Introduction
Post-Behaviouralism emerged in the late 1960s, heralded by David Easton's call for a 'Credo of Relevance' and 'Action Science,' serving as a corrective movement against the hyper-quantification and ethical sterility of Behaviouralism. While it successfully reintegrated normative concerns and social responsibility into political inquiry, the approach generated significant theoretical tensions and methodological vulnerabilities.
Theoretical and Methodological Limitations
Although Post-Behaviouralism sought to bridge the gap between empirical technique and urgent societal problems, critics have identified several critical weaknesses in its formulation:
- Subjectivity of 'Relevance': Easton advocated for prioritizing 'substance over technique,' asserting that knowledge must address contemporary crises. However, what constitutes 'relevant' research is inherently contestable and subjective. Without universally accepted criteria, the discipline risks ideological fragmentation based on the personal predilections of individual researchers.
- Threat to Academic Objectivity: By actively mandating social engineering and political involvement through 'Action Science,' post-behaviouralism risks over-politicizing academic research. Critics argue that conflating scholarly inquiry with reformist advocacy diminishes scientific detachment, potentially reducing political analysis to partisan ideology.
- Methodological Ambiguity: Post-behaviouralism strongly critiqued the behavioral obsession with quantitative rigor, but it failed to articulate an alternative, coherent methodology for studying values empirically. This lack of concrete methodological grounding leaves the approach vulnerable to lapsing back into speculative and unverified normative theorizing.
- Value Relativism and Epistemological Confusion: By legitimizing subjective values without establishing a universal normative framework, post-behaviouralism invites value relativism. This undermines the discipline's explanatory power and cross-cultural validity, making systematic comparative evaluation difficult.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, Post-Behaviouralism effectively prevented political science from devolving into an insular, technocratic exercise divorced from human realities. Contemporary political theory addresses these shortcomings by pursuing a synthesis that combines behavioural empirical rigor with post-behavioural normative purpose.