Over the year’s political science has been defined in several ways; the study of power, the study of the monopoly of the legitimate use of force, the study of the good life, and more (p1). However, Western political science distinguishes itself in a way because it has not yet arrived at a consensus on how its subject matter should be described (p1).
Western and especially American political Science has passed through four different stages during the twentieth century, and one hopes that each stage has been improved upon by each succeeding stage. The various stages that will be discussed are the formal, the traditional, the behavioral, and the post-behavioral” (p1).
THE FORMAL AND TRADITIONAL STAGES
In the late eighteen hundreds, Walter
…show more content…
Behavioralism had six major characteristics that distinguished it from earlier stages in political science. Its first characteristic is that there are discoverable uniformities in the behavior of human beings. The second is that, through empirical testing, these uniformities can be confirmed. Third, there was a desire for more thorough and accurate methods for acquiring data and for analyzing it. Fourth, the behavioral movement had a greater theoretical sophistication than it had in the past. In the past theories had been philosophical in character; whereas the Behavioral theory seeks to explain, understand, and if possible predict the political behavior of people as well as the way political institutions operate through empirical methods. Fifth, a great deal of behavioralists felt it was unnecessary to include the values of either the research worker or of society in the process of inquiry. It was viewed that ethical evaluation and empirical explanation should be kept separate and distinct. Sixth, represented by behavioralism was an assumption that a social scientists task was to obtain fundamental understanding and explanation. It was thought that a reliable understanding of the operation of political institutions and people's political behavior could be used to solve social problems. The behavioralist period switched the attention of scholars away from social reform and showed them the needs of scientific development to guide research. (p3-5) There were two things
Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.
Realpolitik is a goal oriented and practical form of politics, which overlooks morals, ethicality, and ideals to attain the interests of the nation or country. It doesn’t view compromise of ideals or morals as wrong, if it brings about the achievement of the political and national goal. The only thing that makes any action or decision taken right or wrong is its level of success. Those who practice realpolitik will not hesitate to take the decisions needed, whether unethical, unidealistic, or amoral, to bring about the desired end result. To do this, a realistic appraisal of power must be made, and based on that information decisions are taken to realize the self-interests of the individual state.
To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man (...)
What is political culture? Why should one be cautious about explaining political phenomena solely in terms of political culture?(385 to 391)
Over the years, political scientists have expressed their disapproval of American elections. They have openly stated that presidential elections do not matter. The reason being, is that they believe the outcome of elections is a result of forces outside of the campaigner’s influence. For example, the state of the economy, partisan loyalties, and normative, communicative, and symbolic roles are all disconnected from the influence of the campaigner. The latter mentioned aspects (anthropological), according to political scientists, receive little attention from scholars, but their impacts are very substantial. They restore confidence in governing institutions, result in an upsurge in mutual feelings, and give the citizenry hope of a better governing body after elections
The purpose of this paper is intended to summarize my views on what has influenced my understanding of politics and government prior to taking this class, and how my understanding is now since completing this course.
In my life I have never had any political enforcement or strict religious influence. My parents were very lenient when it came too political preaching. I was taught to be a caring and respectful individual. My political understanding and beliefs have been molded from my early political memories and socialization experiences. As a young adult I have always strived to become knowledgeable about political ideals mainly because I was never really taught to believe in something specific. I eventually was drawn towards many different social and political perspectives, which is how I came to a logical conclusion of how I view the world politically
In addition to the difference of purpose between arts and sciences, which we have discussed above, a further distinction is offered by Lasswell (1958) that may be considered by some as somewhat biased: “The science of politics states conditions; the philosophy of politics justifies preferences.” He distinguishes between “the science of politics” and “the philosophy of politics” on the same grounds as the fact-value dichotomy of logical positivism. He appears to be implying that political philosophy (which, for the purpose of this essay, would fall under the jurisdiction of art) “justifies preferences” in the sense that it provides rationalizations for the personal preferences of the theorist of political philosophy (Horwitz, 1962). Science, on the other hand, uses only facts and empirical data as its tools of analysis. This overt process of analysis minimizes the scope for bias by the researcher (Pierce, 2008). Moreover it promises an impartial and reliable means of distinguishing ‘truth’ from ‘falsehood’ and gives us access to objective knowledge about the political world (Heywood, 2002). However the fact/value dichotomy is not as clearly defined as is assumed here. Values are deeply involved in the identification of facts as well as their description and examination since all political scientists enter research with at least some presumptions about their
In this essay the conservative theories of Realism and Liberalism will be compared and contrasted in connection with the study of International Relations. Post World War I International Relations was established as a formal discipline with the eructation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at the University of Wales, given the worldwide urgency to create international order and stability in the wake of the war. Realist in International Relations view human nature and the states behaviour practically and truthfully, adopting a matter-of-fact attitude instead of visualising how the political institutions ought to function. Liberalists
Political Philosophy is typically a study of a wide range of topics such as, justice, liberty, equality, rights, law, politics and the application of a codified law. Depending on what the philosophy is, it usually tends to be a very sensitive and a personal ideology that an individual holds within the reality of their existence. Several of the fundamental topics of political philosophy shape up the society that we live in as these specific topics and their implementation by the state ensures a legitimate government. In Political Philosophy, the aforesaid concepts or topics are evaluated and analyzed with tremendous depth in context to their history and intent. Furthermore, in a rather colloquial sense, political
Political science is the study of people’s behavior as it relates to control the public organizations. The concept is normally divided into six subcategories: Political philosophy- which deals with
The study of politics had its roots in philosophy and while there has been a drive to steer the study of politics towards a more scientific approach, many scholars like Max Weber believe that social sciences cannot simply imitate the natural sciences. This essay will examine the various approaches to applying scientific methodology to the study of politics and it will specifically explore Behaviorism, Positivism and Interpretivism and by looking at each methodology briefly explore the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
Political science is a broad topic that covers the history, political and geographical aspect of the world. The course started with a revision on the basics of the constitution, types of power and the political scene that happens around us. My first year at the University, one of the compulsory subject that is required for arts taking students is Political Science 1101. After several years of taking social or political course, taking this course opened my knowledge towards politics and the political scene in Canada. It also taught me about how different ways of information taking could lead to one learning differently from others. For example this class gave us the opportunity to use our laptops as a source of note taking, this helped me learn in which whenever a new vocabulary comes up during the class discussions i could search it up. Through “The Road to Patriation” and Kim Campbell “Through the Looking Glass” i would further emphasize my ideas on what i have learnt throughout the course semester.
Scholars have long debated the most effective approach to analyzing comparative politics. In “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, Arend Lijphart, perceives a problem viz., the low ebb of “explicit methodological concern and the implicit methodological awareness among students of comparative politics”(681). To address this problem Lijphart sets forth a systematic approach to political analysis, advocating for the greater use of the comparative method as the tool for political inquiry. Lijphart delineates the strengths and weaknesses of the comparative, experimental, statistical, and case study methods. By analyzing each method in relative terms to each other Lijphart highlights when to use and how to maximize the use of each method while designating the comparative method as the most effective approach. However, it is impossible to actually determine which method is the best - just because a method is easier to perform than the others doesn’t mean it’s the most accurate. Nevertheless, the comparative method should not be ignored, as it is an important tool of political analysis.
Politics. It is possibly the most hated word in the English language. Most people hate politics and government without really knowing what they are. Many different definitions of politics exist. One definition defines politics as the conflict between groups over something they both want. Another similar definition calls politics the "who gets what, when, and how." Government is defined as the institution that has the enforceable right to control people’s behavior. But why do people hate politics and politicians? Is it because politicians cannot be trusted, or maybe because they spend too much money? Whatever the reasons are for hating politics and government, both are needed as a mechanism for people to protect themselves. Possibly, if