BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH

Behaviouralism, or the behavioural approach to the analysis and explanation of political phenomena, is
particularly associated with the work of American political scientists after the Second World War
(1939^15), but its origins may be traced back to the works of Graham Wallas (Human Nature in
Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government), both published as early as 1908. Both Wallas
and Bentley were inclined to lay greater emphasis on the informal processes of politics and less on
political institutions in isolation. Wallas sought to introduce a new realism in political studies in the
light of the new findings of contemporary psychology. While classical economists, the champions of the
laissez-faire doctrine, had treated man as a rational creature following his self-interest, the new
psychology had revealed that man was not a rational creature in this sense and that his political actions
were not totally guided by reason and self-interest. Human nature was too complex to be explained by
simplistic utilitarian propositions. Wallas, therefore, insisted on exploring facts and evidence for
understanding human nature and its manifestations in human behaviour.

His chief message was that the political process could be understood only by analysing as to how
people actually behaved in a political situation, not merely by speculating on how they should or would
behave. Bentley, on the other hand, a pioneer of 'group approach' to politics, primarily sought not to
describe political activity, but to provide for new tools of investigation. He was so much fascinated by
the study of informal groups that he tended almost completely to ignore the formal political
institutions.

Greatly inspired by sociology, he proceeded to undertake a study of the roles of pressure groups,
political parties, elections and public opinion in the political process. Charles E. Merriam (1874-1953)
was another pioneer of the behavioural approach. He is also famous as the founder of the Chicago
School which made substantial contribution to the behavioural movement. In the article 'The Present
State of the Study of Politics' published in American Political Science Review (1921) and in his book
New Aspects of Politics (1925) Merriam criticized

contemporary political science for its lack of scientific rigour. He deprecated the work of historians as
they had ignored the role of psychological, sociological and economic factors in human affairs. He
argued that students of politics should make full use of recent advances in social sciences in order to
develop interdisciplinary and scientific character of political science. He called for renewed scientific
endeavour and emphasized the need for a 'policy science' by using quantitative techniques already
developed in the fields of psychology and sociology.

In his presidential address to the American Political Science Association (1925) Merriam exhorted
political scientists to look at political behaviour as one of the essential objects of inquiry. Apart from
being an exponent of the scientific method for the study of politics, merriam was also an ardent
champion of democracy. In fact he vigorously sought to put science into the service of democratic
principles. He saw no inconsistency in promoting science and democracy together. William B. Munro
(1875-1957), another exponent of scientific method, however, argued that it was not a proper function
of political scientists to teach democratic citizenship. Then G.E.G. Catlin, in his Science and Method of
Politics (1927) advanced the case for a 'value-free' pure science. He treated 'power' as essence of
politics and argued that analysis of 'power' should not be inclined in favour of any particular value-
system. This view of politics as the science of power as well as a case for treating politics as a policy
science was later developed thoroughly by Harold D. Lasswell (1902- 78). His celebrated work Politics:
Who Gets What, When, How (1936) proved to be a landmark in the empirical approach to politics as
the study and analysis of power.

Despite these early attempts, behaviouralism in political science was systematically developed only
after the Second World War, particularly through the writings of American political scientists. David B.
Truman published his paper 'The Impact on Political Science of the Revolution in the Behavioural
Sciences' in 1955. Robert Dahl's paper 'The Behavioural Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a
Monument to a Successful Protest' appeared in the American Political Science Review in 1961. Then
Evron M. Kirkpatrick published his paper 'The Impact of the Behavioural Approach on Traditional
Political Science' in 1962, and David Easton contributed his paper "The Current Meaning of
'Behaviouralism' in Political Science" in 1967. Heinz Eulau's article on 'Political Behaviour' in
the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, published in 1968 was also an important
contribution to the series. In a nutshell, behaviouralism stood for a shift of focus in the study of
politics, from the formalism and normative orientations of the legalistic and philosophic schools to
political behaviour, that is the behaviour of actual actors in the political field, such as power-holders,
powerseekers as well as voters.

Behaviouralism as such came to be understood as something wider than the study of

political behaviour, yet political behaviour was its main focus. It would, therefore, be profitable to
define 'political behaviour' at the outset. According to Geoffrey K. Roberts (A Dictionary of Political
Analysis; 1971): Political behaviour, as an area of study within political science, is concerned with those
aspects of human behaviour that take place within political contexts, that is within a state or other
political community, for politicalbpurposes or with political motivation. Its focus is the individual
person— as voter, leader, revolutionary, party member, opinion leader, etc.—rather than the group or
the political system, but it necessarily takes account of the influences of the group on the individual's
behaviour, the constraints of the system on the individual's opportunities for action, and the effects of
the political culture on his attitudes and political habits.

Accordingly the political scientists who undertook the study of political behavior
sought to account for the psychological and social influences on behaviour of the individual in a
political situation. This involved the study of such processes and factors as political socialization,
political ideologies, political culture, political participation, political communication, leadership,
decision-making, and even political violence. An understanding of most of these processes involved
interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research. In any case, behaviouralism as a movement in political
science did not remain confined to the study of individualbased political behaviour, but developed into
a set of orientations, procedures and methods of analysis. In practice it embraced all that lends a
scientific character to the modern political science. According to David Easton, the intellectual
foundations of behaviouralism consist of eight major tenets:

• Regularities: It implies that there are discoverable uniformities in political behaviour which
can be expressed in theory-like statements so as to provide for explanation and prediction
of political phenomena.
• Verification: It requires that the validity of such theory-like statements must be
testable, in principle, by reference to relevant behaviour.
• Techniques: It means that the means for acquiring and interpreting data should be
examined self-consciously, refined and validated for the purpose of observing, recording
and analysing behaviour.
• Quantification: It is necessary because precision in the recording of data and statement of
findings requires measurement which should be expressed in terms of actual quantities to
facilitate proper analysis.
• Values: The behaviouralists drew a clear distinction between ethical evaluation and
empirical explanation, which were concerned with values and facts respectively. They
insisted that objective scientific inquiry has to be value-free or value-neutral.
• Systematization: It stands for establishing close interrelationship between theory and
research, because research untutored by theory may prove trivial while theory
unsupportable by data may turn out to be futile.
• Pure Science: It holds that the understanding and explanation of political behaviour is
essential to utilize political knowledge in the solution of urgent practical problems of
society.
• Integration: It signifies integration of political science with other social sciences in order to
evolve a comprehensive view of human affairs, to strengthen its validity and the generality
of its own results.

Any political inquiry conducted according to these guidelines would be most conducive to generate
reliable theory and scientific explanations. The behavioural movement had such a profound effect on
political science that these tests became the rule of political inquiry.

Behaviouralism came to accord primacy to higher degree of reliability vis-avis higher degree of
generality. It, therefore, focused on questions that could be answered reliably on the basis of the
methods available. As Vernon Van Dyke has aptly illustrated: "The student who takes a behavioural
approach is not likely to ask broad and vague questions like what caused the decline and fall of the
Roman Empire . . . Nor is he likely to focus on ideologies or constitutions or laws or upon the
organizational structure of institutions." (Political Science: A Philosophical Analysis; 1960). In short,
behaviouralism focused on micro-level situations rather than attempting macro-level generalizations.