Political Theory

0.A Normative Approach in Political Science. (150w)

The Normative Approach to the study of politics is primarily concerned with values, ideals, and what 'ought to be' rather than
merely describing what 'is'. It seeks to establish standards of right and wrong for evaluating existing political institutions, laws,
and policies. This approach is often associated with Political Philosophy, which focuses on the moral and substantive
dimensions of politics. Its central problems include the pursuit of the good life, questions pertaining to norms and values, good
and evil, virtue and vice, means and ends, right and wrong, and visions of an ideal state and society.

Historically, the traditional study of politics was heavily dominated by the Normative Approach. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle
exemplify this tradition, where political inquiry was closely linked with moral philosophy. Aristotle, often considered the father of
political science, viewed politics as the 'master science' because it provides order to the rival claims of different groups on the
scarce resources of any given community and is concerned with achieving the 'good life' within a political community. He believed
that the study of politics involved determining the norms of public life and evolving institutions according to those norms. The
philosophical approach, often synonymous with the normative approach in traditional studies, aimed at clarifying concepts and
evolving standards of right and wrong through the use of reason. Most classical political theory represents this normative
orientation. Thinkers like Plato in his Republic and Aristotle in his analysis of ideal forms of society used this approach to criticize
existing conditions and promote understanding of concepts like justice. [D.D. Raphael] noted that while classical political
philosophers depicted ideal societies, their central concern was often the critical evaluation of beliefs and seeking justification rather
than mere explanation.

The Normative Approach is inherently prescriptive, meaning it sets standards or forms of conduct. It tends to express a
preference for a particular type of political order dictated by moral principles or a sense of duty. It aims at discovering 'What
ought to be' by setting ideal standards or minimum standards for ideas and norms. For example, in the theory of justice, a
normative approach defines what the meaning of justice is, often striving to derive a perfect order of peace and prosperity.
Thinkers like [John Rawls] in his A Theory of Justice (1971) and [Robert Nozick] in Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) are
significant contemporary figures whose works are considered rich in normative content, dealing with questions of justice and
libertarianism.

The rise of positivism and the behavioural revolution in the mid-20th century challenged the dominance of the Normative
Approach. Advocates of these approaches, including [Logical Positivism], argued for a 'value-free' or 'value-neutral' approach
to the study of politics, insisting that political theory should be confined to the sphere of political science, which relies solely on
empirical and logical statements. They contended that evaluative statements are subjective, based on individual or group
preferences, and that there is no scientific method for determining what is right or wrong. [T.D. Weldon] famously argued that a
political philosophy is like a matter of taste, not subject to argument. [G.E.G. Catlin] advocated for a 'value-free' pure science of
politics, treating 'power' as its essence, and [Harold D. Lasswell] further developed this view in his work Politics: Who Gets What,
When, How (1936), which was a landmark in the empirical approach to politics.

The behavioural approach sought to strengthen the scientific basis of the study of politics and explicitly tried to delink it from
political philosophy. It insisted on studying the actual behaviour of human beings in political situations, focusing on what is
observable and measurable. This led to a perceived 'decline of political theory' in the mid-20th century. Scholars like [David
Easton] in his Political System— An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953) questioned the relevance of the concept of the
state itself, arguing it was a formal concept that didn't help understand political reality and dragged inquiry into the realm of moral
philosophy. [Seymour Martin Lipset], in Political Man (1960), even argued that the age-old search for a 'good society' had ended,
implying diminished need for normative inquiry. [Leo Strauss], a strong critic of behaviouralism, argued that the new science of
politics was a symptom of the decline of political theory because it ignored normative issues. He contended that by teaching the
equality of values and denying intrinsic highness or lowness, it contributed to societal degradation.

However, the perceived decline of political theory was followed by a resurgence. The Post-Behavioural Revolution, announced
by [David Easton] himself in 1969, signaled a shift from strict methodological issues to a greater concern with the public
responsibilities of the discipline and with political problems. Post-behaviouralism insisted on making the achievements of
political science subservient to human values and ends and aimed to reintroduce a concern for values without abandoning
scientific methods for studying facts. It sought to build upon the gains of behaviouralism and utilize them for problem-solving,
shifting the focus towards applied science. This heralded a revival of interest in normative questions.

Contemporary political theory demonstrates a resurgence of the Normative Approach, often combining insights from empirical
findings with normative analysis. Thinkers like [C.B. Macpherson] with his concept of creative freedom and analysis of democracy,
[Karl Popper] (though often critical of historicism which can be linked to certain normative visions), [F.A. Hayek]'s defence of
libertarianism, [John Rawls]'s theory of justice, and more recently [Ronald Dworkin] and [Amartya Sen], contribute significantly to
contemporary normative debates. [Leo Strauss] and [Sheldon Wolin] are seen as contemporary champions and defenders of the
philosophical/normative approach. [Strauss] argued that political science and political philosophy are coterminous, both seeking
true knowledge and standards of the right and the good. [Wolin], in Politics and Vision (1960), defended the traditional vocation of
political theory, emphasizing its role in providing critical vision and challenging the status quo.

The significance of the normative approach lies in its capacity to undertake a critical evaluation of political institutions and
activities, moving beyond mere description to ask questions about their legitimacy and desirability. It provides the framework for
deliberating on fundamental concepts like justice, equality, and liberty, even when different schools of thought offer varying
interpretations. While empirical approaches can help examine the grounds of a normative argument (e.g., using empirical data to
reject Aristotle's justification for harsher punishment for slaves based on their sensitivity), they cannot determine values
themselves. The determination of values is considered the basis of sound public policy and decision-making. As [Daryl Glasser]
suggests, engagement with normative theory, involving open and self-conscious debate, helps actors make better moral choices in
politics. [Isaiah Berlin] argued that political theory is essential as long as rational curiosity exists and that there cannot be an age
without political philosophy. He saw the resurgence of political theory as a return to the classics, where normative analysis is
enriched by empirical findings.

In summary, while the Empirical Approach focuses on describing and explaining the political reality based on observable facts, the
Normative Approach, deeply rooted in Political Philosophy, focuses on prescribing what ought to be, evaluating political life
against ideals and values such as justice, liberty, and the good society. Despite facing criticism from proponents of scientific
methods for its subjectivity and lack of empirical verifiability, the Normative Approach remains indispensable for its role in critical
reflection, setting moral standards, and guiding the pursuit of a better political order. The post-behavioural revolution
highlighted the necessity of integrating values and facts, reaffirming the enduring significance of normative inquiry in addressing the
pressing problems of society.

1. Write on the Systems Approach. [2022/10m/150w/1a]

Approaches to the study of politics are fundamental to understanding the complexities of political life, and among the contemporary
perspectives, the Systems Approach stands out as a significant contribution, particularly influenced by the behavioral revolution.
This approach views politics not merely through the lens of formal institutions but as a dynamic process occurring within a broader
social context.

The Systems Approach conceives of politics in terms of a political system. A system, as elucidated by [Robert Dahl], is "any
collection of elements that interact in some way with one another". For analytical purposes, the elements of a political system are
seen in an abstract way, interacting within the sphere of politics, rather than as concrete entities like government organs. The
political system is essentially regarded as a sub-system within the larger social system or environment, operating not in isolation
but receiving inputs from and producing outputs impacting this environment. [David Easton] is a pioneering figure associated with
this model of political analysis. He defined politics as the 'authoritative allocation of values', meaning it encompasses the
processes through which government responds to societal pressures by allocating benefits, rewards, or penalties deemed binding
by citizens.

The Eastonian model describes the political process through a cyclical flow: Inputs from the environment, such as demands and
support, enter the political system. The system, through a conversion process, transforms these inputs into Outputs, which are
typically formal decisions and policies. These outputs then re-enter the environment, and their effects are monitored through a
feedback mechanism. Feedback is a crucial communication process that provides information about the state of the system or its
environment, allowing structures within the system to modify their future actions. This continuous process helps the political system
in approaching its goals, informing it of its position, distance from goals, and changes resulting from its performance. The formal
organs of government, such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary, are understood within this framework as responding to
demands emanating from the social system, and their decisions in turn have an impact on the social system.

Originating in the context of the behavioral movement after World War II, when political science sought to establish a more
scientific identity comparable to other social sciences, the systems approach prioritized empirical study and moved away from
purely normative concerns. Scholars like [Graham Wallas] and [Arthur Bentley] had earlier laid emphasis on the process of politics
rather than just institutions. The systems approach provided a theoretical framework for this shift, regarding the 'state' as a static
concept and preferring the concept of the 'political system' because it highlights the dynamics of the political process. Some
proponents of the behavioral approach even suggested abandoning the concept of the state altogether because it was seen as too
formal and removed from the real world of politics.

A significant development of the systems approach is the Structural-Functional Analysis, pioneered by [Gabriel Almond] and
[G.B. Powell]. They built upon [Easton]'s model, arguing that all political systems must perform specific functional requirements to
maintain themselves as ongoing systems. They redefined inputs and outputs as 'functions' necessary for system equilibrium and
proceeded to identify various political and sometimes non-political structures that perform these functions across different political
systems. This approach is considered more dynamic than basic systems analysis and is useful for comparing political systems at
different stages of development, including both advanced and developing countries.

The adoption of systems analysis in political science also gave significant impetus to the interdisciplinary approach. By treating
the political system as an 'open system' that interacts with its environment, it becomes essential to understand the economic,
cultural, psychological, and sociological aspects of the social organization to fully appreciate the political process. This overcomes
the limitations of earlier, partial approaches that relied solely on single disciplines like philosophy, history, or law.

Despite its influence and utility in organizing data and understanding developing areas, the systems approach has faced critiques.
Traditionalists have argued it introduces complex jargon and analytical models while being status quoist, offering little scope for
fundamental change or improvement. Marxists criticize it as a Western-centric model associated with the legitimation crisis of
capitalism and challenge the idea of 'authoritative allocation of values'. Critics also note that it focuses heavily on the political
process and the conversion of inputs to outputs, potentially neglecting the actual content of decisions. [Theda Skocpol] is
associated with a critique suggesting such approaches reduce political science to a sub-discipline of sociology by not "bringing the
state back in". Additionally, focusing primarily on system maintenance and equilibrium might downplay fundamental conflicts, power
structures, and the phenomena of violence or revolution, areas where approaches like Marxian analysis might be considered more
useful.

In summary, the Systems Approach, particularly the model developed by [David Easton] and later extended into Structural-
Functionalism by [Gabriel Almond] and [G.B. Powell], provided a powerful framework for understanding politics as a dynamic
process of interaction between the political system and its environment. Emerging from the behavioral revolution, it emphasized
empirical analysis, facilitated interdisciplinary studies, and proved particularly useful in comparative politics. However, its focus on
process and system maintenance, while moving beyond static institutional studies, also attracted critiques for potentially neglecting
the substance of politics, power dynamics, and the centrality of the state.

0B. Behavioral Approach to political Science.

The Behavioural Approach signifies a significant turning point in the discipline, marking a departure from traditional modes of
inquiry to embrace a more empirical and scientific orientation.

1. Genesis and Context:

The Behavioural Approach is particularly associated with American political scientists after the Second World War (1939-1945).
However, its origins can be traced back to earlier works that shifted emphasis from formal political institutions to the actual
processes of politics and human behaviour within political situations. Early precursors include scholars like (Graham Wallas),
author of "Human Nature in Politics", and (Arthur Bentley), who wrote "The Process of Government", both published in 1908.
(Wallas) advocated for a new realism in political studies by incorporating findings from contemporary psychology, challenging the
classical liberal economic view of man as purely rational. He insisted on exploring facts and evidence to understand human nature
and its manifestations in political behaviour, arguing that the political process could be understood only by analysing how people
actually behaved, not how they should behave. (Bentley), considered a pioneer of the 'group approach', focused on informal
groups and sought new tools of investigation, drawing inspiration from sociology to study the roles of pressure groups, political
parties, elections, and public opinion.

Another key figure in the early development was (Charles E. Merriam), associated with the Chicago School, which significantly
contributed to the behavioural movement. (Merriam), in his writings like "The Present State of the Study of Politics" (1921) and "New
Aspects of Politics" (1925), criticized contemporary political science for its lack of scientific rigour and urged scholars to utilize
advances in other social sciences (psychological, sociological, and economic factors) to make political science interdisciplinary and
scientific. He called for a "policy science" using quantitative techniques. (G.E.G. Catlin) also advocated for a value-free science
of politics, viewing power as its essence.

Despite these early efforts, behaviouralism was systematically developed after WWII, driven by scholars like (David B. Truman),
(Robert Dahl), (Evron M. Kirkpatrick), (David Easton), and (Heinz Eulau). This period saw a deliberate effort to make political
science more scientific, drawing heavily on methods from the natural sciences.
2. Core Tenets (Intellectual Foundations):

(David Easton) is credited with outlining the eight major intellectual foundations or tenets of behaviouralism. These tenets provide
the framework for conducting political inquiry according to the behavioural approach:

● Regularities: Behaviouralism posits that there are discoverable uniformities or regularities in political behaviour, which
can be expressed in generalizations or theory. The goal is to identify these patterns.
● Verification: Generalizations and theories about political behaviour must be testable and verifiable through empirical
methods. This means relying on observation and data.
● Technique: Behaviouralists emphasize the need for rigorous and appropriate techniques for acquiring and interpreting
data. Methodological sophistication is valued.
● Quantification: Where possible, data should be measured and quantified to allow for precise analysis and systematic
comparison. This led to a focus on areas where quantifiable data was readily available, such as voting behaviour.
● Values: A central tenet is the strict separation of values from facts. The aim is to conduct value-neutral or value-free
analysis, focusing on what is rather than what ought to be.
● Systematization: Research should be systematic, aiming to build interrelationships between theory and research.
● Pure Science: Behaviouralism aimed to develop a pure science of politics, focused on understanding and explaining
political behaviour before utilizing this knowledge for solving societal problems. Knowledge for knowledge's sake was a
driving principle initially.
● Integration: Political science should be integrated with other social sciences to achieve a comprehensive view of human
affairs and strengthen its findings.

3. Focus and Methodology:

The primary focus of the Behavioural Approach is the study of the actual behaviour of human beings in political situations, rather
than merely describing political institutions or their legal positions. It dissolved formal institutions into 'systems' and 'processes' to
concentrate on the behaviour of political actors, such as voters, leaders, party members, and opinion leaders. This focus is on the
individual person. However, it necessarily considers the influence of groups, the political system's constraints, and the political
culture.

The methodological cornerstone of behaviouralism is the strict adherence to the scientific method. This involves observation
based on sense-experience, generalization based on observed regularities (through inductive or deductive methods, preferably
quantitative and verifiable), explanation of these regularities, and ideally, prediction. This empirical orientation led to a preference for
studying phenomena that are easily observable and quantifiable. This often resulted in a focus on micro-level analysis, examining
small units and specific situations where reliable data could be obtained, rather than attempting broad macro-level generalizations.

4. Interdisciplinary Perspective:

Given its focus on explaining political behaviour, behaviouralism inherently promotes an interdisciplinary approach. Human
political behaviour is seen as an aspect of total social behaviour, requiring consideration of social, cultural, and personal factors.
This led to drawing heavily from and integrating findings, theories, and methods from other social sciences like psychology,
sociology, and economics. Concepts from these disciplines were applied to political phenomena, leading to the rise of fields like
Political Sociology ((Max Weber), (Robert Michels), (Vilfredo Pareto), (Emile Durkheim), (Arthur Bentley), (Franklin Giddings),
(Seymour Martin Lipset)), Political Psychology, and the use of economic models (e.g., rational choice theory) in Political
Economy. The study of political systems, viewed as sub-systems of the larger social system, also necessitates understanding
economic, cultural, psychological, and sociological aspects of society.

5. Impact and Areas of Study:

Behaviouralism profoundly impacted the study of politics by shifting focus and introducing new methods. It significantly advanced
research in areas such as:

● Voting Behaviour: As a quantifiable form of behaviour, voting became a central focus, leading to extensive use of
surveys and statistical analysis. Key works include (Campbell et al.)'s "The American Voter".
● Political Socialization: The process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and orientations.
● Political Culture: The pattern of orientations towards political objects. Classic work by (Almond and Verba) "The Civic
Culture" exemplified this study using behavioural techniques.
● Political Participation: Analysing how people engage in the political process beyond just voting.
● Leadership and Elite Behaviour: Studying the actual behaviour of political elites and decision-makers.
● Decision-Making Analysis: Examining the process of taking public decisions.
● Political Communication: How information is transmitted and received within the political system.

Behaviouralism also gave impetus to the development and use of models of political analysis, such as Systems Analysis ((David
Easton)) and Structural-Functional Analysis ((Gabriel Almond)), providing frameworks for understanding political processes
empirically.

6. Criticisms:

Despite its influence, behaviouralism faced significant criticism:

● Neglect of Normative Issues: Critics, notably (Leo Strauss), argued that behaviouralism's insistence on value-free
analysis ignored the crucial normative questions of politics, such as justice, the good life, and the ideal society. (Strauss)
saw the rise of the new science as a symptom of the decline of political theory.
● Bias towards Status Quo: By focusing solely on observable behaviour and existing arrangements, behaviouralism was
accused of implicitly endorsing or legitimizing the status quo instead of critically evaluating it. (Dante Germino) lamented
that it often failed to perform the Socratic function of 'speaking truth to power'. (Herbert Marcuse) argued that adopting
natural science language could support the status quo by limiting inquiry to the observable and measurable.
● Mindless Empiricism and Under-theorizing: Critics like (Karl Popper) and (John Plamenatz) (though the latter's quote
"Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling" is used more generally to defend theory) and (Dante
Germino) accused behaviouralists of being preoccupied with method and quantification, leading to the accumulation of
facts without sufficient theoretical depth ("over-quantification and under-theorizing").
● Limited Scope: Behaviouralism was criticized for constraining the scope of political analysis, preventing it from exploring
aspects beyond what was directly observable and quantifiable, potentially reducing politics to little else. (Vernon Van
Dyke) illustrated this by noting behaviouralists avoid broad questions like the fall of the Roman Empire or focusing on
ideologies or constitutions.
● Difficulty Establishing Regularities: Questioning the applicability of natural science methods to complex and
unpredictable human behaviour, critics doubted the ability to establish true regularities or scientific laws in politics.
● Abdication of Vocation: (Sheldon Wolin) argued that the preoccupation with method represented an abdication of the
true vocation of political theory, which involves a broader vision and critical engagement with political life.
7. Post-Behavioural Revolution:

By the mid-1960s, dissatisfaction with strict behaviouralism grew, partly due to its perceived failure to address pressing social and
political issues and the growing interest in normative questions. In 1969, (David Easton), a key figure in the behavioural movement,
announced a new revolution: Post-Behaviouralism.

Post-behaviouralism was not a complete rejection of behaviouralism but rather a call to build upon its achievements and make
political science more relevant and action-oriented. Its twin slogans were the "credo of relevance and action". It insisted on
making the achievements of political science subservient to human values and ends. This heralded a revival of concern with
values without compromising the scientific method for studying facts.

The key shifts in post-behaviouralism included:

● From Pure Science to Applied Knowledge and Practice. Knowledge should be used for solving social problems.
● Greater concern with public responsibilities of the discipline and with political problems.
● Reintroduction of concern for values, arguing that scholars could engage with value construction and application without
denying scientific validity. It sought to resolve the fact-value dichotomy by maintaining values as the aim, achievable
through scientific methods.
● Emphasis on social change, not just focusing on the status quo.
● Shift towards macro-level analysis in addition to micro-level studies.

In essence, post-behaviouralism absorbed the behavioural orientation while adding a crucial layer of relevance and value concern,
representing a synthesis between traditional normative theory and behavioural empiricism.

8. Conclusion:

The Behavioural Approach marked a transformative phase in the study of Political Science, moving the discipline towards
empirical observation, quantification, systematization, and interdisciplinarity. It shifted the focus from formal institutions and
normative prescriptions to the actual behaviour of political actors. While criticized for neglecting values and potentially supporting
the status quo, it significantly advanced the methodological tools and analytical concepts within the field, particularly in areas like
voting behaviour, political culture, and political socialization. The rise of Post-Behaviouralism, announced by (David Easton),
addressed the limitations of strict behaviouralism by reintroducing the crucial dimension of values and emphasizing the relevance
and action-oriented nature of political inquiry for problem-solving. Today, elements of both empirical rigour (from behaviouralism)
and concern for values and relevance (from post-behaviouralism) are integrated into contemporary political analysis, demonstrating
a continuity and synthesis in the evolution of the discipline.

0C. Elucidate the meanings inherent in the term ‘political’ with appropriate illustration. (20 marks)

The term "political" is far from having a single, universally agreed-upon definition; it is, in fact, an " essentially contested concept".
Its meaning has evolved throughout history and varies depending on the approach and focus of study. Understanding these multiple
meanings is vital as they define the scope and nature of political inquiry itself. Political theorists have grappled with the question of
"what is political?" for centuries.

Here are some of the principal meanings and conceptions inherent in the term "political":
1. The Classical Greek Meaning (Polis/Community): The word "political" is derived from the Greek word "polis," which
refers to the ancient Greek city-state. In this classical view, politics was understood as the activities and affairs of the
community. It pertained to decision-making within and about the community. For thinkers like [Aristotle], who famously
stated that "Man is by nature a political animal", living in a polis and participating in its life was essential for human
fulfilment and the pursuit of the "good life". This conception of politics emphasized that decisions were to be made
through words and persuasion, not through force and violence. Importantly, in the classical view, there was no rigid
distinction between the social and political spheres; everything concerning the life and good life of the community was
considered political. This notion of a common political space where citizens participate resonates with the ideas of later
thinkers like [Michael Joseph Oakeshott] and [Hannah Arendt], who viewed political life as a distinctive form of human
organization providing space for freedom, honour, and full human development.

2. The Traditional/State-Centric Meaning (Politics as Government): A common and more traditional understanding,
particularly prevalent until the rise of contemporary approaches like Behaviouralism, links politics very closely with the
State and its formal institutions. In this view, politics is defined as "what concerns the state" or the "art of government".
It is seen as the activity that takes place within a "polity," a system of social organization centered on the machinery of
government. This restricts politics to government departments, legislative chambers, cabinet rooms, and is primarily
engaged in by a limited group of people like politicians, civil servants, and lobbyists. Academic political science
traditionally focused on the personnel and machinery of government within this framework. This definition can be
narrowed further to equate politics solely with party politics. The link between politics and the state also contributes to
the common negative perception of politics, associating it with the activities of politicians, sometimes traced back to the
realistic account of power by [Niccolò Machiavelli]. Within this state-centric view, [David Easton] provided a highly
influential definition of politics as the "authoritative allocation of values" for a society. By "values," he meant "things
considered valuable, whether they be spiritual or material". "Allocation" refers to the distribution of these values.
"Authoritative" means that the allocation is accepted as binding by the society's members. This function is performed by
the political system, which is seen as the mechanism for making and implementing binding decisions for the entire
community. While [Easton]'s broader system concept is dynamic, the core function he identifies is fundamentally tied to
the state's role in making authoritative decisions.

3. Politics as Conflict and Power: Another significant meaning emphasizes politics as being inherent in conflict and the
exercise of power. From this perspective, politics arises because of the existence of diversity, different opinions, interests,
and desires within society. Political situations necessarily involve disputes over the allocation of scarce and valued
resources. This perspective often focuses on "who gets what, when and how?," a phrase famously associated with
[Harold Lasswell]. Power, defined as the ability to control others or get one's wishes carried out, is central to this
understanding. This control can be overt, like violence, or more subtle, involving threats, manipulation, or dependency
created through favors. [Machiavelli] viewed power as the very essence of politics. [Carl Schmitt] saw 'the political'
reflecting the fundamental human reality of the distinction between friend and enemy. [Robert Dahl]'s definition of a
political system as a pattern of human relationships involving "control, influence, power or authority" also fits within this
broad conception. This view sees politics as a struggle over resources and influence.

4. Politics as a Pervasive Social Process (Beyond the State): In contrast to the state-centric "arena" view, some
definitions conceptualize politics as a "process" that is not confined to a specific sphere but is pervasive throughout social
life. This perspective sees politics at work in all collective social activity, formal or informal, public or private. It exists
 whenever and wherever social conflict or power relations are found. [Adrian Leftwich] argues that politics is "at the heart
of all collective social activity". This moves the understanding of politics beyond just government to include power
dynamics within families, workplaces, clubs, schools, and other social institutions. [Michel Foucault] offers a related,
radical view with his concept of "governmentality". He sees the state as emerging from modern practices of governing
human conduct – of the self, the family, institutions, and the body. Governmentality refers to the rationality, techniques,
and procedures through which the state structures the possible field of action of others, not just through coercion but also
by providing services, knowledge, and benefits that limit individual possibilities. This broadens the concept of politics to
encompass the state's extensive involvement in ordering and managing life, while also serving a critical purpose by
exposing these power relations and enabling critique and resistance.

5. The Feminist Redefinition ('The Personal is Political'): A powerful challenge to the traditional public/private divide
came from the feminist perspective. The slogan "the personal is political" asserts that the power dynamics traditionally
confined to the private sphere, such as those within the family or intimate relationships, are fundamentally political.
Feminists argue that relationships based on dominance and control exist not just in the public arena but permeate all
aspects of life, including the most personal relations. [Kate Millett], in Sexual Politics, redefined politics as "power-
structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another". This perspective
insists on recognizing and analyzing power imbalances based on gender (and other factors) wherever they occur,
effectively expanding the realm of "the political" to include issues like domestic violence, unequal division of household
labor, and reproductive rights.

6. Politics as an Empirical and Normative Concept: Finally, the term "political" is used in both empirical and normative
senses. It refers to observable phenomena, what "is" (empirical or descriptive), and also to ideas about what "ought to
be" (normative or evaluative). While the Behavioural Approach and Political Science in its pursuit of scientific analysis
emphasizes empirical and logical statements, aiming for value-neutrality, Political Philosophy explicitly engages with
values, norms, and the pursuit of the good life. However, critics argue that facts and values are often deeply interlinked,
and even seemingly descriptive political concepts can be "loaded" with moral and ideological implications. Political theory,
in a broader sense, encompasses both the scientific study of political phenomena (political science) and the conceptual
and evaluative study of political ideas and ideals (political philosophy).

In conclusion, the term "political" is multifaceted, reflecting diverse understandings of human interaction, power dynamics, and
collective life. From the classical emphasis on community and the good life of the polis to the modern focus on the State and its
authoritative allocation of values, the pervasive nature of power relations, and the feminist assertion that "the personal is
political," each meaning highlights different dimensions of political reality. Recognizing "political" as an "essentially contested
concept" marked by both empirical and normative aspects is fundamental for a comprehensive understanding of political
phenomena and the various theoretical approaches employed in Political Science. The Behavioural Approach, while seeking
scientific rigour, operated within this complex conceptual landscape, focusing on observable political behaviour, which ultimately led
to subsequent debates about the scope and values in political inquiry during the Post-Behavioural Revolution.

2. Examine the importance of behavioural approach in political theory. What led to its decline? [2021/15m/200w/2b]
The study of politics has a long tradition, with various approaches adopted over time. The period following the Second World War
(1939-45) witnessed the emergence of contemporary approaches, which signified a significant departure from the traditional
approaches that largely remained in vogue until that time. While traditional approaches were dominated by the study of
philosophy, history, law, and institutions, contemporary approaches sought to establish a separate identity for political science
by focusing on the real character of politics and understanding it in totality, transcending mere formal aspects. The behavioural
approach, or behaviouralism, is identified as a typically contemporary approach.

Importance and Significance of the Behavioural Approach:

The behavioural approach fundamentally insists on studying the actual behaviour of human beings in a political situation, rather
than merely describing the salient features and legal position of political institutions. Its core tenet is that observable behaviour at
the level of both individuals and groups is the basic unit for analysis, and that explanations of this behaviour can be empirically
tested. This marked a crucial shift in the focus of political inquiry. Formal political institutions, central to earlier studies, were often
dissolved into 'systems' and 'processes' to specifically focus attention on the actual behaviour of political actors, deemed the
only subject capable of scientific study.

The origins of this emphasis on behaviour can be traced back to the early 20th century with the works of Graham Wallas and
Arthur Bentley, both published in 1908. Wallas, in "Human Nature in Politics," sought to introduce a new realism based on the
findings of contemporary psychology, which challenged the classical economic assumption of man as a purely rational creature
guided solely by reason and self-interest. He insisted on exploring facts and evidence to understand human nature and its
manifestations in political behaviour, arguing that the political process could only be understood by analysing how people actually
behaved, not how they should or would behave. Bentley, in "The Process of Government," is considered a pioneer of the 'group
approach' and was fascinated by the study of informal groups, tending to almost completely ignore formal political institutions.
Inspired by sociology, he focused on the roles of pressure groups, political parties, elections, and public opinion in the political
process.

However, behaviouralism was systematically developed primarily after the Second World War, particularly by American political
scientists. Key figures included David B. Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M. Kirkpatrick, David Easton, and Heinz Eulau. They
stood for a shift of focus from the formalism and normative orientations of the legalistic and philosophic schools to political
behaviour, encompassing the behaviour of actors like power-holders, power-seekers, and voters. While behaviouralism became
understood as wider than just studying political behaviour, it remained its main focus.

The behavioural movement sought to strengthen the scientific basis of the study of politics and to delink it from political
philosophy. It was inspired by the scientific tradition, reflecting the growing impact of positivism. David Easton notably appealed
for building a behavioural political science closer to other social sciences, intended to take its due place in the decision-making
process. He believed that values were individual or group preferences, and political scientists should concentrate on building
causal theory to explain political behaviour. Behaviouralists tried to build a pure science of politics, giving a new orientation to
research and theory building, rejecting the notion that political theory was merely a historical study of past ideas. Easton attributed
the "poverty of theory" in the discipline to a preoccupation with the past in his work "Political System— An Inquiry into the State of
Political Science" (1953).

Easton articulated the intellectual foundations of behaviouralism in eight major tenets:

1. Regularities: The belief that there are discoverable uniformities in political behaviour that can be expressed in
generalizations or theories capable of explaining and predicting political phenomena.
 2. Verification: Generalizations must be testable by reference to observable behaviour.
3. Technique: The need to use self-conscious, refined methods for observation, recording, and analysing data.
4. Quantification: Measurement and quantification where possible, as it facilitates precision in recording findings and stating
conclusions.
5. Values: Strict separation of ethical evaluation from empirical explanation, aspiring to be value-neutral.
6. Systematization: Research should be systematic, relating theory and research.
7. Pure Science: Seeking understanding and explanation of political behaviour before utilizing knowledge for solving
societal problems.
8. Integration: Integrating political science with other social sciences to evolve a comprehensive view of human affairs and
strengthen its validity.

Political scientists undertaking the study of political behaviour sought to account for psychological and social influences, involving
the study of processes like political socialization, political ideologies, political culture, political participation, political
communication, leadership, decision-making, and even political violence. Understanding these often involved
interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research. The empirical orientation in political science fostered this shift to behaviour and
systems analysis, recognizing that politics could be better understood through the behaviour of participants (electorate, legislators,
bureaucrats, etc.). This analysis involved studying the behaviour of people – individuals, groups, the elite – requiring reliance on an
interdisciplinary approach, as political behaviour is an aspect of total social behaviour influenced by social, cultural, and personal
factors.

Behaviouralism came to accord primacy to a higher degree of reliability over generality, focusing on questions reliably answerable
by available methods, typically micro-level situations rather than macro-level generalizations. Examples include voter behaviour
([Campbell et al.], [Butler and Stokes]), elite decision making, and activities of non-state actors. Machiavelli has even been
described by William T. Bluhm as a pioneer of behaviouralism for emancipating political study from metaphysics and theology,
placing it on historical/realistic foundations, and conceiving politics as an instrument of power based on how people actually are. The
detailed analysis of political parties, for instance, started with behaviouralism through the writings of Duverger and Robert Michels.

Factors Leading to the Decline of Behaviouralism:

Despite its significant impact and dominance by the mid-1960s, behaviouralism came under growing pressure. Several factors
contributed to its decline:

1. Limitations of Scope and Mindless Empiricism: Critics argued that behaviouralism significantly constrained the scope
of political analysis by preventing it from going beyond what was directly observable and quantifiable. While useful in
fields like voting studies, a narrow obsession with quantifiable data threatened to reduce politics to little else. Karl Popper
notably rejected the "narrow inductive approach" of scientific methodology often associated with behaviouralists. The
focus was often on phenomena easily observable and analyzable rather than necessarily the most important issues. This
was termed "mindless empiricism". Dante Germino criticized it for "over quantification and under theorizing".
2. Inability to Deal with Values and Normative Issues: A major criticism was behaviouralism's failure to adequately
address normative issues and value concerns. Concepts like liberty, equality, justice, and rights were sometimes
discarded as meaningless because they were not empirically verifiable. This neglect of values was seen by critics like Leo
Strauss as a symptom of a crisis in political theory. Empirical theory, by treating all social values as equally important,
was seen to deny the possibility of certain things being objectively better.
3. Conservative Value Bias and Legitimation of Status Quo: While claiming to be value-free, the focus on describing
existing political arrangements implicitly legitimized the status quo. Critics argued this revealed a conservative value
 bias. The redefinition of 'democracy' in terms of observable behaviour (like elite competition in Western systems) rather
than the normative ideal of popular self-government exemplifies this bias.
4. Scholarly Detachment and Failure to Address Real-World Problems: Behaviouralism's strict adherence to the goal of
"pure science" and understanding before application led to criticism that it failed to attend to the pressing social and
political issues of the period. Scholars were seen as sitting in "ivory towers" perfecting techniques while overlooking
contemporary crises. Sheldon Wolin argued that this preoccupation with method signified an abdication of the true
vocation of political theory. John Plamenatz famously stated that "Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an
arduous calling," implying a responsibility behaviouralists were neglecting.
5. Questioning Scientific Credentials and Assumptions: The assertion that behaviouralism was objective and reliable
based on its 'value-free' claim came into question. Doubts were raised about the possibility of establishing consistent
regularities in complex human behaviour. The very premise of converting political study into a pure science, mirroring
natural sciences, was questioned as potentially wrong, limiting the subject's scope.
6. Loss of Identity and Divorce from Tradition: Behaviouralism's attempt to create a distinct scientific identity led to
criticisms that it divorced political science from its rich tradition in history, law, and philosophy. Critics like David Easton
himself acknowledged that traditional political theory, despite its historical focus, had a constructive role that was being
lost.
7. Critiques from Specific Scholars: The decline narrative was significantly shaped by prominent scholars. Alfred
Cobban, in "The Decline of Political Theory" (1953), argued that political theory had lost significance in both capitalist and
communist systems, having little role in sustaining them. Seymour Martin Lipset, in "Political Man" (1960), argued that
the US had achieved the "good society," questioning the continued relevance of political theory. Leo Strauss saw
behaviouralism and its positivist approach, which ignored normative issues, as a symptom of political theory's decline and
a reflection of a general political crisis in the West. Dante Germino cited the craze for science (positivism) and the
culmination of political ideologies (like Marxism) as causes for the decline.

By the end of the 1960s, even exponents like David Easton realized the limitations. In his 1969 presidential address to the
American Political Science Association (APSA), Easton announced a new revolution – the 'post-behavioural revolution'. This
represented a shift of focus from strict methodological issues to a greater concern with the public responsibilities of the
discipline and with political problems. The twin slogans of post-behaviouralism were "credo of relevance and action".

Conclusion:

The behavioural approach played a crucial role in the evolution of political theory by introducing scientific rigour, empirical
methods, and an interdisciplinary perspective, shifting the focus from formal institutions to actual political behaviour. It generated
valuable insights, particularly in areas like voting studies and political participation. However, its perceived shortcomings, such as its
neglect of values, limited scope, conservative bias, and detachment from pressing social issues, led to significant criticism and
ultimately contributed to its decline as the dominant paradigm. The emergence of post-behaviouralism, heralded by David
Easton, marked an attempt to overcome these limitations by reintroducing a concern for values and relevance while building upon
the methodological gains of behaviouralism. This transition represents a significant development in the ongoing discourse about the
nature and purpose of political theory, highlighting the dynamic interplay between scientific inquiry and normative concerns.

3. Discuss the significance of a normative approach to Political theory. [2020/15m/200w/4b]

The normative approach is a traditional approach to the study of politics, primarily concerned with moral and substantive
dimensions of political phenomena. It is prescriptive, meaning it sets standards or forms of conduct rather than merely describing
facts or events. It seeks to answer questions about the good life, norms, values, good and evil, and the principles of right order
in human social existence. This approach is often closely associated with Political Philosophy.

At its core, the normative approach deals with evaluative statements, which are based on value-judgment. Unlike empirical
statements, which are based on observation and sense-experience, or logical statements, based on reasoning, evaluative
statements reflect preferences or judgments about what is desirable. While proponents of 'Logical Positivism' and the scientific
method argued that evaluative statements lack empirical content and are subjective, the normative approach asserts that values
can have a sound logical structure and can be discussed and reasoned upon.

The significance of the normative approach to Political Theory can be understood through several key functions and roles it
performs:

1. Quest for the Ideal and the Good Life: The normative approach is centrally concerned with determining values and
envisioning an ideal political order or a good society. Thinkers employing this approach aim to understand not just "what
is" but "what ought to be done". Historically, classical thinkers, such as [Plato] and [Aristotle], emphasized the
prescription of a perfect life and a good life. [Plato]'s quest for justice in the Republic is a prime example of this. The
philosophical approach, as described by [Vernon Van Dyke], clarifies concepts and aims at evolving standards of right
and wrong.

2. Criticism and Evaluation: A crucial function of the normative approach is the critical evaluation of existing political
institutions, laws, and practices based on established or proposed standards of right and wrong. Political theory, in this
mode, aims to describe, explain, justify, or criticize the existing arrangements and power dynamics in society. It acts as a
consistent critique of the status quo, seeking to maintain a stable order or change it for a better state. The Socratic
function of 'speaking truth to power' exemplifies this critical role.

3. Reconstruction and Guiding Policy: Beyond criticism, the normative approach contributes to the reconstruction of
political concepts and institutions. It provides the basis for a sound public policy or decision. In the present-day world,
facing complex challenges like poverty, corruption, and injustice, political theory, with its normative dimension, is crucial
for analyzing these problems and providing alternative means to political leaders. Value-judgment serves as an essential
guide to social policy. It helps in the selection of objectives and provides the moral basis for a political arrangement.
Contemporary issues like environmentalism, feminism, human rights, and social justice necessitate exploring new
horizons of value-judgment.

4. Engaging with Fundamental Concepts: The normative approach is vital for understanding and debating fundamental
political concepts such as Justice, Equality, Liberty, Rights, Authority, and Legitimacy. These concepts are often
contested, and normative theory provides the framework for examining different interpretations and arguing for preferred
understandings. The quest for justice, as a foundational concept, has been a significant concern of political theory since
ancient times, giving rise to diverse normative perspectives. Similarly, debates around legitimacy in modern Western
political thought are fundamentally normative, asking under what conditions a state can rightfully command obedience.

5. Enhancing Understanding and Encouraging Debate: The tradition of Political Theory, significantly shaped by the
normative dimension, encourages a dignified debate and mutual respect among upholders of different points of view. It
 allows for a dialogue between different schools of thought on contested concepts. As [Andrew Hacker] observed, political
theory is a never-ending conversation among theorists, where criticisms are vivid and illuminating. This ongoing debate,
often rooted in differing normative stances, enlarges our understanding of political matters.

6. Historical Context and Resurgence: While the traditional study of politics was dominated by the normative approach,
the rise of the behavioural approach in the mid-20th century emphasized scientific, value-neutral analysis, leading some
to argue for a decline of political theory as traditionally understood. However, the advent of post-behaviouralism
(1969) and the revival of political philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s brought a renewed emphasis on values. Thinkers
like [John Rawls] played a significant role in this resurgence, bringing normative issues, particularly justice, back to the
forefront of political theory. [David Easton] himself, a key figure in behaviouralism, acknowledged the essential role of
values in political studies during the post-behavioural shift. Figures like [Isaiah Berlin] denied the death of political theory,
arguing its significance is eternal as long as rational curiosity about political questions persists. The resurgence is also
evident in the works of scholars like [Macpherson], [Dworkin], and [Amartya Sen].

7. Countering Visionlessness: Without a normative approach, society and polity risk running in visionless directions
and facing conflicts. If political theory relinquishes its function of value-judgment, it might fall into less competent hands,
potentially leading to disastrous consequences. As [David Held] points out, in the absence of systematic pursuit of political
theory's tasks, there is a danger of politics being left to the ignorant or self-interested. Normative theory provides a moral
compass and a framework for justifying political action and the legitimate use of power. [Daryl Glasser] highlights that
engaging with normative theory encourages moral actors to debate options openly, potentially leading to better outcomes.

Despite its significance, the normative approach has faced criticisms. Critics argue it can be subjective, value-biased, and lacks
scientific validation, as there is no single reliable method to determine what is right or wrong. Differing interpretations of concepts
like justice, equality, and liberty lead to disagreements among normative theorists. The philosophical method can sometimes lead
to overly imaginative or utopian ideas, as criticized in the case of [Plato]'s Republic. However, proponents counter that while
disagreements exist, a reasoned dialogue on values is possible and essential. Furthermore, both empirical and normative
approaches are considered important and often intertwined in the study of politics, with a need to bridge the gap between them.

In conclusion, the normative approach is a vital component of Political Theory, providing the tools to critically evaluate political
life, articulate ideals, guide policy, and engage with fundamental questions of values like justice, equality, and liberty. While
challenged by empirical methodologies, its resurgence underscores its enduring relevance for understanding not just the
mechanics of power but the moral dimensions of political action and the possibilities of a good social order. It is a continuous,
critical, and reconstructive enterprise essential for a meaningful study of politics.

4. Comment on resurgence of political theory. [2019/10m/150w/1a]

The context for understanding the resurgence is the earlier debate on the decline of political theory. During the mid-20th century,
particularly with the rise of the behavioural approach in political science, there was a movement to make the study of politics more
scientific, objective, and value-neutral. Exponents of the new political science questioned the relevance of traditional political
theory, which was often seen as based on mere speculation and devoid of acute observation of political reality.
Thinkers like [David Easton], in his work Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953), asserted that
traditional political theory was a product of historical turmoil and had no relevance in contemporary society, being based on
speculation rather than empirical evidence. He felt it suffered from under-theorization in a scientific sense. [Alfred Cobban], in his
paper 'The Decline of Political Theory' (1953), argued that political theory had lost significance in both capitalist and communist
systems, claiming it had practically no role in sustaining them. [Seymour Martin Lipset], in Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics
(1960), argued that the age-old search for a 'good society' had ended in countries like the United States, which had achieved "the
closest approximation to the good society itself in operation," thus questioning the continued relevance of political theory. [Leo
Strauss] countered this view, arguing that the new science of politics, by adopting a positivist approach, ignored the challenge of
normative issues and was itself a symptom of political theory's alleged decline. [Dante Germino], in Beyond Ideology: The Revival
of Political Theory (1967), attributed the decline primarily to two factors: the rise of positivism (leading to a craze for science) and
the prevalence of political ideologies culminating in Marxism.

However, the pronouncements of the decline or even death of political theory proved to be premature and academically
shortsighted. The resurgence of political theory is strongly linked to the advent of post-behaviouralism, which emerged around
1969. [David Easton] himself, a key figure in behaviouralism, changed his view and pitched for a post-behavioural revolution,
acknowledging the essential role of values in political studies. Post-behaviouralism argued for a renewed concern with values,
which had been sought to be excluded in the earlier behavioural approach.

The resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s brought a renewed emphasis on values and normative issues. It is now widely argued
that value-judgment serves as an essential guide to social policy. Indifference to value-judgment would leave society in the dark,
and complex contemporary challenges necessitate exploring new horizons of value-judgment. If political theory relinquishes this
function, it may be taken over by less competent agencies, leading to politics being left to the ignorant or self-interested, as
highlighted by [David Held].

The resurgence is marked by the emergence and renewed prominence of significant political theorists who brought normative
questions back to the forefront. Scholars like [John Rawls], [C.B. Macpherson], [Robert Nozick], [Jurgen Habermas], [Alasdair
MacIntyre], [Michael Walzer], and [Herbert Marcuse] are credited with reviving the grand tradition of political philosophy.

Key aspects and features of this resurgence include:

1. Renewed Focus on Normative Issues and Value-Judgment: The most significant aspect is the return to questions of
what ought to be. Political theory in this mode is not just about describing or explaining political phenomena empirically
but also about prescribing goals and evaluating political life based on values like justice, equality, and liberty.
2. Engagement with Fundamental Concepts: The resurgence saw deep theoretical engagement with core political
concepts. [John Rawls]'s A Theory of Justice (1971) played a pivotal role in bringing the concept of justice back as a
central theme in political theory. Debates around liberty, equality, rights, legitimacy, and the good society were
revitalized.
3. Revival of the Classical Tradition: While incorporating modern insights, the resurgence draws heavily from the
classical tradition of political philosophy. Thinkers revisit classical texts not just for historical understanding but for their
enduring insights into perennial political problems. This involves reinterpretation and application of old ideas to
contemporary issues. As [Sheldon Wolin] described, the history of political theory is marked by continuity and innovation,
where ideas reappear and are redefined in new contexts.
4. Synthesis of Normative and Empirical Analysis: The resurgence does not necessarily reject empirical analysis but
often seeks a synthesis, where normative analysis uses empirical findings to ground its prescriptions in reality. Political
theory, in this view, bridges the gap between philosophical inquiry and empirical political science.
 5. Emergence of New Themes and Debates: The resurgence saw the rise of new areas of normative and critical inquiry.
Prominent among these are:
○ Communitarianism: Critiquing liberal individualism, scholars like [Michael Walzer], [Alasdair MacIntyre], and
[Charles Taylor] emphasized the role of community in shaping individual identity and values.
○ Feminism: Feminist political theory, building on earlier waves, provided a profound critique of patriarchal
structures and challenged traditional political theory for its exclusion of women's issues, demanding analysis of
gender inequality and power dynamics beyond the public sphere. Thinkers like [Catherine MacKinnon] and
[Jean Bethke Elshtain] contributed significantly.
○ Human Rights and Social Justice: Renewed focus on human rights and social justice, particularly for
subaltern groups, became central.
○ Environmentalism: Emerging concerns with environmentalism added another dimension to value-judgment
in political theory.
○ Multiculturalism: Debates around multiculturalism and the politics of recognition, involving thinkers like
[Charles Taylor], became prominent.
○ Postcolonialism: Postcolonial theory challenged the Eurocentric nature of much Western political thought and
highlighted the impact of colonialism, seeking to give voice to non-Western perspectives.
○ Critical Theory and Post-Structuralism: Approaches influenced by critical theory and post-structuralism (e.g.,
[Michel Foucault], [Jacques Derrida]) offered new ways of critiquing power structures and challenging
foundational assumptions, contributing to the diversification of political theory.
6. Recognition of Contestation and Diversity: Contemporary political theory is characterized by contestation and a
diversity of approaches and traditions, including revisions of existing ideologies like liberalism (neo-liberalism, social
liberalism), Marxism (neo-Marxism), and the emergence of alternatives. This diversity is seen as a strength, reflecting the
complexity of political problems.
7. Enduring Significance: Scholars like [Isaiah Berlin] always maintained that political theory is not dead and its
significance is eternal as long as rational curiosity about political questions exists. The resurgence validated this view,
demonstrating the continuous need for systematic reflection on political problems, goals, and values.

While the resurgence has been significant, bringing rich debates and diverse perspectives, some observers like [Michael Walzer]
have noted that this renewed theoretical activity is often restricted to academia, suggesting it can be a "kind of alienated politics,"
carried on at a distance from actual policy-making. Nevertheless, the intellectual vitality and the broadening scope of inquiry during
this period underscore the enduring necessity of political theory, particularly its normative role, in addressing complex global and
societal challenges. The resurgence can be seen as a necessary response to the limitations of purely empirical approaches and a
recognition that questions of the good life and the just society remain central to political inquiry.

5. Comment on the decline of Political Theory. [2018/10m/150w/1b]

Political theory has experienced a notable resurgence following a period in the mid-20th century where its relevance, particularly its
normative dimension, was questioned. This resurgence represents a renewed emphasis on the critical role of political theory in
understanding, evaluating, and proposing changes to political life.

To understand the resurgence, it is essential to first consider the preceding debate on the decline of political theory. During the
1950s and 1960s, the rise of the behavioural approach in political science led many scholars to seek a more scientific, objective,
and value-neutral study of politics. This movement, often associated with positivism, aimed to make political science comparable
to the natural sciences by focusing on observable behaviour and empirical data. Exponents of this "new political science" argued
that traditional political theory, which dealt extensively with history and philosophical speculation, was subjective, lacked empirical
evidence, and was ill-equipped to explain political reality.

Several prominent scholars contributed to the arguments for the decline of political theory. [David Easton], in his Political System:
An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953), asserted that traditional political theory was based on "mere speculation" and
was "devoid of acute observation of the political reality". He argued that it was a product of historical turmoil and had "no relevance
in contemporary society," having suffered from "under-theorization" in a scientific sense. [Easton] also attributed the decline to
"historicism," where political theory became too focused on the historical development of ideas rather than the constructive
development of value theory.

[Alfred Cobban], in his 1953 paper 'The Decline of Political Theory', argued that political theory had lost its significance in both
capitalist and communist systems. He claimed it had practically "no role in sustaining" the capitalist system, which he saw as
characterized by bureaucracy and military power, nor the communist system, which he felt was dominated by party organization and
oligarchy. [Cobban] also noted that contemporary politics operated on such a large scale that it couldn't be analysed by what he
considered the "partial or narrow theory" of thinkers like [Hegel] and [Marx]. Furthermore, he pointed to logical positivists, who
focused "on facts to the exclusion of values," as partly responsible for the decline.

[Seymour Martin Lipset], in Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (1960), suggested that the age-old search for a "good
society" had effectively ended in countries like the United States, which he believed had achieved "the closest approximation to the
good society itself in operation," thus questioning the continued relevance of political theory.

[Dante Germino], in Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory (1967), identified two primary causes for the decline: the rise
of positivism (leading to a "craze for science") and the prevalence of political ideologies culminating in Marxism. He felt [Marx]
himself had produced an "anti-theory" by focusing on changing the world rather than merely interpreting it, thereby obliterating the
distinction between theory and practice and reducing theory to a tool of the privileged class.

The exponents of the behavioural approach sought to establish a purely scientific basis for the study of politics, explicitly seeking
to delink it from political philosophy and regarding normative political theory as a "serious hindrance to scientific research".

However, the pronouncements of the decline or death of political theory proved to be "premature and academically shortsighted".
The resurgence of political theory is closely associated with the advent of post-behaviouralism, which emerged around 1969.
Notably, [David Easton] himself, a key figure in behaviouralism, changed his stance and advocated for a "post-behavioural
revolution," acknowledging the "essential role of values" in political studies. Post-behaviouralism argued for a "renewed concern
with values," which had been consciously excluded by the earlier behavioural approach.

The resurgence brought about a significant shift, characterized by a renewed emphasis on values and normative issues. It is now
widely argued that value-judgment is an "essential guide to social policy," and that "indifference to value-judgment will leave
society in the dark". The complexity of contemporary challenges, such as "environmentalism," "feminism," "human rights," and
"social justice for the subaltern groups," necessitates "exploring the new horizons of value-judgment". If political theory abandons
this crucial function, there is a risk it will be taken over by "less competent agency". As [David Held] pointed out, neglecting the
systematic pursuit of political theory carries the "danger that politics will be left to the ignorant and self-interested, or to those simply
with a ‘will to power’".

The resurgence is marked by the return of prominent political theorists who re-engaged with fundamental normative questions.
Scholars like [John Rawls], [C.B. Macpherson], [Robert Nozick], [Jurgen Habermas], [Alasdair MacIntyre], and [Michael Walzer] are
credited with reviving the "grand tradition of political philosophy". [John Rawls]'s seminal work, A Theory of Justice (1971), was
particularly influential in bringing the concept of justice back to the centre of political theory. Debates around core concepts such as
liberty, equality, rights, legitimacy, and the nature of the good society were revitalized.

Key features of this resurgence include:

1. Renewed Focus on Normative and Value-Judgment: Political theory moved beyond mere description or explanation to
critically examine political phenomena and propose ideal goals and values, such as justice, equality, and liberty.
2. Engagement with Fundamental Concepts: Deep theoretical work was undertaken on core political ideas, re-
establishing them as central to the discipline.
3. Revival of the Classical Tradition: While incorporating modern insights, contemporary political theory draws heavily
from the classical tradition of political philosophy, reinterpreting historical texts for their enduring relevance to perennial
problems. As [Sheldon Wolin] described, the history of political theory exhibits both "continuity and innovation".
4. Synthesis of Normative and Empirical Analysis: The resurgence often seeks to integrate normative and empirical
analysis, where value-judgments are informed and guided by empirical findings.
5. Emergence of New Themes and Debates: The resurgence saw the rise or renewed prominence of several critical areas
of inquiry:
○ Communitarianism, with thinkers like [Michael Walzer], [Michael Sandal], [Alasdair MacIntyre], and [Charles
Taylor], emerged as a critique of liberal individualism, emphasizing the role of community.
○ Feminist political theory, including the work of [Catherine MacKinnon] and [Jean Bethke Elshtain], provided a
powerful critique of patriarchal structures and gender inequality within political life.
○ Increased focus on Human Rights and Social Justice, particularly for subaltern groups.
○ Growing concern with Environmentalism.
○ Debates surrounding Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition.
○ The development of Postcolonialism, which challenged the Eurocentric perspective of Western political
thought and sought to incorporate non-Western voices and experiences.
○ Influence of Critical Theory and Post-Structuralism, offering new ways to critique power and challenge
foundational assumptions.
○ Revisions and new directions within existing ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism.
6. Recognition of Contestation and Diversity: Contemporary political theory is marked by a wide array of competing
approaches and traditions, reflecting the complexity of political problems and the healthy contestation within the field.
7. Enduring Significance: Scholars like [Isaiah Berlin] consistently argued that political theory is not dead and its
significance is eternal as long as "rational curiosity existed". This resurgence validates this view, demonstrating the
continuous need for systematic reflection on political problems, goals, and values.

While the resurgence has brought intellectual vitality and broadened the scope of political theory, some observers like [Michael
Walzer] have noted that this renewed theoretical activity is often confined to academia, potentially becoming "a kind of alienated
politics, an enterprise carried on at some distance from the activities to which it refers".

Nevertheless, the resurgence can be viewed as a necessary correction to the limitations of purely empirical approaches and a
reaffirmation that fundamental questions about the good life and the just society remain central to political inquiry. The earlier
pronouncements of the decline of political theory were indeed premature. Political theory, particularly in its normative and critical
aspects, continues to be indispensable for navigating the complex challenges facing the contemporary world.

6. Comment on the post-behavioural approach. [2016/10m/150w/1b]

The mid-20th century witnessed a significant debate surrounding the perceived decline of political theory. This period was marked
by the ascendancy of the behavioural approach in political science, particularly in the United States, following the Second World
War. The behavioural approach insisted on studying the actual behaviour of human beings in political situations, seeking a more
scientific, objective, and value-neutral study of politics. It aimed to make political science comparable to the natural sciences by
focusing on observable behaviour and empirical data, often dissolving formal political institutions into 'systems' and 'processes' to
focus on the actual behaviour of political actors, which was deemed capable of scientific study.

Several prominent scholars articulated arguments for this perceived decline. [David Easton], a key figure in the behavioural
movement, asserted in his work Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953) that traditional political theory
was based on "mere speculation" and was "devoid of acute observation of the political reality". He argued that it had "no relevance
in contemporary society," suffering from "under-theorization" in a scientific sense. [Easton] attributed the decline partly to
"historicism," where political theory became overly focused on the historical development of ideas rather than the constructive
development of value theory. According to [Easton], while traditional political theory aimed to evolve suitable values for society,
modern political science, under the behavioural paradigm, need not engage in this, as contemporary society would evolve its own
value system from experience; political scientists should focus solely on building causal theory to explain political behaviour.
Behaviouralists explicitly sought to delink political science from political philosophy, viewing normative political theory as a "serious
hindrance to scientific research". They prioritized reliability and focused on questions that could be answered reliably using available
methods, often focusing on micro-level situations rather than macro-level generalizations.

[Alfred Cobban] was another scholar who commented on the decline of political theory, arguing in 1953 that it had lost its
significance in both capitalist and communist systems. He suggested it had practically "no role in sustaining" either system,
feeling that contemporary politics was too large-scale for the "partial or narrow theory" of past thinkers like [Hegel] and [Marx].
[Cobban] also implicated logical positivists, who focused "on facts to the exclusion of values," as partly responsible.

Critics of the behavioural approach, even during its dominance, highlighted its limitations and argued that its rise was symptomatic
of a crisis in political theory. [Leo Strauss], in 'What is Political Philosophy?' (1957), argued that behaviouralism failed to come to
grips with normative issues. [Sheldon Wolin], in 'Political Theory as a Vocation' (1969), declared that the preoccupation with
method signified an abdication of the true vocation of political theory. [Dante Germino] criticized behaviouralism for "over
quantification and under theorizing". [John Plamanatz] stated, "...political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous
calling," a sentiment contrasting with the perceived narrow focus of behaviouralism. The criticism was that behaviouralists tended to
study only what was easily observable and quantifiable, neglecting crucial, albeit less measurable, phenomena.

The perceived decline of political theory or its pronouncement as "dead" proved, however, to be "premature and academically
shortsighted". A resurgence of political theory emerged, closely associated with the advent of post-behaviouralism.

Post-Behaviouralism: The post-behavioural revolution was notably announced by [David Easton] himself in his presidential
address to the American Political Science Association in 1969. This represented a significant shift of focus. While behaviouralism
sought to establish a pure science of politics, [Easton] now advocated converting political science into an applied science.

The core of post-behaviouralism is captured in its twin slogans: relevance and action. It was not a complete departure from
behaviouralism but aimed to consolidate its gains and apply them for problem-solving and crisis-management. [Easton] lamented
that behavioural political scientists were taking refuge in their "ivory tower," perfecting methodology while being unconcerned with
pressing global issues like the nuclear threat, civil conflicts within the US, or the Vietnam war. He emphasized the historical role of
intellectuals in protecting humane values and warned against becoming mere technicians.
A central tenet of post-behaviouralism is the renewed concern with values. While behaviouralism insisted on value-neutrality,
post-behaviouralism argued for the essential role of values in political studies. It acknowledged that scientists could adopt a rational
interest in value construction and application. It rejected the notion that science is evaluatively neutral, asserting that facts are
inseparable from values. The post-behavioural approach is interested in the choice of values.

In terms of inquiry, post-behaviouralism represents a shift from the search for pure knowledge to the search for applied
knowledge and practice. Its purpose moved from "knowledge for knowledge sake" to the relevance of knowledge to satisfy social
needs and action for problem-solving. The focus shifted from micro-level analysis to macro-level analysis, including the
content of decisions. Furthermore, it showed interest in social change for solving social problems, contrasting with the
perceived status quo orientation of behaviouralism.

Post-behaviouralism is credited with succeeding in resolving the fact-value dichotomy that had plagued political science under
strict behaviouralism. It maintained that values could be the aim of political science and could be pursued using scientific methods.

Thus, post-behaviouralism represents a synthesis. If normative political philosophy is seen as the thesis and behaviouralism as
the anti-thesis, post-behaviouralism embodies the synthesis, combining the scientific rigour and empirical methods developed by
behaviouralism with the traditional concern for values, relevance, and action. It seeks to build upon the gains of behaviouralism
while addressing its limitations, re-establishing political theory's crucial role in understanding and addressing real-world political
problems. This shift contributed significantly to the resurgence of political theory in the subsequent decades, leading to renewed
debates on fundamental concepts and the emergence of new areas of inquiry related to contemporary challenges.

In summary, the decline of political theory was argued by figures like [Easton] and [Cobban] during the peak of the behavioural
revolution, which prioritized empirical, value-neutral study. However, criticisms from scholars like [Strauss], [Wolin], and [Germino]
highlighted the limitations and crisis within the discipline. The post-behavioural revolution, led by [Easton] in 1969, marked a
turning point, emphasizing relevance, action, values, and the application of political science to problem-solving. It represents a
synthesis that incorporates the insights of behaviouralism while restoring the traditional concern for normative questions and the
intellectual's responsibility to engage with society's pressing issues.

7. Comment: '...Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling'. (John Plamanetz). [2014/10m/150w/1a]

Firstly, to understand why political theory is an arduous calling, we must appreciate its fundamental nature and tasks, as outlined
in the sources. Political theory is not merely a passive reflection on political events; it is a disciplined investigation of political
problems aiming not only to describe what a political practice is but also what it means and what it ought to mean. This immediately
introduces a complex, multi-layered challenge.

The "calling" aspect implies a vocation, a sense of duty or purpose. [Sheldon Wolin], in criticising behaviouralists, speaks of them
abdicating their true "vocation" by excessive focus on method over substance, suggesting that political theory inherently possesses
a higher purpose. This vocation involves a critical perspective on human social existence. It requires the theorist to go beyond
immediate practical concerns and to view society from a critical distance. This critical evaluation is not easy, as it requires dissecting
complex ideas and challenging existing norms, separating "truth" from elements born of "political considerations". For instance,
evaluating [Aristotle]'s defense of slavery or [Machiavelli]'s advice to the Prince requires rigorous analysis, accepting some insights
while rejecting others based on critical judgment. [Dante Germino] sees political philosophy as a critical study of the principles of
right order in human social existence, involving inquiry into right and wrong. This inherently involves taking a stance and subjecting
existing situations to critical examination, something incompatible with positivism's abstention from such judgments.
One key reason it is an arduous calling is its necessary engagement with values and normative issues. Unlike empirical political
science which focuses on describing and explaining political behaviour based on observable facts, political theory is also concerned
with prescribing goals and generalizing about right conduct and the legitimate use of power. It deals with the "ought to be". This
involves difficult choices between values and ideals. As [Isaiah Berlin] notes, political philosophy thrives in societies where "ends
collided," requiring critical examination of presuppositions and ultimate ends. This constant questioning and search for justification,
even for concepts like freedom, is a demanding intellectual task. The "rational structure" of theories, persistently asking for reasons,
makes them potentially subversive, a role that requires courage and deep intellectual grounding, distinguishing it from the mere
assertion found in ideologies.

Furthermore, political theory grapples with perennial problems confronting humanity in social existence. These are not simple
technical questions, but fundamental issues about the good life, justice, rights, obligation, and the organization of the community.
They involve the choice of values and their application to public life. Ignoring this crucial function leaves society vulnerable,
potentially "left to the ignorant and self-interested, or to those simply with a 'will to power'," as [David Held] warns. Addressing these
complex problems and providing alternative means to political leaders facing challenges like poverty, injustice, and conflict is an
arduous, but necessary, task.

The quote can also be seen as a critique of approaches that might turn political theory into an "escape mechanism." This
perspective is particularly relevant when considering the behavioural revolution. While behaviouralism contributed scientific rigour
and empirical methods, critics like [Leo Strauss] argued its rise was symptomatic of a crisis because of its inability to deal
adequately with normative issues. [Dante Germino] criticized behaviouralism for "over quantification and under theorizing". This
focus on what is easily measurable and observable, while valuable for empirical study, could be perceived as an 'escape' from the
more challenging normative and philosophical questions that define the traditional role of political theory. [Sheldon Wolin] accused
behaviouralists of being preoccupied with method, thereby abdicating their true calling. [David Easton] himself, a key figure in
behaviouralism, later critiqued political scholars for sitting in "ivory towers," perfecting techniques but ignoring the purpose of that
knowledge, suggesting a detachment that could be seen as an escape from real-world problems.

The post-behavioural revolution, also announced by [David Easton], can be understood as a reassertion of political theory as an
arduous calling focused on relevance and action. It recognized that political science must not shy away from engaging with
pressing social and political issues. The call for converting political science into an applied science, concerned with problem-
solving and crisis-management, underscores the difficult, but necessary, engagement with reality that [Plamanatz]'s quote
implies. Post-behaviouralism, by re-emphasizing the role of values and the inseparability of facts and values, brought back the
difficult task of value construction and application into the fold of political inquiry. This synthesis of scientific method with traditional
normative concerns makes political theory even more arduous, as it requires mastering both empirical analysis and philosophical
reasoning.

Moreover, political theory, as an arduous calling, is a never-ending conversation among theorists. It involves the continuous
process of innovation, refinement, rejection, and incorporation of ideas. Theorists constantly scrutinise past insights and apply them
to present challenges. This ongoing intellectual labour, described by [Andrew Hacker] as involving a dual role of scientist and
philosopher, is inherently demanding. The requirement to explain, describe, justify, or criticize existing arrangements means that
political theory is not a static body of knowledge but a dynamic, critical engagement with the world.

In conclusion, [John Plamanatz]'s assertion that political theory is an arduous calling is fundamentally supported by the nature,
tasks, and evolution of the discipline as described in the sources. It requires theorists to be critically engaged, grapple with complex
normative issues and values, address perennial problems and contemporary crises, and constantly refine their understanding
through a continuous dialogue. This demanding intellectual and moral enterprise prevents it from being a mere "escape mechanism"
and positions it as a vital, albeit difficult, pursuit essential for understanding and potentially improving the human condition in its
political dimension. The critiques of behaviouralism and the subsequent emergence of post-behaviouralism highlight the dangers
of neglecting this arduous calling and reaffirm the necessity of political theory's engagement with the most challenging aspects of
social and political life.

● Explain the significance of the observation that Political Theory often flourishes during times of "acute crises". (Approx.
150 words)

The observation that political theory often flourishes during times of "acute crises" or periods of stress and strain is profoundly
significant for understanding the nature and function of the discipline. It highlights that political theory is not merely an abstract
academic exercise conducted in isolation but a vital response to the fundamental challenges confronting collective human existence.
This perspective aligns with the idea, as stated by [John Plamanetz], that political theory is an "arduous calling" rather than an
"escape mechanism".

Firstly, the flourishing of political theory during crises underscores its fundamental purpose: to grapple with perennial problems
and provide a critical perspective on human social existence. When existing political, social, or economic orders face acute
crises, their underlying assumptions are questioned, and established norms and institutions are challenged. This intellectual and
practical upheaval necessitates deep theoretical reflection. As [Sabine] observed, political theories often arise in situations believed
to be bad, motivating individuals to seek solutions. Theorists are compelled to analyze the present situation and propose alternative
means or justifications for action.

[Sheldon Wolin] argues that epic theories, which usher in new ways of looking at the world by reassembling existing political
institutions and relationships, surface mainly during times of crisis. In such periods, the existing coherence provided by tradition or
institutions is shattered, presenting the political philosopher with the arduous task of reconstructing a shattered world of meanings
and institutional expressions, in short, fashioning a political cosmos out of political chaos. This requires not just description but also
an imaginative element, an architectonic vision, to portray and shape political phenomena in light of a vision of the good or a more
perfect order projected into the future.

Furthermore, crises often reveal the limitations of existing political practices and the inadequacy of prevailing ideas to address new
challenges. This is evident in the historical examples provided. The crisis of the Greek city-states led to the philosophical inquiries
of [Plato] and [Aristotle], who sought to understand the principles of right order and the nature of the good life in the face of political
upheaval. Similarly, the tumultuous period of the English Civil War in the 17th century stimulated the profound theories of [Hobbes]
and [Locke], grappling with fundamental questions of order, sovereignty, and political obligation in a time of constitutional crisis
and civil conflict. These periods, marked by shifts from one set of formation to another or the emergence of newer institutions as
older ones become inoperative, act as a catalyst for innovation in political theory.

The connection between crisis and political theory is also tied to the discipline's engagement with values and normative issues.
Crises frequently involve a clash or re-evaluation of fundamental values or goals. Political theory is uniquely equipped to analyze
these clashes, explore underlying presuppositions, and provide justifications for particular values or principles. As [Isaiah Berlin]
suggests, political philosophy is essential when ends collide, requiring critical examination of ultimate goals. In times of crisis,
when old certainties are gone and fundamental concepts like democracy, secularism, or equality are questioned, normative political
theory becomes urgent for justifying which conceptions are worth having and why.

The observation also contrasts with periods when political theory might be perceived to be in decline. The mid-20th century saw
debates about the decline of political theory, partly due to the rise of behaviouralism. Critics like [Leo Strauss] argued that
behaviouralism's focus on empirical observation and methods led to an abdication of the discipline's true vocation by ignoring
normative issues and fundamental questions. This shift towards what could be seen as a more detached, value-neutral approach
might be interpreted as an "escape mechanism" from the more difficult, value-laden issues that are thrown into sharp relief during
crises. [David Easton] himself, a prominent figure in behaviouralism, later called for a post-behavioural revolution emphasizing
relevance and action in the face of pressing social and political problems, acknowledging the need to engage with the crisis of the
time. The post-behavioural emphasis on converting political science into an applied science concerned with problem-solving
and crisis-management reasserted the role of political theory as a vital, engaged pursuit.

Moreover, the necessity of political theory during crises is underscored by the danger of its absence. [David Held] points out that in
the absence of the systematic pursuit of the tasks of political theory, there is a danger that politics will be left to the ignorant and self-
interested, or to those simply with a "will to power". Crises can be exploited by simplistic ideologies that offer easy answers and
mobilize populations based on slogans and emotional appeals rather than reasoned arguments. Political theory, by contrast,
requires providing the fullest possible reasons for adopting a certain standpoint and engaging in detailed critical reasoning, which is
an inherently arduous task.

While a crisis acts as a catalyst, it is important to note that not all crises necessarily give rise to political theorizing. A crisis must
be understood within a framework of political values and institutional arrangements, and the quest for a good life and good
society, coupled with optimism and hope, are seen as major inputs for worthwhile political theory. A situation of hopelessness
normally deters theoretical reflection. Thus, the response to crisis in the form of robust political theory requires a specific intellectual
disposition and a commitment to understanding and potentially improving the human condition.

In essence, the observation that political theory flourishes during times of acute crises emphasizes its role not as a detached
academic hobby, but as a crucial intellectual and moral undertaking deeply intertwined with the realities of political life. It is during
these periods of stress and strain that the fundamental questions about the organization of society, the distribution of power, the
nature of justice, and the pursuit of the good life become most pressing and require the disciplined, critical, and often arduous work
of political theory to analyze, evaluate, and propose alternative visions. This makes it a vital, indeed an arduous calling, rather than
an escape mechanism from the complexities of the world. The examples throughout the history of political thought, from ancient
Greece to contemporary debates on global challenges, demonstrate how crises have spurred theoretical innovation and highlighted
the enduring relevance of this demanding field.

● Comment on Sheldon Wolin's view of political theory as a form of "vision" involving both description and imaginative
capacity. (Approx. 150 words)

The observation that political theory often flourishes during times of "acute crises" or "stress and strain" is intimately connected
with Sheldon Wolin's conception of the discipline as a form of "vision". Wolin, a prominent figure in the study of Western political
thought and a notable critic of behaviouralism, posits that political theory is far more than a mere academic exercise or a
descriptive account of political phenomena. In his seminal work, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political
Thought, Wolin argues that political theory represents "seeing" the political world in two distinct, yet interconnected, senses. This
dual aspect of vision underscores the dynamic and multifaceted nature of political theorizing, particularly evident when societies
face fundamental challenges.

Firstly, Wolin identifies "vision" in a descriptive sense, akin to an act of perception. This involves providing a description of
politics. This aspect aligns with the empirical dimension of political analysis, focusing on what exists and how political phenomena
operate. However, for Wolin, this descriptive function is only one part of the theoretical enterprise and, importantly, is often
intertwined with other elements.
Secondly, and more significantly, Wolin argues that political theory involves an imaginative element, functioning as a form of
aesthetic or religious vision. This is where the theorist's creative capacity comes into play. Political phenomena are not merely
observed and reported; they are also portrayed and shaped in light of a vision of good which lies external to the existing political
order. This imaginative element, which Wolin describes as an architectonic vision, allows the theorist to illuminate hidden
connections and exaggerate aspects of political phenomena in an abstract manner to make them visible. It is a form of "seeing"
that goes beyond empirical observation, involving a capacity to discern patterns, possibilities, and desired futures that might not be
immediately apparent.

This architectonic vision possesses a "futuristic quality, a projection of the political order into a time that is yet to be". It is
not just about understanding the present "is" but also about contemplating the potential "ought to be". Political theory, therefore, is
fundamentally concerned with the quest for a good life and good society. This distinguishes it from mere description or empirical
science, as it actively engages with values and normative issues.

Wolin's concept of "epic theorists" and "epic theories" further elaborates on this visionary aspect, particularly its connection to
crises. Epic theories, according to Wolin, are those that usher in a new way of looking at the world by reassembling existing
political institutions and relationships. They surface mainly during times of acute crisis. In such periods of stress and strain, the
existing coherence provided by tradition or established institutions is shattered, leading to political chaos. It is precisely at these
junctures that the political philosopher is tasked with the arduous challenge of reconstructing a shattered world of meanings
and institutional expressions, essentially fashioning a political cosmos out of political chaos. This reconstruction requires the
imaginative and architectonic vision to project a more perfect order into the future.

For Wolin, this visionary and reconstructive task is central to the true "vocation" of political theory. He criticized behavioural
political scientists for allegedly abdicating this vocation in their overriding concern for method and empirical observation, arguing
that their focus on method led to a reductionist explanation of the political and complicity with the status quo. By emphasizing
objectivity, detachment, and fidelity to fact, he felt behaviouralism often ignored the critical and imaginative dimensions essential
for grappling with fundamental political questions and proposing alternative futures. In contrast, Wolin stresses that political theory,
through its vision, should sharpen judgment, focus on the complexities of political life, appreciate implicit political knowledge, and
widen and sharpen political vision, attending to ongoing challenges and providing thoughtful political action.

This perspective implicitly contrasts political theory with mere ideology. While ideology also offers a "world-view" and a "vision
of the Good Society", its intention is often to justify a particular system of power or critique the status quo for partisan ends.
Ideology can be dogmatic and preclude critical appraisal. Wolin's emphasis on disinterested search for the principles of the good
state and society, coupled with the critical and imaginative task of reassembling a shattered world of meanings during crises,
suggests a more open-minded and analytical approach compared to the often closed and partisan nature of ideology.

While rooted in confronting contemporary crises, Wolin also emphasizes that this visionary task does not occur in an intellectual
vacuum. Theorists operate within a continuous tradition of political thought. This tradition provides a legacy of insights, concepts,
and vocabulary, offering a framework for understanding and addressing current issues. The engagement with the classics, such as
Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke, is not mere antiquarianism but a form of political education that illuminates present
predicaments and facilitates new interpretations. The insights from the past combine with present experiences to form a
"continuously evolving grammar and vocabulary". Thus, the visionary task involves both drawing upon this inherited tradition
and exercising innovation to respond to the unique challenges of the time.

In conclusion, Sheldon Wolin's view of political theory as "vision" highlights its crucial role in both describing and imaginatively
shaping our understanding of politics. It is not a passive observation but an active engagement with the political world, particularly
vital during times of acute crises. This visionary capacity, encompassing both descriptive analysis and the imaginative projection
of a better future, is what allows political theory to serve as a critical force, challenge existing orders, and contribute to the ongoing
quest for a good society. It is this demanding and creative engagement with the fundamental problems of human social existence,
often catalyzed by crisis, that makes political theory an "arduous calling" rather than an "escape mechanism". The historical
examples of great political thinkers responding to the crises of their times, as mentioned in the sources (e.g., the Greek city-states,
the English Civil War), exemplify this profound connection between crisis and the flourishing of political theory as a visionary and
reconstructive endeavor.

● Discuss the various functions that Political Theory is expected to perform as outlined in the sources. (Approx. 150 words)

Political theory, fundamentally defined as a systematic knowledge of political phenomena, extends beyond mere empirical
observation or logical reasoning to encompass a profound engagement with values and the goals of political life. It is an
intellectual enterprise that involves the analytical study of ideas and concepts central to political thought, seeking not just to
describe but also to understand, critique, and propose better forms of social and political existence.

One of the most insightful characterizations of political theory, as highlighted by Sheldon Wolin, is its nature as a form of
"vision". This vision operates in two critical senses:

1. Descriptive Vision: This is the more straightforward sense, akin to an act of perception or providing a description of
politics. It involves observing and reporting on political phenomena, aligning with the empirical aspect often associated
with political science. This function focuses on understanding the realities of political behaviour, describing how
governments and political institutions operate, and analyzing the role of power in society based on empirical evidence.
However, as Wolin implies, this descriptive capacity in political theory is often embedded within a broader, more
imaginative framework.

2. Imaginative/Architectonic Vision: More significantly, Wolin emphasizes that political theory involves an imaginative
element, functioning as a form of aesthetic or religious vision. This is the creative capacity of the theorist to portray and
shape political phenomena in light of a vision of good that often lies external to the existing political order. This
imaginative vision, termed architectonic vision, allows theorists to illuminate hidden connections, abstract concepts,
and even exaggerate aspects of political reality to make them visible and comprehensible. It possesses a "futuristic
quality, a projection of the political order into a time that is yet to be". This aspect is crucial for contemplating the
"ought to be", contrasting with the empirical focus on the "is". This visionary capacity is not mere fantasy but a
necessary complement to action, allowing for an understanding of the possibilities of political life.

Integrated within this concept of vision, and arising from the inherent nature of the discipline combining both empirical and
philosophical dimensions, are several key functions of political theory as outlined across the sources:

1. Description: As mentioned, political theory serves to describe political phenomena. This function is closely linked to
political science which specializes in empirical methods and objective observation to explain political behaviour and
institutions in an impartial manner. Adequate knowledge of political science (describing realities) is considered essential
for sound political philosophy (prescribing goals).
2. Criticism: Political theory is inherently critical. This function is largely associated with political philosophy, which
engages in value-judgment. It involves the rational criticism and critical evaluation of existing political arrangements,
power equations, and theories to discern their strengths and weaknesses and ascertain their validity. The critical
approach, particularly evident in contemporary forms like feminist and postcolonial thought, seeks to uncover obscured
dimensions of political phenomena and draw out normative implications, often related to oppressive aspects of power.

3. Reconstruction: Particularly relevant during times of "acute crises" or "stress and strain", political theory takes on
the function of reconstruction. In periods where the existing coherence of political life is shattered, political theorists face
the task of reconstructing a shattered world of meanings and institutional expressions. This involves fashioning a
political cosmos out of political chaos and projecting a more perfect order into the future, directly linking this function to
the imaginative/architectonic vision.

4. Clarification of Concepts: A crucial function of political philosophy and political theory is the clarification of
fundamental concepts used in political discourse and analysis, such as justice, liberty, equality, democracy, rights,
authority, and the state. This involves analysis (specifying elements, e.g., defining sovereignty), synthesis (showing
logical relationships between concepts, e.g., right and obligation), and improvement (recommending usage for clarity).
Sheldon Wolin notes the challenge of this task due to the widespread use of political terms in non-political contexts.
Clarifying concepts is essential for the development of knowledge and understanding arguments, although such
clarification is noted as potentially revealing ideological commitments and not always being neutral.

5. Interpretative and Explanatory Role: Political theory plays an integral role in interpreting and explaining political
phenomena. It helps empirical political science perform its role by providing a conceptual grasp necessary to identify and
explain phenomena. Furthermore, for large-scale social and political phenomena that cannot be fully grasped by specific
empirical enquiry, political theory provides insight and understanding through a degree of speculation independent of
empirical data. This function extends to interpreting the human condition, the predicament of modern societies, and
understanding general patterns of human practices and social change.

6. Contemplative Role: Related to providing general insight, political theory has a contemplative role. This involves
general reflection on the human condition and broader societal issues.

7. Prescribing Goals and Norms: A core function of political philosophy, and thus political theory, is prescribing the
goals which citizens, states, and societies ought to pursue. This is a prescriptive, normative, and broadly ethical
enterprise concerned with specifying rules of conduct which will secure the good life for all of society. It inquires into
the principles of right order in human social existence, dealing with questions of right and wrong, good and evil, and
visions of an ideal state and society. This normative dimension is critical for grappling with fundamental political
questions and proposing alternative futures.

8. Sharpening Judgment and Guiding Action: Political theory is not merely an abstract intellectual pursuit but aims to
provide thoughtful political action. By clarifying concepts, analyzing situations, and contemplating potential futures, it
sharpens political judgment and guides decision-making in the complex reality of political life. It involves reflection upon
 the ends and means of political action.

9. Engagement with Tradition: Political theory is deeply embedded in a continuous tradition of political thought.
Engaging with the works of classical thinkers (from Plato to Marx) is not historical antiquarianism but a vital function that
provides a legacy of insights, concepts, and vocabulary, illuminating present predicaments and facilitating new
interpretations. The history of political theory reveals the evolution, change, and continuity of ideas, concepts, and
problems.

10. Responding to Crises and Problems: Political theory often flourishes during times of crises, providing a vital response
to societal stress and strain. It analyzes these problems deeply and offers alternative means to address them. This
function underscores its practical relevance and its role in helping humanity confront ongoing challenges, many of which
are global in dimension today.

It is important to note that this comprehensive scope distinguishes political theory from mere ideology. While both may offer a
world-view and a vision of the good society, ideology is often tied to defending or challenging a specific power structure and can
be accepted without critical inquiry. Political theory, in contrast, ideally involves a disinterested search for the principles of the
good state and society, calls for impartial observation, and subjects ideas to critical appraisal. Its aim is not simply to justify but to
analyze, understand, and improve.

In summation, Sheldon Wolin's concept of political theory as "vision", encompassing both description and imagination, aligns
with the broader functions identified in the sources. Political theory performs descriptive and empirical tasks (political science),
but its distinctive power lies in its imaginative and normative capacity (political philosophy) to critique existing orders, clarify
fundamental concepts, interpret complex realities, reconstruct meaning during crises, and project visions of a better future, thereby
providing essential guidance for political understanding and action in the ongoing quest for a good life and good society. It is an
"arduous calling" demanding intellectual rigor, historical awareness, and creative foresight.

● Analyse the critique of Behaviouralism that led to the rise of Post-Behaviouralism, focusing on the concerns raised by
critics. (Approx. 200 words)

Behaviouralism, emerging significantly after World War II, particularly associated with American political scientists, represented a
major shift in the study of politics. Its roots trace back to figures like [Graham Wallas] and [Arthur Bentley] in the early 20th
century, who emphasized informal processes and actual human behaviour over formal institutions. Pioneers like [Charles E.
Merriam] advocated for scientific rigour and interdisciplinary approaches, calling for political scientists to study political behaviour as
an essential object of inquiry.

The core tenet of Behaviouralism was the belief that social theories, including political theories, should be constructed only on the
basis of observable behaviour, providing quantifiable data for research. It sought to develop a pure science of politics by
organizing research on the model of natural sciences. [David Easton] outlined key characteristics, including the search for
regularities, the principle of verification, emphasis on technique and quantification, aiming for systematization, advocating for
pure science (seeking understanding before utilization), and promoting integration with other social sciences. Behaviouralists
focused on the behaviour of actual political actors like voters, legislators, and elites, seeking to understand psychological and social
influences using an interdisciplinary approach. They preferred factual and statistical inquiries over a priori reasoning and believed
experience alone could be the basis of knowledge. They emphasized empirical observation and testing, asserting that scientific
theories must be capable of being falsified, aligning with [Karl Popper]'s ideas.

However, by the mid-1960s, Behaviouralism faced growing criticism. This critique highlighted several significant concerns that
ultimately paved the way for the Post-Behavioural revolution:

1. Constrained Scope and Mindless Empiricism: Critics argued that Behaviouralism significantly constrained the scope
of political analysis, limiting it to only what was directly observable and quantifiable. This narrow obsession with
quantifiable data threatened to reduce the discipline to little else. [Wasby] and [Bay] criticized giving too much
importance to techniques, leading scholars to choose research topics based solely on whether adequate methods were
available for study. [Karl Popper] and [Hempel] rejected this "narrow inductivist view" of scientific enquiry, arguing that
mere fact-gathering ("mindless empiricism") without theoretical expectations is insufficient. Behaviouralism focused on
micro-level situations and questions that could be reliably answered with existing methods, rather than attempting
broader, macro-level generalizations or focusing on what was actually important. This preference for fundamental rather
than applied knowledge led it to distance itself from immediate political reality.

2. Neglect and Denigration of Values: A central and potent criticism was that Behaviouralism inclined a generation of
political scientists to turn their backs on the entire tradition of normative political thought. Concepts like ‘liberty’,
‘equality’, ‘justice’, and ‘rights’ were sometimes discarded as meaningless because they were not empirically verifiable
entities. Critics like [Leo Strauss] argued that the rise of Behaviouralism was symptomatic of a crisis in political theory
precisely because of its failure to come to grips with normative issues. [Dante Germino] criticized its inability to
separate normative political theory from ideological doctrines. Behaviouralism was seen as having an "acknowledged
inability to deal with value concerns" and led to the "denigration of values to a non-scientific, and therefore, non-
confirmable status". This lack of attention to the 'ought to be' was seen as rendering it helpless in critical situations, unable
to distinguish right from wrong or just from unjust, especially highlighted in the context of the rise of totalitarianism. It
neglected the critical standards needed to evaluate data.

3. Conservative Bias and Legitimation of Status Quo: By primarily focusing on describing existing political arrangements
through observable behaviour, Behaviouralism implicitly ran the risk of legitimizing the status quo. Critics argued that its
claim to being "value-free" masked a conservative value bias. For instance, "democracy" was often redefined in terms of
observable elite competition through elections, rather than its normative meaning of "popular self-government". [David
Easton] himself later noted that Behaviouralism had become ideologically conservative and limited to abstraction rather
than the reality of the times in crisis.

4. Lack of Relevance and Failure to Address Pressing Problems: Despite its methodological sophistication,
Behaviouralism was criticized for its failure to attend to the pressing social and political issues of the period. It was seen
as pursuing "pure science" ("Knowledge for Knowledge Sake") and not being interested in action or solving social needs.
Scholars were accused of taking refuge in their "ivory tower," perfecting their methodology but remaining unconcerned
with the outside world and prevailing crises. [David Easton] specifically lamented this detachment in the face of threats
like the nuclear bomb, inner conflicts within the US, and the Vietnam War. [John Plamanatz] countered the notion of
 theory as an "escape mechanism," defining it instead as an "arduous calling".

5. Inability to Capture Human Agency and Complexity: Critics contended that it was not possible to establish
regularities in human behaviour in the way science studies natural phenomena, which made it difficult to explain human
behaviour solely through scientific methods. The methodological focus seemed to direct attention away from human
actors and their choices, towards the constraining conditions, resulting in a "subjectless, nonhumane discipline" where
human intentions and purposes played little creative part.

6. Abdication of the Theorist's Vocation: Figures like [Sheldon Wolin] were highly critical, declaring that the
preoccupation of political science with method, characteristic of Behaviouralism, signified an "abdication of true vocation
of political theory". [Dante Germino] echoed this, charging behaviouralists with "over quantification and under theorizing".
The focus on narrow, methodologically tractable questions meant neglecting the broader, crucial questions of the "highest
good and best society for man as man".

These accumulating criticisms highlighted the limitations of a purely empirical, value-neutral approach and underscored the need for
political inquiry to be relevant to the problems of the real world and to engage with fundamental questions of value and purpose.

The formal announcement of the Post-Behavioural revolution by [David Easton] in 1969 marked a direct response to these
criticisms. Post-Behaviouralism was not a complete rejection of Behaviouralism but rather an effort to build upon its
methodological gains and apply them to problem-solving and crisis-management. Its twin slogans were "relevance and action". It
represented a shift from focusing solely on method to a greater concern with the public responsibilities of the discipline and with
political problems. Crucially, it sought to reintroduce a concern for values into political analysis. [David Easton] emphasized that
scientists could maintain a rational interest in value construction and application without denying the validity of their science. Post-
Behaviouralism aimed to resolve the fact-value dichotomy, maintaining that values should be the aim of political science,
achievable through scientific methods. It shifted the nature of political science from a "pure science" to an "applied science,"
focusing on solving prevailing societal problems at a macro-level. This new phase called for intellectuals to shoulder responsibility,
defend humane values, and actively engage in reshaping society.

In essence, the critique of Behaviouralism centered on its perceived narrowness, value-neutrality, conservatism, methodological
fetishism, and irrelevance in the face of real-world crises. These concerns spurred the Post-Behavioural movement, which sought
to create a more engaged, relevant, and normatively conscious political theory, integrating the rigour of empirical science with the
essential task of addressing societal problems and pursuing a vision of the good society. This transition reflects an ongoing tension
within political theory between empirical description and normative prescription, facts and values, analysis and action.

● How is the history of political thought related to political theory? Discuss the importance of studying classic texts and their
context. (Approx. 150 words)

Political theory is an intellectual effort to attain systematic knowledge about the goals and methods of politics. It refers to the
systematic knowledge of political phenomena. Political theory involves the analytical study of ideas and concepts that are central to
political thought. Its evolution is generally traced from the tradition of thoughts from Plato to Marx. Political theory reflects upon
political phenomena, processes, and institutions, and on actual political behaviour by subjecting it to philosophical or ethical criteria.
It considers the question of the best political order, which is part of a larger, more fundamental question about the ideal form of life
a human being ought to lead within a larger community.

The history of political thought is essentially the study and interpretation of the ideas of prominent political thinkers, past and
present, about the problems of politics, particularly concerning the nature and purposes of the state and government. It involves
examining these ideas, often presented chronologically within their historical and geographical settings, and engaging in a
comparative and critical study of them. According to [Sheldon S. Wolin], the history of political theory is marked by both continuity
and innovation.

Relationship between History of Political Thought and Political Theory:

The history of political thought is not merely a chronological account of past ideas; it is considered an integral part of political theory
itself. [Sabine] held the hypothesis that theories of politics are themselves a part of politics. Political theories of any age are a
product of the social milieu in which politics operates. Reflection upon the ends of political action, the means of achieving them,
the possibilities and necessities of political situations, and the obligations political purposes impose is an intrinsic element of the
whole political process. Thus conceived, the theory of politics, and its history, have no concluding chapter, as politics itself
continues.

Political theory, since its inception, has seen changes in scale, scope, methodology, and teleology. The attempt to build a science
of politics is a distinctly modern endeavour. Political theory helps us a lot in the clarification of concepts used in the analysis of
social and political life. This task is particularly difficult because words used in political matters, like 'authority', are also used in non-
political contexts. Political theory supplies ideas, concepts, and theories for analysis, description, explanation, and criticism, which
are then incorporated into political science. It is a discipline that transcends immediate practical concerns and views human societal
existence from a critical perspective.

Importance of Studying Classic Texts:

Studying the classic texts of political philosophy is considered highly important for contemporary political theory. Classics are
defined as works of acknowledged excellence whose utility transcends time and space, possessing enduring importance. They
represent the seminal works of political theory.

1. Addressing Perennial Issues: Classics address the fundamental and perennial ideas of political science. Ever since
[Plato] raised the question of "What is justice" in The Republic, the debate about the nature and meaning of a good and
just order continues. These texts deal with universal and eternal issues, such as the power relationships between ruler
and ruled, the nature of authority, the problems of political obligation, the status of certain goals like liberty and equality,
and the best form of government. They offer insights into the basic issues of politics like stability, revolutionary change,
and the role of key institutions.
2. Conceptual Clarification: Classics help us understand the concepts and terms used in political argument and analysis,
such as freedom, equality, democracy, justice, rights, and the state. By examining how these terms have been employed
and redefined over time, we gain a deeper understanding of their meaning and usage in arguments. The meaning of a
concept can change depending on historical and social contexts.
3. Intellectual Heritage and Tradition: The history of political theory presents a rich intellectual tradition and heritage. It's
seen as a continuous tradition of political thought that provides a sense of navigating a familiar landscape explored by
past thinkers. It's not a chaotic whirl of disembodied ideas, but a coherent tradition of discourse. This tradition preserves
the insights, experience, and refinements of the past and provides a continuously evolving grammar and vocabulary for
 communication and understanding. Classics are seen as an inheritance not of any one culture or time, but of the entire
humankind.
4. Response to Crises and Problems: Political theories, particularly the classics, often arise during periods of acute crisis
or great transition and not during settled times. They flourish when a great churning occurs and issues are debated. A
crisis acts as a catalyst for theorizing, provided it is understood within a framework of political values and institutional
arrangements. The classics dealt effectively with the immediate situations and issues of their time while suggesting
lessons valid for other times. Theorists like [Plato] and [Machiavelli] composed their works during periods of political
upheaval.
5. Frameworks for Critical Evaluation: Political theory involves a critical evaluation of political beliefs and attempts.
Philosophical approaches, often found in classical political theory, aim at evolving "standards of right and wrong" for
the critical evaluation of existing institutions, laws, and policies. Classics provide normative statements and moral
principles that can be used to appraise or prescribe political institutions and practices. This helps contemporary scholars
logically, speculatively, and critically answer questions about how things 'ought to be'.
6. Political Education: An inquiry into the historical development of political philosophy is seen as a form of political
education. Studying classics sharpens the appreciation of the possibilities and limits of political action and theorizing. It
involves a continuous discourse with history and the great minds of the past.

Importance of Studying Classics in their Context:

While the timelessness and universal relevance of classics are emphasized, there is also a significant debate about the need to
understand these texts within their historical and cultural contexts.

1. Understanding the Author's Intentions: Contextualists argue that merely reading a text without reference to the time
and social, economic, and cultural milieu is like approaching it in the 'biblical' sense, assuming the meaning is self-evident.
To understand the formulations and theoretical statements about politics, it is necessary to stress the interrelationship
between political theory and practice. Texts are a response to specific events, controversies, debates and crises.
Understanding the author's intentions, their use of language, and the words that prevailed at the time is crucial to grasping
the text's meaning. [Quentin Skinner], for instance, emphasizes understanding not just what the author argues for
(locutionary meaning) but also what they were doing by making that argument in a specific debate (illocutionary meaning)
[72, 133(a)].
2. Historical Specificity vs. Universal Claims: Contextualists like [Skinner] are skeptical about claims that classical texts
address universal and timeless problems. They maintain that the political and moral assumptions underlying great works
are historically specific creations, and their questions and answers should be viewed as relative to the particular
societies and cultures from which they emerged. This perspective challenges the idea that classic writings provide ready-
made answers to contemporary problems.
3. Theory as Political Action: [Sabine] viewed political theories as being produced as a normal part of the social milieu in
which politics has its being. Some historians of political theory view works of political theory as forms of political action,
intended to produce certain effects in the reader – to persuade, criticize, frighten, or encourage. A political theorist is seen
as engaging in high-level propaganda or persuasion on behalf of some political cause. Restoring a text to its historical
context helps identify the specific questions it sought to answer.
4. Evolution of Concepts: Understanding the historical context helps see how political theory varies according to time and
circumstances. It allows us to trace the "successive transformation" of a particular idea or concept or its "re-interpretation
and re-adaptation". The meaning and significance of words like 'state', 'patriot', 'revolution', and 'rights' have changed
depending on historical and social contexts.
 5. The Textualist Counterpoint: It's important to note the contrasting textualist approach, dominant after 1945,
exemplified by scholars like [Hacker] and [Plamentaz], which holds that classics can be studied without central reference
to their historical context. This approach views political theory as a sub-category of philosophy focused on conceptual
clarification and the critical evaluation of beliefs and principles. While they acknowledge that historical understanding
might provide some insights, it's not seen as playing a central role in interpretation.

However, there is an argument that while historical context is important, texts should not be submerged within history, which could
stifle their capacity to be relevant beyond their immediate context. A balanced approach might involve considering the historical
context to understand the author's intentions and the original meaning while also engaging in reinterpretation and redefinition from
new frameworks, like feminism or republicanism, to find contemporary relevance.

In conclusion, the history of political thought is fundamentally intertwined with political theory. Studying the classic texts provides
access to the foundational concepts, perennial questions, and critical frameworks that constitute the discipline's heritage.
Understanding these texts within their specific historical contexts is crucial for accurate interpretation, recognizing their origins in
particular political situations and the author's intentions. While the debate between emphasizing timelessness and historical
specificity continues, both approaches contribute to a richer understanding. Ultimately, engaging with the history of political thought,
through the critical study of classic texts and their contexts, is indispensable for a comprehensive and relevant political theory that
can analyze present-day challenges and contribute to political education. It helps in discerning enduring truths from historically
specific elements and provides the necessary intellectual tools for contemporary political analysis and critique.

● Examine how the normative approach serves as an essential guide to social policy according to the sources. (Approx. 150
words)

Political theory, in its multifaceted nature, is concerned with gaining systematic knowledge about political phenomena [See general
understanding of Political Theory]. It involves the analytical study of ideas and concepts central to political thought. A crucial
dimension of political theory, particularly prominent in its traditional forms and experiencing a resurgence, is the normative
approach.

The normative approach is fundamentally concerned with values and standards of conduct. Unlike the empirical approach which
focuses on describing what is, the normative approach is prescriptive; it deals with the ideal, with what ought to be done. It aims
at discovering "What ought to be", defining the ideal meaning of different political concepts. This involves setting standards or
forms of conduct and articulating a preference for a particular type of order guided by moral principles or a sense of duty. It
emphasizes the intrinsic value of desired actions, justifying the end in itself. The normative approach is evaluational, seeking to
theorise political thinking and phenomena from the perspective of values and ideals.

According to the sources, this focus on values and prescription makes the normative approach an essential guide to social
policy and decision-making in several critical ways:

1. Basis for Sound Public Policy: The sources explicitly state that the determination of values is the basis of a sound
public policy or decision. If this responsibility is not systematically pursued, it risks falling into the hands of the ignorant,
the self-interested, or those with a mere "will to power" – a point underscored by David Held. This implies that political
decisions and policies require a foundation in considered values to be effective and just.
2. Setting Standards for Evaluation and Prescription: The philosophical approach, largely synonymous with the
normative approach in classical political theory, aims at evolving "standards of right and wrong". These standards are
used for the critical evaluation of existing institutions, laws, and policies. The normative approach seeks to establish
 standards of the good, the right, and the just, which are then used to appraise or prescribe political institutions and
practices. This prescriptive function is vital for guiding the development and reform of social policy, suggesting how
things ought to be, rather than simply describing how they are.
3. Addressing Perennial and Emerging Issues: The normative approach engages with fundamental questions about the
good life and the nature of a just community. It tackles urgent questions like "how are we to live?" and "What are we to
do?". Furthermore, contemporary concerns such as environmentalism, feminism, human rights, and social justice for
subaltern groups actively call for the exploration of new horizons of value-judgment, which the normative approach is
uniquely positioned to undertake. It provides frameworks for discussing and justifying conceptions of concepts like
secularism, democracy, and equality in specific contexts.
4. Critique of Status Quo and Vision for Improvement: Normative theory involves a consistent critique and analysis of
the existing state of affairs. It embodies a desire to either maintain a stable order or to change it for a better, ideal
state. By making ideas like justice and equality an end in themselves, it constantly strives to derive a perfect order of
peace and prosperity. Without this vision and critique, society and polity risk pursuing visionless directions, potentially
leading to conflict.
5. Informing Practical Action and Social Change: Although often contrasted with empirical, fact-based analysis, the
normative approach is essential for guiding action. It helps determine which course is morally right or wrong and
prescribe the right course. The study of classics, which are rich in normative statements, provides a form of political
education that sharpens the appreciation of the possibilities and limits of political action and theorizing. It provides a
space for rational argument and debate necessary for deciding on contentious policy issues, like the right to work.
6. Bridging Theory and Practice: While some approaches might view theory as separate from practice, the normative
approach, particularly in the tradition of studying classics, sees political theory as intimately connected with the social
milieu. Political theories are seen as being produced as a normal part of the social context of politics itself, and engaging
with them helps to understand how political practice can be altered by showing what it means or ought to mean. The
concept of "social engineering," as advocated by Roscoe Pound, illustrates how law, a tool for social policy, can be
assessed and revised in light of changing social consciousness and defined social purposes to achieve social progress.
7. Conceptual Clarification for Policy Debate: Normative theory helps clarify and define key political concepts like
freedom, equality, justice, rights, and the state [See general understanding of Political Theory]. Understanding the
ideal meanings and normative implications of these concepts is crucial for constructing coherent and justifiable social
policies. As the sources note, even seemingly descriptive concepts like power are "loaded with normative assumptions,"
and understanding them requires acknowledging wider normative perspectives.

The resurgence of the normative approach, spurred by post-behaviouralism and scholars like David Easton, Hannah Arendt,
and John Rawls, among others like Dworkin and Amartya Sen, highlights a renewed recognition of the indispensable role of
values in political analysis and, consequently, in guiding social policy. While criticisms exist regarding its subjectivity and the
difficulty of scientific validation, the sources argue that dialogue between different value viewpoints is possible to arrive at basic
principles of reasoning. Moreover, the empirical approach itself can help examine the grounds of normative arguments. Ultimately,
engagement with normative theory encourages open and self-conscious moral debate, leading to better policy outcomes.

In summary, based on the provided sources, the normative approach is not just an academic exercise but serves as a crucial
guide for social policy by: providing the necessary value base for sound decisions; establishing standards for the critical
evaluation and prescription of institutions and practices; addressing perennial and emerging ethical challenges; offering a
critique of the existing order and a vision for improvement; informing and justifying political action; linking theory to the reality of
political practice and social change; and clarifying the normative content of political concepts essential for policy formulation.
Without the normative grounding it provides, political action and social policy risk lacking direction, justification, and a commitment
to the pursuit of a better collective existence.

● Beyond Behaviouralism, identify and briefly explain other contemporary approaches or models of political analysis
mentioned in the sources. (Approx. 150 words)

While Behaviouralism dominated particularly after the Second World War, focusing on observable behaviour and the application
of scientific method to build a "pure science" of politics, criticisms arose regarding its narrow scope, neglect of values, and
inability to address pressing social problems. This led to the development or resurgence of other approaches, often integrating
empirical study with normative concerns or focusing on different units and processes of analysis.

Here are some key contemporary approaches and models of political analysis discussed in the sources, other than
Behaviouralism:

1. Post-Behaviouralism: This is presented as a direct reaction to the perceived shortcomings of Behaviouralism,

particularly its focus on "pure science" and neglect of values and relevance. Announced by [David Easton] in 1969, the
"post-behavioural revolution" marked a shift from strict methodological issues to a greater concern with the discipline's
public responsibilities and pressing political problems. Key tenets include prioritising substance over technique,
stressing the relevance of knowledge to satisfy social needs and for problem-solving, focusing on macro-level
analysis, being explicitly interested in the choice of values, and advocating for social change. Post-behaviouralism
aims to build upon the gains of Behaviouralism but utilise them for practical purposes. It seeks to reintroduce a concern
for values into the behavioural approach without abandoning scientific method. It is seen as resolving the fact-value
dichotomy, maintaining values as the aim achievable even by scientific methods. Scholars like [David Easton] himself,
and those whose work highlighted the importance of values and action, such as [Hannah Arendt] and [John Rawls], are
associated with this broader shift or resurgence of normative concerns. It represents a synthesis of traditional normative
political philosophy and behaviouralism.

2. Models of Political Analysis: Stemming from the empirical-scientific orientation in political science, these are specific
frameworks used to select and arrange data to yield explanations of political phenomena. While behaviouralism provided
the impetus, these models offer structured ways to analyse politics as a process.

○ Systems Analysis: This is identified as a pioneering model. It conceives politics in terms of a political system.
As described by [Robert Dahl], a system is "Any collection of elements that interact in some way with one
another". For analysis, elements are viewed abstractly, focusing on interactions in the political sphere rather
than formal institutions. The concept is derived from the social system concept in sociology.
○ Structural-Functional Analysis: Also based on the concept of a political system, this model is particularly
used in comparative politics as it provides standard categories for different political systems. It originated in
social anthropology ([Radcliffe-Brown], [B. Malinowski]), was developed in sociology ([Talcott Parsons], [Robert
Merton], [Marion Levy]), and applied to political analysis by [Gabriel Almond] and his associates. It focuses less
on institutional arrangements and more on how political systems function in practice, particularly how they
translate inputs into outputs. It aims to address shortcomings of systems analysis and is considered more
dynamic.
 ○ Communications Theory: This approach is described as useful in limited spheres of political science. Its
applications include analysing bargaining, conflict-resolution, decision-making, policy evaluation, estimating the
impact of publicity/propaganda, and understanding international relations dynamics. However, it is noted as less
useful for analysing power structure, ideologies, resource allocation, violence, or revolution.
○ Decision-Making Analysis: Listed among important models of political analysis, indicating a focus on the
process by which political decisions are made. While listed, the sources do not provide detailed explanations of
its specific methodology compared to others.
○ Marxian Analysis: Also listed as a model of political analysis, distinct from the liberal models, and potentially
leading to different results. It involves locating the primary source of political behaviour in socio-economic
factors, such as the level of technological development, mode of material production, and class structure. The
Marxian framework of "base and superstructure" is cited as a tool of political analysis originally evolved in
economics and sociology. This approach connects closely with Marxism as a critical theory and ideology.
3. Interdisciplinary Approach: This is presented as a modern approach that marks a departure from the classical
approach which did not clearly distinguish disciplines. It studies politics as a social process and involves making use of,
verifying, and contributing to the findings, theories, and models of other social sciences like economics, sociology,
psychology, and anthropology. This approach became more prominent with the empirical orientation, which realised that
politics occurred within a larger social system framework. It was systematically developed by [Marx] and [Engels] in a
rudimentary form and is embraced by modern liberal political scientists to understand the influence of social factors.
Understanding political behaviour, particularly, necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to consider the effects of social,
cultural, and personal factors.

○ Political Sociology: Explicitly named as a new venture applying sociology concepts and methods to political
behaviour and institutions. Practitioners explain political behaviour and apply analyses of bureaucratic
structures (e.g., by [Max Weber] and [Robert Michels]) to various institutions. It studies the interface between
society and politics ([SM Lipset]). Key schools within it include the perspectives of [Marx] (focusing on classes
and economic structure) and [Weber] (critiquing Marx, and focusing on caste, class, political parties, religion,
ethnicity, etc., applied by scholars like [Andre Beteille] and [Chris Jaffrelot]).
○ Modern Political Economy: Focuses on the political aspects of economic policy-making, ensuring policies are
not only economically efficient but also politically acceptable. It examines concepts and issues common to
economics and politics, such as demands, costs, allocation of resources, utility, and optimization. It also
involves using economic models, such as rational choice theory, for the study of political behaviour. Marxist
political economy, as noted earlier, focuses on the relationship between the mode of production and social
formations.
4. Normative and Philosophical Approaches (Resurgence): While traditional, the sources note a significant resurgence
of interest in normative questions and values from the 1970s onwards, particularly in the wake of the perceived
limitations of Behaviouralism. This indicates its continued, and indeed renewed, role as a contemporary approach to
political theory and its relevance for social policy. The normative approach is fundamentally concerned with values and
standards of conduct, asking "what ought to be" rather than "what is". It defines the ideal meaning of political concepts
and sets standards or forms of conduct guided by moral principles [General understanding from sources]. The
philosophical approach aims to evolve "standards of right and wrong" to critically evaluate existing institutions, laws,
and policies. It seeks to establish standards of the good, the right, and the just to appraise or prescribe political
institutions and practices. The sources highlight that determining values is the basis of sound public policy [General
understanding from sources, implied by the need for standards]. Scholars central to this resurgence include [John Rawls],
 known for his theory of justice, who drew on earlier philosophers, [Robert Nozick], and [J. Habermas]. [Hannah Arendt]'s
work is also seen as reviving Normative Political Theory. The normative approach is essential for engaging with
fundamental questions about the good life and tackling urgent questions like "how are we to live?" [General
understanding from sources].

5. New Institutionalism: Interest in institutionalism revived from the 1980s onwards, leading to what is called "new
institutionalism". This approach retains the core belief that "institutions matter" in shaping political behaviour.
However, it differs from the earlier, more descriptive "traditional" or "old" institutionalism by broadening the understanding
of what constitutes an institution and giving more importance to the social context of political behaviour. It covers not
only formal political practices but also "less formal organisational networks". [Theda Skocpol] is mentioned in relation to
this revival, specifically for her work on "bringing the state back in".

6. Rational Choice Theory: Listed as a contemporary approach, it involves using economic models to understand political
behaviour. It assumes actors are rational and pursue their self-interest. This includes "institutional public-choice
theory", applied by scholars like [Anthony Downs], [Mancur Olson], and [William Niskanen] to analyse areas such as
party competition, interest group behaviour, and bureaucratic influence on policy. Game theory, derived from mathematics
but used in this approach, is also mentioned. [Schumpeter] and [Anthony Downs] applied economist's market models to
democratic politics.

7. Critical Approaches: Described as having expanded considerably since the 1980s, offering perspectives that go beyond
mainstream political science. These approaches are "critical" in that they seek to contest the political status quo, often
by aligning with marginalized or oppressed groups, and aim to uncover inequalities that mainstream approaches
might ignore. They often go beyond the positivism of mainstream science, emphasizing the role of consciousness in
shaping the political world, and are sometimes called post-positivist approaches. They use theory as a form of critique,
mixing explanatory and normative aims to deepen understanding and highlight oppressive dimensions.

○ Marxism/Neo-Marxism/Post-Marxism: Presented as the principal alternative to mainstream political science

before the 1980s. It offers a critical, historical, and structural approach, explaining society holistically and
exposing oppression. While its status has declined, it remains an inspiration for critical approaches to
contemporary liberal democracy. Neo-Marxism includes traditions like the [Frankfurt School]. Post-Marxism,
linked to scholars like [Ernesto Laclau] and [Chantal Mouffe], uses concepts of discourse and power (influenced
by [Foucault]), focusing on legitimation through contestation and pluralism in a democratic context.
○ Feminism: Identified as a critical approach that has drawn attention to systematic gender inequality. It involves
the analysis of gender, patriarchy, and power. It is also listed as a contemporary perspective.
○ Green Politics (Ecologism): Challenges the anthropocentric focus of established theory and advocates for
holistic approaches. It is listed as a critical approach.
○ Critical Theory: Rooted in neo-Marxism ([Frankfurt School]), it extends critique to all social practices. It is listed
as a critical approach.
○ Post-structuralism / Post-modernism / Anti-foundationalism: These approaches question the rationalism
and universalism of Western thought, emphasizing the contingent nature of principles. They are described as
post-positivist, emphasizing consciousness, and viewing theory primarily as critique. Post-modernism is
mentioned as asserting a rejection of traditional liberalism.
 ○ Postcolonialism: Emphasizes the cultural dimension of colonial rule and Western hegemony. It is listed as a
critical approach and is linked to comparative political theory's focus on non-Western perspectives.
○ Subaltern Studies: Mentioned in relation to critiques of citizenship theory and analysis of power from the
perspective of disadvantaged groups.
8. Comparative Political Theory: Described as a recent and developing area within contemporary Western political
thought. Its focus is explicitly on the task of comparison, specifically between texts, thinkers, approaches, and ideas
within the Western tradition and those in the non-West. It is seen partly as a response to globalization and overlaps with
postcolonialism in giving voice to non-Western traditions of reflection.

9. Political Culture Approach: Although its interest peaked during the behavioural revolution (associated with political
socialization), it remains a contemporary approach. It focuses on the shared political beliefs and values of a community.
Key scholars include [Gabriel Almond] and [Sidney Verba], known for their work on 'Civic Culture', and Indian scholars like
[Rajni Kothari] and [Paul Brass] who applied it, particularly to developing areas. It integrates behavioural insights but
allows adaptation to context and social heterogeneity.

These diverse approaches, emerging and gaining prominence after the behavioural revolution, highlight a broader, more complex,
and often more critically self-aware landscape of political analysis. They demonstrate a move towards integrating values and
relevance, incorporating insights from other social sciences, focusing on different units and processes of analysis (systems,
structures, communication, decisions), and critically examining power relations and inequalities from various standpoints (class,
gender, postcolonial context, community). This expansion beyond strict Behaviouralism enriches the study of politics and provides
multiple lenses through which to analyse and guide the development of social policy.

● Discuss the characteristics of the traditional approaches to the study of politics, noting why they are distinguished from
contemporary approaches. (Approx. 150 words)

Alright, let us delve into the core of Political Theory for our PSIR Paper 1 preparation. We shall meticulously discuss the

characteristics of the traditional approaches to the study of politics, drawing a sharp contrast with their contemporary

counterparts based on the provided sources. This demands a detailed and dense answer, highlighting key scholars and

thinkers in brackets and important keywords in backticks.

The study of politics has evolved significantly over time, leading to a broad classification of approaches into traditional and

contemporary. Historically, the traditional approaches largely dominated the field until the end of the Second World War
(1939-45). While they still hold importance in modern political studies, they are no longer as favoured by proponents of

contemporary approaches. The distinction, though not a watertight compartment, lies primarily in their focus and methodology.

Characteristics of Traditional Approaches:

Traditional approaches to the study of politics were characterized by a focus on what ought to be rather than strictly what is.

They were deeply rooted in moral philosophy and ethics, aiming to determine norms for public life and evolve institutions

accordingly. This is encapsulated by the normative approach, which was a dominant feature of traditional study.
1. Focus on Values and Norms: A primary characteristic was the emphasis on values, norms, and ideals. Traditional

political theory was prescriptive, dealing with the ideal political arrangements and the ends of the state, often venturing

into the realm of moral philosophy. Thinkers sought to establish standards of the good, the right, and the

just, appraising or prescribing political institutions and practices in their light. This philosophical method is employed

because norms and values are seen as determinable philosophically, not through scientific methods. The ultimate

concern was often the quest for a good life and a good society.
2. Methodology: Traditional approaches primarily relied on methods drawn from related disciplines that historically
encompassed political inquiry. These included:
○ Philosophical Approach: Concerned with the clarification of concepts and the evolving of standards of

right and wrong. It aims at arriving at truth through the use of reason, seeking normative, descriptive,

or prescriptive truth. Most classical political theory, from Plato to contemporary times, represents this

approach, focusing on moral reasoning. Thinkers like Vernon Van Dyke highlight its role in clarifying

concepts and establishing standards. Leo Strauss argued that political science and political philosophy are
coterminous. Despite its indispensable role, critics warn of the danger of becoming highly imaginative and

utopian, citing Plato as an example, and note criticisms of bias and unrealistic assumptions.

○ Historical Approach: This involves understanding politics through an analysis of historical events or

by studying the historical account of political thought. One sense, exemplified by Hegel and

Marx, involves seeking laws governing politics from history (historicism), though this was criticized by Karl

Popper. The second sense, seen in George H. Sabine's work, is the study of the history of political

theory itself. This approach emphasizes the contextuality of ideas, as thinkers respond to specific situations.

Laski is quoted as saying "Every thinker is a child of his times".

○ Legal Approach: Focuses on the legal and constitutional framework of the state and government.
It studies public law and formal governmental bodies.
○ Institutional Approach: Studies the organization and functioning of government, its various

organs (legislature, executive, judiciary), political parties, and other relevant institutions. It involves

describing the composition, powers, and interrelationships of these bodies, often in legal terms. Thinkers

like Aristotle initiated this by classifying governments. This approach aims at giving an elaborate description

of facts. Proponents include Herman Finer, Sir Ivor Jennings, and Samuel Beer.

3. Subject Matter: Traditionally, the study of politics was dominated by the study of philosophy, history, law, and

institutions. The state was often the central theme, with definitions emphasizing its legal and formal aspects. R.G.

Gettel defined political science as "the science of the state," and J.W. Garner claimed it "begins and ends with the

state". Classification of governments from Aristotle onwards was a key concern.

4. Goal and Tone: The traditional approach aimed at providing a prescription for a perfect life and emphasizing

order, stability, and harmony in social life. The texts were often descriptive rather than analytical. They often lacked

modern empirical insights and rarely touched upon alternative theoretical interpretations like elitist, pluralist, or

Marxist theories of democracy.

5. Historical Context and Crisis: Classics in political theory often arise during periods of acute crisis or great

transition, acting as a catalyst for deep intellectual churning and debate. Sabine argues that theories of politics are part
of politics itself, reflecting the social milieu and periods of stress and strain.
Distinction from Contemporary Approaches:

The contemporary approaches, which emerged prominently after World War II, represent a significant departure from the

traditional ones. This shift was partly due to the perceived inadequacies of traditional methods in understanding real-world
political phenomena and the desire to establish political science as a distinct and scientific discipline.

1. Timeframe: The most basic distinction is chronological. Traditional approaches were prevalent until roughly 1939-45,
while contemporary approaches developed thereafter.
2. Focus Shift: Contemporary approaches shift the focus from values to facts, from what ought to be to what is.

They prioritize the study of actual human behaviour in political situations rather than just the formal features of

institutions and their legal positions. The focus is on politics as a process rather than solely on formal institutions.

3. Methodological Shift: Contemporary approaches embrace the empirical approach and seek to apply scientific

method to the study of politics. This involves dealing with observable facts and data, aiming at explanation

(establishing cause-and-effect relationships and correlations between variables) and prediction. They move away from

mere speculation towards systematic observation and measurement. The behavioural approach is a prime example
of a typically contemporary approach.
4. Scope and Subject Matter: Contemporary approaches aim to understand politics in totality, transcending formal aspects

and looking for social life aspects that influence politics. This leads to an interdisciplinary approach, drawing
insights from other social sciences like sociology, psychology, and economics, which is also considered a

contemporary approach. Models of political analysis like Systems Analysis, Structural-Functional

Analysis, Communications Theory, and Decision-Making Analysis, all fall within the purview of contemporary

approaches. They are particularly concerned with the socio-economic foundations of political phenomena.
5. Critique of Traditional Approaches: Exponents of contemporary approaches questioned the continued relevance of

traditional political theory. David Easton, a key figure in the behavioural revolution, argued that traditional theory

was based on mere speculation, lacked observation of political reality, and was a product of past turmoil with no

relevance to contemporary society. Behaviouralists even suggested abandoning the concept of the state because it was

seen as a formal concept detached from real political processes and tied to moral philosophy. Traditional approaches
were seen as largely descriptive, lacking analysis.

Nuances and Continuity:

It is crucial to note that the distinction between traditional and contemporary approaches is not absolute, and there is continuity as

well as change. While contemporary political science gives prominence to the empirical approach, and traditional study was

dominated by the normative approach, features of both are found in both periods. For example, Aristotle's analysis of

revolutions and Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers have empirical content, while contemporary thinkers

like Karl Popper (advocacy of incremental change), F.A. Hayek (libertarianism), C.B. Macpherson (creative

freedom), and John Rawls (theory of justice) are rich in normative content.

Furthermore, the perceived decline of political theory during the height of behaviouralism led to a resurgence starting in the

1970s, marked by a renewed interest in values and normative issues, without necessarily abandoning scientific methods. This

post-behaviouralism, as David Easton termed it, called for making political science subservient to human values and ends,
addressing prevailing crises. Thus, post-behaviouralism can be seen as a synthesis of the normative thesis (traditional

approach) and the behavioural anti-thesis. Contemporary political theory, while influenced by modern science and empiricism,

still grapples with perennial questions, revisiting classical ideas and concepts. Scholars like Sheldon Wolin have defended the
importance and beauty of the classical tradition against behaviouralist critiques.

In conclusion, the traditional approaches were characterized by their normative orientation, reliance on philosophical,

historical, legal, and institutional methods, and focus on values, ideals, institutions, and the state from a
often descriptive standpoint. They arose from and responded to the problems and contexts of their time, often during periods of

crisis. In contrast, contemporary approaches are characterized by their empirical orientation, use of scientific

methods, focus on facts, behaviour, and the political process, and a greater emphasis on explanation and

prediction, often employing interdisciplinary tools and analytical models. While the distinction highlights a significant shift

in the study of politics, the ongoing dialogue between normative and empirical concerns, and the reinterpretation of classical
ideas in light of contemporary challenges, underscore the dynamic and evolving nature of political inquiry.

● Explain the difference between normative and empirical theories of politics

The study of politics broadly involves seeking systematic knowledge of political phenomena. Within this endeavour, a

crucial distinction emerges between two primary types of theoretical statements or approaches: the empirical and the

normative. While both are essential components of comprehensive political theory, they differ fundamentally in their focus,
methodology, and goals.

Empirical Theory of Politics:

The empirical approach to the study of politics is primarily concerned with observable facts and data. It deals with what

is or what is there in the real world of politics. Its core orientation is descriptive and explanatory, seeking to understand
political reality as it exists.

1. Focus on Facts and Reality: Empirical theory is grounded in sense-experience and observation. It attempts to

analyse and explain political reality in an impartial manner. It seeks to describe what men and women

actually do in a political situation.

2. Methodology: The methodology of the empirical approach is largely rooted in the scientific method. This involves

systematic observation, collection of data, and analysis to establish cause-and-effect relationships and

correlations between different variables. The goal is to arrive at possible generalizations and laws

about political behaviour and institutions. Key principles include the emphasis on verifiability and

falsifiability. Empirical statements are considered capable of verification because correct observation and

reasoning by different persons should lead to similar conclusions. Thinkers like Aristotle in his analysis of constitutions

and revolutions, Machiavelli in his realistic account of statecraft, and Montesquieu in his theory of separation of

powers are cited as having empirical content in their work, predating modern behaviouralism.

3. Goals: The primary goals are description, explanation, and prediction of political phenomena. It seeks to

discover laws that are unalterable or beyond human control, which can then be described. It can also help in

examining the factual grounds of normative arguments. Modern political science, particularly influenced by
 behaviouralism, strongly emphasizes the empirical approach. Scholars like David Easton advocated for political

science to adopt the methodology of natural sciences. Models like rational-choice theory also fall under this
approach, building models based on observable or assumed behaviour.
4. Relationship with Traditional/Contemporary: While often associated with contemporary approaches that emerged

after WWII, the empirical perspective has older roots. The behavioural revolution specifically sought to strengthen

the scientific basis of politics and delink it from political philosophy. However, purely empirical theory is seen as largely

descriptive. Critics note its potential limitations in fully explaining complex human phenomena or large-scale social
change without some degree of speculation.

Normative Theory of Politics:

The normative approach to the study of politics is concerned with values, ideals, and what ought to be. It delves into

the moral and substantive dimensions of politics. Its core orientation is prescriptive and evaluative, aiming to

determine standards of right and wrong and justify political arrangements.

1. Focus on Values and Ideals: Normative theory is based on value-judgment. It is concerned with the ideal forms of

society and government, the ends that political action should pursue. It explores concepts such as justice, liberty,

equality, and rights. It grapples with questions about the good life and the good society.

2. Methodology: The methodology relies heavily on philosophical method. This involves reasoning, critical

evaluation of beliefs and existing institutions, and seeking justification for political ideas and arrangements.

It is concerned with establishing standards of the good, the right, and the just. Unlike empirical statements,

evaluative statements are sometimes alleged to be based on individual or group preferences and lack a reliable
scientific method for verification. However, proponents argue that values can have a sound logical structure and be

subject to reasoned debate and dialogue. Normative statements often contain words like ought, should, and must.
Political philosophy is often considered a part of normative political theory.
3. Goals: The primary goal is prescription – to suggest or recommend what should be done, to set standards of

conduct. It is concerned with laws and conditions largely created or adopted by human society, which are

alterable. Determining values is seen as the basis of a sound public policy or decision. Thinkers like

Plato in depicting an ideal society, Leo Strauss in emphasizing the philosophical nature of political science and the

importance of normative issues, and John Rawls in his theory of justice represent strong normative concerns.

4. Relationship with Traditional/Contemporary: The normative approach is closely associated with traditional

approaches to politics, which dominated until WWII. It was the core of classical political theory. While behaviouralism

sought to minimize its role, the post-behavioural revolution called for a renewed concern with values.
Contemporary political theory, while influenced by empirical methods, still engages deeply with normative questions, as

seen in the work of Rawls and others.

Key Differences between Empirical and Normative Approaches:

Based on the sources, the core differences can be summarized as follows:

 ● Focus: Empirical approaches focus on facts and what is, while normative approaches focus on values, ideals,

and what ought to be.

● Goal: Empirical theory aims at description, explanation, and prediction. Normative theory aims at

prescription and justification.

● Methodology: Empirical theory primarily uses scientific method, observation, and data analysis. Normative

theory primarily uses philosophical method, reasoning, and critical evaluation.

● Nature of Statements: Empirical statements are empirical or logical and potentially verifiable as true or false.

Normative statements are evaluative or value-judgments, often debated in terms of right or wrong.

● Subject Matter: Empirical approaches deal with observable facts and political behaviour. Normative approaches
deal with moral principles, ideals, and standards for the good life.
● Relationship to Reality: Empirical approaches seek to describe reality as it is. Normative approaches seek to evaluate
reality and prescribe how it should be.

Interdependence and Synthesis:

Despite these distinctions, the sources emphasize that political inquiry benefits from both approaches, and they are often
intertwined.

● Political theory must comprehend both political science and political philosophy.

● Political science enables us to strengthen our means, while political philosophy helps us determine our

ends; since means and ends are interdependent, both play complementary roles.
● Understanding human phenomena (which constitutes the political world) requires conceptual understanding
(philosophical/normative) before empirical inquiry can even identify what to explain.
● Empirical findings can challenge or refine normative claims, such as the use of empirical evidence to reject Aristotle's
justification for harsher punishment for slaves.
● Normative concerns are at the heart of the human world and are exclusive to human phenomena. Even

seemingly descriptive concepts like power are invariably interlinked with normative assumptions and value
judgments.
● Attempts to formulate a purely empirical theory free of normative elements are seen as inherently failing
because interpreting human intentions and motives brings forth normative issues.
● Contemporary thinkers like John Rawls have adopted empirical methods for arriving at their principles of justice,
demonstrating a synthesis.
● Post-behaviouralism represents a synthesis of the normative thesis (traditional approach) and the

behavioural anti-thesis (empirical approach), calling for making political science subservient to human values while

using rigorous methods. Andrew Hacker notes that a complete political scientist plays a dual role of part scientist

and part philosopher.

In conclusion, the difference between normative and empirical theories of politics lies in their fundamental purpose and

method. The empirical approach seeks to describe, explain, and predict political reality based on observable facts and the

scientific method. The normative approach seeks to evaluate political reality and prescribe what ought to be based on

values, ideals, and philosophical reasoning. While historically associated with the traditional and contemporary
divides respectively, both perspectives are essential for a comprehensive understanding of the political phenomenon and are

increasingly integrated in modern political theory, recognizing that inquiry into human affairs involves both understanding

what is and reflecting on what should be.

● Comment on the resurgence of political theory

Empirical Theory of Politics:

The empirical approach to political theory is fundamentally concerned with observable facts and the reality of politics as it

exists. It aims to understand what is rather than speculating on what ought to be. The orientation is primarily descriptive,

explanatory, and predictive.

1. Focus on Facts and Reality: This approach is grounded in sense-experience, observation, and data. It seeks to

describe and analyse political reality impartially, focusing on the actual behaviour of individuals, groups, and

institutions. Thinkers like Aristotle in his classification of constitutions, Machiavelli in his analysis of power

dynamics, and Montesquieu in his study of governmental forms, while pre-dating modern scientific methods, had
elements of empirical observation in their work.
2. Methodology: The core methodology is the scientific method. This involves systematic collection and analysis of

data to identify cause-and-effect relationships and make generalizations or discover potential laws

governing political behaviour. Emphasis is placed on verifiability and falsifiability; empirical

statements are those capable of being tested against evidence. The behavioural revolution in the mid-20th

century, significantly influenced by David Easton, strongly advocated for political science to adopt the methodology of
the natural sciences to establish a more rigorous, empirical foundation for the study of politics. Approaches like

rational-choice theory also fall under this empirical umbrella, building models based on assumptions about
rational, self-interested behaviour that can be empirically tested.
3. Goals: The main goals are to accurately describe political phenomena, explain why they occur, and predict future

political outcomes based on identified patterns and relationships. This approach helps strengthen the means of political
action by providing a factual understanding of political dynamics.
4. Relationship with Traditional/Contemporary: While associated with modern political science and the

behavioural approach that gained prominence after World War II, attempts at empirical analysis have older roots.

However, the behavioural approach was criticised for potentially becoming largely descriptive and for

ignoring the crucial dimension of values. Purely empirical theory, attempting to be free of normative elements,
is seen as inherently failing because the interpretation of human intentions and motives brings forth normative issues.

Normative Theory of Politics:

The normative approach is primarily concerned with values, ideals, and prescriptions about what ought to be in politics.

It delves into the moral and substantive dimension of politics, focusing on questions of the good life, the good

society, and the best political order.

1. Focus on Values and Ideals: This approach is based on value-judgment and seeks to establish standards for

evaluating political arrangements and actions. It explores fundamental concepts such as justice, liberty, equality,
 and rights. It deals with laws and conditions that are largely created or adopted by human society,

implying they are alterable and subject to human will and design. The search for values is considered the basis of

a sound public policy or decision.

2. Methodology: The methodology is primarily philosophical. It relies on reasoning, critical evaluation of

beliefs and institutions, and arguments aimed at providing justification for political ideas and arrangements. It is

concerned with establishing standards of the good, the right, and the just. While some have argued that

evaluative statements lack scientific verification, proponents argue that values can be subject to reasoned debate.

Normative statements often use prescriptive language like ought, should, and must. Political philosophy is

closely aligned with, and often used interchangeably with, normative political theory. Socrates and Plato are
seen as foundational thinkers in establishing critical thinking and focusing on normative questions.
3. Goals: The main goal is prescription – recommending how things should be or what actions should be taken. It aims

to evaluate existing political reality and suggest ways to transcend the present imperfect society to a better

and more perfect and just order. It helps determine the ends that political action should pursue.

4. Relationship with Traditional/Contemporary: The normative approach is central to traditional political

theory, which dominated before the rise of behaviouralism. The debate surrounding the decline of political

theory in the mid-20th century was largely a debate about the diminishing role of normative inquiry due to the

dominance of empirical methods and positivism. However, the post-behavioural revolution called for a

renewed concern with values. The resurgence of political theory since the 1970s is marked by a strong re-

engagement with normative issues, as seen in the works of thinkers like John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Jurgen

Habermas, Alasdair Macintyre, Michael Walzer, and Herbert Marcuse.

Key Differences:

The core distinctions can be summarised:

● Focus: Empirical concerns facts and what is; Normative concerns values, ideals, and what ought to be.

● Goal: Empirical aims at description, explanation, prediction; Normative aims at prescription and

justification.

● Methodology: Empirical uses scientific method, observation, data analysis; Normative uses

philosophical method, reasoning, critical evaluation.

● Nature of Statements: Empirical statements are factual and verifiable; Normative statements are evaluative or

value-judgments.

● Subject Matter: Empirical deals with observable facts and political behaviour; Normative deals with moral
principles, ideals, and standards for conduct.

Interdependence and Synthesis:

Despite these differences, the sources underscore that both empirical and normative approaches are vital and complementary

components of comprehensive political theory.

 ● Political theory must include both political science (concerned with means) and political philosophy

(concerned with ends).

● Empirical findings can be used as an aid to a better understanding of classical issues, including those

concerned with value-judgment. They can provide the factual grounds for evaluating normative arguments.
● Normative concerns are essential for providing direction and purpose to empirical inquiry. Understanding human
phenomena requires philosophical/normative understanding before empirical explanation.
● The classical tradition itself often contained both empirical and normative statements.

● The post-behavioural revolution explicitly calls for a synthesis, integrating the rigour of empirical methods with

a renewed focus on values. Andrew Hacker highlights the dual role of the complete political scientist as part

scientist and part philosopher.

● Contemporary political theory often exhibits a synthesis; for instance, John Rawls's theory of justice, while profoundly

normative, employs methods influenced by empirical approaches. C.B. Macpherson's work is another example

where normative analysis uses empirical findings.

In conclusion, empirical theory focuses on describing and explaining what is in politics using the scientific method,

while normative theory focuses on evaluating what ought to be based on values and philosophical reasoning.
While distinct, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive and are increasingly seen as interdependent, contributing in

different but essential ways to the complex and never-ending task of understanding and improving political phenomena. The

evolution of political theory, particularly the shift from the behavioural emphasis to post-behavioural synthesis,
demonstrates the ongoing recognition of the need to integrate both perspectives.

Comment on the decline of political theory

The resurgence of political theory began in the late 1960s and gathered significant momentum in the 1970s and 1980s.

This period is often linked to the advent of post-behaviouralism in 1969. Prior to this revival, the dominance of the

behavioural approach in political science, particularly in the United States, had led many to question the relevance and

even the existence of traditional, normative political theory. Thinkers like David Easton, Alfred Cobban, and

Seymour Martin Lipset had argued that traditional political theory, focused on history and values, was

speculative, lacked empirical observation, and had lost significance in the contemporary political landscape. Logical

positivists had dismissed normative or metaphysical statements as mere value judgments lacking scientific

verification, contributing to the notion that a rational evaluation of the moral world was impossible.

However, the limitations of a purely empirical and value-free approach became increasingly apparent. The behavioural

revolution, while contributing rigour and empirical insights, was criticised for potentially becoming largely

descriptive and for ignoring the crucial dimension of values. David Easton himself acknowledged this critique

in his move towards post-behaviouralism, which called for a renewed concern with values and finding solutions to

contemporary political problems. Critics like Leo Strauss argued that the new science of politics, by adopting a

positivist approach, had ignored normative issues and was a symptom of the decline of political theory.

Sheldon Wolin accused behavioural political scientists of abdicating their true 'vocation' in their

excessive concern for method over substance.

The resurgence marked a significant shift, demonstrating that pronouncements of decline were "premature and academically
shortsighted". Several factors and characteristics define this revival:

1. Re-engagement with Normative Issues and Political Philosophy: The revival is fundamentally characterised by

a renewed emphasis on values and a return to the concerns of political philosophy. It was argued that

value-judgment serves as an essential guide to social policy and that indifference to it would leave

society in the dark. The search for values is considered the basis of a sound public policy or decision.

Political philosophy, which deals with the needs, objectives, and goals of human life, continues to be relevant
because these issues can be debated and reasoned upon.
2. Synthesis of Empirical and Normative Approaches: The resurgence, particularly under the umbrella of post-

behaviouralism, aimed for a synthesis. Empirical theory is now being used as an aid to a better

understanding of classical issues, including those concerned with value-judgment. C.B. Macpherson's

work is cited as an example where normative analysis uses empirical findings. This suggests that

political theory has not been killed by empirical analysis but has been helped to progress better. Andrew

Hacker highlights the dual role of the political scientist as part scientist and part philosopher, implying the
necessity of both approaches.
3. Emergence of Prominent Thinkers and New Themes: The revival is most visibly marked by the appearance of

significant political theorists who revived the grand tradition of political philosophy. This list

includes renowned scholars such as John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Jurgen Habermas, Alasdair Macintyre,

Michael Walzer, and Herbert Marcuse. These thinkers addressed fundamental questions of justice, rights,

equality, and the good society, often in sophisticated ways that engaged with contemporary social and political
realities.
4. Expansion of Scope and Diversification of Perspectives: The resurgence brought new themes and concerns to the
forefront. Key areas include:
○ Communitarianism, challenging liberal individualism.

○ Feminism, critiquing power structures and bringing new perspectives on gender and politics.

○ Environmentalism and Green Politics, addressing the relationship between humans and the
environment.
○ Human Rights and Social Justice for subaltern groups.

○ Critical Theory, often drawing on Marxist insights but expanding to other forms of oppression.

○ Post-modernism and Post-structuralism, questioning universal truths and grand narratives.

○ Postcolonialism and Comparative Political Theory, challenging the Western-centric canon and
incorporating non-Western perspectives.
○ Renewed debates on Democratic Theory, including deliberative democracy and radical democracy.

○ Focus on contemporary challenges like populism.

5. Renewed Appreciation for the History of Political Thought: While integrating new methods and themes, the

resurgence also involved a re-engagement with the classical tradition. There was a recognition that
understanding the evolution of ideas and concepts through history is crucial. However, this engagement also involved
critically evaluating past theories in their historical context and acknowledging how contemporary values influence
 interpretation. Thinkers like Sheldon Wolin and Hannah Arendt are noted for using the great theories of the

past to illuminate contemporary predicaments.

6. Acknowledgement of Theory as Practice and Critique: Contemporary political theory increasingly views itself not just

as an explanatory or justificatory exercise, but as a practice embedded in and responding to its context. Influenced by

anti-foundationalist critiques and critical approaches, theory is often used as a tool for critique, aiming to
uncover obscured dimensions of political phenomena and expose oppression.

The resurgence indicates a recognition that political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling.

Isaiah Berlin famously argued that political theory could not be dead as long as rational curiosity existed and

fundamental questions about ends and values were contested. As George H. Sabine suggested, political theory develops
as part of politics itself and has no concluding chapter because the process of reflection, interpretation, and re-adaptation of ideas is
ongoing.

While the revival has brought an "unprecedented lease of life" to the discipline, some argue that this resurgence has been

restricted to the universities and the academia, resulting in a "kind of alienated politics" detached from practical
political activity. Nevertheless, the flourishing of diverse theoretical approaches and the re-engagement with fundamental normative

questions underscore the continued vitality and necessity of political theory in making sense of and striving to improve the

political phenomena we face.

● Comment on the Post-Behavioural Approach

The Post-Behavioural Approach represents a significant turning point in the study of political science, particularly emerging in the
late 1960s and gaining prominence in the 1970s. It is often described as a "revolution" within the discipline, announced notably by
(David Easton) in his 1969 presidential address to the American Political Science Association. This approach arose as a direct
response to the perceived limitations and shortcomings of the preceding Behavioural Approach, which had dominated American
political science after the Second World War.

The Behavioural Approach, influenced by positivism and logical positivism, had sought to transform political science into a
"pure science" by focusing strictly on observable political behaviour, quantifiable data, and rigorous methodologies borrowed from
natural sciences. Key tenets of Behaviouralism included the search for regularities, emphasis on verification through empirical
testing, use of precise techniques, quantification, systematization, pursuing pure science (knowledge for knowledge sake), and
promoting integration with other social sciences. Behaviouralists aimed to build a causal theory to explain political behaviour and
largely dismissed normative or evaluative statements as subjective value judgments outside the purview of scientific inquiry. This led
to a focus on micro-level analysis and questions that could be reliably answered using available methods, sometimes at the
expense of broader, more complex issues.

However, by the mid-1960s, criticisms of Behaviouralism began to mount. Critics argued that its strict adherence to a "pure science"
model, its emphasis on method over substance, and its avoidance of normative issues rendered it irrelevant to the pressing social
and political problems of the time, such as the threat of nuclear war, civil unrest, and the Vietnam War. (Leo Strauss) argued that the
rise of Behaviouralism was symptomatic of a crisis in political theory due to its failure to engage with normative issues. (Sheldon
Wolin) criticized behavioural political scientists for abandoning their true "vocation" in their excessive concern for method. The work
of (Thomas Kuhn) in the philosophy of science also influenced this critique, suggesting that the significance of scientific method lay
in its capacity for problem-solving and crisis management, rather than just methodological sophistication. Thinkers like (Dante
Germino) criticized Behaviouralism for "over quantification and under theorizing".
It was in this context of dissatisfaction and critique that the Post-Behavioural Revolution emerged. (David Easton) himself, a
prominent exponent of Behaviouralism, acknowledged its limitations and called for a shift in focus. Post-Behaviouralism was not a
complete rejection of Behaviouralism, but rather sought to build upon its gains and apply them for practical purposes. As (Easton)
put it, it represented a move from strictly methodological issues to a greater concern with the public responsibilities of the discipline
and with political problems.

The core tenets and characteristics of the Post-Behavioural Approach can be summarized by (Easton)'s twin slogans: "relevance
and action". This marked a fundamental shift in purpose from seeking "knowledge for knowledge sake" to seeking "applied
knowledge and practice".

Key features of Post-Behaviouralism include:

1. Renewed Concern with Values (Normative Issues): Post-Behaviouralism insisted on making the achievements of
political science subservient to human values and ends. It seeks to reintroduce a concern for values within the
behavioural approach itself. This contrasts sharply with the value-neutral stance of strict Behaviouralism. It was argued
that science could adopt a rational interest in value construction and application without denying its validity. Post-
behaviouralism is interested in the choice of values, whereas Behaviouralism was value-neutral.
2. Focus on Relevance and Problem-Solving: The approach emphasizes that political science must be relevant to the
real-world problems facing society. It calls for applying political science to overcome prevailing crises. This moved the
discipline from a focus on "pure science" to one on "applied science".
3. Action Orientation: Intellectuals were urged to put knowledge to work and engage in reshaping society, actively
participating in the political process rather than remaining detached in an "ivory tower".
4. Synthesis of Empirical and Normative Approaches: While re-emphasizing values, Post-Behaviouralism did not discard
the scientific methods developed by Behaviouralism. It aimed for a synthesis, utilizing empirical findings for a better
understanding of classical and normative issues. The idea is that values can be the aim of political science, and they can
be pursued using scientific methods.
5. Substance over Technique: Post-Behaviouralism stressed that the problems of society (substance) should determine
the tools of investigation (technique), rather than techniques dictating what problems are studied. This addressed the
criticism that Behaviouralism focused only on phenomena that were easily observable and quantifiable, potentially
ignoring more important issues.
6. Engagement with Contemporary Issues: The emergence of new concerns like feminism, environmentalism,
ethnicity, racial identity, and equality, as well as issues like nuclear war and social justice, demanded a theoretical
framework capable of addressing them. Post-Behaviouralism provided this framework, leading to the exploration of new
themes and the revival of political theory.
7. Macro-level Analysis: In contrast to Behaviouralism's focus on micro-level situations, Post-Behaviouralism increasingly
focused on addressing prevailing problems at a broader, macro level.

In essence, Post-Behaviouralism represents a move towards a more engaged, critical, and value-conscious political science. While
it incorporated the methodological advancements of Behaviouralism, it rejected its value-neutrality and descriptive limitation. It is
often seen as the synthesis in a dialectical process where traditional normative political philosophy was the thesis and
Behaviouralism the antithesis. It signifies a continuity with the tradition of finding solutions to contemporary political problems,
integrating the "what ought to be" with the "what is". Thinkers like (Hannah Arendt) whose work highlighted the unique role of human
action and criticized behaviouralism, are seen as part of this revival of normative theory. The monumental work of (John Rawls),
particularly his theory of justice, is also a key example of the resurgence of normative political theory that gained momentum during
and after the post-behavioural revolution.
The rise of Post-Behaviouralism helped to revive the study of political theory, demonstrating that its alleged decline was
premature. It paved the way for diverse new themes and approaches that characterize contemporary political theory.

● What is the significance of the centrality of language to the activity of political theory

The significance of language to the activity of political theory is profound, as language serves as both the medium of expression
and the raw material of the discipline, while also being a site of fundamental political contestation.

1. Language as the Tool and Medium of Political Theory: Political theory is inherently a "language-dependent systematic
expression" and a "word-dependent systematic reflection" on political phenomena. Language is the tool with which we
think and communicate. Concepts, the building blocks of knowledge, are general ideas expressed in words or phrases.
Political concepts like liberty, equality, justice, and power are the "basic units of meaning" and the "raw material" of
political theory. The process of reasoning, argumentation, explanation, and theorizing in politics relies entirely on the
construction and use of these concepts through language. As Sheldon Wolin notes, political theory involves the
analytical, critical, and normative study of ideas, concepts, and arguments.

2. The Nature of Political Language: Unlike technical languages, political language often utilizes terms from "common
parlance" that are also applied to non-political phenomena, making precise meaning difficult to determine. Language in
politics is not merely a passive mirror reflecting reality; it is an "active force" that helps "shape what we see and structure
our attitude towards it". It carries significant "political and ideological baggage". Words are seldom neutral.

3. Contested Concepts and Ideological Struggle: A key significance of language's centrality is that it makes political
concepts "highly complex and often fiercely contested". Many core concepts, such as power, justice, freedom, and
democracy, are considered "essentially contested concepts," meaning no neutral or settled definition is universally
possible. The difficulty in precisely defining political terms stems from them standing for complex ideas, concepts, and
values. This leads to continuous "intellectual and ideological controversy". Different schools of thought or ideologies apply
the same terms to indicate different ideas. For instance, liberals and socialists may define freedom or the state differently,
revealing their underlying "ideological commitment". Politics, in part, is a "struggle over the legitimate meaning of terms
and concepts".

4. Conceptual Clarification as a Function of Political Theory: Given the contested nature of political language, one
crucial function of political theory is the "clarification of concepts". This involves understanding how terms are employed,
the shifts in their definitions over time, and their usage within arguments. While political philosophy attempts to determine
a "precise meaning", it is acknowledged that conceptual clarification "cannot be neutral" because it often reflects value
preferences.

5. Language, Context, and History: The meaning and significance of political terms change across historical and social
contexts. Understanding the history of political thought requires comprehending the language used by authors in their
specific time and milieu. This historical perspective reveals the "successive transformation" or "re-interpretation and re-
adaptation" of ideas and concepts (Sabine). Theories of politics themselves are produced as a normal part of the social
milieu where politics has its being, influencing and being influenced by the language used in the public forum. The study
of conceptual history, as highlighted by Quentin Skinner, examines how the significance of words changes depending on
 context.

6. Language, Power, and Critique: Critical perspectives, such as post-structuralism, emphasize the deep connection
between language, meaning, and power relations. From this viewpoint, political theory is not seen as standing above
power but as "part of the power it analyses", as concepts and ideas expressed in language are "enmeshed in relations of
power". The commonness of meanings in political society can even depend on a "ruling power capable of enforcing them"
(Wolin). Language is also a crucial element in the organizational structure of political movements and the expression of
radical thought, as seen in the analysis of Locke's Two Treatises by Ashcraft.

In sum, the centrality of language is fundamental because it constitutes the very fabric of political theory, serving as the vehicle for
thought and analysis, while simultaneously being the contested terrain where ideological battles over meaning and values are
fought. Political theory's task is therefore inextricably linked to analyzing, clarifying, and critically engaging with the complex, fluid,
and power-laden nature of political language.

● Why are political concepts so often the subject of intellectual and ideological controversy

Political concepts are frequently the subject of both intellectual and ideological controversy for several interconnected reasons,
stemming from their inherent nature, their role in political life, and the very character of political theory as a discipline, as illuminated
by the provided sources.

1. Inherent Nature of Political Concepts: Political concepts, such as liberty, equality, justice, power, and democracy, are
often described as "slippery customers". They are not merely descriptive terms referring to objects with an objective,
measurable existence, but are frequently, if not always, difficult to disentangle from the moral and philosophical views of
those who advance them. Concepts serve as the tools with which we think and impose meaning on the world, but they are
constructed, often containing normative elements – ideas about "what ought to be" rather than just "what is". This inherent
normative dimension invites differing interpretations and disagreements about preferred understandings. Furthermore,
many central political concepts are considered "essentially contested concepts" (attributed to W.B. Gallie). This means
the controversy over them runs so deep that no single, neutral, or settled definition can ever be universally developed.
Concepts like power, justice, freedom, democracy, and the state fall into this category, encompassing a number of rival
concepts where competing versions may be seen as equally valid.

2. Concepts as Sites of Political and Ideological Struggle: Politics is fundamentally, in part, a struggle over the legitimate
meaning of terms and concepts. Language is used as a political weapon, and words themselves carry political and
ideological baggage. Political concepts are not confined to academic analysis; they are also employed by political actors
in the everyday world. This active use in political discourse means concepts inevitably become subject to both intellectual
and ideological controversy. Attempts are constantly made to establish a particular conception of a concept (e.g., "true"
democracy, "true" freedom) as objectively correct.

3. The Role of Ideology: Ideology plays a significant role in this contestation. While political theory ideally involves a
disinterested or dispassionate search for the best form of state and society (as argued by G.H. Sabine and Andrew
Hacker), ideology is a systematic and all-embracing doctrine that seeks to justify an existing or future political and social
arrangement. Ideologies provide different perspectives or "lenses" through which the world is understood and explained.
 Competing ideological traditions (such as liberalism and Marxism) offer rival conceptions of the good life and often invest
the same political vocabulary (like "freedom," "democracy," "justice," and "equality") with their own distinct meanings. This
leads to passionate disputes, sometimes even more bitter within a single ideology over its "true" nature, than between
different ideologies. The analysis of concepts often reveals the underlying ideological commitment of the speaker or
writer, as conceptual clarification, while important, cannot be entirely neutral. Ideology is also sometimes equated with
dogmatism, fixed beliefs divorced from complexity, which further contributes to controversy by rejecting alternative
understandings or critical appraisal.

4. The Nature of Political Theory Itself: Political theory is a discipline that is inherently reflective and engaged in a
continuous process of innovation, refinement, rejection, and incorporation of ideas. It involves subjecting political
phenomena, processes, and institutions to philosophical or ethical criteria. The study of political theory includes clarifying
and refining concepts, critically evaluating beliefs, and attempting to understand conflicts between different political
theories. This critical and evaluative task naturally generates debate. Political theories do not exist in a vacuum; they are
molded by the social and historical circumstances in which they develop and by the political ambitions they serve.
Theories of politics are themselves a part of politics, produced within the social milieu where politics has its being.
Reflection on the ends and means of political action is an intrinsic element of the political process itself. Furthermore,
political theory is often described as a "never-ending conversation among theorists" (as noted by Andrew Hacker).
Debates between theorists are rarely definitively resolved, and old and new ideas exist simultaneously, requiring constant
examination. Contemporary political theory has been influenced by anti-foundationalist critiques (associated with
postmodernism and post-structuralism) that question universal truth claims and emphasize that language and concepts
are enmeshed in power relations. This view suggests political theory is not above power but part of it, adding another
layer of complexity and contestation to how concepts are understood and deployed. The history of political thought is
marked by shifts and transformations, with concepts reappearing and being redefined in new contexts over time, ensuring
that their meaning remains fluid and open to debate (as Sheldon Wolin highlights the continuity and change). As Pitkin
remarks, ideas are "made political" in certain times and places, becoming conscious collective concerns, which inevitably
leads to their contestation.

In conclusion, the persistent intellectual and ideological controversy surrounding political concepts arises from their complex, often
normative, and "essentially contested" nature, their crucial role as tools and weapons in political struggle, the conflicting
interpretations offered by diverse ideologies, and the inherently critical, evolving, and historically situated nature of political theory as
a discipline engaged in a continuous dialogue.

● Discuss Sheldon Wolin's view of political theory as 'seeing' political phenomena, including its imaginative and visionary
aspects

Sheldon S. Wolin's view of political theory as 'seeing' political phenomena is a central element of his work, particularly elaborated in
Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Wolin distinguishes between two senses of this 'seeing'.
The first is a more obvious descriptive perception of political events or objects, akin to simply observing a political rally. However,
the second sense, which Wolin finds more significant, relates to the imaginative or visionary aspect of political theory. This
resembles an aesthetic or religious vision.

This imaginative 'seeing' involves the theorist's capacity for vision. Wolin describes it as an architectonic vision, where political
phenomena are portrayed and shaped in light of a vision of the Good that lies external to the existing political order. This ordering
element, which has varied historically from religious to economic, consistently possesses a "futuristic quality", projecting a
potential political order into a time that is yet to be. Through this imaginative portrayal, a theorist can exaggerate aspects of political
phenomena in an abstract manner to illuminate invisible interconnections. Imagination is deemed necessary because no political
theorist can directly observe all political realities.

Wolin classifies those who demonstrate this visionary capacity as "epic theorists". An epic theory differs from other methods and
theories by its structure and intention. It ushers in a new way of looking at the world by reassembling existing political institutions
and relationships. A key characteristic of epic theories is their governance by a public concern. This public concern has two
dimensions: first, the subject matter examined is common to the whole community (evoking Marcus Tullius Cicero's description of
the commonwealth as a res publica), and second, philosophy itself is intrinsically public, offering knowledge that makes individuals
wiser in their conduct of life.

Epic theories tend to surface most notably during times of crisis, when the political philosopher is tasked with reconstructing a
"shattered world of meanings" and fashioning a "political cosmos out of political chaos". However, Wolin notes that the possibility of
chaos during tranquil periods can also inspire a search for order and stability. The epic tradition is also fueled by the hope of
achieving immortality through thought, a "memorable deed" that compels admiration and awe. While a theorist aims to understand
and potentially alter the "whole" of politics, necessity often compels them to reduce this whole to manageable proportions,
emphasizing certain aspects.

Wolin also highlights the role of the continuous tradition of political thought in this process. Existing institutions provide an initial
coherence, and the tradition itself acts as a legacy, preserving past insights and providing a "continuously evolving grammar and
vocabulary" for political understanding. This tradition both circumscribes and facilitates discourse, allowing for fresh insights by
engaging with historical ideas. Studying the history of political philosophy is thus seen as a form of political education, enabling
theorists like Hannah Arendt to use past theories to illuminate contemporary predicaments.

Wolin's emphasis on vision stands in contrast to approaches like behaviouralism, which he criticizes for its focus on method and its
"reductionist explanations" that abandon the critical dimension of political theory. For Wolin, political theory's vocation is to sharpen
judgement, focus on complexities, and widen political vision, offering a political education rather than simply a descriptive science or
"recipes for salvation". This visionary aspect is crucial for understanding the significance and continued relevance of traditional
political theory from figures like Plato onwards.

● Trace the evolution of western political thought from ancient to contemporary period.

The evolution of Western political thought is a dynamic process marked by both continuity and significant transformations, reflecting
changes in political orders, intellectual paradigms, and social contexts. It is often studied through a historical perspective, examining
the ideas of 'major' thinkers and 'classic' texts.

1. Ancient/Classical Period (roughly 6th Century BC to 5th Century AD):

○ The origins of Western political thought are traced back to Ancient Greece, particularly the polis or city-state.
○ Key figures include Plato and Aristotle, regarded as pioneers. Their thinking was deeply concerned with the
nature of the good community and the relationship between ethics and politics. For them, political theory
was seen as a moral science, seeking to establish standards of the good, the right, and the just.
○ Thinkers like Plato dwelled on themes such as justice, the ideal society, and the state. Aristotle focused on
themes like the art of government, the classification of constitutions, and the rule of law. Aristotle's view that
'man is by nature a political animal' highlights the centrality of the polis in their thought.
○ The Roman experience also contributed significantly, transmitting Greek philosophy and developing concepts
like Roman law and the Stoic theory of natural law through figures like Cicero.
○ The classical tradition is characterized by a focus on perennial issues of political life and a tradition of critical
thinking.
2. Medieval Period (roughly 5th to 15th Century):
 ○ This period is characterized by the dominance of the Christian worldview and concerns about the relationship
between the human and divine realms, as well as between religious and secular authorities.
○ Figures like Thomas Aquinas integrated classical (Aristotelian) philosophy with Christian doctrine, continuing
the perceived unity of ethics and politics within a new theological framework.
3. Early Modern and Modern Period (roughly 16th to 20th Century):

○ This era marks a crucial turning point, emerging against the backdrop of the Renaissance, the scientific
revolution, Protestantism, and the Enlightenment.
○ A defining characteristic is the separation of ethics and politics. Thinkers like Niccolo Machiavelli, seen as
the first modern political thinker, focused on the "art of government" based on empirical observation of human
nature and political reality, separating politics from ethics.
○ The period is marked by the emergence and theorization of the modern state as the central institution of
political life, along with the concept of sovereignty. Thinkers like Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, and John
Locke were central to this.
○ Modern political thought became increasingly tied to concepts like natural rights, political obligation, and the
idea of consent, often articulated through social contract theories.
○ The liberal tradition became a dominant force, originating in struggles against absolutism and feudalism,
advocating for individual rights and constitutional government. Over time, it acquired an "unmistakably liberal
character", exploring themes like liberty, equality, and civil society.
○ The focus shifted towards building a "science of politics," moving towards empirical methods and objectivity.
However, traditional political theory, focusing on normative questions and the history of ideas, continued to be
relevant.
○ Other traditions like Marxism and conservatism also developed, often in reaction to or dialogue with liberalism
and the changing socio-economic landscape.
4. Contemporary Period (Post-WWII onwards):

○ The mid-20th century saw a period where some questioned the relevance of traditional political theory,
influenced by the rise of behaviouralism in political science. David Easton, in The Political System, argued that
traditional theory was mere speculation devoid of empirical observation.
○ However, political theory experienced a revival starting in the 1970s, notably with the work of John Rawls (A
Theory of Justice) focusing on social justice, and debates like liberalism vs. communitarianism.
○ Contemporary political theory is characterized by greater diffusion and fragmentation and an increased
emphasis on the role of history and culture in shaping political understanding, questioning universalist claims
of earlier periods.
○ It has been significantly influenced by anti-foundationalist critiques from perspectives like postmodernism
and post-structuralism, leading to critical approaches that aim to uncover obscured dimensions of power and
oppression.
○ This period sees the emergence of diverse perspectives and traditions that challenge or extend the liberal
framework. Notable examples, often seen as critiques of the dominant Western tradition, include feminism
(critiquing the male-centric nature of traditional thought), multiculturalism, and postcolonial political theory.
○ Postcolonialism, for instance, attempts to "highlight the impact of colonialism and give formerly colonized
peoples a distinctive political voice", questioning the "inclusive Western project of liberal democratic citizenship"
that participated in legitimizing colonialism.
○ There is a growing interest in comparative political theory, aimed at "decentring Western political thought as
the hegemonic standard" and creating a "common, global tradition" inclusive of non-Western thought, though
this area is still fledging.
○ Contemporary debates also focus on the changing nature of the state, challenges to sovereignty, and the
complexities of liberal democracy.

In essence, the evolution of Western political thought is a continuous narrative from the ancient focus on the ethical polis to the
medieval synthesis of faith and reason, the modern emphasis on the sovereign state and individual rights, and finally, the
contemporary landscape marked by fragmentation, critique, and a broadening of perspectives beyond traditionally Eurocentric
views. The study of this evolution involves understanding how concepts change over time while retaining a degree of continuity, and
how classic texts are continuously reinterpreted in light of new challenges and contexts.

● 'Credo of Relevance' in post-behaviouralism advocates the importance of action science. Analyze. (15/2023)

The 'Credo of Relevance' is a cornerstone of post-behaviouralism, a movement that emerged in political science as a response
to the perceived limitations of the preceding behavioural approach. While behaviouralism, prominent in the 1950s and 1960s,
focused intensely on developing a "value-free" or "value-neutral" empirical science of politics, often akin to natural sciences, its
critics argued that this preoccupation with method neglected pressing societal issues and normative questions. Scholars like Leo
Strauss saw behaviouralism as a symptom of the "decline of political theory" due to its neglect of normative issues. Sheldon Wolin
argued that the focus on method signified an "abdication of true vocation of political theory".

David Easton, a key figure in behaviouralism, himself recognized its failure to address urgent political issues and the "prevailing
crises". He criticized behavioural political scientists for taking refuge in their "ivory tower," perfecting methodology while being
unconcerned with the outside world.
In response, Easton announced the "post-behavioural revolution" in his 1969 presidential address to the American Political Science
Association. This movement was characterized by the "twin slogans of relevance and action". The 'Credo of Relevance'
embodies this shift. It dictates that political science should move beyond the pursuit of "pure knowledge" or "knowledge for
knowledge sake" and instead focus on knowledge that is relevant to societal needs and can be used for action aimed at problem-
solving and crisis-management. This is a direct advocacy for the importance of action science.

Post-behaviouralism insists on making the achievements of political science subservient to human values and ends. It calls for
political science to be an applied science rather than a "pure science". The theoretical analysis produced through rigorous methods
should serve as a starting point for empirical research directed at addressing real-world problems. This contrasts with the
behaviouralist tendency to pursue fundamental rather than applied knowledge and distance itself from immediate political reality.

The 'Credo of Relevance' also necessitates a revival of concern with values, which behaviouralism had sought to exclude. Post-
behaviouralism seeks to reintroduce this concern for values within the behavioural framework itself. It argues that value judgments
are essential for guiding social policy and addressing issues like environmentalism, feminism, human rights, and social justice. The
substance of political issues must take precedence over mere technique. As David Held pointed out, neglecting this function risks
politics being left to the "ignorant and self-interested". Dante Germino also criticized behaviouralism's neglect of values and
advocated for political theory as the critical study of principles of right order.

Essentially, the 'Credo of Relevance' transforms political science from a detached, observational discipline into an engaged, socially
responsible field. It urges intellectuals to shoulder responsibility, defend human values, and actively participate in addressing social
problems, embodying the idea that political theory is an "arduous calling" geared towards action for the betterment of society. This
integration of rigorous analysis with a commitment to applied problem-solving is the core of the "action science" approach advocated
by the 'Credo of Relevance'.

● Eurocentrism is both the target and the motive force of the post-colonial political theory. Discuss. (15/2023)

The statement "Eurocentrism is both the target and the motive force of the post-colonial political theory" encapsulates the complex
relationship between postcolonial thought and the dominant Western intellectual tradition. Postcolonialism, as a distinct perspective,
emerged precisely because of the historical reality and ongoing influence of Eurocentrism, making the latter its primary subject of
critique (target) and simultaneously the impetus for its development (motive force).

Eurocentrism as the Target:

Postcolonial political theory fundamentally critiques the inherent Eurocentric bias present in much of mainstream political thought
and the global order it has shaped. Eurocentrism refers to the application of values, theories, and perspectives drawn from
European culture to interpret and judge other societies, often implying a biased or distorted worldview and asserting European
superiority. Postcolonialists argue that this bias has historically manifested in various ways:

1. Universalist Pretensions: Western theories, such as liberalism and certain forms of socialism, have often presented
their ideas as universally applicable, overlooking or devaluing non-Western experiences and political traditions.
Postcolonial theory challenges these universalist pretensions, seeking to give a distinctive political voice to the
developing world.
2. Critique of Western Concepts and Theories: Postcolonial scholars critique specific Western concepts and theories that
they see as rooted in or perpetuating Eurocentric views.
○ Modernization theories are criticized for focusing on the Western model of development and underplaying
local factors, projecting the 'market society model' as universal to the advantage of Western democracies.
○ The application of conventional theories of the state is found insufficient to analyze the problems of newly
independent nations, especially regarding their relationship with colonial and neo-colonial powers. The post-
colonial state itself is theorized as different in nature and evolution from Western states.
○ The field of International Relations is seen as dominated by theories like Realism, which are often criticized as
Eurocentric.
3. Exposure of Cultural and Psychological Domination: A major thrust of postcolonialism is to expose and overturn the
cultural and psychological dimensions of colonial rule that persist even after political independence. Edward Said's
foundational work, Orientalism, is central to this critique, arguing that the West constructed stereotypical and demeaning
fictions about the East (the 'Orient') to establish and maintain its cultural and political hegemony. This "intellectual power
structure of domination" denigrated non-Western peoples and cultures, serving to legitimize Western control.
4. Historical Justifications of Colonialism: Postcolonial theory highlights how canonical Western thinkers, even within the
liberal tradition, provided justifications for colonialism rooted in Eurocentric assumptions. John Locke, for example,
rationalized the dispossession of indigenous peoples based on his theory of property and a Eurocentric view of economic
productivity. John Stuart Mill offered a "developmental view" justifying despotism over "barbarians" as a temporary
tutelage towards civilization. Such instances reveal the deep imbrication of Eurocentrism within the history of Western
political thought.
5. Academic Hegemony: Postcolonial scholars from the Third World countries point to the hegemony of the West in
academia, arguing that knowledge has historically served the dominant class and power relations. This academic
dominance reinforces Eurocentric perspectives, making its critique a necessary project.

Eurocentrism as the Motive Force:

Paradoxically, the very experience and enduring legacy of Eurocentrism and colonialism served as the catalyst for the emergence
and development of postcolonial political theory.

1. Response to Colonial Experience: Postcolonial theory arose directly from the historical experience of colonial rule and
its aftermath, particularly the wave of decolonization after World War II. The challenges faced by newly independent
nations, such as the failure of post-colonial states to meet economic and political aspirations, the persistence of neo-
colonialism, and the lasting cultural and psychological impacts of subjugation, provided the critical impetus for new
theoretical frameworks.
2. Engagement with and Adaptation of Western Theories: While critiquing Western thought, postcolonial theory often
engages with and adapts concepts from within the Western tradition to articulate its arguments.
○ Marxism, despite its Eurocentric elements and later use to justify nationalist regimes in the Third World,
provided a crucial analytical framework for understanding exploitation and imperialism. Thinkers like Frantz
Fanon drew inspiration from Marx but argued for the distinctiveness of colonial exploitation beyond purely
economic terms.
○ Postmodernism and Post-structuralism, originating in Europe, significantly influenced postcolonial theory,
particularly in their critique of universalism and focus on discourse and power-knowledge relationships. Edward
Said explicitly used Michel Foucault's ideas in Orientalism.
○ The critique of liberalism from perspectives like communitarianism or the focus on cultural identity in Western
political thought provide points of engagement or contrast for postcolonial theorists grappling with similar issues
in their contexts.
3. Quest for Distinct Voice: The perceived dominance and inadequacy of Western political thought to explain the realities
of the post-colonial world created a need and desire to articulate distinct non-Western political ideas and traditions.
Figures like Mahatma Gandhi (denunciation of Western materialism), Mao Zedong, Amilcar Cabral, and Leopald
Senghor (concept of negritude) represent early attempts at developing non-Western inputs to political theory, refining or
rejecting Eurocentrism.
4. Framing the Debate: The very act of challenging Eurocentrism necessitates responding to the existing Eurocentric
discourse. The terms of the debate, the concepts being critiqued, and often the methodological approaches are shaped by
the tradition that postcolonialism seeks to overturn. This makes Eurocentrism not just an external phenomenon being
analyzed but an intrinsic element that gives direction and purpose to postcolonial theorizing.

In conclusion, postcolonial political theory is intrinsically linked to Eurocentrism. It is born out of the historical reality and felt
consequences of European dominance and the Eurocentric ideas that underpinned it, making Eurocentrism its foundational motive
force. Simultaneously, the central project and contribution of postcolonial theory is the systematic deconstruction and critique of
Eurocentric biases in political thought and practice, establishing Eurocentrism as its primary target. This dual relationship highlights
postcolonialism's role as a critical and transformative force, enriching political theory by challenging its traditional boundaries and
universalist claims.

Read and make short notes

Question- Explain the difference between political thought, political philosophy, political theory, and political ideology. In
what way political science can be treated as Science ?

The word Politics has it's origin in the greek word 'Polis' which means affairs concerning city states. Politcs is a part of
Society which deals with the governing of society. There are various sub disciplines in the feild of Politics and the word
politcs has been interpreted differently by scholars to give varied definitions. Thus there is debate inherent in the nature of
Politics. WB gallie called these as the "essentially contested concepts".

Political thought refers to the study of ideas of a particular period. Eg. Ancient Greek thoughts. Political thought provides the
foundation to the subject by providing the the essential concepts and ideas to the political science. Poltical thoughts are not
systematic like theories. Sometimes can be inconsistent ot each others. Political Thought don't provide full fleged theories
despite providing esstential concept. Theories are built over the ideas of poltical thought.

Political Philosophy is the normative side of discipline of Politics. It is value loaded and deals with the questions like "what
ought to be ?" instead of what it is? It deals with the ethical questions in the politics. Strive for good politics. Eg. Plato
Theory of Justice. It does the critical evaluation, clarification, and refinement of the political concepts. It is a search for
poltical wisdom.
Politcal Theory is a network of concepts and generalizations. It explains political things. Eg, theory of Neo Realism by
kennith waltz. Poltical theory is gauged on it's expalination value. Waltz says the prime objective of a theory is to explain not
to describe things. The importance of poltical theory can be gauged by a statement by Kennith waltz in his books Theory of
International politics -

"To look for associations without any glimmering of theory is like shooting a gun in the general direction of the target.No only
much ammunations be used up but if the bulls eyes are hit no one would know."

The word ideology was first used by Antione Destutt De Tracy. He called it as the science of ideas havinf goalto uncover the
origin of ideas objectively. However not all have used the word ideology is such positive light. Karl Marx in his work "German
Ideology" called it as the ideas of ruling class, it forms false consciousness. While VI Lenin regarded its the neutral concept.
Different sections can have different ideology. Eg, Worker's ideology and Capitalist ideology.

The Political science doesn't means that it is an attempt to make politics like the pure science.It means the attempt to bring
the scientific rigour in the discipline of politics. It bring empiricism and behavioralism in Political Science. However the claim
of making Politics scientific is debatable. Thomas Kuhn the concept of Paradigm in social science. While the post
modernists thinkers claims that there is no obejctive truth. Reality is essentially plural. They called political science an
interpretative discipline. Thus the claim that the study of politics can be scientific remains debetable.

Ques- Comment: '...Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling'. (John Plamanetz).
[2014/10m/150w/1a].

John Plamanetz gave this statement against the declaration of the death of political theory or philosophy, and to
emphasise on its longevity and usefullness. During his era, it was being said that Political philosophy has been killed by
the logical positivists. Political theorists and philosophers were blamed for just playing with words and their works were
regarded as scientific rigour, resting on confusions of thought and the misuse of language.

Plamanetz does not believe that the progress of science and philosophy has left no room for the kind of activity that was
taken by political theorists. By political theory he does not mean explanations of how governments function; rather a
systematic thinking about the purposes of government.

He recognizes that the large number of theories about, say what the government should aim at or how it should be
recognized, has left all the theories discredited. It is said of them, that they do no more than expound the preferences of
their makers, and that, in any case, they are socially determined.

But Plamanetz states that even if the theories expound preferences, the objection is out of place. It is unreasonable to
argue that they are not scientific, and then to object to them that they are not true. They are neither true nor false. The
fact that they have not served as blue-prints for the reconstruction of society is no evidence that they have not been
important. They have powerfully affected men’s images of themselves and of society, and have profoundly influenced their
behaviour.
Plamanetz has defended political theories as not some linguistic past time but an important enterprise that asks
questions not easily answerable.

"Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling" by John Plamenatz.

Keywords:

• Political Theory is the Systematic reflection on political phenomena, including the nature of the state, justice, power,
rights, and governance. It's concerned with understanding, explaining, and evaluating political practices and institutions.

• Escape Mechanism: A way to avoid dealing with difficult realities or responsibilities.2 In this context, it would imply using
political theory to justify inaction, avoid critical self-reflection, or create an idealized, unrealistic vision of politics.

• Arduous Calling: A demanding and challenging vocation that requires significant effort, dedication, and intellectual rigor. It
suggests a commitment to truth-seeking, critical analysis, and engagement with complex and often uncomfortable political
realities.

• Normative vs. Empirical: Political theory often deals with normative questions (what ought to be) as well as empirical
questions (what is). The "arduous calling" aspect emphasizes the difficulty of navigating this interplay and developing
coherent normative arguments grounded in an understanding of the real world.

• Critical Thinking: A core element of political theory. It involves questioning assumptions, analyzing arguments, and
evaluating evidence. This is inherently challenging and goes against the idea of using theory as an "escape."

• Engagement with Reality: True political theory doesn't shy away from the complexities and contradictions of the political
world. It grapples with real-world problems and attempts to offer insights, even if those insights are uncomfortable or
challenging.

Quotes by Scholars (and related ideas):

• Isaiah Berlin: Emphasized the importance of "negative liberty" and the inherent value pluralism in human life. This
suggests that political theory must grapple with the unavoidable tensions and trade-offs between different values, making it
an "arduous" task. He also warned against "monism" and the dangers of seeking utopian solutions, which could be seen as
a form of "escape" from the messy reality of politics.

• Hannah Arendt: Focused on the nature of power, totalitarianism, and the importance of political action. Her work
highlights the dangers of political apathy and the need for active engagement, which is far from an "escape." Her analysis of
the "banality of evil" suggests that even seemingly ordinary people can participate in horrific acts when they fail to think
critically and take responsibility for their actions.
• Sheldon Wolin: Discussed the concept of "fugitive democracy" and the ongoing struggle for political participation and
social justice. This emphasizes the continuous and demanding nature of democratic politics, contrasting with the idea of a
settled or ideal state that would allow for an "escape."

• John Rawls: His work on justice as fairness demonstrates the complexity of developing a coherent and justifiable theory of
justice. The "veil of ignorance" thought experiment highlights the intellectual effort required to think impartially about
fundamental political principles. While Rawls' work is often seen as offering a framework for a just society, engaging with it
critically and applying it to real-world situations is an "arduous calling," not an escape.

Framework for Answering:

• Define and Explain: Clearly define political theory and its core concerns. Explain what is meant by "escape mechanism"
and "arduous calling" in this context.

• Contrast: Present the contrast between using political theory as an "escape mechanism" (e.g., to justify existing power
structures, create utopian fantasies, avoid critical self-reflection) and viewing it as an "arduous calling" (e.g., engaging with
complex realities, critical thinking, normative reasoning, commitment to truth-seeking).

• Support with Examples: Use examples from the history of political thought (e.g., the works of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli,
Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Mill, etc.) to illustrate both the potential for political theory to be used as an "escape" and its capacity
to be a powerful tool for critical analysis and social change. Discuss how certain ideologies or political movements might use
theory to justify their actions, while others use theory to challenge the status quo.

Discuss the "Arduous" Aspects: Explore the specific challenges involved in doing political theory:

• The difficulty of balancing normative ideals with empirical realities.

• The complexity of dealing with conflicting values and interests.

• The need for rigorous argumentation and evidence-based reasoning.

• The importance of self-reflection and critical awareness of one's own biases.

• The potential for political theory to be misused or misinterpreted.

• Conclude: Reiterate Plamenatz's point that political theory, when done properly, is a demanding and challenging
intellectual endeavor that requires a deep commitment to understanding and engaging with the political world, not an escape
from it.

By using these keywords, quotes, and framework, you can construct a strong and well-supported argument in response to
Plamenatz's statement. Remember to engage with the nuances of the issue and provide specific examples to illustrate your
points.

Comment on the post-behavioural approach. [2016/10m/150w/1b]

Post behaviouralism is comparatively a recent phenomenon in the long history of political science. Post-behaviouralism
emerged out of the lecture of David Easton titled ‘Credo of Relevance’ which highlighted the crisis in political science
as a discipline and the dissatisfaction with behaviouralism, which in turn was proposed to reform political science.

Behaviouralism had led to the compromise on the scope as well as relevance of the subject. David Easton gave a call for
‘creative theory’ (action and relevance) to revive the discipline, christening it ‘post-behaviouralism’. He suggested that
our theories should be relevant to times and should also lead to action. The technique is important but can be
compromised for the purpose it serves. It is better to be vague than non-relevant.

Values are not rejected but rather welcome in post-behaviouralism, given that they contribute to the flourishing of human
civilization. Rather than ‘pure science, political science is ‘applied science’. Thus theory should be such that it has the
capacity to solve the crisis. The responsibility of social scientists is bigger than that of natural scientists.

We can call political theory as thesis, behaviouralism as anti-thesis and post behaviouralism, synthesis. It has kept
political science relevant and has arrested its decline.

Leo Strauss says the rise of behavioralism is the crisis in political theory because of its failure to grasp normative issues.

Sheldon Wolin called it as downfall of political theory

Thomas Kuhn says the significance of scientific method lies in its capacity of problem solving and crisis management
rather than methodological sophistication.

In 1969 David Easton himself launched post Behaviouralism. It marked a shift from methodological issues to a greater
concern for public responsibilities. Relevance and Action are the twin slogan of post Behaviouralism. But it must be
mentioned that there was no complete departure from behaviourlism. It was an attempt to turn pure science into applied
science.

While Theda Skocpol called for bringing the state back in. On the other hand March and Olsen in their work
"rediscovering institutions" brought back the study of institutions in form of neo institutionalism. Recently covid 19
crisis also highlighted the significance of state. State was the only pillar of stability in the COVID @19 anarchy. Eg. Even
in India, PM Modi led government showcased the importance of state in the globalized world.
Comment on the post-behavioural approach. [2016/10m/150w/1b]

Post behaviouralism is comparatively a recent phenomenon in the long history of political science. Post-behaviouralism
emerged out of the lecture of David Easton titled ‘Credo of Relevance’ which highlighted the crisis in political science
as a discipline and the dissatisfaction with behaviouralism, which in turn was proposed to reform political science.

Behaviouralism had led to the compromise on the scope as well as relevance of the subject. David Easton gave a call for
‘creative theory’ (action and relevance) to revive the discipline, christening it ‘post-behaviouralism’. He suggested that
our theories should be relevant to times and should also lead to action. The technique is important but can be
compromised for the purpose it serves. It is better to be vague than non-relevant.

Values are not rejected but rather welcome in post-behaviouralism, given that they contribute to the flourishing of human
civilization. Rather than ‘pure science, political science is ‘applied science’. Thus theory should be such that it has the
capacity to solve the crisis. The responsibility of social scientists is bigger than that of natural scientists.

We can call political theory as thesis, behaviouralism as anti-thesis and post behaviouralism, synthesis. It has kept
political science relevant and has arrested its decline.

Leo Strauss says the rise of behavioralism is the crisis in political theory because of its failure to grasp normative issues.

Sheldon Wolin called it as downfall of political theory

Thomas Kuhn says the significance of scientific method lies in its capacity of problem solving and crisis management
rather than methodological sophistication.

In 1969 David Easton himself launched post Behaviouralism. It marked a shift from methodological issues to a greater
concern for public responsibilities. Relevance and Action are the twin slogan of post Behaviouralism. But it must be
mentioned that there was no complete departure from behaviourlism. It was an attempt to turn pure science into applied
science.

While Theda Skocpol called for bringing the state back in. On the other hand March and Olsen in their work
"rediscovering institutions" brought back the study of institutions in form of neo institutionalism. Recently covid 19
crisis also highlighted the significance of state. State was the only pillar of stability in the COVID @19 anarchy. Eg. Even
in India, PM Modi led government showcased the importance of state in the globalized world.

5. Comment on the decline of Political Theory. [2018/10m/150w/1b]

Political theory explains and simplifies political phenomena. Traditional ways of theorizing were :-

Non behavioral approch are very narrow in scope. It includes only the study of the constitution, not the actual working
of the constitution. It doesn't recognize any other non institutional factor. It doesn't worry about what impact society
and economy are having on the working of state. Informal processes are not their area of concern. The Traditional
approach thus not called as comprative politics but comprative government.

David Easton called Bryce work as "mere factualism" and "a theoretical malnutrition "

Roy macridis described it as non comprative, parochial, static, and monographic. He held that traditional approaches are
part of comprative government rather than comprative politics.

There were various processes that led to the emergence of the Behaviouralism approach. The traditional approaches were
also eurocentric in nature and thus not open to the study of non-Western countries. After the end of WWII, the BoP
favored the Americans. Thus, American political scientist Behaviouralism came into the limelight as a new approach of
comprative politics. The decolonisation process also started after the end of ww2. The emergence of new states in Asia
and Africa asked for a new approach that is behavioral approach. The newly formed countries were what FW Riggs called
Prismatic societies. This means a mixture of tradition and modernity. Similar insights were also given by Gunner Myrdal in
his book Asian Drama when he calls new states as soft states. States whose political processes are highly invaded by
societal forces.

Thus, in the 1960s, new approaches developed under the influence of behavioral movements. The various behavioral
approches are system approach by David Easton, structural functional approach by Almond and powell, political
development approach by Lucian pye, poltical modernisation approach by Samuel P Huntington and Edward Shills,
Political economy approach and poltical sociology approach.

The behavioral approaches seek to remove the defects of the traditional approaches, bringing objectivity, making
scientific models, and a realistic and analytical approach rather than a speculative approach.

8 major tenets of behaviourlism as given by David Easton are:

• Regularity:- having predictive value, identity consistency.

• Verification :- testable

• Scientific techniques and new research tools:- methods such as survey etc are used.

• Quantification :- collection of data

• Value free:- separation of fact from value

• Systematisation: research must be systematic

• Pure Science :- shall be verified by evidence

• Integration:- interdisciplinary
Vernon Van Dyke says a student of behaviourlism not likely to ask broad or vague questions like the rise or fall of Roman
empire.

Sidney Verba sums up the principles behind new revolution in Comprative politics as :-

• Look beyond description to more relevant problems

• Look beyond formal institutions to political processes and political functions

• Look beyond western countries to new nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The behavioral movement was directed towards what Easton and Almond pointed:-

• Search for comprehensive scope

• Search for realism

• Search for precision

• Search for theoretical order

Even various scholars used Behavioural approach to study Indian politics. Most notable example is of Rudolph and
Rudolph's work "in pursuit of laxmi" where they used the poltical economy approach. They says Indian politics is highly
influenced what they call as Bullock cart capitalism ( increased political power of new farmers after green revolution).
Similarly we can also see the work of Rajni kothari being highly influenced by political sociology approach. Rajni kothari
says indian politics is highly influenced by the social institution of caste so much so that there is not politisation of caste but
casteisation of politics.

However the behavioral movements proved inadequate due to the various reasons. There was the overemphasis on the
society. There was overemphasis on the economic factor. And gross neglect of state as keystone of political process.

Leo Strauss says the rise of behavioralism is the crisis in political theory because of its failure to grasp normative issues.

Sheldon Wolin called it as downfall of political theory

Thomas Kuhn says the significance of scientific method lies in its capacity of problem solving and crisis management
rather than methodological sophistication.

In 1969 David Easton himself launched post Behaviouralism. It marked a shift from methodological issues to a greater
concern for public responsibilities. Relevance and Action are the twin slogan of post Behaviouralism. But it must be
mentioned that there was no complete departure from behaviourlism. It was an attempt to turn pure science into applied
science.

While Theda Skocpol called for bringing the state back in. On the other hand March and Olsen in their work
"rediscovering institutions" brought back the study of institutions in form of neo institutionalism. Recently covid 19
crisis also highlighted the significance of state. State was the only pillar of stability in the COVID @19 anarchy. Eg. Even
in India, PM Modi led government showcased the importance of state in the globalized world.

To conclude, we should also not forget that no approach is sufficient or adequate to cover the complex reality. Reality is
too complex, theories method etc are tools of simplification which most of the times misinterpret reality. At the same time
Kennith Waltz on of the IR theorist says theories etc are bound to be simple. What is the point of theories if they are
as complex as reality. Approaches are not meant to be true but meant to be useful. Post Behaviouralism is a step in the
right direction.

While other disciplines like sociology, and psychology had long adopted the methods of modern science, political science
was still dominated by traditional methods.

Comment on resurgence of political theory. [2019/10m/150w/1a] Here we have to write about post behaviouralism.

The works of these writers have revived the grand tradition of political philosophy.

Germino suggested that in order to understand the new role of political theory it was imperative to identify it with political
philosophy.

Ethics can not be ignored. A political philosopher cannot remain indifferent to the political struggle of his times

3. Discuss the significance of a normative approach to Political theory. [2020/15m/200w/4b]

what 'ought to be' or 'should be'. determine and prescribe value and is related to concepts such as justice, fairness, equality,
and rights.

Whereas an empirical statement is concerned with (doing comparision here to write answer)

The normative approach helps to identify and address issues of justice and fairness in political systems.

Rawls says that the justice is the 1st virtue of every society.
(b) The differences between laws and theories

Waltz says the word theory is often misused and misunderstood. It is misunderstood with the word law. Waltz says people
often freely calls theory that depart from mere description and seldom to refer only to work that meets philosophy of
science standards. Thus before giving his theory of International Politics Waltz first highlights the difference between Law
and Theory in the first chapter of his book "Theory of International Politics"

He says law is just a description of relationships between variables. Eg. Lightening comes with thunder. Law doesn't
explain things while theory does. Calling bunch of laws a theory for Waltz is the waste of the use of the word theory.
Theory explains things while law just describes. Eg. Why thunder is associated with Lightening, we need a theory to
explain it.

Heinrich Hertz says "That what is derived from experience again can be annulled by experience". Laws can be
overthrown on the basis of facts. Eg. Swans are white is a general law until we see a black swan. Laws merely describes.
We need theory of genetics to explain the occurrence of black and white colored swans.

Laws are discovered while theories are invented. Laws are right or wrong while theory is useful or not useful. Laws can
be easily overthrown by new laws when annuled. While theories have longevity. They are not replaced by right or
wrong theories, but by more useful theory. A theory which explains well and much better than earlier.

Laws are based on facts but theories can have abstraction. Abstraction is good if it is useful to explain. Eg State are
security maximizer, idea of economic man in economics. It's based on abstraction, may not be factually correct, but useful
to explain.

References: -

(1) David J Singer's The problem of Level of Analysis in International Relations

(2) Waltz's Theory of International Politics

Ques - - - > Write on Systems Approach

Ques - - - > Contrasting classical normative theories (e.g., Plato, Aristotle) with modern empirical methodologies (e.g.,
behavioralism, systems theory)

Classical normative theories and modern empirical methodologies represent two distinct approaches to understanding
politics.

Classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle sought to define the ideal political order based on philosophical reasoning and
ethical principles. Their work, grounded in normative concerns, focused on values, ideals, and how things ought to
be.
They employed reason and logic to explore concepts like justice, virtue, and the best form of government.

Aristotle's Politics, for example, examines various constitutions, evaluating them based on their ability to achieve the "good
life" for citizens.

This prescriptive approach aimed to provide a framework for creating just and flourishing societies.

In contrast, modern empirical methodologies, particularly those emerging in the 20th century like behavioralism and
systems theory, prioritize empirical observation and data analysis.

They aim to describe and explain political phenomena as they are, rather than prescribing how they should be.

Behavioralism, influenced by positivism and the scientific method, focuses on observable political behavior, seeking to
identify patterns and regularities.

Systems theory, on the other hand, views the political system as a complex set of interconnected parts, analyzing how
inputs (demands and supports) are processed into outputs (policies and decisions).

David Easton's work on systems theory exemplifies this approach, emphasizing the "authoritative allocation of values" as the
core function of political systems.

The fundamental difference lies in their methodology. Classical normative theory relies on philosophical reflection and
reasoned argument, often drawing upon historical examples to illustrate their points.

Modern empirical approaches, however, utilize the scientific method, emphasizing data collection, hypothesis testing, and
quantitative analysis.

This shift reflects a broader trend in the social sciences towards a more scientific and objective approach. Isaiah Berlin’s
assertion that the “is” and the “ought” are logically distinct highlights this tension. While classical theorists grappled with
both, modern empiricists largely focus on the “is.”

Each approach has its strengths and limitations. Normative theories, while potentially offering profound insights into
fundamental political values, can be criticized for being subjective and lacking empirical grounding.
Empirical methodologies, while providing valuable data and explanatory power, may overlook the crucial role of values and
ethics in shaping political life. As Leo Strauss argued, understanding the "nature of political things" requires grappling with
enduring questions about justice and the good life, questions that empirical analysis alone may not fully address.

While seemingly opposed, these approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Empirical data can inform normative
arguments, helping us understand the practical consequences of different political arrangements.

Conversely, normative considerations can guide empirical research, prompting us to investigate questions about justice,
equality, and other important values.

A balanced approach, integrating both normative and empirical perspectives, may offer the most comprehensive
understanding of the complex world of politics. The ongoing debate about the role of values in political science reflects this
continuing tension and the search for a more holistic understanding of the political realm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------

Scholar Quotes:

• Leo Strauss: "The purpose of political science is to understand the nature of political things." (Emphasizes the enduring
relevance of classical questions about justice, good government, etc.)

• David Easton: "Political science is the study of the authoritative allocation of values for a society."3 (Highlights the role of
empirical analysis in understanding how political systems function)

• Isaiah Berlin: "The 'is' and the 'ought' are logically distinct." (Illustrates the tension between normative and empirical
approaches)

Framing Your Answer:

• Define classical normative theory (Plato, Aristotle) and modern empirical methodologies (behavioralism, systems theory).

• Contrast their approaches:

• Normative theories focus on values and ideals, while empirical methods emphasize observation and data.

• Normative theories often use philosophical reasoning, while empirical methods employ the scientific method.
• Normative theories seek to prescribe how things "ought to be," while empirical methods aim to describe "what is."

• Discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach.

• Consider whether these approaches are mutually exclusive or if they can complement each other.

Additional Points:

• You can discuss the historical context for the shift from normative to empirical approaches in political science.

• Consider the impact of this shift on the way we study and understand politics.

• You might explore the ongoing debate about the role of values in political science.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------

Ques - - - > Contemporary Approaches: Critical theory, post-colonialism, feminism, and postmodernism as lenses to
analyze power structures and societal norms

The study of power structures and societal norms is central to understanding how societies function, how inequalities are
produced and maintained, and how social change occurs. While classical sociological theories offer foundational insights,
contemporary approaches provide crucial updates and alternative perspectives, particularly in addressing the complexities
of the modern world.

1. Critical Theory

• Keywords: Power, ideology, hegemony, emancipation, critique, domination, social justice, late capitalism, culture industry,
Frankfurt School, reason, rationality, dialectic, false consciousness.

Key Scholars & Quotes:

Max Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno: (From Dialectic of Enlightenment)

• "Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings
from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth radiates under the sign of disaster triumphant."
• "The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises."

• The concept of enlightenment is critiqued. The promise of reason and ration turned out to be an instrument of domination.

Jürgen Habermas: (From The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere)

• "The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public; they
soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a debate
over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and
social labor."

• Focuses on communication and how it can either reinforce or challenge power structures. He argues for a "public sphere"
where rational discourse can lead to consensus and challenge domination.

Herbert Marcuse

• "Technological rationality has become political rationality."

• Technology, instead of freeing individuals, has become a tool of control and suppresses alternative ways of thinking. One-
dimensional thinking.

Framework for Analysis:

• Identify the Ideology: What dominant beliefs, values, and assumptions are taken for granted? How do these beliefs serve
the interests of those in power?

• Unmask Power Relations: How is power exercised and maintained? Who benefits and who is marginalized? Look at
economic structures, political institutions, and cultural production.

• Critique of Domination: How does the system (capitalism, patriarchy, etc.) create and perpetuate inequality and
oppression? How does it limit human potential?

• Emancipatory Potential: Where are the possibilities for resistance and change? How can individuals and groups
challenge the dominant ideology and work towards a more just and equitable society? What are the contradictions within the
system that might lead to its transformation?
2. Post-Colonialism

• Keywords: Colonialism, imperialism, decolonization, neo-colonialism, othering, Orientalism, hybridity, subaltern,

discourse, power/knowledge, representation, identity, marginality, resistance.

Key Scholars & Quotes:

Edward Said: (From Orientalism)

• "The Orient was almost a European invention, and had been since antiquity a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting6
memories and visions."

• "Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and
control but to educate and liberate."

• "Orientalism"8 is a way of seeing the "Orient" (Middle East, Asia) that is constructed by the West, and this constructed
image serves to justify Western dominance.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: (From "Can the Subaltern Speak?")

• "The subaltern cannot speak. There is no virtue in global laundry lists with 'woman' as a pious. item. Representation has9
not withered away. The female intellectual as intellectual has a circumscribed task which she must not disown with a
flourish."

• Questions whether the marginalized ("subaltern") can truly represent themselves within the dominant discourse, or if they
are always spoken for by those in power.

Homi K. Bhabha: (From The Location of Culture)

• "The 'locality' of national culture is neither unified nor unitary in relation to itself, nor must it be seen simply as 'other' in
relation to what is outside or beyond it."

• Focuses on the "in-between" spaces of cultural interaction, where hybrid identities and forms of resistance emerge.

Framework for Analysis:

• Historical Context: Analyze the history of colonialism and its lasting effects on power relations, both globally and within
specific societies.

• Deconstruct Representations: How are formerly colonized peoples and cultures represented in literature, media, and
scholarship? Identify stereotypes and biases.

• Power/Knowledge: How does colonial knowledge production (e.g., anthropology, history) reinforce colonial power?

• Agency and Resistance: How have colonized peoples resisted colonial domination? How have they asserted their own
identities and cultures? Explore both overt and subtle forms of resistance.

• Neo-colonialism: How do former colonial powers continue to exert influence (economic, political, cultural) even after
formal independence?

• Subaltern Studies: Give importance to the voices and experiences of those who have been marginalized and silenced by
the dominant discourse.

3. Feminism

• Keywords: Patriarchy, gender, sexism, oppression, equality, intersectionality, representation, body politics, sexuality,
power, difference, social construction, agency, resistance, masculinity, femininity.

Key Scholars & Quotes:

Simone de Beauvoir: (From The Second Sex)

• "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

• Gender is a social construct, not a biological destiny.

bell hooks: (From Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center)

• "Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression."

• Advocates for an inclusive feminism that addresses the intersections of gender, race, class, and other forms of oppression.

Judith Butler: (From Gender Trouble)

• "Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal
over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being."

• Gender is performative; it is something we do, not something we are.

Kimberlé Crenshaw:

• Introduced the concept of "intersectionality" to highlight how different forms of oppression (race, gender, class) interact and
create unique experiences of marginalization.

Framework for Analysis:

• Identify Gendered Power Dynamics: How do societal norms and expectations about gender create inequalities? How
does patriarchy (male dominance) operate in different spheres of life (family, work, politics, culture)?

• Analyze Representation: How are women and other gender identities represented in media, literature, and other cultural
forms? Are these representations empowering or limiting?

• Intersectionality: How do gender inequalities intersect with other forms of oppression (race, class, sexuality, disability)?

• Body Politics: How are bodies (particularly women's bodies) controlled and regulated by social norms and power
structures? (e.g., beauty standards, reproductive rights)

• Agency and Resistance: How do women and other marginalized genders challenge patriarchal norms and fight for
equality?

4. Postmodernism
• Keywords: Deconstruction, discourse, power/knowledge, metanarrative, subjectivity, identity, fragmentation, simulacra,
hyperreality, relativism, social construction, language games, difference.

Key Scholars & Quotes:

Jean-François Lyotard: (From The Postmodern Condition)

• "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives."

• Postmodernism is characterized by a rejection of grand, unifying narratives (like Marxism, Enlightenment) that claim to
explain everything.

Michel Foucault: (From Discipline and Punish)

• "Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one
attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society."

• Power is not something held by a single entity, but rather a network of relations that permeate all aspects of society. Power
is closely linked to knowledge.

• (From The History of Sexuality)

• "Where there is power, there is resistance."

Jacques Derrida:

• Developed the concept of "deconstruction," a method of reading texts that exposes the inherent instability and
contradictions of language.

• Focus on how meaning is never fixed, but always deferred and dependent on context.

Jean Baudrillard
• Simulacra and Simulation.

• In contemporary society, images and simulations have become more real than reality itself (hyperreality).

Framework for Analysis:

• Deconstruct Metanarratives: Question grand narratives and universal truths. Look for alternative perspectives and
marginalized voices.

• Analyze Discourse: How does language construct reality and shape power relations? How do different discourses
compete for dominance?

• Power/Knowledge: How is knowledge produced and used to maintain power? How do institutions (like medicine, law,
education) exercise power through knowledge?

• Subjectivity and Identity: How are identities constructed through discourse and social practices? How are they fluid and
fragmented?

• Simulacra and Hyperreality: How do media and technology create a simulated reality that increasingl