The Behavioralist Empire and its Enemies: a Comparative Study of Successes and Dissatisfactions in American Political Science

Ponce, Aldo F. (2004): The Behavioralist Empire and its Enemies: a Comparative Study of Successes and Dissatisfactions in American Political Science.

Abstract

This paper sheds light on the reasons that explain the dissatisfactions because of the behavioralist dominance within American political science academia. I show how and why the flaws and failures of the behavioralist analysis have created more room for the emergence of alternative approaches or new ideological movements in the study of politics. These competing paradigms or approaches are mainly post-behavioralism, postmodernism, and the Perestroika movement. Moreover, under a comparative framework, I explain why behavioralism is still the dominant paradigm within American political science academia despite all the efforts of the alternative paradigms to displace it.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: behavioralism, American political science, postmodernism, Perestroika movement, methodology
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C0 - General > C00 - General; Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General > Z00 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B50 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B59 - Other; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General > B00 - General

References

Cohn, Jonathan. (1999). Irrational exuberance. When did political science forget about politics? New Republic, 17: 25-31.

Coles, Romand. (2002). Pluralization and radical democracy: recent developments in Critical Theory and post-modernism. In Ira Katznelson & Helner Milner, eds., The State of the Discipline III (pp. 286-312), New York: Norton.

Easton, David. (1969). The new revolution in political science. The American Political Science Review, 4: 1051-1061.

Finifter, Ada, (ed). (1993). Political Science: The state of the discipline II. Washington DC: APSA.

Finifter, Ada. (2000). Editor’s notes. American Political Science Review, 94, 4, viii-xi.

Graham, George J. and George W. Carey. (1972). The post-behavioral era: perspectives on political science. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Isaak, Alan. (1985). Scope and methods of political science: an introduction to the methodology of political inquiry. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1985.

Katznelson, Ira and Helner Milner, (eds). (2002). The State of the Discipline III, New York: Norton.

Kasza, Gregory. (2000). “Technicism” supplanting disciplinarity among political scientists. Political Science and Politics, 4: 737-738.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lalman, David., Joe Oppenheimer, and Piotr Swistak. (1993). Formal rational choice theory: A cumulative science of politics. In Ada Finifter, (ed), Political Science: The state of the discipline II (pp. 77-100). Washington DC: APSA.

Levi, Margaret. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In Mark Lichbach and Alan Zuckerman, (eds), Comparative politics. Rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lichbach, Mark & Alan Zuckerman, (eds). (1997). Comparative politics.Rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reid, Herbert G. and Ernest Yanarella. (1974). Towards a Post-Modern Theory of American Political Science and Culture: Perspectives from Critical Marxism and Phenomenology. Cultural Hermeneutics, 2, 91-166.

Ricci, David. (1984). The tragedy of political science: politics, scholarship, and democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rosenau Pauline. (1990). Once again into the fray: International relations confronts the humanities. Millenium, 19, 83-110.

Steinmo, Sven. (2000). Perestroika/Glasnost and "Taking Back the APSR". The New York Times, November 4, 2000.