Introduction
The behavioural approach emerged in the mid-twentieth century, spearheaded by the Chicago School under Charles Merriam and later formalised by David Easton. It sought to transform political science into a rigorous, predictive, and empirical discipline by focusing on the observable political behaviour of individuals and groups, deliberately breaking away from traditional philosophical, historical, and legal-institutional methods.
Core Tenets of the Behavioural Approach
Behaviouralism aimed to introduce scientific rigor into political inquiry. David Easton outlined its key intellectual foundation stones, which included regularities, verification, techniques, quantification, values, systematisation, pure science, and integration with other social sciences. By insisting on empirical observation and value-free research, behaviouralists sought to develop generalised, testable theories of political phenomena.
Critical Limitations of the Behavioural Revolution
- Methodological Fetishism and Hyper-Factualism: The excessive preoccupation with sophisticated statistical tools, survey research, and quantitative precision caused political scientists to prioritize researchable trivia over crucial political issues. As David Easton later acknowledged, technique took precedence over substance.
- Ethical Sterility and Value Relativism: The rigid commitment to value-neutrality divorced the discipline from normative concerns such as justice, freedom, equality, and human rights. Leo Strauss famously critiqued this ethical paralysis, arguing that behaviouralists were 'fiddling while Rome burns' by failing to distinguish between tyranny and democracy.
- Status-Quo and Conservative Bias: By concentrating on systemic equilibrium, political socialization, and stability, behaviouralism was ill-equipped to explain crisis, conflict, and radical transformation. It failed conspicuously to anticipate or address major upheavals of the 1960s, such as the Vietnam War, urban riots, racial unrest, and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.
The Post-Behavioural Response and Easton's 'Credo of Relevance'
Recognising these deficiencies, David Easton proclaimed the advent of a post-behavioural revolution in his 1969 American Political Science Association (APSA) presidential address. Rather than rejecting science, post-behaviouralism represented an effort to rescue empirical enquiry by reconciling it with human purpose.
- Substance over Technique: Post-behaviouralism insisted that the vitality of substance must precede methodological sophistication, asserting that it is better to be vague on urgent matters than precisely irrelevant on trivial ones.
- Re-articulation of Normative Values: It rejected the myth of absolute value-neutrality, arguing that values cannot and should not be expelled from the study of human societies. Value commitment became essential for meaningful policy appraisal.
- Action-Oriented Scholarship: Academics were urged to discard their ivory-tower detachment and embrace social engineering and advocacy. Post-behaviouralists maintained that political science must actively engage in resolving pressing societal crises.
Conclusion
Post-behaviouralism established a constructive synthesis between empirical methodology and normative philosophy, laying the groundwork for contemporary policy science and methodological pluralism. This commitment to contextual relevance and diverse enquiry was subsequently reinforced by initiatives such as the Perestroika movement in political science.