NAME- ASHWANI (PISM)

Question 1) Was Post-Behaviouralism an improvement over

Behaviouralism?Discuss

Introduction

The emergence of Behaviouralism in the 1940s and 1950s marked a major shift in political
science from normative and institutional analysis to empirical and scientific study of political
behaviour. However, by the 1960s, the approach came under criticism for its excessive
emphasis on empiricism and neglect of values, ethics, and relevance to real-world issues. The
response to this criticism was the rise of Post-Behaviouralism, led by scholars like David
Easton, which sought to correct the excesses of Behaviouralism. Post-Behaviouralism did not
reject the scientific aspirations of Behaviouralism entirely but rather attempted to balance
scientific rigor with social relevance.

Behaviouralism: The Scientific Turn in Political Science

Behaviouralism aimed to make political science more empirical, objective, and systematic. It
drew inspiration from natural sciences and psychology to study political behaviour through
observation, quantification, and hypothesis testing.

According to David Easton, the key features of Behaviouralism included:

1. Regularities – discovery of uniformities in political behaviour.

2. Verification – testing hypotheses against empirical evidence.

3. Quantification – use of statistical and mathematical tools.

4. Value-neutrality – separation of facts from values.

5. Systematic research – development of theory-based studies.

Prominent behaviouralists like Charles Merriam, Harold Lasswell, and Gabriel Almond
contributed to the institutionalization of behavioural research. However, by the late 1960s,
political realities such as the Vietnam War, civil rights movements, and global inequalities
exposed the moral vacuum in Behaviouralism, leading to the call for a more engaged and
ethically responsible discipline.

Emergence of Post-Behaviouralism
Post-Behaviouralism emerged as a reaction against the narrow empiricism and excessive
scientism of Behaviouralism. The movement was most notably articulated by David Easton in
his 1969 presidential address to the American Political Science Association (APSA), where he
declared that political science must become both relevant and action-oriented.

Post-Behaviouralism was not a complete rejection but a reform movement within the
behavioural tradition. It sought to restore balance between scientific analysis and moral
responsibility, emphasizing that political science must serve human needs rather than merely
produce abstract data.

Major Features of Post-Behaviouralism

1. Relevance – Political science should address contemporary social and political problems
such as inequality, war, and injustice.

2. Action Orientation – Scholars should be actively engaged in improving society rather

than merely observing it.

3. Value Commitment – Acknowledgment that values are integral to political inquiry;

neutrality is neither possible nor desirable.

4. Change and Reform – Political science must contribute to social transformation.

5. Synthesis of Science and Ethics – Emphasis on combining empirical research with

normative concern.

Thus, Post-Behaviouralism brought the discipline closer to real-world politics and reintroduced
normative dimensions into political inquiry.

Post-Behaviouralism as an Improvement

Post-Behaviouralism represents a significant improvement over Behaviouralism in several

respects:

● Restoration of Human Purpose: It reconnected political science with the ethical and
moral dimensions of politics, recognizing that political study must ultimately serve
humanity.

● Greater Relevance: It shifted the discipline’s focus from abstract data collection to
socially meaningful research.

● Balanced Approach: It preserved the methodological gains of Behaviouralism—rigor,

precision, and systematic inquiry—while broadening the scope to include values and
 policy relevance.

● Dynamic Vision: Post-Behaviouralism acknowledged the evolving nature of society and

emphasized that political science must adapt to changing political realities.

In this sense, Post-Behaviouralism offered a corrective framework, blending empirical analysis

with normative concern, making political science both scientific and socially responsive.

Limitations of Post-Behaviouralism

However, critics argue that Post-Behaviouralism lacked a coherent methodology and risked
returning the discipline to pre-behavioural subjectivity. Some scholars contend that excessive
value commitment could compromise objectivity and scientific standards. Moreover, its call for
activism blurred the line between scholar and advocate, leading to potential ideological bias in
research.

Conclusion

Post-Behaviouralism emerged as a constructive response to the methodological rigidity and

moral detachment of Behaviouralism. By restoring relevance, ethics, and social responsibility to
political inquiry, it undeniably improved upon the earlier approach. Yet, it also reintroduced the
enduring tension between objectivity and value commitment in the study of politics. Ultimately,
the dialogue between Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism enriched political science,
transforming it into a more inclusive and reflective discipline—one that seeks not only to
understand the world but also to change it.

Question 2) Assess David Easton's theory of the Political System.

Introduction

David Easton (1917–2014) is one of the most influential figures in modern political science,
credited with introducing a systematic and scientific framework for understanding political life.
His “Systems Theory of Politics”, developed primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, represented an
effort to construct a general theory of political science that could explain how political systems
survive, adapt, and function in changing environments.

Easton’s approach marked a decisive shift from traditional descriptive institutionalism to a

behavioral and systems-oriented analysis, positioning politics as a dynamic process of
interactions and exchanges rather than merely a collection of static institutions.

Background: From Behaviouralism to System Analysis

Easton was deeply influenced by the behavioural revolution, which sought to make political
science more empirical and systematic. However, unlike many behaviouralists who focused
narrowly on individual behaviour, Easton attempted to integrate individual actions, institutions,
and environmental influences within a single conceptual model.

Drawing upon systems theory from biology and cybernetics (especially the works of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy), Easton viewed the political system as a set of interrelated parts interacting within
an environment, exchanging information and resources to maintain equilibrium and continuity.

The Core Concept of Political System

According to Easton, a political system is “the set of interactions through which values are
authoritatively allocated for a society.”

This definition contains two key ideas:

1. Authoritative Allocation of Values – Politics is fundamentally about decisions that

distribute values (like wealth, status, or power) and are binding upon society.

2. Interacting Processes – Politics is not a static structure but a series of ongoing

interactions among individuals, groups, and institutions.

Thus, for Easton, the political system is a process-oriented and adaptive mechanism,
continuously responding to societal demands and environmental challenges.

The Input–Output Model

Easton’s most distinctive contribution was his Input–Output Model, which explains how the
political system functions and maintains stability.

1. Inputs

Inputs are the demands and supports that enter the political system from the environment.

● Demands – These are pressures or expectations from individuals and groups regarding
political outcomes (e.g., better education, welfare, or security).

● Supports – These include actions or attitudes that sustain the system, such as
obedience to laws, participation in elections, or paying taxes.

2. Conversion Process

The political system processes these inputs through decision-making institutions (like the
legislature, executive, and judiciary), where demands are aggregated, negotiated, and
transformed into authoritative policies.
3. Outputs

Outputs refer to the decisions, laws, and policies produced by the system, which are
authoritative allocations of values.

4. Feedback Mechanism

Outputs generate feedback, influencing future demands and supports. Positive feedback
enhances system stability, while negative feedback may lead to stress or change.

This cyclical model illustrates that the political system is open and adaptive, constantly
interacting with its social, economic, and international environment.

The Concept of System Maintenance and Equilibrium

A central concern for Easton was how political systems maintain stability in the face of internal
and external pressures. He identified several mechanisms for system persistence:

1. Feedback Adjustment – The ability to learn and adapt through feedback helps maintain
equilibrium.

2. Boundary Maintenance – The system distinguishes itself from its environment to

preserve autonomy.

3. Regulation of Inputs – Not all demands can be processed; systems must filter or
prioritize them to avoid overload.

Thus, survival depends on how well the political system can manage stress and adapt to
changing conditions without collapsing.

Evaluation of Easton’s Theory

1. Major Contributions

● Analytical Clarity: Easton provided a clear conceptual framework to study politics as a

systemic process rather than fragmented events.

● Integration of Structure and Process: His model integrated both institutional and
behavioral dimensions of politics.

● Dynamic and Adaptive View: By emphasizing feedback and adaptation, he explained

how systems evolve rather than remain static.
 ● Foundation for Comparative Politics: Easton’s model inspired later scholars like Gabriel
Almond and David Apter, who applied system analysis to comparative political studies.

● Bridge Between Behaviouralism and Post-Behaviouralism: Easton’s theory preserved

behavioural precision while recognizing the importance of relevance and system stability.

2. Limitations and Criticisms

● Over-Abstract Nature: Critics argue that Easton’s model is too general and abstract,
lacking empirical specificity. It explains how systems function, but not why certain
systems succeed or fail.

● Neglect of Power and Conflict: Scholars like Theodore Lowi and David Truman noted
that the model underplays the role of power struggles, ideology, and class conflict, which
are central to politics.

● Status-Quo Bias: The emphasis on equilibrium tends to favor stability over change,
making it less useful for analyzing revolutionary or authoritarian transformations.

● Limited Applicability: The model works better for democratic and pluralist systems than
for totalitarian or unstable regimes.

Relevance and Contemporary Significance

Despite its limitations, Easton’s systems theory remains a foundational analytical tool in political
science. Modern frameworks such as policy process models, feedback theory, and political
communication studies continue to employ systemic logic. In an era of global interdependence
and complex governance networks, Easton’s focus on feedback, adaptation, and input–output
interactions retains enduring value.

Conclusion

David Easton’s theory of the political system represents a milestone in the scientific
development of political science. By conceptualizing politics as an open, adaptive, and
self-regulating system, he provided scholars with a comprehensive model to study political
processes holistically. While criticized for abstraction and neglect of conflict, his theory remains
one of the most influential paradigms in understanding political stability, change, and feedback
mechanisms. Ultimately, Easton’s framework advanced political science from a descriptive to an
analytical discipline, laying the groundwork for future theoretical innovation.

Question 3) Examine Gabriel Almond's Structural-functional analysis.

Introduction
Gabriel A. Almond (1911–2002) was one of the most prominent figures in comparative
politics during the mid-twentieth century. His structural-functional approach sought to
make the comparative study of political systems more scientific, systematic, and
universally applicable. Almond, drawing from the functionalism of sociologists such as
Talcott Parsons, aimed to create a general framework that could explain how different
political systems operate and maintain stability, regardless of their cultural or institutional
differences.

His works — notably “The Politics of Developing Areas” (1960, with James Coleman)
and “Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach” (1966, with G. Bingham
Powell)* — helped transform comparative politics from a descriptive field into an
analytical and theory-based discipline.

Background: From Traditional to Modern Comparative Politics

Before Almond, comparative politics was dominated by institutional and legalistic

analysis, primarily focusing on Western democracies. Almond criticized this Eurocentric
bias, arguing that political science needed concepts applicable to all political systems,
including developing nations and non-Western societies.

He introduced the structural-functional approach to capture both the form (structure)

and performance (function) of political systems. His objective was to develop a universal
vocabulary to describe political processes across cultures and developmental stages.

Core Concepts of Structural-Functionalism

Almond’s model rests on two fundamental ideas: structures and functions.

1. Structures

Structures are the institutions or roles through which political processes operate — such
as legislatures, executives, bureaucracies, courts, political parties, and interest groups.
Every political system, whether democratic or authoritarian, possesses structures that
perform certain essential functions. However, the form of these structures may differ
greatly across systems. For instance, the function of interest articulation may be
performed by free associations in democracies or by a ruling party in authoritarian
regimes.

2. Functions

Functions are the consequences or tasks performed by political structures that

contribute to the stability and persistence of the political system. Almond emphasized
that every political system must perform a certain set of functions to survive and adapt.
In his framework, Almond divided political functions into two broad categories:

● Input Functions – those that bring demands and support into the system.

● Output Functions – those that convert inputs into binding decisions and policies.

Almond’s Functional Categories

A. Input Functions

Input functions refer to processes that transmit social demands and support into the
political system. Almond identified four main types:

1. Political Socialization and Recruitment: The processes through which individuals

acquire political values and are inducted into political roles. (e.g., schools,
families, media).

2. Interest Articulation: The expression of needs and demands by individuals or

groups (e.g., trade unions, movements).

3. Interest Aggregation: The combination and transformation of diverse demands

into coherent policy alternatives (e.g., political parties).

4. Political Communication: The flow of information and influence between

government and citizens through media, speeches, and dialogue.

B. Output Functions

Output functions refer to how political systems translate inputs into authoritative actions.
These include:

1. Rule-Making: The creation of laws and policies (e.g., legislatures).

2. Rule-Application: The implementation of policies and laws (e.g., executive

agencies, bureaucracy).

3. Rule-Adjudication: The interpretation and enforcement of rules (e.g., judicial

systems).

System Functions: Maintenance and Adaptation

Beyond inputs and outputs, Almond also emphasized system maintenance and
adaptation, focusing on how political systems sustain themselves over time. This
involves mechanisms such as political recruitment, legitimacy, communication, and
feedback. The ability of a system to adapt to environmental challenges — economic
crises, social change, or external pressures — determines its durability.

Key Features of Almond’s Approach

1. Cross-Cultural Applicability: The model applies to both modern and traditional

societies.

2. Dynamic Analysis: It views politics as an ongoing process of interaction between

structures and functions.

3. Integration of Behaviouralism: Almond combined structural-functionalism with

behavioural methods, incorporating empirical observation and data.

4. Developmental Perspective: His model allows comparison along a continuum —

from traditional to transitional to modern political systems.

Criticisms of Structural-Functional Analysis

Despite its influence, Almond’s approach has faced several criticisms:

1. Overemphasis on Stability and Equilibrium: Critics argue that Almond’s model

prioritizes system maintenance and underplays conflict, power struggles, and
social change, which are central to politics (David Easton, Theodore Lowi).

2. Functional Ambiguity: It assumes every structure performs a positive function,

ignoring dysfunctions or oppressive roles in certain systems.

3. Western Bias in Practice: Though intended as universal, Almond’s model still

reflects Western democratic values, often measuring developing countries by
Western standards.

4. Static and Descriptive: Critics like Randall and Theobald argue that the approach
lacks causal explanation and predictive power, focusing more on description than
theory-building.
 5. Neglect of Agency and Power: The model underplays the role of individual
leaders, ideology, and class conflict in shaping political outcomes.

Significance and Legacy

Despite criticisms, Almond’s structural-functional approach remains a pioneering

contribution to comparative political analysis. It provided:

● A conceptual vocabulary (inputs, outputs, functions) for comparing diverse

systems.

● A bridge between traditional institutional analysis and modern behavioural

approaches.

● The foundation for later frameworks in developmental and comparative politics,

including the work of Lucian Pye and Sidney Verba.

Almond’s method helped transform comparative politics into a scientific, analytical, and
globally inclusive discipline, marking a key stage in the evolution of political science.

Conclusion

Gabriel Almond’s structural-functional analysis represents a major theoretical advance

in the study of political systems. By integrating structure and function, Almond provided
a comprehensive framework for understanding how political systems operate, maintain
stability, and respond to change. Although criticized for its equilibrium bias and limited
treatment of conflict, the model remains foundational in comparative political studies.
Ultimately, Almond’s contribution lies in moving political science beyond description
toward explanation, establishing a universal and dynamic method for analyzing political
life across cultures and stages of development.

Question 4) Discuss Nature and characteristics of comparative politics .

Introduction

Comparative Politics is one of the core subfields of political science. It involves the systematic
study and comparison of political systems, institutions, processes, and behaviors across
different countries and regions. The term “comparative” signifies the analytical method of
examining political phenomena by identifying similarities and differences among political units.
In the modern era, Comparative Politics has evolved from a descriptive study of constitutions
and governments to a scientific and analytical discipline that seeks to explain how and why
political systems function, change, and differ. It helps scholars understand patterns of political
development, democratization, governance, and policy outcomes across societies.

Nature of Comparative Politics

The nature of Comparative Politics refers to its scope, focus, and approach. Over time, it has
undergone significant transformation — from traditional institutional analysis to modern
empirical and behavioral inquiry.

1. Scientific and Analytical Discipline

Modern Comparative Politics seeks to develop general principles and theories about political
systems. It is not limited to describing institutions but aims to analyze and explain political
behavior and outcomes using systematic methods such as surveys, statistical models, and case
studies.

2. Empirical and Descriptive

Comparative Politics emphasizes empirical observation rather than abstract speculation. It

focuses on facts, evidence, and measurable political realities — such as voter behavior, party
systems, and policy performance. This empirical nature aligns it with the broader behavioral
revolution in political science.

3. Comparative Method

The comparative method lies at the heart of the discipline. It involves comparing two or more
political systems or institutions to understand patterns, causes, and effects. Through
comparison, political scientists can identify regularities and differences that help in building
broader generalizations.

4. Interdisciplinary Nature

Comparative Politics overlaps with economics, sociology, anthropology, and history. Political
phenomena cannot be understood in isolation; thus, comparative analysis often incorporates
economic structures, cultural traditions, and historical contexts to explain political outcomes.

5. Focus on Both Developed and Developing Nations

Earlier, comparative studies were largely confined to Western democracies. However, after
World War II, scholars like Gabriel Almond, Lucian Pye, and Samuel Huntington expanded the
field to include developing societies, post-colonial states, and authoritarian regimes. This
widened the scope and made Comparative Politics a truly global discipline.

6. Dynamic and Evolving Discipline

Comparative Politics constantly evolves to address new issues — democratization,
globalization, political culture, identity politics, and governance. It is a dynamic field, adapting its
theories and methods to contemporary global challenges.

Characteristics of Comparative Politics

1. Systematic Comparison

The key characteristic of Comparative Politics is the systematic comparison of political systems,
institutions, and processes. This allows scholars to test hypotheses, identify causal
relationships, and build general theories about political behavior and institutions.

2. Objective and Value-Free Approach

Modern comparative studies aim to maintain objectivity by separating facts from values. This
aligns with the scientific spirit of the behavioral revolution, as seen in the works of David Easton
and Almond & Powell. Researchers strive to minimize personal or ideological bias in analysis.

3. Macro and Micro-Level Focus

Comparative Politics examines both macro-level phenomena (like party systems, state
structures, political regimes) and micro-level behavior (like voting patterns, political participation,
and attitudes). This dual focus gives it a comprehensive scope.

4. Search for Regularities and Patterns

Comparative Politics seeks to identify recurring patterns and regularities in political life — for
example, how different electoral systems affect party systems or how economic development
influences democracy. These patterns help formulate generalizable theories applicable across
contexts.

5. Theoretical Orientation

The discipline is not merely descriptive; it is theory-oriented. Comparative Politics contributes to

the development of middle-range and general theories explaining political development,
modernization, and institutional performance.

Thinkers like Gabriel Almond (structural-functionalism) and Samuel Huntington (political order
and development) have used comparative analysis to formulate theoretical models explaining
political stability and change.

6. Interdependence of Systems

Modern Comparative Politics recognizes that no political system exists in isolation. Political
systems are interdependent, influenced by global trends, international institutions, and
transnational movements. Hence, comparative analysis often includes global and regional
contexts.

7. Practical and Policy-Oriented

Comparative studies also provide practical insights for policy formulation and governance. By
studying what works in one political system and what fails in another, policymakers can design
better institutions and development strategies.

Conclusion

In essence, Comparative Politics is a scientific, analytical, and empirical study that seeks to
understand how different political systems operate, why they differ, and how they evolve. It has
moved beyond descriptive constitutionalism to embrace a behavioral and interdisciplinary
approach, focusing on both the structures and functions of politics across the world.

Through systematic comparison, empirical research, and theoretical innovation, Comparative

Politics not only deepens our understanding of political life but also provides valuable insights
for promoting effective governance, democracy, and political stability in a rapidly changing
world.

Question 5) Discuss traditional approach of comparative politics ; philosophical;

institutional and legal rational.

1. Philosophical Approach
The philosophical approach is the oldest method in the study of comparative politics, tracing
back to ancient thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. This approach seeks to understand
political systems through normative and ethical principles, focusing on what ought to be rather
than what is.

Philosophical analysis deals with ideals such as justice, liberty, equality, rights, and the nature of
the state. It examines the moral foundations of political life and the ethical purpose of
government. For example, Plato’s “Republic” aimed to identify the just state, while Aristotle’s
“Politics” classified constitutions according to their ethical goals.

This approach is speculative and normative rather than empirical. It is based on reason, logic,
and deduction rather than observation or data. Philosophers compared different political
systems not for their institutional detail but for their moral and philosophical implications.

Critics argue that the philosophical approach lacks scientific precision and cannot be verified
empirically. However, its strength lies in its normative depth, as it addresses questions of value,
purpose, and legitimacy—issues that remain central to political theory today.
Thus, the philosophical approach provides the moral and conceptual foundation for political
inquiry, emphasizing values, ethics, and ideals that guide political life, even though it falls short
in empirical and comparative analysis.

2. Institutional Approach
The institutional approach is one of the most prominent traditional approaches to comparative
politics. It focuses on the study of political institutions—such as legislatures, executives,
judiciaries, constitutions, and administrative systems—to understand how governments are
organized and how they function.

This approach gained prominence during the 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in
Europe and the United States. Scholars like A. V. Dicey, Walter Bagehot, and James Bryce
studied the formal structures of government to identify similarities and differences across
countries. For example, Bryce’s “The American Commonwealth” (1888) compared the U.S. and
British systems in terms of institutional design and efficiency.

The institutional approach is descriptive, structural, and historical. It examines the formal rules,
constitutional arrangements, and powers of political institutions. It assumes that understanding
these structures is key to understanding political behavior and outcomes.

However, critics argue that this approach is narrow and static, focusing on formal institutions
while neglecting the informal forces—such as culture, behavior, and interest groups—that shape
politics. It also tends to be Eurocentric, as it was largely developed through the study of Western
democracies.

Despite its limitations, the institutional approach laid the foundation for comparative politics by
providing systematic knowledge of political organization, which later scholars expanded upon
through behavioral and structural-functional analyses.

3. Legal-Rational Approach
The legal-rational approach to comparative politics focuses on the legal frameworks,
constitutional principles, and rule of law governing political systems. It is closely associated with
jurisprudence and constitutional studies, emphasizing that political institutions and authority
derive legitimacy from legal rules and rational procedures, rather than from tradition or
charisma.

Rooted in Max Weber’s typology of authority, the legal-rational approach views modern political
systems as governed by codified laws and bureaucratic norms. Political authority is legitimate
when exercised according to formally established laws. Therefore, this approach studies
constitutions, legal rights, judicial systems, administrative procedures, and codified norms that
structure political life.
Comparative studies within this approach often examine constitutional forms (unitary vs.
federal), systems of law (common vs. civil), separation of powers, and judicial review. It
assumes that political stability and legitimacy depend on adherence to legal norms and rational
governance.

While the approach provides clarity about formal-legal structures and their operation, it has
been criticized for being formalistic and neglecting the social, cultural, and behavioral dynamics
that influence law in practice.

Nevertheless, the legal-rational approach remains valuable for understanding the constitutional
and legal foundations of political systems. It highlights how legality, procedural rationality, and
institutional design contribute to order, accountability, and legitimacy in governance, making it a
key pillar of traditional comparative analysis.

Question 6) Writes notes on Behaviouralism and Post Behaviouralism .

Behaviouralism
Introduction

Behaviouralism emerged in the 1940s and 1950s as a major movement in political science,
primarily in the United States. It aimed to transform the discipline into a scientific and empirical
study of political behavior, moving away from traditional institutional and philosophical
approaches.

The pioneers of Behaviouralism, such as Charles Merriam, Harold Lasswell, Gabriel Almond,
and David Easton, believed that political science should study the behavior of individuals and
groups rather than the formal structures of government. It was deeply influenced by
developments in psychology, sociology, and natural sciences.

Meaning and Nature

Behaviouralism is not just the study of behavior, but an approach that applies scientific methods
to understand political phenomena. It emphasizes objectivity, quantification, and hypothesis
testing. The main focus is on what people actually do in politics — how they vote, form opinions,
join parties, or react to policies — rather than on constitutional laws or political ideals.

Main Features of Behaviouralism

Political scientist David Easton identified several key features of the behavioural approach:

1. Regularities – Political behavior shows patterns that can be studied and generalized.
 2. Verification – Hypotheses must be tested against observable data.

3. Techniques – Use of statistical, mathematical, and survey methods.

4. Quantification – Data should be measurable and comparable.

5. Value Neutrality – Research should be objective, separating facts from values.

6. Systematization – Political research should be organized within a theoretical framework.

7. Pure Science Orientation – Political science should seek knowledge, not immediate
policy solutions.

8. Integration – Political science should relate to other social sciences.

Objectives of Behaviouralism

● To make political science a true social science.

● To predict political behavior using scientific analysis.

● To develop empirically tested generalizations about politics.

● To move beyond descriptive studies of institutions and focus on observable behavior.

Contributions

Behaviouralism modernized political science by:

● Encouraging empirical research and data-based analysis.

● Introducing survey research, opinion polls, and statistical modeling.

● Promoting the study of political participation, voting, and elite behavior.

● Making comparative politics more analytical and objective.

Criticisms

Despite its achievements, Behaviouralism faced several criticisms:

 ● It became too obsessed with quantification, ignoring moral and ethical dimensions.

● It failed to explain why people behave the way they do; it only described how.

● It neglected values, philosophy, and real-world relevance, becoming detached from

urgent political issues (like war or inequality).

● Critics like Sheldon Wolin and David Easton himself later argued that it lacked social
purpose.

Conclusion

Behaviouralism played a key role in turning political science into an empirical and data-driven
discipline. However, its excessive focus on methodology and detachment from values led to a
reaction known as Post-Behaviouralism in the late 1960s. Thus, while Behaviouralism marked
an important step toward scientific rigor, it needed reform to remain socially meaningful.

Post-Behaviouralism
Introduction

Post-Behaviouralism emerged in the late 1960s as a reaction against the limitations of

Behaviouralism. While Behaviouralism emphasized scientific methods and objectivity, it often
ignored the moral and practical relevance of political study. Post-Behaviouralism, led by David
Easton, sought to restore balance between science and social purpose.

The movement arose during a time of global turmoil — the Vietnam War, civil rights movements,
poverty, and inequality — when political scientists were criticized for being “scientifically
sophisticated but socially irrelevant.”

Meaning and Nature

Post-Behaviouralism does not reject Behaviouralism entirely. Instead, it modifies it by

emphasizing that political research must be both scientific and relevant. It insists that political
science should help solve real social and political problems rather than merely collect data.

In short, Post-Behaviouralism represents a reform movement that sought to make political

science action-oriented, value-conscious, and socially useful.

Major Features of Post-Behaviouralism

According to David Easton and others, the main features of Post-Behaviouralism include:
 1. Relevance – Research must address real-world issues such as justice, poverty, or
inequality.

2. Action Orientation – Scholars should not remain neutral observers; they must contribute
to solving societal problems.

3. Value Commitment – It rejects strict value-neutrality and accepts that political inquiry
involves moral choices.

4. Change and Reform – Political science should promote change and reform rather than
maintain the status quo.

5. Combination of Theory and Practice – Theory must guide action, and action should
inform theory.

6. Broader Scope – Political science should include ethics, history, and philosophy along
with empirical data.

Contributions of Post-Behaviouralism

● Reintroduced normative and ethical concerns into political analysis.

● Encouraged political scientists to focus on policy relevance and social justice.

● Balanced empirical research with moral responsibility.

● Helped bridge the gap between academic research and public issues.

● Inspired new fields such as development studies, political economy, and public policy.

Criticisms

● Critics argue that Post-Behaviouralism lacks a clear methodological framework.

● Its emphasis on activism can lead to subjectivity and bias.

● Some scholars believe that reintroducing values undermines the scientific neutrality
achieved by Behaviouralism.

● It is more philosophical than scientific, focusing on goals rather than methods.

Conclusion
Post-Behaviouralism represents an important corrective to the excesses of Behaviouralism. It
restored human purpose and ethical responsibility to political science while retaining the
strengths of empirical research. By insisting that political study should not only understand
society but also improve it, Post-Behaviouralism made political science more dynamic, relevant,
and socially responsible.

Thus, while Behaviouralism gave political science its scientific foundation, Post-Behaviouralism
gave it a soul — uniting knowledge with purpose.

Question 7) Short notes on Political Culture .

Introduction

The concept of Political Culture occupies a central position in comparative politics. It bridges the
gap between political structures and individual behavior, providing an understanding of how
citizens perceive, evaluate, and engage with the political system. The notion gained prominence
in the mid-20th century through the works of Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, particularly in
their seminal study “The Civic Culture” (1963). Political culture is crucial because it explains why
similar political institutions produce different outcomes in different societies.

Meaning and Definitions

Political culture refers to the pattern of orientations, attitudes, and beliefs that individuals hold
toward politics. It encompasses the psychological and subjective dimensions of political life —
how people think and feel about political authority, legitimacy, and participation.

According to Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, political culture consists of “the pattern of
individual attitudes and orientations toward politics among the members of a political system.”
Similarly, Lucian Pye described it as “the set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments that give order
and meaning to a political process.”

Thus, political culture is not merely about knowledge of politics but also about emotional
attachment and evaluative judgment of political phenomena.

Components of Political Culture

Almond and Verba identified three key components that constitute political culture:

1. Cognitive Orientation:

It involves the level of knowledge and awareness individuals possess about the political
system, its roles, and the functioning of its institutions.
 2. Affective Orientation:

It refers to the emotional feelings of individuals toward political symbols, authorities, and
institutions — such as respect for the flag or trust in leadership.

3. Evaluative Orientation:

It denotes the evaluative judgments individuals make about the political system — for
instance, whether it is just, efficient, or corrupt.

Together, these orientations explain how individuals relate to the political system and shape
their political behavior.

Types of Political Culture

Almond and Verba’s typology of political culture classifies societies into three ideal types:

1. Parochial Political Culture:

In this type, citizens have little awareness or interest in politics. They are primarily
oriented toward local or community affairs. Traditional and tribal societies often display
such cultures.

2. Subject Political Culture:

Here, individuals are aware of the political system but remain largely passive and
submissive to authority. Participation is minimal, as found in authoritarian or bureaucratic
systems.

3. Participant Political Culture:

Citizens are politically informed, active, and involved in decision-making. This culture is
characteristic of democratic societies, where individuals influence and evaluate
government actions.

Almond and Verba argued that a stable democracy requires a “Civic Culture” — a balanced
combination of these three types. The Civic Culture blends citizen activity with respect for
authority, promoting stability and moderation.

Determinants of Political Culture

Political culture evolves through a society’s historical experiences, socio-economic structures,

and socialization processes. Major determinants include:
 ● Historical legacies (e.g., colonialism, revolutions)

● Religion and tradition

● Education and literacy levels

● Media and political communication

● Economic development and class structure

● Family and peer socialization

For instance, India’s pluralistic political culture reflects its long civilizational heritage, colonial
experience, and democratic political socialization after independence.

Political Sub-Cultures

In heterogeneous societies, diverse groups may exhibit distinct political sub-cultures based on
ethnicity, language, region, or class. These sub-cultures can either strengthen pluralism or lead
to instability if not integrated into the broader national culture. For example, regional and
caste-based political sub-cultures in India coexist with a larger democratic culture.

Significance of Political Culture

1. Explains Political Stability and Change:

Shared cultural orientations promote legitimacy and continuity in political systems.

2. Guides Political Participation:

It influences whether citizens are active participants, passive subjects, or politically

indifferent.

3. Aids Comparative Analysis:

Political culture enables scholars to compare systems beyond institutional design,

focusing on values and attitudes.

4. Supports Democratic Consolidation:

A civic culture nurtures tolerance, trust, and cooperation necessary for democratic
functioning.
Thus, political culture provides a behavioral dimension to the study of politics, supplementing
institutional and structural analyses.

Criticisms

Despite its analytical utility, the concept has faced several criticisms:

● It is often too broad and abstract to measure empirically.

● The theory tends to overemphasize consensus while neglecting conflict and power
dynamics.

● Early studies like The Civic Culture were ethnocentric, assuming Western democratic
values as universal.

● It sometimes underplays economic and structural factors in shaping political behavior.

Conclusion

Political culture remains a foundational concept in comparative politics, linking citizens’

orientations to the performance of political systems. While institutional frameworks define the
structure of politics, political culture shapes its substance and spirit.

A democratic political culture characterized by tolerance, participation, and trust is essential for
the stability and legitimacy of modern political systems. Despite its limitations, the study of
political culture continues to enrich our understanding of how values and beliefs sustain political
order and change.