Post-behavioralism

In this article we will explore Post-behavioralism in depth, a topic that has captured the attention of many in recent times. As we delve into this exciting topic, we will try to shed light on its importance and relevance in today's world. From its origins to its impact on society, Post-behavioralism has been the subject of debate and analysis, and in this article we will try to address all its facets in an objective and detailed manner. Through a multidisciplinary approach, we will examine the historical, cultural and contemporary aspects of Post-behavioralism, with the goal of providing our readers with a broader and deeper understanding of this fascinating topic.

Post-behavioralism (or post-behaviouralism) also known as neo-behavioralism (or neo-behaviouralism) was a reaction against the dominance of behavioralist methods in the study of politics. One of the key figures in post-behaviouralist thinking was David Easton who was originally one of the leading advocates of the "behavioral revolution".[1] Post-behavioralists claimed that despite the alleged value-neutrality of behavioralist research it was biased towards the status quo and social preservation rather than social change.

Key tenets

  • Post-behavioralism challenged the idea that academic research had to be value neutral[2] and argued that values should not be neglected.[3]
  • Post-behavioralism claimed that behavioralism's bias towards observable and measurable phenomena meant that too much emphasis was being placed on easily studied trivial issues at the expense of more important topics.[4]
  • Research should be more relevant to society[5] and intellectuals have a positive role to play in society.[6]

Criticism

Heinz Eulau described post-behavioralism as a "near hysterical response to political frustrations engendered by the disconcerting and shocking events of the late sixties and early seventies".[7]

See also

References

  1. ^ Chaurasia, Radhey (2003) History of Political Thought, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, p. 135
  2. ^ Sanford Schram, Brian Caterino, (2006) Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method, New York: New York University Press, p. 167
  3. ^ Chaurasia, Radhey (2003) History of Political Thought, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, p. 137
  4. ^ Jay M. Shafritz (2004) Dictionary of public policy and administration, Oxford: Westview Press, p. 20
  5. ^ Chaurasia, Radhey (2003) History of Political Thought, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, p. 137
  6. ^ Chaurasia, Radhey (2003) History of Political Thought, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, p. 138
  7. ^ Eulau, Heinz (1981). "Foreword: On Revolutions That Never Were." In S. L.. Long (ed.), The Handbook of Political Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Further reading

  • Easton, David (1969) The New Revolution in Political Science, The American Political Science, 63/4: 1051-1061