevail when society becomes
classless and stateless. That behavioural approach appeared to counteract Marxist approach, was
claimed by Marxists themselves - alleging that behaviouralism was a “subtle defence” of American
political status quo, liberalism, capitalism etc.

Behaviouralism emerged as traditional political methodologies were perceived to have contributed to

political crisis around the World Wars. To mitigate this crisis, the rising approach of empiricism
blossomed into – behaviouralism. Behavioural approach incorporated scientific research methods, in
quest of purified knowledge, techniques and theories, through understanding the political status quo
and micro-behaviour. The behavioural approach was elaborated by Merriam of Chicago School,
Easton’s 8 Intellectual Foundation Stones, Almond, Dahl, Laswell, Rice etc.

Behaviouralism was not foolproof. It was a part of a continuum. After behaviouralism, post
behaviouralism ensued. The subsequent methodologies emerged as flaws in behavioural approach
surfaced. Easton called for ‘credo of relevance, ‘creative theory’ and action; Wolin frowned over
“obsession with methods”; Bay termed it “pseudo-political-science”; conservatives claimed it
undermined political philosophy; radicals hailed it as “naïve scientism”. Marxists labelled it “subtle
defence of status quo” i.e. American political systems.

Marxist critiqued behaviouralism as a justification of western world, in general, and capitalism and
liberalism in particular. The Marxian approach has been called political analysis by proxy. Marxism
(1880s), older than Behaviouralism (1940s), considering society a collective, based primarily on
economics. Marxists prophesied that communism will prevail when class struggle ends, i.e. oppressed
proletariats overthrow exploitative capitalists. The Marxist approach, as built up by Marx, Engels,
Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Gramsci et al, focused on social revolution and abolition of class-divide
and politics. When behavioural approach focused on studying “what is” or the political status quo,
Marxists perceived that as an attempt at social preservation or “subtle defence of status quo”. Thus,
they believed that behavioural approach, by attempting to preserve and promote American political
values, appeared in order to counteract Marxist approach.

Various political approaches have contributed to political analyses in their own ways. It is incorrect to
say that behaviouralism was solely a counter to Marxism. Behavioural approach has its own
substance. It enhanced political studies by highlighting certain political behaviours (such as public
opinion and voting patterns). Also, by incorporating scientific methods of analysis, behavioural
approach equipped political studies towards becoming more realistic, versatile and comprehensive.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 10: “A scientific politics can develop only if the materials of politics are treated in terms of systems
of actions.” In the light of this statement of Kaplan’s, with regard to the application of systems theory to
political science, critically examine the drawbacks of the application. (1999/I/2/60)

Answer: Systems theory is an information-processing model of modern political analysis, designed by

David Easton. It describes a political setup with interacting components - inputs, outputs and
feedback mechanisms – “system of actions”. Systems theory was widely applied and developed by
other political analysts, for constructing a theoretical framework within the discipline of political
science. Morton Kaplan has been the chief exponent of the systems approach in international
relations. Drawbacks of this application have been pointed out as limitations in its application,
obsession with political persistence and inability in understanding political power and mass political
behaviour, among others.

Critics of systems theory hold that it is unable to understand the structure and function of political
power and mass political behaviours such as voting patterns. Sorzano has attempted to prove that
Estonian systems approach is a mere derivation from the classical economic theory of Adam Smith.
Sorzano also regards it as a narrow view of system and that Easton’s model can be utilised only to
study developed western political systems and not developing ones of Asia or Africa.

Daniel Mou believes that by focusing on what it does, Easton seems to have rendered his concept of
the political system less useful. Daniel Mou also objects that Easton “does not consider the distinction
between the goals of the individual or groups and those of the system.” Thomson L. Thomson has
criticised Easton for giving no reasons for the authoritativeness of political system. Claude Ake
observes that Easton’s systems theory is ambiguous in several ways, noting that “it is difficult, if not
impossible, to apply it to the study of the world.”
Evans points out that Easton talks of persistence as the chief property of the political system but he
does not refer to the maintenance of specific structure for this purpose. Mackenzie holds “Easton has
focused on politics as a matter of process and events, rather than of individual or group actions.”,
thus neglecting the role of individuals. His approach according to Hannah Arendt is Archimedean
wherein one thinks everything ‘in terms of processes’ and is not concerned with single entities.

According to Kress, Easton’s analysis lacks empirical basis. Runciman regards it as a shield to protect
western capitalist society. Gvishiani regards it a symbol of bourgeois attitudes to maintain the status
quo. Easton is accused of giving less importance to para-political systems or subsystems. Others
believe Easton is dominated by an equilibrium orientation and obsessed with systemic persistence.
Some conclude that systems theory is unable to deal with fundamental or revolutionary changes.

However, despite the claimed drawbacks, systems theory has established itself as an integral ancestor
of political analysis. Oran Young regards it as “the most inclusive systemic approach”. Kaplan
propounded systems approach in international relations. Meehan considers it as “one of the few
comprehensive attempts to lay the foundation for systems-analysis in political science and provide a
‘general’ functional theory of politics’”.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 11: Critically evaluate and bring out the weakest aspects of behavioural and post behavioural
approaches to the analysis of the political system. What are measurable and quantifiable criteria
available in political science to evaluate political behaviour? (1999/I/3/60)

Answer: Behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism are modern political methodologies, which evolved
in the 20th century, in response to dissatisfaction with traditional methods and behavioural approach
respectively. ‘Decline’ (Easton, Cobben) or ‘death’ (Dahl, Lasette) of political theory’ resulted in
American political scientists campaigning for a ‘protest movement’ (Dahl) - behaviouralism. It
employed scientific analysis to study politics. Its drawbacks paved the way for post-behaviouralism.

Many weak aspects of behaviouralism were highlighted, even though the methods yielded some
results. Scientific methods could not cover vast areas in politics – some were not quantifiable, other
were not developed enough to the quantified. It was alleged that behaviouralism had reduced the
scope of the subject. Scholars also criticised the excess cost, complex jargons, obsessions with
methods and undermining prescriptions and ethics. Ironically, behaviouralism arrived at conclusions
similar those by traditionalists using common sense. Behaviouralism focused more on observation
than having desired change.

Post behaviouralism was criticised on various counts although it emerged to synthesise behaviouralism
and other methods, eliminating many of their weaknesses. Traditionalists considered that post-
behaviouralism was not a fundamental shift from the behavioural approach and simply carried the
latter forward. Marxists considered post behaviouralism as a subtle defence of American liberal
political values. Postmodernists refused to accept that there could be fundamental and
unchallengeable knowledge.

Measurable and quantifiable criteria available in political science to evaluate political behaviour can be
said to be parameters such as electoral behaviour, voting preferences, public opinion, exit poll,
referendum, plebiscite, boycotts, protests etc. The behavioural approach employed scientific
methods of analysis, such as survey research, sampling, interviewing, statistical analysis, scoring and
scaling etc – to study micro political behaviour.

Behavioural and post behavioural approaches are crucial stages of the evolution of political analysis.
Among others, they have contributed to political theory-building, analysis and measuring political
behaviour.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 12: Post Behaviouralism is not a negation of the behavioural revolution but only its corrective. How
does it seek to raise the status of the discipline of political science? (2000/I/3/60)

Answer: Refer Qn. 3.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 13: Comment: Relevance of contextualist approach to the study of political theory. (2001/I/1a/20)

Answer: Contextualist approach is a political methodology that seeks to understand and assess the
circumstances that form the setting for a political theory. It views political theory development as
growing out of contextualised problems and considers necessary to specify what role context plays in
a political argument (e.g. for justice, legitimacy, common good etc.)

A contextual approach focuses on a narrow, concrete, well-defined issue, which it investigates in a

minimalist manner (i.e. to solve the problem at hand only). Two common views about the role of
contextual approach are: as a source of problems (political theory aims at addressing problems that
arise in specific political and social contexts) and as a condition for meaning (political principles and
concepts only have meaning relative to a specified context.) The contextual approach is associated
with Cambridge School proponents such as Quentin Skinner and J. G. A. Pocock. The contextual
approach started as historical approach.

Political thinkers such as Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning considered that politics and history are
closely related. The historical background is often crucial in understanding the meaning and
significance of specific practices. e.g. the legacy of imperialism still figures in understanding many
immigrant groups and national minorities (Kymlicka). History is also important in shaping political
institutions. Contextualization can also study social meanings and traditions (Walzer), which are
products of history and shape political discourses. Contextualization can also involve attention to
socio-economic inequalities, which can affect the political relations between people. e.g. Marxism
evolved in response to capitalism. Contextualists are critical of abstract political theory as
hypothetical cases, removed from real life. (Herzog)

The contextual approach can be associated with post-modernism. Derrida’s ‘deconstruction’

announces that “there is no one interpretation; every interpretation is contextual.” Lyotard
proclaimed “incredulity toward metanarratives”, i.e. context has to be kept in mind for each narrative.
Foucault talks about discourse analysis.
Joseph Carens in his book, ‘Culture, Citizenship and Community’, gives us 5 interrelated elements of
the contextual approach to political theory: (1) Using of examples to illustrate theory. (2) Exploring
real life cases where theory is applicable to provide critical feedback for maintaining the relevance of
theory. (3) Establishing the compatibility between theory and norms to have applicability. (4)
Reconciling theory and objections, or refuting one to make the other stronger. (5) Testing applicability
of theory in new settings.

If political theory is to provide conclusive arguments, then context plays a central role both as a
condition for application and as a justification of normative premises. After all, “theories of politics
are themselves part of politics of the times.”

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 15+: Examine the arguments in the normative versus empirical debates in the study of political
theory. (2002/I/2/60)

Answer: The normative versus empirical debate in the study of political theory refers to the debate
about the primary drivers to the political approaches – value or fact, prescription or description,
quality or quantity. Norms denote what ought to be and empirical aspect expresses what is.

Normative thinkers argued for the best possible prescription so that the orientation of social and
political change could be in a utopian direction. Empirical thinkers, on the other hand, persisted in
describing reality as it is, so as to maximise achievable utilitarian gain. When Plato had upheld
“philosopher king” as ideal, later, Aristotle had championed polity as best practicable. Where scholars
like Rawls, Arendt, and Habermas etc. had espoused norm based theories, others like Locke, Marx,
Weber, Mill etc. had empirical stands.

The philosophical approach of politics was normative and focused on understanding the ideals and
forwarding value based theories such as ideal state, liberty, equality, justice etc. On the other hand,
empirical approach adopters built theories on ground realities such as Locke’s ‘mind is tabula rasa’,
learning from experience, Aristotle’s ‘theory of revolution’ and Marx’s ‘revolt against capitalists’.

The debate tilted towards empiricism when value based armchair theories were blamed for loss of
credibility of political science, having ideological bias and irrelevance in reconstruction programmes
(during World Wars). Then, the focus shifted to study of political actors rather than institutions, to
have statistics based knowledge on what is to be done in society. Also, scientific analysis
(behaviouralism) claimed it could explain political behaviour from an unbiased and neutral point of
view. Later, behaviouralism was criticised for undermining political philosophy, becoming obsessed
with methods (Wolin), boasting of being capable of determining uniformities in (complex) human
behaviours etc. To subsume all arguments, further approaches emerged e.g. post-behaviouralism,
post-modernism etc.

The debates between normative and empirical aspects can be considered parts of the continuum of
the evolution of political theory. It was both inevitable and essential. With the prevalence of post-
behaviouralism Dahl’s suggestion of ending the fact-value dichotomy has come to fruition.

**********************************************************************************
Qn. 16: Explain the changing analytical perspectives in the development of political theory.
(2008/I/2/60)

Answer: Political Science, the oldest discipline, is often reputed as a “master science” (Aristotle), and
is vibrant, dynamic and constantly evolving. There have been many analytical perspectives or
methods of development of political theory.

Earliest analytical perspectives were dominated by traditional approaches, especially philosophical

approach ( the ethical and normative study of politics). Within this approach, various perspectives
sprouted, such as idealism, liberalism, Marxism, feminism etc. Other older approaches can be
historical approach and empirical approach.

In medieval times, political studies were part of religious studies or scholastics. Hermeneutics or the
interpretation of religious texts also took hold. During times of Machiavelli, the autonomous
character of politics was recognised. We see the beginning of realist perspectives. After some time,
positivism emerged (which pursued knowledge through sensory experience and logic) and grew into
post-positivism. Under behavioural movement, an attempt was made to develop ‘pure science’ or
scientific perspective (esp. under Cambridge School), which was later on modified to post-
behaviouralism or trans-empiricism. Other perspectives are communitarianism (connection between
the individual and the community) and constructivism (construct knowledge out of experiences).

In modern times, political theory developed through post-modernism, multiculturalism (coexistence

of different cultures etc.), neo-institutionalism (sociological view of institutions), Critical School
(reflective assessment and critique of society and culture) etc. Some contemporary perspectives
include phenomenology, discourse analysis, deconstruction, post-colonialism, Gramscian
perspective, ecologism et al.

In conclusion, it can be seen that various analytical perspectives have consistently been growing and
absorbing into political theory-building, making it versatile, comprehensive and development-
oriented.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 17: Comment: “Political theory is, quite simply, man’s attempt to consciously understand and solve
the problems of his group life and organisation… It is the disciplined investigation of political problems…
not only to show what a political practice is, but also to show what it means. In showing what a practice
means, or what it ought to mean, political theory can alter what is. (Sabine) (2009/I/1a/20)

Answer: The given statement is about the role and scope of political theory, as the task of clarifying
political concepts and terms, the technique of political analysis and guide to political thinking and
practice. It was made by George Holland Sabine, an American political philosopher.

According to Sabine, political theory shows “what a political practice is” (i.e. descriptive role), “what
it means” (i.e. explanatory role), “what it ought to mean” (i.e. prescriptive role) and “can alter what
is” (scope and impact). The context of the statement is the primacy of politics and that political
thinking takes place at various levels and in a variety of ways. Aristotle claimed that individual is a
‘political animal’. Political activity is all pervasive and the highest kind of activity. Italian Marxist
Antonio Gramsci described political activity as ‘activity par excellence’.

With politics being pervasive, it needs clarification, description and explanation. There are varying
responses to political issues such as the role of individual versus that of state, choosing among
values and ideals, the debate between facts and norms, the amount of equality and freedom in
society etc. These are “problems of (man’s) group life”. One’s choice will vary according to one’s
individual opinion and value preferences. And by exercising one’s choices, one may (unknowingly)
subscribe to a political ideology. Political theory helps us to do “disciplined investigation” of political
issues logically, systematically, speculatively and critically.

Welson stresses the need to scrutinise concepts in ordinary language. So that, a common man can
better grasp a political argument. e.g. knowing the difference between a liberal defining freedom as
the absence of restraints and a socialist linking freedom with equality. There can be differences of
opinion among scholars, viz. Goodwin believes in the centrality of power, T. Parsons advocates
downgrading power, comparing it to money, while Rawls and Nozick do not emphasise power at all.
Rawls talks about justice, stability and efficiency in society. Understanding politics better, aids
society to take appropriate steps. And by political analysis and prescriptions, political scientists
influence politics.

As a discipline, political theory aims to describe, explain, justify or criticise the status quo, i.e.
existing institutional arrangements and power equations in society (Mukherjee and Ramaswamy).
Ultimately, the state is compelled to work better, to preserve its legitimacy, when faced with an
aware population.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 18: Comment: “Power flows through the system like blood in the capillaries of our body.” (Foucault)
(2010/I/1a/20)

Answer: The statement that power flows like blood in our body, was made by Paul-Michel Foucault
the French postmodernist philosopher, to explain his theory that ‘power is everywhere’, diffused
and embodied in discourse, knowledge and ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault & Paul Rabinow).

Foucault postulated that ‘power is everywhere’ and ‘comes from everywhere’ so is neither an
agency nor a structure. He projects power as a kind of ‘metapower’ or ‘regime of truth’ that
pervades society. This ‘regime’ is in constant flux and negotiation. He indicated that power is
constituted through accepted knowledge, scientific understanding and ‘truth’. ‘Regimes of Truth’ are
the outcome of discourse and institutions. The regimes are reinforced and modified by components
of society, viz. education system, media and ideologies. Power is boundaries that enable and
constrain possibilities (Hayward). Similar to varied functions of blood.

He perceived power as dispersed and pervasive, as blood is, in our body. Foucault challenges the
idea that power is wielded by ‘episodic’ or ‘sovereign’ acts of domination or coercion, by individuals
or groups, as in traditional feudal states. He recognises that power is not just negative, coercive or
repressive, but also a necessary, productive and positive force in society. “Power produces reality; it
produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.”: Foucault.
Just like blood plays a part in control of the body, power is also a major source of social discipline
and conformity. It could be observed in the systems of surveillance and assessment such as
administrative systems and social services (such as prisons, schools and mental hospitals). Where
people learned to discipline themselves. It also manifested in the promotion of norms about conduct
(including sexual). Foucault studied psychology, medicine and criminology and their roles as the
knowledge that define norms. He called social control of the population as ‘bio-power’. Bio-power
creates a ‘discursive practice’ or a body of knowledge and behaviour that defines what is normal,
acceptable, deviant, etc. But the practice is also in constant flux.

Foucault believed in possibilities for action and resistance, who saw a role for the ‘organic
intellectual’ to recognise and question socialised norms and constraints. ‘Discourse transmits and
produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it
possible to thwart’ (Foucault).

For Foucault, power is what makes us what we are. His approach is that power transcends politics
and is an everyday, socialised and embodied phenomenon. For some, Foucault’s theory has little
scope for practical action. But he influenced recognition of embedded norms, which discipline us,
without any perceived coercion. His approach has been widely used to critique the ways in which
development discourses are imbued with power (Gaventa, citing ‘post-development’ critics).

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 20+: Examine the significance of Behavioural Revolution in politics. (2011/I/2b/30)

Answer: The behavioural revolution in politics was the advent of a modern political methodology, as a
protest movement (Dahl) to compensate for the perceived deficiencies of traditional approaches.
Behaviouralism inculcated scientific research methods for political analysis. Its significance can be said
to be that behavioural revolution was an essential segment in the evolutionary continuum of political
analysis.

The significance of behavioural revolution was that it arrived as the remedy for crisis in politics. This is
the flashpoint of the behavioural revolution. But its roots can be traced to the rise of empiricism (or
pre–behaviouralism). Locke, the founder of empiricism, presented parliamentary ideology on basis of
empiricism. Pluralist thinkers (Mill, Laski etc.) developed it. Weber, Marx, Wallace, Durkheim and
Bentley furthered it. Also, there was a vacuum created in political science due to the ineffectiveness
of traditional approaches felt during war-time political events. Traditional normative theories were
accused to being divorced from reality and propounding armchair theories while sitting in ‘ivory
towers’ (Easton). Charles Merriam, father of behaviouralism, accused historical methodologists of
ignoring psychological, social and economic factors. Catlin called for value-free pure social science. In
response to all this, the behavioural revolution began as the necessary intervention.

The significance of behaviouralism was highlighted by the American political scientists (mainly Chicago
School). American capitalists (Carnegie, Rockefeller etc.) funded social science research which further
fuelled the revolution. Thus, revolutionary scientific research methods were installed in political
science. Through scientific methods of surveying, sampling, interviewing etc, the actual behaviour of
political actors was sought to be known. The inquiry was for pure knowledge and theory, through
micro-level analysis, value neutrality and understanding status quo. Prominent behavioural
revolutionaries were Easton, Almond, Dahl, Laswell, and Rice. David Easton gave 8 intellectual
foundation stones (features) of the behavioural approach, which included: (1) Regularities; (2)
Verification; (3) Techniques; (4) Quantification; (5) Value-neutrality; (6) Systematisation; (7) Pure
Science; and (8) Integration.

Behaviouralism was significant in contributing to future developments. Later, neo- or post-

behaviouralism emerged to replace behaviouralism as the latter had stretched too far in purifying
techniques, pursuing social preservation and undermining philosophy. ‘Credo of relevance’ was called
for (Easton). Content and applicability were refocused on, without abandoning scientific methods, to
foster essential political and social changes.

Thus, it can be summarised that the behavioural revolution was a significant stage in the evolutionary
continuum of political theory-building. Behaviouralism, by itself, was not sufficient but was necessary.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 21: Comment on the difference between normative and empirical theories of politics.
(2012/I/1a/12)

Answer: See Qn. 15.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 24+: Comment in 150 words: “…political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling,”
(John Plamanetz) (2014/I/1a/10)

Answer: The given statement refers to the significance, purpose and status of political theory. That
political theory has a crucial role to play – guiding policy makers in particular and enlightening society
in general. It also points out that political theory has become a more demanding and challenging task,
in recent decades. The statement has been made by John Plamanetz, a political philosopher and
Oxford professor.

Political theory building has at the core of intelligentsia since a long period of time. Apart from being
the oldest discipline, Aristotle called it a ‘master science’. In its role as a lighthouse to the state or
policy makers, it has a profound influence on the human community. Apart from that, it generates
awareness and encourages political participation in the population. It helps in critical evaluation,
explanation and prediction of political behaviour. For these reasons, there is a requirement of sound
methodologies in politics.

A sound methodology is required as speculative views may not produce the desired result and fail to
generate legitimacy. It has precipitated theoretical crises, which could be said to have contributed to
real-world catastrophes. After all, it is the duty of the intelligentia to guide the masses. Hence, the
discipline has seen the persistent evolution of many approaches.

Traditional methods include philosophical approach, historical approach, empirical approach and
institutional approach, inter alia. Other subsequent methodologies include contextual approach, neo-
institutional approach, trans-empiricism, critical theory, communitarianism, social constructivism and
postmodernism, among others. Main modern methodologies have been behaviouralism and post-
behaviouralism. The most widespread methodology used today is post-behaviouralism, which
combines action and relevance. It sought to strike a balance between values and facts. It focuses on
substance, without undermining methods of analysis.

Political theory-building is the heart of political science. It has strived to perform its duty of preserving
and promoting the worth and applicability of the discipline.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 25: Discuss David Easton’s model of Systems Analysis. (2015/I/4c/15)

Answer: Systems analysis or systems theory is a pioneering model of political analysis, by David
Easton, a Canadian-American political scientist, professor and former President of American Political
Science Association. He sought to yield explanations for the interacting components of political
processes. Easton’s model describes inputs from the environment (‘demands’ and ‘supports’) into the
political system, which yields outputs (‘decisions’ and ‘policies’), which further produce ‘feedback’ in
the environment, affecting subsequent inputs. The model is a liberal view of politics.

Easton aspired to make politics a science, i.e. working with highly abstract models that described the
regularities of patterns and processes in political life. So, politics should be seen as a whole, not as a
collection of different problems to be solved. Easton was at the forefront of behavioural and post-
behavioural movements. After the adoption of scientific methods, political analysis flourished.
Political analysis can be described as the determination of the nature of the process of politics. This is
done by identifying the interacting components in political processes and arranging collected data to
yield an explanation. Easton presented his conceptual framework in his The Political System (1953).
He elaborated it further, in 1965, in his two books, A Framework for Political Analysis, and A Systems
Analysis of Political Life.

First, he presented and developed the conceptual framework of systems analysis. He attempted to
provide a ‘general’ functional theory of politics. ‘System’ is the broad unit of his analysis. A system is
“any collection of elements that interact with one another” (Robert Dahl). Easton sees persistence as
the goal of a political system.

Easton’s model describes inputs from the

environment as ‘demands’ and ‘supports’. Demands
guide the political system. Types of demands are –
those for allocation of goods and services; for
regulation of behaviour; for participation in the
political system; and for communication. Supports
enable political system to achieve its goals. Types of
supports are material supports; obedience to law;
political participatory supports; attention and respect
to public authority.

Outputs from the political system are decisions and policies, types of which are – extractions,
regulations of behaviour, distribution of goods and services and symbolic outputs. Outputs further
produce ‘feedback’ in the environment, affecting subsequent inputs. Feedback is a communication
process, in response to political system or its environment, to structures within the political system,
to affect modification in future actions. It helps the political system to approach its goals.

Easton considered the political system as an information processing system and labelled politics as
“authoritative allocation of values”. By studying the model, the political actors and citizens can learn
‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ of political operations, and take necessary actions.

**********************************************************************************

Qn. 26: Comment: The Post-behavioural Approach.” (2016/I/1b/10)

Answer: Post behavioural approach is a political methodology which evolved from behaviouralism
(objective observation of political behaviour). Post- or neo- or new behaviouralism is a macro level
analysis which searched for applied knowledge and practice, in the choice of values and decisions, to
precipitate necessary political and social change. It was formally announced by David Easton in his
1969 lecture at American Political Science Association.

Behavioural Approach was born in America, around the world wars, to address the perceived crisis, in
political theorising, of divorce from reality. Philosophy was rejected and science was adopted i.e.
adoption of scientific analysis of actual political behaviour. Later behaviouralism itself was criticised
for lacking relevance (Easton) and undermining political philosophy, by Wolin, Strauss, Reimer, Bay,
Crick etc. Thus, post behaviouralism was born.

David Easton put forward 7 guidelines for post-behaviouralism: (1) Substance is more important than
technique. (2) Social change to have priority over status-quo preservation. (3) Stay in touch with brute
realities. (4) Not to be value-free. (5) Protect human civilizational values. (6) Be action-oriented. (7)
Protect and promote the discipline of political science.

Post behaviouralism sought to be corrective of behaviouralism. It was the best possible compromise
at that time, in the normative versus empirical debate. It endeavoured to synthesise facts and values
in the political mainstream. As Marxists, traditionalists, post-modernists, critical school theorists etc.
pointed out flaws in it, the evolution from post behaviouralism continued.

**********************************************************************************

+ Note: Missing questions are not an error. Those have been removed as they belonged to other
topics.